Piracy, operating systems and gaming

[raankh]

The OS poll available in this forum got me going so here's rant (that I'll try to keep brief):

There's an ubiquitous debate on piracy in the software and creative content industry. Gaming is an interesting cross section for these issues. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with these in some respect or other.

I'm strongly of the opinion that companies like Microsoft and Sony thrive on piracy. The unofficial user-bases these companies have represents an acceptable loss since for every non-paying customer they have several paying customers. Most important to them, in particular Microsoft, is exposure. They want as many users as possible. If they were to really cut off the enthusiast crowd, who are notorious for using pirated versions of operating systems (mod-chips, cracks, license hacks, whatnot), they would lose a very important group of customers. I think they know this and that's why they don't enforce really serious copy-protection schemes; it's not in their partners' vested interest to have really effective copy-protection.

Proprietary platforms is the state of the business when it comes to games. There aren't really commercially
interesting open and portable platforms, except perhaps gambling services and browser-based games.

My view is that piracy is bad, but not at all for the reasons put forward by Microsoft and the likes. Piracy is bad because it benefits closed, proprietary platforms like Windows. The unofficial userbase is keeping the platform alive, not through any financial turnover but simply through prevalence in the market-space.

An open standard for portable games could become a boon to the industry. Users who don't pirate any of the basic softwares they use are, imo, much less likely to pirate specialized softwares like games. Thus, a Linux user is less likely to pirate a game than a Windows user. I don't have reliable statistics to point to, but it's something I've felt in discussions within various communities around the web. The sheer feel-good factor of using free and entirely legal software is important to many casual users.

Whaddyathink 'bout that?

 

[niko86]

The unofficial userbase is keeping the platform alive, not through any financial turnover but simply through prevalence in the market-space.

Look at the number of microsoft employees, offices,marketing expenditures etc. A non paying userbase would not keep a platform or company alive imo over the long term. It holds most true i believe in regards to consoles. Handhelds to a lesser extent. The playstation was easy to hack and brought about something no one had ever really had access to, cheap games so it soold loads. Whereas nintendo 64 was not worthwhile to copy games because of the cost and effort, it didnt have the same mass piracy appeal so lost alot ground to playstation.

Piracy is bad because it benefits the minority who are in the know about these things, whereas the average paying consumer is covering your cost.

As for linux users pirating less is imo because theres no games worth stealing on linux lol

 

[Anniko]

Look at the number of microsoft employees, offices,marketing expenditures etc. A non paying userbase would not keep a platform or company alive imo over the long term. It holds most true i believe in regards to consoles. Handhelds to a lesser extent. The playstation was easy to hack and brought about something no one had ever really had access to, cheap games so it soold loads. Whereas nintendo 64 was not worthwhile to copy games because of the cost and effort, it didnt have the same mass piracy appeal so lost alot ground to playstation.

Microsoft survives due to businesses needing licenses for Windows otherwise they get sued and through OEM deals with Dell/HP/etc. They like people pirating their OS because otherwise people would be using something not Microsoft, they need people to be familiar with their OS and not learning a new one.

 

[raankh]

Microsoft survives due to businesses needing licenses for Windows otherwise they get sued and through OEM deals with Dell/HP/etc. They like people pirating their OS because otherwise people would be using something not Microsoft, they need people to be familiar with their OS and not learning a new one.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Their lost revenue in the private consumer market is almost insignificant in the context of their corporate sales,

I think many statements, often contradictory ("Vista's slow sales are because of Piracy!", "Piracy on Vista is half that of XP") issued by Microsoft reflect their indecision and double standards on the subject.

A commercial gaming platform compatible with GNU-based systems (ie ironically most Unixes, Linux, MacOSX/Darwin, BSD etc) would be a nightmare for Microsoft. I think it wouldn't take long before they released free binary releases for home use, in fact. Probably a paired down "Freedom" edition or something.

That's speculation of course, but Microsoft employs some of the brightest minds in the biz, and I'm sure they are thinking very carefully about how not to alienate private consumers. Working copy-protection schemes would probably dissuade many in an important section of pirates; namely hackers, gamers and hardware enthusiasts.

If they switch platform, Microsoft is in trouble down the road, because many young people in these categories become important developers, consultants and end-users.

Windows piracy among home users is pretty common. Honestly, just think about how many of your friends running XP Pro or Vista Ultimate are doing so legally. Not many, I would guess. Probably the ones that do run on legal copies are using XP Home or Vista for Whimps that they got as part of an OEM deal.

Home users are, in the long run, a very, very important customer base; especially children.

 

[DaxStrife]

On the topic of Operating Systems, I came across this article on the BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7126902.stm] a few days ago. In short, Microsoft had to reveal they installed a "kill switch" into Vista to destroy the OS if it was discovered to be a pirated copy, but legitimate copies of the program were getting kill-switched too.

In said article, they boast their kill switch system because they've had fewer copies of Vista pirated. False logic, I say: fewer people pirate Vista because fewer people actually want it.

 

[MrKeroChan]

I don't understand why person A would ask another person B to buy something from A if B could get it for free. If person A loses control of their product, that's their problem; and A shouldn't cry like a little b!@#$ because they weren't/aren't cleaver enough to circumvent the issue.
There is always an ingenus someone that can/will out think you or any BS law that may be out there.

 

[niko86]

Microsoft survives due to businesses needing licenses for Windows otherwise they get sued and through OEM deals with Dell/HP/etc. They like people pirating their OS because otherwise people would be using something not Microsoft, they need people to be familiar with their OS and not learning a new one.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Their lost revenue in the private consumer market is almost insignificant in the context of their corporate sales,

Yes i understand what you are saying on this. Like i said a minority pirate in the grand scale of things. Piracy hurts no one except consumers. Yet if it gets excessive, like small scale theft of stationary in a company for example, the whole business would go bust.

Look at the xbox 360, piracy isnt as mainstream with it as say the playstation 1. But its the easiest system afaik to hack, and its market leader. Ease of piracy affects a large propotion of consumers to choose their console. Once you have a big base of users yeah you may lose alot of software sales to piracy but on the whole people do still buy proper copies.

 

[raankh]

As a tangent to that:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7130637.stm

Windows on XO (One Laptop Per Child thingy)

Yup, they're keen on more users alright.

 

[Chilango2]

Well, its pretty clear that Microsoft (rightly) sees Monopoly power as a benefit to their software. Even if they gave away the OS for free, the bundles software that comes with it makes them money, and the lack of effective competition that an effective monopoly would give them would be another benefit. It's been acknowledged and well known in the past that Microsoft didn't mind limited piracy of their OS platform for this reason, but its pretty clear this strategy has been shifted out with the arrival of Vista, partly because Microsoft isn't completely in control anymore, alot of the features built into Vista were done to placate outside content distributors who are integral to Microsoft's monopolistic strategy OS.

I should note I don't think this is some sort of nefarious plot my MS, but a natural corporate tendency, compeition is expensive, corporations don't want competition, they want easy guaranteed money. Captilism tends towards aggregation and merging, and I am of the belief that the OS environment is one that trends towards naturally monopolistic tendencies due to the nature of computers and the difficulty of resolving compatibility issues.

 

[Altorin]

pirates dont pay for operating systems, therefore, microsoft gains nothing by promoting piracy

 

[Low Key]

necrobump |:v

You didn't even add anything to the discussion. Bad etiquette.

 

[slatts]

Piracy is bad, as a general rule of thumb. Stealing is wrong, obviously. Will telling them it's wrong stop them? Nope. Most of the effort spent on stopping piracy ends up alienating legitimate users as well. It's not like Microsoft is going bankrupt, so it seems their best choice is to call it an acceptable loss and move on.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

As for linux users pirating less is imo because theres no games worth stealing on linux lol

I'm pretty sure Windows can be emulated in most scenarios.

pirates dont pay for operating systems, therefore, microsoft gains nothing by promoting piracy

There you go. Not to mention downloading certified MSoft files requires a mandatory check of the OS.

 

[feather240]

Makes sense. If individuals get the OS for free they prefer it and want to use it. Than corporations get it, but they are on to large of a scale to pirate it without getting sued.

 

[guardian001]

they would lose a very important group of customers.

You consider people who do not pay money to or interact with a corporation customers of that corporation? Would you consider a shoplifter to be a customer of WalMart? If people steal, the company loses. They don't say, "Hey, we're bankrupt and need to fire all of our employees, but at least lots of people liked our product," they say "Shit, everyone stole our product and now we can't afford food."

Also, if all that mattered was being available free, Linux would be the primary operation system on computer systems, since it is available freely and legally to everyone.

 

[Spider Expert]

necrobump |:v

You didn't even add anything to the discussion. Bad etiquette.

ANGRY BUMP >:0

 

[raankh]

Would you consider a shoplifter to be a customer of WalMart? If people steal, the company loses.

And that is relevant in what fashion? We aren't talking theft here. Theft implies that there is a transfer of exclusive resources without the consent of the original party, as in a shoplifter removing a product that would otherwise be sold. That's not at all what is happening relevant to this issue, since the original is preserved intact and unchanged and can be sold in any quantity notwithstanding a third party illegally acquiring it. It's plagiarizing, not theft in the material sense. The company hasn't lost a thing, it's failed to make a sale. No material resource has exchanged hands. It's copied. A very different prospect.

This inane comparison to material theft is a result of ideological rhetoric. Relevant parties that I have encountered during my professional career as a software developer tells me that those same parties are well aware of that. I have never met a developer or market analyst who took that comparison seriously, rather they ascribe it to political correctness and moral sobriety from third parties.

Have you really thought your statements through? Or are you just regurgitating whatever the Box is telling you?

 

[guardian001]

Would you consider a shoplifter to be a customer of WalMart? If people steal, the company loses.

And that is relevant in what fashion? We aren't talking theft here. Theft implies that there is a transfer of exclusive resources without the consent of the original party, as in a shoplifter removing a product that would otherwise be sold. That's not at all what is happening relevant to this issue, since the original is preserved intact and unchanged and can be sold in any quantity notwithstanding a third party illegally acquiring it. It's plagiarizing, not theft in the material sense. The company hasn't lost a thing, it's failed to make a sale. No material resource has exchanged hands. It's copied. A very different prospect.

This inane comparison to material theft is a result of ideological rhetoric. Relevant parties that I have encountered during my professional career as a software developer tells me that those same parties are well aware of that. I have never met a developer or market analyst who took that comparison seriously, rather they ascribe it to political correctness and moral sobriety from third parties.

Have you really thought your statements through? Or are you just regurgitating whatever the Box is telling you?

Yes, I did think it through. And it is relevant because the OP believes that pirates are customers. They are not. If you have a product you did not pay for, whether it be physically stolen or digitally pirated, you are not a customer. I was not arguing theft vs piracy (which you would have noted had you paid attention while reading), simply stating that calling somebody who didn't pay for something a customer is a flawed concept.