The thing is here is the "security system" in your example also targets people who are just visiting and have a legitimate reason to be in the house. They come in to hang out with you, whatever, and get gunned down by an auto-sentry. To make it worse, the thiefs can hack the security system in a matter of days, even hours, remotely, rendering it useless for that purpose. DRM isn't only for stopping pirates, it screws over real customers, too. As a protest, piracy fails, but DRM is annoying and getting more and more intrusive (looking at you Origin).
Piracy as Protest- You're Doing it Wrong
- Thread starter Phlakes
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The only game I ever contemplated downloading was Spore, because when I bought a brand new copy of the Galaxy Edition, their little product number didn't work and I sure as hell wasn't about to fork over MORE money I didn't have. However, I persevered and got a working code so that I could make the game playable.
That said, if a game is straight-up unavailable due to its age or a non-release within a given country (which still happens), I'd be more willing to consider it. I was never able to play Grim Fandango, for instance, and finding a copy legitimately could cost hundreds of dollars (which is ridiculous since they won't work on modern computers by themselves). If I COULD get my hands on a copy via GOG I'd more than willingly pay for it. In fact, I think a lot of people are in that same boat with older games, thankfully GOG has been helping with that front.
There's also the little issue of not being able to play a demo of a PC game, and since many games these days cost so damned much and the US economy is still pretty shit, downloading is the only way to know if you'd even like the game. The notion that everyone who pirates will never buy the game is absolutely ridiculous.
How many of you have rented a book or a movie and thought it was good, so you went out and bought it? I know I have many times. Last time I rented a game through Blockbuster, I liked it so much that I went out and bought it, although it was used cause it wasn't available new anywhere; there's that unavailability issue again.
The entitlement argument falls flat when people are more than willing to buy a product at a reasonable price and it simply isn't available.
What about everyone who wanted to play Mother 3, but Nintendo was like "nah, we don't want your money." so it was fan-translated. Now they DO suggest that you buy the original game and apply it as a patch, which is admirable, but it certainly won't convince Nintendo to officially translate it or support the fans. Hell, they went so far as to rub it in everyone's faces by providing a huge spoiler in Smash Brothers Brawl.
Again, entitlement doesn't work when you wave money in a company's face and they say they're not interested. I think too many people use entitlement as an excuse, just like people use DRM as an excuse. The fault is not entirely on one side.
That said, if a game is straight-up unavailable due to its age or a non-release within a given country (which still happens), I'd be more willing to consider it. I was never able to play Grim Fandango, for instance, and finding a copy legitimately could cost hundreds of dollars (which is ridiculous since they won't work on modern computers by themselves). If I COULD get my hands on a copy via GOG I'd more than willingly pay for it. In fact, I think a lot of people are in that same boat with older games, thankfully GOG has been helping with that front.
There's also the little issue of not being able to play a demo of a PC game, and since many games these days cost so damned much and the US economy is still pretty shit, downloading is the only way to know if you'd even like the game. The notion that everyone who pirates will never buy the game is absolutely ridiculous.
How many of you have rented a book or a movie and thought it was good, so you went out and bought it? I know I have many times. Last time I rented a game through Blockbuster, I liked it so much that I went out and bought it, although it was used cause it wasn't available new anywhere; there's that unavailability issue again.
The entitlement argument falls flat when people are more than willing to buy a product at a reasonable price and it simply isn't available.
What about everyone who wanted to play Mother 3, but Nintendo was like "nah, we don't want your money." so it was fan-translated. Now they DO suggest that you buy the original game and apply it as a patch, which is admirable, but it certainly won't convince Nintendo to officially translate it or support the fans. Hell, they went so far as to rub it in everyone's faces by providing a huge spoiler in Smash Brothers Brawl.
Again, entitlement doesn't work when you wave money in a company's face and they say they're not interested. I think too many people use entitlement as an excuse, just like people use DRM as an excuse. The fault is not entirely on one side.
While I don't think piracy is an effective method of protest, I don't think any other method is more effective. An actual boycott wouldn't get a company to change its policies unless it SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of profit the game made (such as, perhaps, a 20% loss or greater)... and let's be realistic, no matter how just your cause, you're not going to get that much support for your game boycott.
So, putting aside moral and legal issues and even the practical issue of promoting change, and just looking at the issue of what benefits me the most, I get a choice between two options:
1) pirate the game as a protest, and the game company does not change
2) boycott the game as a protest, and the game company does not change
Basically, if they aren't going to change the way they do business no matter what I choose, then why shouldn't I choose the thing that benefits me most? Piracy seems like the most obviously rational decision.
Even if your reasoning was sound, the fact is that piracy figures can't be reliably tracked and are mostly just made up (or you could say creatively extrapolated from a very small set of existing data) as a way for game companies to explain disappointing sales figures to their shareholders and investors. The inclusion of invasive, overreaching DRM in games is not something that happens as a legitimate response to piracy; it's something that happens as a panicked, kneejerk response to the spectre of piracy. The very mention of piracy is enough of a taboo word to some companies that they're willing to support SOPA in spite of all its dangers.
These people aren't going to suddenly change things because the internet suddenly grows a collective conscience and decides to protest things the legitimate way.
So, putting aside moral and legal issues and even the practical issue of promoting change, and just looking at the issue of what benefits me the most, I get a choice between two options:
1) pirate the game as a protest, and the game company does not change
2) boycott the game as a protest, and the game company does not change
Basically, if they aren't going to change the way they do business no matter what I choose, then why shouldn't I choose the thing that benefits me most? Piracy seems like the most obviously rational decision.
Even if your reasoning was sound, the fact is that piracy figures can't be reliably tracked and are mostly just made up (or you could say creatively extrapolated from a very small set of existing data) as a way for game companies to explain disappointing sales figures to their shareholders and investors. The inclusion of invasive, overreaching DRM in games is not something that happens as a legitimate response to piracy; it's something that happens as a panicked, kneejerk response to the spectre of piracy. The very mention of piracy is enough of a taboo word to some companies that they're willing to support SOPA in spite of all its dangers.
These people aren't going to suddenly change things because the internet suddenly grows a collective conscience and decides to protest things the legitimate way.
I've actually been avoiding everything about ME3, so I don't even know what controversy there is. And I don't want to know.GrizzlerBorno said:
Right. You go off on all the typical anti-corporation arguments and call us the brainwashed ones.Crono1973 said:
I couldn't agree more. Boycotting a game for whatever reason is completely pointless if you still want and get the product anyway.
You go off on all your pro-corporation, anti-pirate arguments and make more threads about how pirates are bad. Pirates aren't putting DRM on your games, pirates don't want to take control of something you bought away from you, pirates aren't in favor of shit like SOPA.
In fact, if it wasn't for pirates you would still be buying an entire CD for one song.
You need to understand the publishers use DRM to put limits on YOU, not on pirates.
Using piracy period, is misguided and wrong. Whatever thin veil of justification you use make yourself feel better about it is nothing more than that. It certainly doesn't make you right.
to Quote Gabe 'Piracy is a problem of Service',
ie drm will only make piracy grow rather than hinder it. cause pirated games don't have all the hassle and trouble that comes along with DRM,which the honest buying customer has to deal with every time.
if its not MMO it should not require INTERNET, man i miss the good ol lan days ;/.
as long as dev/pubs fails to provide better service than what we have now, instead of bickering piracy will only grow.
ie drm will only make piracy grow rather than hinder it. cause pirated games don't have all the hassle and trouble that comes along with DRM,which the honest buying customer has to deal with every time.
if its not MMO it should not require INTERNET, man i miss the good ol lan days ;/.
as long as dev/pubs fails to provide better service than what we have now, instead of bickering piracy will only grow.
Did I not advocate boycotting publishers in the OP? I didn't know that was pro-corporation now. Thanks for letting me know.Crono1973 said:
And you're right, pirates aren't putting DRM on games, just like shoplifters don't put up security gates.
Also, I know DRM limits everyone. I never made any point against that. That's what what this thread is about.
Security gates don't limit your usage of what you bought, DRM does. Security gates may cost you a min or two and that is irritating but it's not on the same scale as DRM. Also, DRM doesn't limit everyone, only paying customers. Pirates aren't stuck with the DRM once someone strips it off.Phlakes said:
I wholly agree with these posts. I used to think that pirating/buying used solely for "protest" was just a bad look for these weekend Che Guevaras, but I didn't really think about the potential message that reasoning actually sends. You're right; if you get the game used/pirate it instead, what these publishers or whatever will see is "The game is fine, but how can we make it harder to pirate/less attractive to buy used?"Phlakes said:
If you withhold buying the game outright, there's a bigger chance they'll rethink everything, including the pricing/DRM/DLC, because they won't know what was wrong in the first place until they look in the internet and see "Oh, the DRM sucked/day one DLC sucked. Let's rethink that."
I didn't really think about that potential message...And again, it's just a better look for the movement. Appearing organized, determined and 100% serious makes your voice more respected. Look at OpRainfall; A vocal minority that unified civilly, sent letters, encouraged respect, and demonstrated peacefully. How does the Bioware vocal minority presume to achieve change? Abusing Jennifer Hepler, bitching about Jessica Chobot, bitching about a DLC character no one knows about, saying they'll pirate/buy used instead of supporting anything.
Who actually made change happen? Who's 2/3 of the way to their goal?
maybe people just pirate stuff because they dont want to pay for shit, who cares about morales and protesting. if i have the choice to pay 40quid for something or get it free, the latter is a no brainer. 40quid for a game is expensive if you think about it
Actually,
What I gathered from the MLK quote is that if you're downloading the game for free, you should have the balls to openly make it available to others for free.
But I think the piracy of games with DRM have more to do with NOT having to deal with DRM, rather than protest or even income.
Also, if pirating wasn't possible, the people who do pirate wouldn't just go out and start legitimately buying games.
I also think MLK would want us to get our priorities straight and start protesting war and wealth disparities.
I have a lot of problems with many of the schemes that the industry has dumped on us this generation, but it's just changed my buying habits from several game purchases a year to one or two game purchases a year.
What I gathered from the MLK quote is that if you're downloading the game for free, you should have the balls to openly make it available to others for free.
But I think the piracy of games with DRM have more to do with NOT having to deal with DRM, rather than protest or even income.
Also, if pirating wasn't possible, the people who do pirate wouldn't just go out and start legitimately buying games.
I also think MLK would want us to get our priorities straight and start protesting war and wealth disparities.
I have a lot of problems with many of the schemes that the industry has dumped on us this generation, but it's just changed my buying habits from several game purchases a year to one or two game purchases a year.
Isn't it interesting that when people tell publishers EXACTLY why they are pirating something (like Spore), publishers don't listen to that message. They only hear messages that they want to hear. You can chase your tail trying to get publishers to get your message but what you should be doing is asking why they aren't listening to the direct messages.AyreonMaiden said:
if i could expand on your analogy of protecting ones home, drm is like using a gun to protect your home from burglars, except instead of just shooting the burglars, you shoot everyone who even comes near your house, only the burglars are wearing flak jackets so you dont end up hurting anyone but the innocent bypassers i.e. the paying customers in this analogy.
so you see sir i have now turned your argument on its head and i win!
no but seriously using drm to combat piracy is just as nonsensical as using piracy to protest drm, in fact its probably more nonsensical i would say
so you see sir i have now turned your argument on its head and i win!
no but seriously using drm to combat piracy is just as nonsensical as using piracy to protest drm, in fact its probably more nonsensical i would say
That's very true, sadly. Honestly, I don't really have a suggestion to counteract it because, as Jim Sterling often says, companies will do anything to not change their business models. They WILL hear what they wanna hear at the end of the day, but it hurts their opinion of you more when you actually give them a reason in their eyes. If you just say "well, whatever, nothing's gonna change anyway, I'll pirate it" then why even ***** when you're just gonna partake? Why would they change anything for you, who pirated a game because of Jessica Chobot (for example?)Crono1973 said:
Corporations think piracy = theft. They think a used sale = lost sale. They think sensationalist whining = vocal minority that means nothing. Regardless of monetary situation, justification, or copy-protection implementation. If you do any of that under the cover of "protest," you hurt your cause's image by partaking in what you're protesting against. And to them, that must mean you're not serious at all, just whining about something personal and using it as a reason to get for free something you're not entitled to (in their eyes.)
When you don't partake, you send the message of utter ambivalence. And there is nothing worse for people who put money into a work than that. All things start small, but they swell with organization and maturity, and that could give them cause to fear.
Again, Rainfall. Vocal minority that got through to a corporation known for playing it safe lately. There's always a chance, but only if you don't come off as a child. And of course, only if you're serious.
Ok, so you want to use Rainfall as a success example. I have an example of my own that is much larger in scale. Napster and all the nasty pirates changed the music industry forever. The music industry didn't want to change but in the end, they saw that they had no choice. They couldn't put the shit back into the horse.AyreonMaiden said:
Could you elaborate more on that or send me somewhere that summarizes it? I don't really know the entire story with Napster and I'm interested, but I dunno what to Google in order to read up on that...Crono1973 said: