Crysis 2 has been leaked, is even now being pirated by thousands of unscrupulous souls.

[Trolldor]

They don't lose anything at all. No money is being taken out of pocket. If anything, they are losing money in an incredibly indirect way, but even then, it is a stretch.

Rubbish.
Absolute tosh.
They do lose money. They rely on legitimate purchases to cover development cost, distribution costs, marketing and license fees (where applicable).

They also require legitimate purchases to fund profits which will in turn fund future projects.

Piracy harms this process, advocates of piracy don't realise how blindly stupid they're being.

You are describing a developer not gaining money. There is a difference between that and losing it.

They are losing the potential to gain money, not actual money.
And I'm not advocating piracy. I don't pirate, and I don't plan on doing so. I see why it is wrong, and I can understand that, I just don't like people who are against it say the same thing over and over again when I disagree with it.

If they don't make enough money to cover the costs it took to produce it, they lose money.

Use your head.

 

[Radeonx]

They don't lose anything at all. No money is being taken out of pocket. If anything, they are losing money in an incredibly indirect way, but even then, it is a stretch.

Rubbish.
Absolute tosh.
They do lose money. They rely on legitimate purchases to cover development cost, distribution costs, marketing and license fees (where applicable).

They also require legitimate purchases to fund profits which will in turn fund future projects.

Piracy harms this process, advocates of piracy don't realise how blindly stupid they're being.

You are describing a developer not gaining money. There is a difference between that and losing it.

They are losing the potential to gain money, not actual money.
And I'm not advocating piracy. I don't pirate, and I don't plan on doing so. I see why it is wrong, and I can understand that, I just don't like people who are against it say the same thing over and over again when I disagree with it.

If they don't make enough money to cover the costs it took to produce it, they lose money.

Use your head.

Oh I know, but they aren't losing more money.
If the game sold no games at all, they would've lost the same amount of money, so you aren't doing direct damage in any way shape or form.

 

[Trolldor]

Yes, they are losing 'more money'.
Negative earnings produce debt. Debt increases over time.

 

[crimtion]

how do we we know said pirates would have purchased the game? I find the thought unlikely... VERY UNLIKELY.

 

[Radeonx]

Yes, they are losing 'more money'.
Negative earnings produce debt. Debt increases over time.

Again, that isn't directly attributed to the person who pirates.

 

[Trolldor]

how do we we know said pirates would have purchased the game? I find the thought unlikely... VERY UNLIKELY.

What are the chances that at least some would have purchased the game but won't now?

Very likely.

 

[Thedayrecker]

My guess is it's unfinished, and broken....

 

[Trolldor]

Yes, they are losing 'more money'.
Negative earnings produce debt. Debt increases over time.

Again, that isn't directly attributed to the person who pirates.

Yes, it is.
Where would piracy be without pirates?

 

[Angryman101]

The pirates should get in just as much trouble for stealing them as the guy who leaked it.

Why? Some guy posted a leaked copy of an item that could not be procured elsewhere, why wouldn't they take advantage of that?
It's like when artists leak out their music months early to generate hype, except it's kind of a surprise for everyone involved in this case.

They shouldn't take advantage of it because they're still stealing the product, even if someone else enabled them to do so.

Its nothing like that. Its more like the artists friend giving out free copies behind the artists back, and without his permission.

How are they stealing anything? It's not for sale. Someone else stole it and then distributed it. Like a bank robber robbing a bank and throwing the cash to the wind. You can't blame the people who pick up the money, only the robber for stealing then distributing it.
And it's a lot like that. Multiplayer will be salvaged from this, and those who downloaded the game may buy the game for the multiplayer feature if they so choose. Do you honestly believe those that won't would have bought the game anyway?

In the case of your metaphor, yeah, its still stealing, because you are taking stolen money. Regardless of who got it for you, it was stolen, and you taking it is still stealing.

And no, honestly, I don't. I really, really don't. I personally know a bunch of pirates, they haven't bought the full game for the games they pirated. Why should a bunch on the internet be any different?

Oh man, you must think Robin Hood was a real douche then, huh?
So, it's still stealing. Is it really WRONG, though, morally? Those people didn't ASK to be given the money, they merely saw an opportunity and took it. Do you expect them to line up like cattle and give the bank it's money back? If you do, you're stupid.
And in this case, it isn't even to that 'level' of theft. You can't prove that the company is even losing money. For all you know, this is making it GAIN money because of word of mouth. But that will only happen if it's a GOOD game, which, going by the first one, it will not be, so it will flop anyway.
"Why did this game flop?!" will cry the publishers.
"Oh, it was leaked! And people PIRATED IT! THAT MUST BE WHY!" and, yet again, piracy is used as a scapegoat when a game does poorly, and this will be used as an example for those who are against it for all time.

 

[Trolldor]

Those people didn't ASK to be given the money, they merely saw an opportunity and took it. Do you expect them to line up like cattle and give the bank it's money back? If you do, you're stupid.

What you don't seem to realise, and what these hypothetical people are ignoring, is that the banks' money also comprises the money individual people put in to their accounts.

That fifty dollar note? That belong to the account of a single mother working two jobs to raise a child after her husband has died. And the kid has cancer.
And now she can't pay for chemo because the bank doesn't have the money she stored in to her account.

Well done, you just killed her kid.

 

[Trolldor]

Yes, they are losing 'more money'.
Negative earnings produce debt. Debt increases over time.

Again, that isn't directly attributed to the person who pirates.

Yes, it is.
Where would piracy be without pirates?

Piracy doesn't directly produce negative earnings. Bad games produce negative earnings.

Widespread piracy impacts on earnings. If piracy is rampant enough it will produce negative earnings.

 

[Radeonx]

Yes, they are losing 'more money'.
Negative earnings produce debt. Debt increases over time.

Again, that isn't directly attributed to the person who pirates.

Yes, it is.

How?
They aren't taking money out of pocket. From anybody. I'll say that it is indirect, but one could also make the case that they can indirectly generate a sale for a game.
If someone pirates a game, tells their friends that it is awesome, making their friends buy the game, the so called "loss" that you seem to describe is nullified with a sale. Granted, it is still some sort of theft, but the company doesn't receive any harm.

 

[Trolldor]

Yes, they are losing 'more money'.
Negative earnings produce debt. Debt increases over time.

Again, that isn't directly attributed to the person who pirates.

Yes, it is.

How?
They aren't taking money out of pocket. From anybody. I'll say that it is indirect, but one could also make the case that they can indirectly generate a sale for a game.
If someone pirates a game, tells their friends that it is awesome, making their friends buy the game, the so called "loss" that you seem to describe is nullified with a sale. Granted, it is still some sort of theft, but the company doesn't receive any harm.

Can you prove it beyond hypotheticals?

Show a constant trend, across a number of different games on a number of different platforms, where higher levels of piracy have caused higher levels of sales.

 

[Angryman101]

Have fun trying to convey that point to 3/4 of the people here. They see "pirating" and associate it with "DRM" and anything else they don't like and then suddenly you are akin to someone on the level of a murderer. I mean, if anything, I'd say that piracy is a dick move. In my honest opinion, it definitely isn't theft.

There's most definitely a close-minded attitude against it. It seems to be one of those situations in which those against it are dead set against it no matter how much proof is presented to the contrary, while those who are at least suggesting that it's not theft are acknowledging the other side's opinion while explaining their own side of the argument in a patient and logical manner. Meanwhile the other side bleats "blah blah THEFT WRONG!"
Kind of like right vs. left wing politics in the united states right now. Hum.

 

[Chrono180]

I normally have no problem with piracy, but leaking a game before the release data crosses the line IMO.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

The pirates should get in just as much trouble for stealing them as the guy who leaked it.

Why? Some guy posted a leaked copy of an item that could not be procured elsewhere, why wouldn't they take advantage of that?
It's like when artists leak out their music months early to generate hype, except it's kind of a surprise for everyone involved in this case.

They shouldn't take advantage of it because they're still stealing the product, even if someone else enabled them to do so.

Its nothing like that. Its more like the artists friend giving out free copies behind the artists back, and without his permission.

How are they stealing anything? It's not for sale. Someone else stole it and then distributed it. Like a bank robber robbing a bank and throwing the cash to the wind. You can't blame the people who pick up the money, only the robber for stealing then distributing it.
And it's a lot like that. Multiplayer will be salvaged from this, and those who downloaded the game may buy the game for the multiplayer feature if they so choose. Do you honestly believe those that won't would have bought the game anyway?

In the case of your metaphor, yeah, its still stealing, because you are taking stolen money. Regardless of who got it for you, it was stolen, and you taking it is still stealing.

And no, honestly, I don't. I really, really don't. I personally know a bunch of pirates, they haven't bought the full game for the games they pirated. Why should a bunch on the internet be any different?

Oh man, you must think Robin Hood was a real douche then, huh?
So, it's still stealing. Is it really WRONG, though, morally? Those people didn't ASK to be given the money, they merely saw an opportunity and took it. Do you expect them to line up like cattle and give the bank it's money back? If you do, you're stupid.
And in this case, it isn't even to that 'level' of theft. You can't prove that the company is even losing money. For all you know, this is making it GAIN money because of word of mouth. But that will only happen if it's a GOOD game, which, going by the first one, it will not be, so it will flop anyway.
"Why did this game flop?!" will cry the publishers.
"Oh, it was leaked! And people PIRATED IT! THAT MUST BE WHY!" and, yet again, piracy is used as a scapegoat when a game does poorly, and this will be used as an example for those who are against it for all time.

Robin Hood stole from corrupt lords who scammed and corrupted to get where they were. The pirates are stealing from honest people who worked hard to make a game.

I'm not saying nor expecting people to give the money back. People naturally feel entitled to things, even if they've done nothing to deserve it. This pirating is a perfect example.

And why shouldn't people be against it? Why shouldn't developers be rewarded for their work? Why do you, as a person, feel entitled to take something that doesn't belong to you?

 

[Radeonx]

Yes, they are losing 'more money'.
Negative earnings produce debt. Debt increases over time.

Again, that isn't directly attributed to the person who pirates.

Yes, it is.

How?
They aren't taking money out of pocket. From anybody. I'll say that it is indirect, but one could also make the case that they can indirectly generate a sale for a game.
If someone pirates a game, tells their friends that it is awesome, making their friends buy the game, the so called "loss" that you seem to describe is nullified with a sale. Granted, it is still some sort of theft, but the company doesn't receive any harm.

Can you prove it beyond hypotheticals?

Show a constant trend, across a number of different games on a number of different platforms, where higher levels of piracy have caused higher levels of sales.

Show a constant trend that pirated games have negative earnings then.
If you take the most pirated games of any year, they still earn massive amounts of money. Not saying that pirating is in any way the cause of these massive sales figures, but that pirating is not causing as much damage as anyone thinks it will.
This brings me back to my main point in which Crytek won't take nearly as much damage because of this as everyone thinks.
For Example:
If you look at Fallout: New Vegas, a game that sold over 1 million units the first week alone [http://www.maxconsole.net/content.php?42698&&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter], it was open to pirating 1-2 weeks before released. Did that damage their sales? No, not at all.