1) Not only is that not what I said, that's not what I meant. Also, people *do* pirate bad games all the time. Not intentionally, but all games are pirated nowadays, it's kind of like a form of consumer protection where there is a lack of a demo. They don't pirate games *because* they are bad; they pirate games to find out *if* they are bad. I wouldn't pirate a good game to make up for buying a bad one; I simply won't purchase *anything* now until I am *guaranteed* to enjoy it (at least enough to make purchasing it worthwhile). And whose fault is that? The industry, for churning out so much crap and breaking so many promises.
2) Be careful about assuming things; not every download was a guaranteed sale. And some things that get downloaded actually *do* sell well. Besides, what critics say and what consumers feel are two different things. Just because a game got good reviews doesn't mean people would want to buy it. And even a "good" game, that is made well, doesn't always equate to a purchase. We consumers are not wallets full of cash that will purchase anything based on a set of benchmarks the industry provides for us. We purchase things because we both are able to and want to. I thought Crisis was boring so I didn't buy (or pirate) it. And some people think Final Fantasy is boring so they don't buy it. Both games were made well and reviewed well, but not everyone wanted to buy them solely because of it. The industry makes up imaginary sales in this way all the time to make themselves seem like they are losing serious amounts of money. They may have the actual number of downloads, but they can't prove each one is a guaranteed sale in the absence of downloading. So to me, their downloading "losses" are imaginary.
3) Two problems with this: there isn't always information on a particular game (especially true of older or niche titles), and you can't believe everything you read. Which means I have to rely on information provided by other players, which is an equally mixed bag. The game journalism industry is a joke; reviews are either bought and paid for, or do not provide adequate enough detail to get a true sense of what the game is like and how it plays. One member of the game industry even went so far as to try and persuade us that buying reviews is fair because it helps developers get rewarded adequately for their time and effort. Well, I'm sorry, but if the industry has to *trick* us into buying a game, it's not worth it. If the devs do a bad job or the pubs rush them and won't *let* them do a good job, why should I have to take the hit? The point of this whole section is that there is no better way to determine a game's purchaseworthiness other than to experience it yourself by playing it. And if the barrier to entry (price) is too high, more often than not, I'm simply going to walk away without considering the game at all.
4) It's your choice to view it that way, but I disagree. It's not my job to support the industry by buying subpar entertainment products; it's their job to earn my purchase through providing superior entertainment products. If they can't do that, they should lose out. If I didn't do my job well, my boss wouldn't keep me on just to support me; he'd fire me. The entertainment industry should work the same way.
