Canadian Study: Piracy Created by Greedy Capitalists

[awesome_ninja]

ok, I'm not gonna read all the replies, but here's my position:
I only pay for the games that DESERVE the money! Most of AAA titles are simply rip offs (especially sequels). Look at Bulletstorm. Sure, great SP, but literally no MP. 60$ for that? No thanks (I regret buying it!). Another example: Magicka. Why did I bought this game? Because the price-entertainment value was very attractive! 4 player coop with awesome gameplay; what else can you ask for? Simply make the game worth the money and priced evenly all around the world. Look at Starcraft 2. 15$ in Russia which is a fair price, but you play only on Russian servers. In US? 60$ but you play everywhere. It's a Win-Win situation.

EDIT: did I forgot to mention that if the devs are too lazy to have a demo for their game, it's the only way to try the game before buying it?

 

[WolfEdge]

"Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs"

This this this this this.

People do NOT deserve entertainment they cannot afford.

Yes, corporations are always right. Bow down to our corporate overlords. Do not question them. Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!

I guess I worded that wrong. What I meant is that people do not have the right to the creations of others for free. Does that make more sense?

What about freeware? Also, sure they do. If it is not reasonably priced, why should they be rewarded for ripping people off?

Freeware is given away with the consent. When a game is pirated for free, then a person gets someone's intellectual property without their consent. It's wrong for the same reason plagiarism's wrong.

If I make something, and it's desirable, and I put hard work into it, then I have the right to do with what I want, right? Is it so wrong that I demand monetary compensation for hard work that I've done, especially in this harsh Capitalist climate?

If you demand a reasonable monetary compensation, sure, go ahead. If you're a price gouging douchetard asswagon, you don't. Note: I'm not a fan of capitalism.

lol all aboard the asswagon!

Well then, fair enough. All we have to do then is create a system where people are only allowed to sell anything up to a certain price, depending on who can afford it.

The result of course, would be that "free" would be the maximum allowable price, because there are those who cannot afford anything at all.

Not saying everyone should be able to afford everything, but you should do the math to figure out what a good equivalent to $60 is in those countries.

96.4799 in Brazilian (one of the countries mentioned in the article).

83455 in Brazilian for a brand-new porsche.

Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

Not in conversion rates alone, but also in what the average income is.

I'm afraid I'm not sure where to find that information (found something on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about). But I think your point is clear enough. However, what about the porsche? I'll reiterate the question: Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.

and how are not the AAA $60 titles not a luxury item? You seem to arbitrarily ascribe the term "luxury".

Because games, these days, are as non-luxury as TV shows.

And how do you determine that?

A luxury item is one of excess. An everyday car focuses on practicality. It can only go so fast, it only costs so such to make, and it focuses almost exclusively on a large demographic. A luxury car on the on the other hand focuses on excessive and factors that deter it from the mainstream like excessive speed beyond what is needed or even allowed for the sole purpose of bragging rights. Possessing levels of comfort not actually necessary to enjoy ones ride (a more subjective point) like Ipod ports and mini refrigerators. A luxury item in addition is priced beyond the reach of the mainstream. A game as a luxury item is very hard to pin down. While it is not necessary to have fun it is immensely mainstream and aside from books provide the longest bouts of fun but unlike books provide as a general standard more re usability/replayability. But does one go so far as to say that all games are a luxury? Unless you are in the most poor of the poor regions a 5 dollar game vs a 30 dollar game is not that much of a deal in the long run. Even then a video game console like the Wii is usually limited to one purpose, fun over functionality but at the same time a home computer (you can still get a used decently powerful computers for playing games that are several years old for maybe a hundred or so bucks though whether you can get these in third world countries and in what quantity is beyond me) could provide additional productive purposes. Installing and playing computer games would be more convenient than say going for a bike ride since after you are done your break you can simply exit the game and resume say 3DS MAX or Microsoft Word. Thus for these reasons I feel the need to sum videogames as a luxury simply as a relative concept. While I am under no fallacy that I am completely correct in my observations, I feel decently confident that I hit the right points.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the reason I brought up the WII is that is tentatively a luxury item in these respects because it is expensive and only serves the purpose of enjoyment although a home computer on the other hand which can also play games can also be used productively.

You do not need videogames to survive.

Videogames are a luxury.

Ah, but you need pleasure to relatively thrive (a state of being where an individual or like minded group can can say I am comfortable, at least for the foreseeable future) as survive unlike the concept of thrive is MORE broadly relative (does survive mean being in a state of living or a state of sustaining ones biological existence, and if so what extents does this individual need to go to to maintain this state? Also by survive does this include solely the act of maintaining physical health and neglecting mental health. A major contributor to mental health besides intellectual stimulation being happiness and pleasure. Achieved through natural and artificial means, the likes of which are just as relative to say which ones are more important) and while you can get pleasure from other things such as books, food, or a piece of shade from the sun, a videogame is still the same thing, pleasure. Video games as a luxury as far as I can pin it down is entirely relative. To a poor district where food is unfordable and everything bought must have a purpose they are a luxury, on the other hand from a district where basic essentials are met with ease and loose spending cash is plentiful it is not so much a luxury as a standard product to achieve a human goal of pleasure, a frill. It does indeed have a function but depending on the point of view in what situation, its function is either negligible or important.

It is not the responsibility of a gaming company - or ANYBODY else - to make a person "thrive". That purview belongs to the individual, via an expenditure of time and effort in a somewhat meaningful manner in order to achieve a trade-able product which for most people, translates to "working for money". It is not my job as a creator of a videogame to sate you. At some point, individuals MUST be held accountable for more than the bare-minimum. You don't need entertainment and stimulation to live, you need it to grow. If you WANT to "thrive", if you truly WANT to better yourself as a person, then you should work to make that happen, but don't think it's the clandestine duty of some other individual to simply supply you with a means to grow. That's just a form of slavery.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[antipunt]

Aww c'mon guys, seriously. Think for the other guy! I mean:

Spoiler

 

[WolfEdge]

ok, I'm not gonna read all the replies, but here's my position:
I only pay for the games that DESERVE the money! Most of AAA titles are simply rip offs (especially sequels). Look at Bulletstorm. Sure, great SP, but literally no MP. 60$ for that? No thanks (I regret buying it!). Another example: Magicka. Why did I bought this game? Because the price-entertainment value was very attractive! 4 player coop with awesome gameplay; what else can you ask for? Simply make the game worth the money and priced evenly all around the world. Look at Starcraft 2. 15$ in Russia which is a fair price, but you play only on Russian servers. In US? 60$ but you play everywhere. It's a Win-Win situation.

EDIT: did I forgot to mention that if the devs are too lazy to have a demo for their game, it's the only way to try the game before buying it?

Beyond being impossible to objectively define what "worth the money" means, the problem is that this view assumes a right to a creator's intellectual property, when in reality it's the other way around. Ideas are things. They're property. And as the owner/owners of the property a company has a right to determine who does and doesn't have access to it. This is absolute, and is necessary, for better or worse.

It's funny just how entitled we as a race have become. The above view does not even consider "Just don't buy it" as an option. It's, "No, I'm going to PLAY it first, regardless of whether you want me to, and then if it's GOOD enough, MAYBE I'll pay you."

Irksome.

 

[Baresark]

It's not greedy capitalism as much as it is poor business sense that companies don't take these things into account.

If you make an affordable product, then people will buy it, and if you make a product out of reach of people, given the opportunity, they will take it. But, the term "affordable" is very subjective, even within a single society.

What the market does not provide, the black market will provide.

 

[Joeaverage]

Paying for a game is basically saying you care about it and that it matters that more in the same vein get made. The more good games exist that you haven't played, the less it will matter. Oversupply. They could stop making new games the next 10 years and it wouldn't matter to me.

This applies even more to music, porn and fantasy novels. If there was less new stuff, you'd spend more time looking at what was there already. And realizing you're buried in content to last you several lifetimes just from the last 5 years of production. In theory there'd be more really great creations as time went by, but it's very easy for them to be missed in the huge mountain of stuff being pushed out each year.

That's for the absolute value of the experience anyway. As a sort of tribal identity thing where you can take all your friends and like or hate something together new media certainly works well. You just have to be exposed to roughly the same marketing channels and everyone will know what you're talking about when you're excited about mass effect 3. Or Justin Beiber's newest song.

 

[milkkart]

"We all know that pirating games is bad, right? That downloading someone's work without paying for it is tantamount to stealing? Of course, you do, you're a good person."

im a horrible, horrible person and you don't know jack about me.

a lot of this stuff seems very obvious. software is overpriced in the developed so somewhere the average earnings are way lower people will never be able to afford it but all that marketing and aspiration to be like us means they still want it so they're gonna go right for all those lovely cheap pirate copies publishers refuse to discount the games because that would mean losing money despite that they're making none to begin with so they demand legislation, the governments have way better things to be doing so nothing happens.

also what it describes gamers in brazil doing, having one 360 for live and one modded for pirates i was thinking about doing but just so i can play local multiplayer without having to buy two copies everything and only because i have an RRoDed box thats gonna have to be busted open to be fixed anyway.

 

[Baresark]

Beyond being impossible to objectively define what "worth the money" means, the problem is that this view assumes a right to a creator's intellectual property, when in reality it's the other way around. Ideas are things. They're property. And as the owner/owners of the property a company has a right to determine who does and doesn't have access to it. This is absolute, and is necessary, for better or worse.

It's funny just how entitled we as a race have become. The above view does not even consider "Just don't buy it" as an option. It's, "No, I'm going to PLAY it first, regardless of whether you want me to, and then if it's GOOD enough, MAYBE I'll pay you."

Irksome.

I agree partially with what you're saying. There certainly is a place for IP, but not all the places it is used. If an idea results in a product such as a game, then sure, they should be able to sell it. But there are cases where it hinders our society as a whole to endorse so openly IP rights. I would suggest you check out the works of Leonard Read to learn more about my point of view, if you were so inclined. The idea that anything but the market can decide the value of something is completely off base. Not that they haven't been marginally successful in this endeavor, but the $60 price tag of games is pushing the envelope. And I think you will notice a big instance of piracy in games for the PC that have been recently released at that price point. The PC community is very dissatisfied. I know that Dragon Age 2 was a waste of money at $60, and I played Bulletstorm at a friends house, and am very glad I didn't spend my money on that. When the games come down in price, they will be worth playing.

I'm with you though, I take the, "just don't play it" option all the time. The resources are out there for me to never have to pay for a game again, but I don't want to do that. I tried that a few times and I never ever completed any of those games till I actually purchased them later on. Dragon Age 2 will be worth it when it's down to $40 or less, Bulletstorm will probably never be worth it, and Blops will never be worth a dime in my book. Not when I have Modern Warfare 2 to play.

 

[snfonseka]

Well... now some companies release software that specific to particular region. For example, KasperSky has released a low priced version of their Internet Security 2011 (that has the the same set of features as international versions) for some of the Asian regions. They have restricted the sales of that version to those specific areas and I think it is a successful marketing decision.

BTW this tactic is working very well for books, in those regions.

 

[Baresark]

"Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs"

This this this this this.

People do NOT deserve entertainment they cannot afford.

Yes, corporations are always right. Bow down to our corporate overlords. Do not question them. Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!

I guess I worded that wrong. What I meant is that people do not have the right to the creations of others for free. Does that make more sense?

What about freeware? Also, sure they do. If it is not reasonably priced, why should they be rewarded for ripping people off?

Freeware is given away with the consent. When a game is pirated for free, then a person gets someone's intellectual property without their consent. It's wrong for the same reason plagiarism's wrong.

If I make something, and it's desirable, and I put hard work into it, then I have the right to do with what I want, right? Is it so wrong that I demand monetary compensation for hard work that I've done, especially in this harsh Capitalist climate?

If you demand a reasonable monetary compensation, sure, go ahead. If you're a price gouging douchetard asswagon, you don't. Note: I'm not a fan of capitalism.

lol all aboard the asswagon!

Well then, fair enough. All we have to do then is create a system where people are only allowed to sell anything up to a certain price, depending on who can afford it.

The result of course, would be that "free" would be the maximum allowable price, because there are those who cannot afford anything at all.

Not saying everyone should be able to afford everything, but you should do the math to figure out what a good equivalent to $60 is in those countries.

96.4799 in Brazilian (one of the countries mentioned in the article).

83455 in Brazilian for a brand-new porsche.

Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

Not in conversion rates alone, but also in what the average income is.

I'm afraid I'm not sure where to find that information (found something on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about). But I think your point is clear enough. However, what about the porsche? I'll reiterate the question: Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.

and how are not the AAA $60 titles not a luxury item? You seem to arbitrarily ascribe the term "luxury".

Because games, these days, are as non-luxury as TV shows.

And how do you determine that?

The fact that third world countries know what they are and pirate them.

but why does that mean that they're a luxury? I missing how the fact that third world countries can't afford something leads to something not being a luxury.

The fact they know about them and care enough to pirate means they aren't a luxury. You don't see many third world countrymen trying to steal Porches.

but I still don't see how that means that it's not a luxury. How does knowing that something exists mean it's not a luxury?

It's the fact that they can easily aquire them, legally or not, that makes them no longer a luxury.

Well I suppose that one could easily rob a porsche dealer.

But thousands of people couldn't.

yes they could. Why couldn't they?

Because there aren't that many porche dealers.

Ok.

So your argument is essentially this:
1) For something to be a luxury, the only requirement is that few of the thing is produced.
2) Only producers of luxury items should be allowed to charge whatever they want.
3) Video games are not a luxury, because they are mass-produced
4) Therefore, Video games should have a maximum price cap, because they are widely available.
5) Therefore, in countries where, due to economic differences have more expensive video games, are in the right in not paying anything for them.

I suppose the only parts I really take issue with is #2. It seems rather arbitrary. If #2 were ever implemented, you'd see AAA game titles disappear. Producers of very expensive-to-produce games are not simply going to give away their games for free. They would work very hard to make sure that their video games would become a luxury in order to merely make a profit.

They would do this by ramping up the DRM, in an attempt to prevent their expensive games from getting pirated, and nullifying their non-luxury status. Since we know that DRM doesn't really seem to work well in preventing this, we would see the end of high-budget video games, leading to virtually the death of the video game market.

I never meant to imply #2. Besides, you can't download a car.

but you said that the Porsche dealers, "They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.". Doesn't this imply #2?

I'm a bit tired and confused. Everything should have limits, stuff like porches should have less, but still be there.

ok.

Fixed then:
1) For something to be a luxury, the only requirement is that few of the thing is produced.
2) All things must have a price cap, Only producers of luxury items should be allowed to charge a higher amount, though still capped.
3) Video games are not a luxury, because they are mass-produced
4) Therefore, Video games should have a low maximum price cap, because they are widely available.
5) Therefore, in countries where, due to economic differences have more expensive video games, are in the right in not paying anything for them.

My response to the argument has not changed though. I still believe that implementation of #2 would result in the death of the mult-million-dollar budget game industry. Halo 3 had a 50 some million dollar budget.

Not to nitpick, but price caps create false shortages, leading to rationing. Also, a luxury is an item that is not necessary to live, but people still want, so video games are a luxury. Anything that is mass produced should be cheaper, for the simple reason that supply should easily meet or surpass demand. I also am on the verge of thinking that the death of the multimillion dollar game would be a good thing. The rule of diminishing returns basically states that after a certain point, more money will not make a better product, or guarantee more sales. It's honestly just bad business to only worry about AAA titles, and companies that do this WILL fail, given time.

PS. If you have already dealt with these arguments, I apologize for sticking my nose into the debate so late.

 

[Tim Latshaw]

Greedy Capitalists can definitely be seen as milking things for all they can get, but you have to remember it's Greedy Consumers that allow them to do so. These same consumers then turn around and demand the very best work from people's brains out of a sense of entitlement, claiming they have the right to treat it like a disposable tissue should it not live up to his or her individual set of standards.

And then you have actual poor people looking at all this ungrateful treatment of what has become a treasure trove of variety; stuff they can't even get legitimate access to. They just want to be able to touch this stuff that we decry as crap not worth opening our wallets for.

I'm not saying prices should currently stay where they are. Not at all; not anywhere. But this "gotta have the next new thing no matter what" attitude is choking us to death just as badly as the corporate side of things.

Buy. Take. Break. Throw it away.

 

[EscapingReality]

The article is talking about this as if it's something new. The market here in Mexico is way too expensive for someone to NOT PIRATE.

The 3DS here at launch price is the same fucking price as the Wii in Launch!! That's $5000 MXP!!! And you get the 250 USD price tag? BULLSHIT WE SHOUT!!!

Mirror's Edge at launch cost over $1100 MXP while you guys had it at around $60 DLS. Look at the world and tell me we are not getting fucked by the greedy grubby hands of department stores, Game Planet and Blockbuster's Subsidiary GameRush who fucking hog the market.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Isn't every evil in the world created by greedy capitalists? I mean, I've heard people argue that socialism is often a tool of greedy capitalists.

Seriously, "greedy capitalists" is starting to be so overused that it's reaching the level of inept label such as "Nazi" or "Fascist."

 

[Idocreating]

Cheaper options wouldn't do anything. Look at the anime industry. Anime in japan costs easily 2-10x the amount it costs American consumers and yet Americans still pirate it like crazy despite steep discounting. Dirty pirates will be dirty pirates.

America gets steep discounts eh? I once saw the boxset for Elfen Lied in a store in the UK for well over £50. For a 13 episode anime.

So... fifty quid or torrent it. The choice is going to be an obvious one when you demand such a ludicrious amount. It takes me roughly 8 hours to earn enough money to buy a boxset that lasts less than that. In my humble opinion, that's fucking stupid.

 

[aashell13]

Is it $40 worth of content? The value of something like a piece of entertainment is subjective really.
Something like Mirrors Edge, which was a great game, just did not have enough content to justify a full price tag. Which is kinda sad, as it was a fresh idea. I still bought that (I'm in a situation fortunate enough to be able to). Mostly just to try and support the industry taking a fresh direction.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have Homefront, another game that has no where near enough content to justify full price (5 hour campagin? What!?). AND its just a samey brown shooter, where you kill non Americans. yay.
That game is not worth full price. Not even close.

Point is, we're expected to pay 40-50 quid, regardless of the game in the box. And not all games are created equal. Some are worth way more (Say, Dragon Age Origins), and some are worth way less (the above two examples).

Problem is that it's hard to determine what the game is worth beforehand. Publishers are afraid that if left to its own devices the market will decide that their product is worth significantly less than they'd like to charge, and possibly less even than it cost to produce. Hence DRM & other undesirable industry practices. I agree with you about a lot of games not being worth anything near the release day asking price, which is why I almost never buy games until 18 months or so after release.

 

[Eri]

Cheaper options wouldn't do anything. Look at the anime industry. Anime in japan costs easily 2-10x the amount it costs American consumers and yet Americans still pirate it like crazy despite steep discounting. Dirty pirates will be dirty pirates.

Anime doesn't come out in the US at least a year or so after it does in Japan though

And? Many games are the same. Final Fantasy. Pokemon.

 

[Eri]

Cheaper options wouldn't do anything. Look at the anime industry. Anime in japan costs easily 2-10x the amount it costs American consumers and yet Americans still pirate it like crazy despite steep discounting. Dirty pirates will be dirty pirates.

America gets steep discounts eh? I once saw the boxset for Elfen Lied in a store in the UK for well over £50. For a 13 episode anime.

So... fifty quid or torrent it. The choice is going to be an obvious one when you demand such a ludicrious amount. It takes me roughly 8 hours to earn enough money to buy a boxset that lasts less than that. In my humble opinion, that's fucking stupid.

Obviously that's a ridiculous price. Even with America's discounts, I wouldn't say all of it is cheap, but that wasn't my point. My point was it's still insanely cheap compared to Japan, and we still pirate it.


Sorry Double post ._.

 

[ShadowKirby]

Aren't all our problems caused by greedy capitalists?

Yeah, but this guy, and really the entire offices of The Escapist, hate pirates (and will often suspend you if you don't).

Do they, or do they just not condone stealing? I think they have to be against piracy. If games make no money, publishers stop making games, if publishers stop making games, Escapists have no job.

Also, I should mention that all our problems are created by greedy capitalists and ignorance. Capitalists don't get all the credit.

Stealing =/= Piracy. Here's a helpful guide to the differences:

Stealing starts out with the store having 1 copy and you having 0 copies. You then gain that one copy without paying.

Store - 0, You - 1

Piracy starts out with the store having 1 copy and you having 0 copies. You then make a a copy of the data.

Store - 1, You - 1.

Also, they are opposed to ALL piracy, not just games.

I seriously hate that logic. Try to see it this way:

In case of theft:

Store (and in turn devs) - -40$, You - X+40$ of worth.

In case of piracy:

Store (and in turn devs) - 0$, You - X+40$ of worth.

Sure, in one case money is lost and in the other money stays the same, but at the end of the day, you get what you want and the devs get nothing.

Also try keep in mind that they've only lost a potential sale, not a definite one.
EG;
I wont buy Dragon Age 2 on principle of being an awful, dumbed down game.
But I might pirate it, sure.
After all...

But this is just a hypothetical situation. Obviously.

Sure, it's a "potential" sale lost, but you "hypothetically" still get your 40$ (or whatever the cost) worth of content.

This has always been headache-inducing. There is no financial victim in piracy. Your $40 content springs out from nothingness, since intellectual property is a post-scarcity good. "Value" must be assigned arbitrarily to such products. It is in unlimited supply, cannot be damaged or stolen, can be conjured up from thin air and distributed at the speed of light almost for free.

Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is like trespassing. The author has control and authority over his IP, and the pirate has usurped that. Trespassing is also illegal, despite technically producing no damage.

In reality, of course, all of the above can BARELY apply, because intellectual property is sold like a typical product. It fakes its own scarcity. And in places where it isn't available, can you really blame people for turning to sources that provide it? Can you blame people in the prohibition for turning to blackmarkets? It's the same thing, a non-essential product that has demand, but no supply. In a typical free market, blackmarkets and piracy are just punishments for companies that ignore potential consumer bases. But IPs were always a piece of Star-Trek economy stuck in our primitive capitalist system. You can't really fix something like that.

See, I agree with you on the lack of supply problem. It is way less of an issue (morally at the very least) for someone in Brazil or some east European country to pirate a game -- they have no other means. On the other hand, it's way less justifiable for someone in the United-states to do so.

Also, I don't see the 40$ (that's an arbitrary sum, replace it with what you want) as totally out of nothingness. There is work being made to create the codes, the art assets, the design, etc... You're paying, partly, for the people who worked on the game.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

*Facepalm* People are going to bicker about Piracy till the end of time itself. Why can't we just meet in the very middle and say, "Hey lesser developed countries, how about we decrease the cost of games that are 2 years old by 30%. Then in 4 years it'll be down by 60%, and finally after 5-6 years it'll be free. Sure you'll be behind the latest game curb and industry by 5-6 years, but at least the people in developing countries or with less money will be able to afford or have access to these games the more developed countries take for granted. However for the more developed countries we'll still have the games in bargain bins for 10-20$ because they can afford to buy them and they will help the industry".