bit-gamer.net

Garry's Mod error catches 2,500 pirates in 15 hours

Garry's Mod error catches 2,500 pirates in 15 hours

The error introduced in Garry's Mod earlier today has already helped catch over 2,500 pirates.

The deliberate error introduced into Garry's Mod 10 earlier today as part of an effort to identify and catch pirates has already helped developer Garry Newman unmask over 2,500 pirates, Bit-Gamer has learned.

The error in question only affects pirated versions of the game, creating an error that says 'Unable to shade polygon normals'. The error also contains the SteamID of pirates, so they can then be identified when they ask for a solution online.

Speaking to Bit-Gamer earlier today, Garry's Mod's eponymous developer revealed that he had identified 2,500 pirates in just the 15 hours since the error went live. Garry's Mod is currently priced at £6, meaning 2,500 pirates is equal to £15,000 in potential lost sales.

'I don't really look at it as lost revenue though, Garry told Bit-Gamer.

'It's cool. I've pirated as much as anyone,' he added. 'I owned an Amiga. Did anyone actually buy games for that thing?'

Writing on the Garry's Mod blog earlier today, Garry explained that he rolled the error out not as an anti-piracy measure, but as a reward for those who'd already bought Garry's Mod.

'It isn’t meant to be some super DRM. Any DRM you come up with is going to be cracked, so why bother trying to make it hard to crack? Making it uncrackable isn’t the motive here – laughing at them is.'

'I did this for the people that did buy Garry’s Mod. They get to point and laugh at pirates. If we leave it easy for people to pirate we’re betraying the people that paid. The legit users need to see you taking steps to make it harder for pirates or they just end up feeling like they should have saved their money and pirated too.'

Were you one of the unlucky pirates? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

63 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Paul2011 13th April 2011, 20:55 Quote
no mention of accounts being banned then, shame.
PureSilver 13th April 2011, 21:05 Quote
*Points and laughs*

You know, I do feel better :D
CardJoe 13th April 2011, 21:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul2011
no mention of accounts being banned then, shame.

We confirmed with Garry that neither He nor Valve are banning Steam accounts, merely forum accounts.
bogie170 13th April 2011, 21:09 Quote
I wish the error would turn the pirated players model into a clown or a pirate skeleton!! Then it would be something to laugh at!
NuTech 13th April 2011, 21:10 Quote
But not without a couple false positives. Lets hope they were isolated incidents.

I'm all for inventive ways of catching/discouraging pirates, but not at the sake of the paying customer.

Stories like this, while novel, remind me of when a friend and I were unable to play Splinter Cell Conviction Co-Op for 48hrs after launch because the online DRM (which was already hacked by pirates) was acting up. To add insult to injury, the pirates were not only able to play the single player component, but multiplayer too. Apparently Ubisoft was so busy deploying their new, fancy DRM, they forgot to include a simple server-side CD-key check...
CardJoe 13th April 2011, 21:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
But not without a couple false positives. Lets hope they were isolated incidents.

We've been in contact with Garry about this too. Because the Steam ID is there, he can identify false positives. There were 3 of them.
Tulatin 13th April 2011, 22:01 Quote
Getting banned from facepunch is a blessing, not a curse tbh.
liratheal 13th April 2011, 22:15 Quote
Hahahaha.

Hahahahaha.

Suckers.
leslie 13th April 2011, 23:17 Quote
Quote:
2,500 pirates is equal to £15,000 in potential lost sales
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is not a lost sale or even a potentially lost sale. Many got it for free because they could. $6 or $600, if they don't want to pay for it, they won't pay for it. It doesn't matter if they can afford it.
Paul2011 13th April 2011, 23:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
We confirmed with Garry that neither He nor Valve are banning Steam accounts, merely forum accounts.

Bit of a shame in my eyes, i would have liked to see harsher action taken since as you have later said the false positives were identified. But i guess there are reasons behind it. Thanks for the reply btw
leeds_manc 13th April 2011, 23:58 Quote
I bought Lemmings, The Secret of Monkey Island and Lechuck's Revenge for my Amiga 500 with my Christmas money.
popcornuk1983 14th April 2011, 01:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
Quote:
2,500 pirates is equal to £15,000 in potential lost sales
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is not a lost sale or even a potentially lost sale. Many got it for free because they could. $6 or $600, if they don't want to pay for it, they won't pay for it. It doesn't matter if they can afford it.

Did you read the rest of the post after the end of the sentence you quoted? He knows it wasn't all lost sales and goes on to say:

'I don't really look at it as lost revenue though, Garry told Bit-Gamer.

'It's cool. I've pirated as much as anyone,' he added.

Good on him for doing it. It's bad enough having your game played for free, but for pirates to ask for support on the steam forums is just a kick in the nuts!
popcornuk1983 14th April 2011, 01:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
Quote:
2,500 pirates is equal to £15,000 in potential lost sales
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is not a lost sale or even a potentially lost sale. Many got it for free because they could. $6 or $600, if they don't want to pay for it, they won't pay for it. It doesn't matter if they can afford it.

Did you read the rest of the post after the end of the sentence you quoted? He knows it wasn't all lost sales and goes on to say:

'I don't really look at it as lost revenue though, Garry told Bit-Gamer.

'It's cool. I've pirated as much as anyone,' he added.

Good on him for doing it. It's bad enough having your game played for free, but for pirates to ask for support on the steam forums is just a kick in the nuts!
HourBeforeDawn 14th April 2011, 01:37 Quote
I own the game and this is cool I guess lol
Sankia 14th April 2011, 01:40 Quote
Hmmm to be fair I don't agree with any company that earns billions per year and still moans about piracy. Greed makes me want to download more torrents....
Xtrafresh 14th April 2011, 01:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by popcornuk1983

Did you read the rest of the post after the end of the sentence you quoted? He knows it wasn't all lost sales and goes on to say:

'I don't really look at it as lost revenue though, Garry told Bit-Gamer.
Yep, but yet again we see a newsitem with the inflated figure of lost sales, and the developer only "looks differently at it". The way it's presented, Bit-tech seems to think that Garry missed out on 15K in lost sales, so leslie is absolutely right to point that out.
Ross1 14th April 2011, 01:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
But not without a couple false positives. Lets hope they were isolated incidents.

We've been in contact with Garry about this too. Because the Steam ID is there, he can identify false positives. There were 3 of them.

Im not sure if "there were 3 of them" is meant to mean "that makes it okay", or "obviously 3 legitimate users were inconvenienced and then unfairly branded as pirates, and that is clearly wrong".

Your tone made it sound worryingly like the former.
lysaer 14th April 2011, 01:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is not a lost sale or even a potentially lost sale. Many got it for free because they could. $6 or $600, if they don't want to pay for it, they won't pay for it. It doesn't matter if they can afford it.

I agree with this 100%. You can't claim it to be a lost sale if the person who pirated the game initially had no intention of paying for it anyways.

I am sick of software companies using this as a lame excuse to justify horrific DRM systems.
Sankia 14th April 2011, 01:52 Quote
I know what you mean, I remember the horror of being told I could only install a game I paid £25 for, 3 times before it become useless.
Sankia 14th April 2011, 01:53 Quote
By the way, the same day I installed Spore, my HDD crashed and I had to reinstall, using 2 of 3 installs in 1 day!!!! FML!
popcornuk1983 14th April 2011, 02:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
Yep, but yet again we see a newsitem with the inflated figure of lost sales, and the developer only "looks differently at it". The way it's presented, Bit-tech seems to think that Garry missed out on 15K in lost sales, so leslie is absolutely right to point that out.

I don't agree with that. It's not about what bit-tech thinks, it's an article about the developer and what he thinks and is quoted saying. I didn't get that implication from what bit-tech wrote at all.
popcornuk1983 14th April 2011, 02:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
I agree with this 100%. You can't claim it to be a lost sale if the person who pirated the game initially had no intention of paying for it anyways.

I am sick of software companies using this as a lame excuse to justify horrific DRM systems.

Again, Gary was quoted saying he knows every pirated copy wasn't a lost sale and that he used to pirate himself. He's also not a big software company but a one man developer. There was no horrific DRM mentioned in this post. Gary just put some code in that would catch out the pirates and give a nod to the good folks who actually paid for the mod.
KayDat 14th April 2011, 04:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankia
Hmmm to be fair I don't agree with any company that earns billions per year and still moans about piracy. Greed makes me want to download more torrents....

Hm...unfortunately, greed is a large driving factor in the world. From the sounds of things, you pirate everything, for almost any reason.
sWW 14th April 2011, 04:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is not a lost sale or even a potentially lost sale. Many got it for free because they could. $6 or $600, if they don't want to pay for it, they won't pay for it. It doesn't matter if they can afford it.

I agree with this 100%. You can't claim it to be a lost sale if the person who pirated the game initially had no intention of paying for it anyways.

I am sick of software companies using this as a lame excuse to justify horrific DRM systems.
Quote:
Garry's Mod is currently priced at £6, meaning 2,500 pirates is equal to £15,000 in potential lost sales.

Keyword in bold
docodine 14th April 2011, 05:16 Quote
EDIT: sWW ninja'd me by an hour, I shouldn't leave the page open so long
CardJoe 14th April 2011, 11:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh

Yep, but yet again we see a newsitem with the inflated figure of lost sales, and the developer only "looks differently at it". The way it's presented, Bit-tech seems to think that Garry missed out on 15K in lost sales, so leslie is absolutely right to point that out.

I was simply doing the math so you don't have to. If I'd flatly said that it was 'equal to £15K in lost sales', you'd have a point. As it is, I don't say that. I say potential lost sales. I think it's pretty clear what that means without making sweeping arguments which are just as flawed as the points you made.

For example; if you're saying 'But you don't know if all 2500 people would have bought the game!', can't I just turn around and say the opposite with equal fairness? Can't you just see that the meaning is clear and that the £15k figure is a handy way of further explaining the problem?
Odini 14th April 2011, 11:38 Quote
I always find that it is rather comical these kinds of debates.

Whilst it is very true that every copy pirated does not equate to a lost sale, it does (in my opinion) lead to a mentality of "it's OK if I 'acquire' a copy as I wouldn't have paid for it anyway so I'm not hurting the developer"

If you cannot afford something, you cannot have it. Unfortunately, it really is that simple. All other arguments such Try before you Buy are again, in my mind, not valid. It is up to the developer as to whether they add this feature.

As has been said countless times before, if you disagree voice your concerns to the developer, do not take something that you have no right to.
rinseout 14th April 2011, 11:50 Quote
What is the point of Garry's mod?
Xir 14th April 2011, 13:24 Quote
It's a nice joke, and If you turn up in the Forums moaning about it, while it's openly announced and discussed, you're not just a pirate, you're a stupid pirate:D
That said, if the "Regular" version doesn't have this, there'l be a patch pretty soon.
After LOL's were had, I presume.

Still don't get why pirated versions run over steam though.
Teh Noob Slayer 14th April 2011, 13:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
Quote:
2,500 pirates is equal to £15,000 in potential lost sales
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is not a lost sale or even a potentially lost sale. Many got it for free because they could. $6 or $600, if they don't want to pay for it, they won't pay for it. It doesn't matter if they can afford it.

I got mine in a steam sale so it was a lot cheaper than £6.
leslie 14th April 2011, 22:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sWW
Keyword in bold

No, it isn't.
If there is zero chance of them paying, then there is no missed or "potential" sale.


It's not a loss in any way. In fact, it can actually lead to sales by spreading the word about how cool the product is, but if they never plan to pay for it, then it was never a potential sale. It doesn't matter if it's $1 or $1500, some people refuse to pay for software.
impar 14th April 2011, 23:22 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
If there is zero chance of them paying, then there is no missed or "potential" sale.
"zero chance of them paying"? Are you nuts?
The majority of those parasites would buy the game if they couldnt freeload it.
lysaer 14th April 2011, 23:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

"zero chance of them paying"? Are you nuts?
The majority of those parasites would buy the game if they couldnt freeload it.

Well the majority of piracy is pretty much Asia and eastern block countries, I can tell you now most of them can not afford to pay 40 bucks for a game.
Sloth 14th April 2011, 23:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
No, it isn't.
If there is zero chance of them paying, then there is no missed or "potential" sale.


It's not a loss in any way. In fact, it can actually lead to sales by spreading the word about how cool the product is, but if they never plan to pay for it, then it was never a potential sale. It doesn't matter if it's $1 or $1500, some people refuse to pay for software.
You can't say with any sort of proof that a single pirates would never purchase the software, let alone all 2,500 of them, there is no "zero chance". What you can say with proof is that all 2,500 pirates had a desire to use the software. Where there is a desire for a product there is a potential for a sale.
impar 15th April 2011, 00:02 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
Well the majority of piracy is pretty much Asia and eastern block countries, ...
The standard piracy (guys in a corner selling DVDs), probably.
smc8788 15th April 2011, 00:10 Quote
Yeah, it's a very grey area. You can't say with any accuracy that none of those people who pirated the game would have bought it, just like you can't say that they're all lost sales. The real figure most likely lies somewhere in between.

I also get the feeling that some people try and use this excuse as a way of saying that piracy is OK and it doesn't really matter whether you pirate something or not...
sWW 15th April 2011, 02:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
If there is zero chance of them paying.

I'm near certain that some people, whom, if not given the choice to pirate would then buy the product. Therefore it is a potential sale. You don't honestly believe that out of the 2,500 people not one of them is just trying to save money?
lysaer 15th April 2011, 05:59 Quote
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate

do you really think most of those countries at the top of the list can afford to pay the asking price of games that most companies ask ?

If they can't afford it they go with out.

In most of those countries it's cheaper to wipe your a$$ on bank notes than it is to buy toilet paper.
Javerh 15th April 2011, 06:58 Quote
I have to confess that I pirate quite often. Just yesterday I went to this pizza-place. There was a discarded tabloid on a table so I grabbed it and read it through. I never gave the creators a dime! I weep myself to sleep.
Xir 15th April 2011, 09:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javerh
I weep myself to sleep.
That shows there's still some decency left in you ;)
impar 15th April 2011, 10:50 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate
do you really think most of those countries at the top of the list can afford to pay the asking price of games that most companies ask ?
Quote:
DEFINITION: The piracy rate is the total number of units of pirated software deployed in 2007 divided by the total units of software installed.
And the amount of PCs on those countries?

Say that one of those countries has a 90% software piracy rate and has 1M PCs and a western country has 20% software piracy rate and 100M PCs. Which country is the most parasitic?

Still astonished by the amount of justifications\excuses\tolerance parasites get.
lysaer 15th April 2011, 21:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!


And the amount of PCs on those countries?

Say that one of those countries has a 90% software piracy rate and has 1M PCs and a western country has 20% software piracy rate and 100M PCs. Which country is the most parasitic?

Still astonished by the amount of justifications\excuses\tolerance parasites get.

That is why it is a percentage, 90% of people that use computers in those countries pirate software.

No one is justifying piracy but at the same time no one in justifying the prices these companies are charging people that truly cannot afford to pay.

It hardly makes them parasitic just because their economy is nowhere near as highly developed as ours.

I would rather give my money to the hard working people in some of those countries than the lazy welfare scroungers in this one.
Sloth 15th April 2011, 22:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
That is why it is a percentage, 90% of people that use computers in those countries pirate software.

No one is justifying piracy but at the same time no one in justifying the prices these companies are charging people that truly cannot afford to pay.

It hardly makes them parasitic just because their economy is nowhere near as highly developed as ours.

I would rather give my money to the hard working people in some of those countries than the lazy welfare scroungers in this one.
Let me just throw this one out there since it always comes up:

Humans can live without video games.

If people "truly cannot afford to pay" then they don't get to play the games, just like why I don't get to drive around in a Maserati because I can't afford to pay for one.
leslie 15th April 2011, 22:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
The majority of those parasites would buy the game if they couldnt freeload it.
You have far more faith in humanity than I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
You can't say with any sort of proof that a single pirates would never purchase the software, let alone all 2,500 of them, there is no "zero chance". What you can say with proof is that all 2,500 pirates had a desire to use the software. Where there is a desire for a product there is a potential for a sale.

I never meant to imply that NONE would buy it, but there are many that flat out refuse to or simply cannot, which means there is no way that you can count that as a potential sale.
Sloth 15th April 2011, 22:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie

I never meant to imply that NONE would buy it, but there are many that flat out refuse to or simply cannot, which means there is no way that you can count that as a potential sale.
To reiterate, you have no way of knowing if any of those 2,500 fall under those categories. There's a potential that all of them were going to buy the game tomorrow and decided not to when they saw it was piratable. There's a potential that none of them would ever buy it. There's a potential that someone downloaded it twice so there's really only 2,499 pirates.

It's entirely fair to say that all were potential sales. The point isn't the likelihood, it's possibility. If the point were likelihood I'd agree with you that some of the pirates might have never bought it. It's extremely unlikely that all 2,500 were about to buy it tomorrow, there's just a potential.
lysaer 16th April 2011, 01:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Let me just throw this one out there since it always comes up:

Humans can live without video games.

If people "truly cannot afford to pay" then they don't get to play the games, just like why I don't get to drive around in a Maserati because I can't afford to pay for one.


There is a huge difference between a normal daily car and a maserati, well tbh maserati's suck so probably not the best example.

But a maserati would be an extravagant purchase, you are priced out of owning a maserati but there are plenty of other cheaper alternatives that will perform exactly the same function.

You are pretty much comparing apples and oranges.
impar 16th April 2011, 01:40 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
That is why it is a percentage, 90% of people that use computers in those countries pirate software.
No.
Quote:
DEFINITION: The piracy rate is the total number of units of pirated software deployed in 2007 divided by the total units of software installed.
90% of installed software is pirated, not "90% of people that use computers in those countries pirate software".
sWW 16th April 2011, 04:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
No one is justifying piracy but at the same time no one in justifying the prices these companies are charging people that truly cannot afford to pay.

What do you propose? A new system where the price you pay for luxury items based on a percentage of your salary?
Bauul 16th April 2011, 12:06 Quote
The number of potential sales the 2,500 pirates represent is probably a bell curve (like all probabilities, its not a fixed number). It's possible, but unlikely, all of those 2,500 wouldn't have bought the game if there were no other options, just as its possible, but unlikely, all of those 2,500 would have.

The £15,000 is realistically at the top end of the bell curve, but that doesn't mean the figure is incorrect. Use some common sense and stop quibbling over small details.
lysaer 17th April 2011, 13:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

No.

90% of installed software is pirated, not "90% of people that use computers in those countries pirate software".


My mistake, but either way, it still does not change the fact that these people cannot afford to pay the asking price for the software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sWW
What do you propose? A new system where the price you pay for luxury items based on a percentage of your salary?

I wish it was so easy to have a resolution, unfortunately I do not.
impar 17th April 2011, 19:29 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
My mistake, but either way, it still does not change the fact that these people cannot afford to pay the asking price for the software.
Or computers.
lysaer 17th April 2011, 21:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Or computers.

The computers could also be pirated.

If you ever go to any of those countries and see how people live an work, you'd not be calling them parasites.
impar 18th April 2011, 01:22 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
If you ever go to any of those countries and see how people live an work, you'd not be calling them parasites.
Dont twist what I wrote.
I have never referred to the totality of those countries citizens as parasites. Only the ones that parasite other peoples work\effort. The same applies for "western" citizens.
lysaer 18th April 2011, 19:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Dont twist what I wrote.
I have never referred to the totality of those countries citizens as parasites. Only the ones that parasite other peoples work\effort. The same applies for "western" citizens.

So I wasn't twisting what you wrote, you are calling those that pirate in those countries parasites, does it also make us parasitic for living off of their cheap labour ?
impar 18th April 2011, 20:25 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
... you are calling those that pirate in those countries parasites, ...
On those and on the westerns countries too.
They give nothing to the developers, dont recognize the publishers work and expect legitimate consumers to pay the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
... does it also make us parasitic for living off of their cheap labour ?
Do they get paid?
theflatworm 18th April 2011, 21:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
... does it also make us parasitic for living off of their cheap labour ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Do they get paid?

Wow. Just wow. I almost can't believe you wrote that.

I would imagine that the majority of people 'living' on the sort of wages we're talking about would prefer slavery. At least then they'd be guaranteed that a day's work was going to be enough to cover a day's food and lodgings.
sp4nky 18th April 2011, 21:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theflatworm
Wow. Just wow. I almost can't believe you wrote that.

I would imagine that the majority of people 'living' on the sort of wages we're talking about would prefer slavery. At least then they'd be guaranteed that a day's work was going to be enough to cover a day's food and lodgings.

Wow. Just wow. I truly cannot believe what you wrote. I cannot imagine anyone would prefer slavery to freedom, even if that freedom means not knowing whether you could afford food & lodgings. Having been there, having been reliant on state hand-outs, I'd still rather not be a slave, subject to living or dying at the hands of a "master".
lysaer 18th April 2011, 21:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

On those and on the westerns countries too.
They give nothing to the developers, dont recognize the publishers work and expect legitimate consumers to pay the bill.


There is no expectancy for anyone to foot the bill, the simple matter is they cannot afford to pay the asking price. I am confident a lot of them would pay for software if they could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar

Do they get paid?


It is not a question of do they get paid, but more do they get paid enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sp4nky
Wow. Just wow. I truly cannot believe what you wrote. I cannot imagine anyone would prefer slavery to freedom, even if that freedom means not knowing whether you could afford food & lodgings. Having been there, having been reliant on state hand-outs, I'd still rather not be a slave, subject to living or dying at the hands of a "master".

Key word here is state hand-outs, pretty sure they aren't seeing any of those in their countries.

Well it depends on your reason for being a slave, If the only way to look after my family, be it parents, kids, wife, siblings etc, was to work in slavery to earn for them then yes I would take that option.

Effectively a lot of them are slaves to countries like ours, the only difference is it is optional and not forced labour.
impar 19th April 2011, 11:21 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by theflatworm
Wow. Just wow. I almost can't believe you wrote that.
Why?
If they get paid for their work by the parasites that "live off of their cheap labour" [Lysaer] they are better than the developers\publishers who dont get paid by their parasites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
There is no expectancy for anyone to foot the bill, ...
No? Who do you think supports the movie\music\game\comic\etc industry? The parasites who dont pay for the works they enjoy freely or the legitimate consumers who support the developers\publishers work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
... the simple matter is they cannot afford to pay the asking price.
If they cant pay, dont play.
Movies\music\videogames\comics are not shelter\food\healthcare. They have far more in common to luxury itens than basic needs of life.
lysaer 19th April 2011, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!Why?
If they get paid for their work by the parasites that "live off of their cheap labour" [Lysaer] they are better than the developers\publishers who dont get paid by their parasites.

You really have no idea how some of these people have to live and what they actually get paid do you. I lived in Asia for a year and to see what it truly is like out there you would not be sitting on such a high horse right now.
It is easy to theorise and judge from the comforts of your own home in front of a computer monitor. Take Indonesia for example, people get paid around £1.50 a day and that is not your regular 8 hour working day with all the luxuries, that is more akin to 16 hours of brutal labour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
No? Who do you think supports the movie\music\game\comic\etc industry? The parasites who dont pay for the works they enjoy freely or the legitimate consumers who support the developers\publishers work?

Your statement here is false, I stated that most people in those countries did not expect anyone to foot the bill for them, there are people out there that do, but there is a huge difference between expectancy to pay and being afforded the opportunity to purchase in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
If they cant pay, dont play.
Movies\music\videogames\comics are not shelter\food\healthcare. They have far more in common to luxury itens than basic needs of life.

It is not those people's fault that their economy is nowhere near as strong as ours, maybe we are to blame because of the constant demands on manufacturers for cheaper goods and items. A case of first world countries keeping third world countries, just because we want to pay less.
impar 19th April 2011, 16:22 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
Take Indonesia for example, people get paid around £1.50 a day and that is not your regular 8 hour working day with all the luxuries, that is more akin to 16 hours of brutal labour.
Is the point you are trying to make that a "£1.50 a day" "16 hours working day" person owns a computer, a gaming capable computer, and pirates Garrys Mod to play because he doesnt have the money to buy the game?
Really? :|
lysaer 19th April 2011, 19:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Is the point you are trying to make that a "£1.50 a day" "16 hours working day" person owns a computer, a gaming capable computer, and pirates Garrys Mod to play because he doesnt have the money to buy the game?
Really? :|

It was an example of what some people earn, there is piracy in those countries regardless of whether it is being resold for profit or used personally. There are obviously people that do have computers on a higher wage but not enough to pay for high priced software

lets move over to eastern bloc countries where the wage is around £150 a month, people there have gaming capable computers but doesn't mean they are able to afford the software.
Sloth 19th April 2011, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
It was an example of what some people earn, there is piracy in those countries regardless of whether it is being resold for profit or used personally. There are obviously people that do have computers on a higher wage but not enough to pay for high priced software

lets move over to eastern bloc countries where the wage is around £150 a month, people there have gaming capable computers but doesn't mean they are able to afford the software.
How, pray tell, does that work? The only evidence of that so far is you saying that it's so, but logic would have the rest of the world believing otherwise.

This person gets £150 a month. They save up 50 of it each month for several months until finally they can buy that £500 computer they've been wanting. Immediately after purchasing, yes, that person may not having enough money to buy any games, but that doesn't stop them from saving £50 of next month's paycheck to buy some. Anyone with enough extra income to build a gaming computer will easily have the income to buy games.

Either the price of hardware is extremely disproportionate to software in these places you keep referencing or you're just not making sense.
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