Poll: Microtransactions and Piracy

[laggyteabag]

So, let me preface this by saying that I do not condone piracy in any way, and this thread is not an attempt to promote it. Now that I have that out of the way...

So microtransactions are here to stay - at least for the forseeable future. That is the unfortunate truth that should be obvious to just about anybody has has played any major AAA game that has been released within the last couple of years - particularly if it has a multiplayer suite.

With the upcoming release of Shadow of War on Tuesday, I remember a particularly interesting question that someone on this forum presented a few weeks ago:

If a game features singleplayer microtransactions, and through means of cheating/modding/exploits, you subvert them by giving yourself whatever they offer, but for free - is it considered piracy?

ie - A game uses gold as its standard currency, and is easily obtainable by just playing the game. In the game's store, there is a offer that gives your character 10,000 gold, but it costs $10. There is also a mod that allows you to edit your save, to also give you 10,000 gold, but is free. Would this be piracy?

It is an interesting grey area, and I would really like to hear your thoughts on it.

Personally, I am struggling to come up with a solid answer to my own question, but I will be sure to update with my own feelings, when I can figure out a stance for myself.

 

[Satinavian]

I would not consider it piracy if the alternative can be found ingame/it is simply some powerup. It will probably be against the licence agreement but those are usually not enforcable in any way.

Also, in contrast to real piracy this might be completely legal depending on your jurisdiction. Laws about what you can do with software you legally own can vary quite a bit (which also makes the relevant segments of the licence agreement void)

 

[tippy2k2]

I would agree that it is a weird grey line and basically, just about any "line" that we draw is going to be somewhat arbitrary.

I'm pretty well on record that I think piracy period is quite naughty outside of a very slim set of circumstances (you literally can't get the game through legit channels, the game is so old that you can't find it, and...that's about it). When it comes to Microtransactions, where I draw the line and it becomes piracy is if you use outside means to get into the game.

So let's take your gold example; if I need a Mod that adjusts the games files to "hack" (for lack of a better word) the game into giving me 10,000 gold, that's piracy. If there is an exploit where I talk to the gold lady, crouch up and down 100 times, and then talk to her again and the game gives me 10,000 gold because of a glitch, that is not piracy.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I think this is one of those weird things where there's no legal precedent and there likely never will be one. There's just too many things on the line, chief among them being the 'Games As A Service' idea that most of the industry stands on at the moment.

Personally, I don't think it's piracy. I think that, if push came to shove, and a lawsuit did go through on this matter, the courts would agree, but I doubt that will ever happen, and I'm not versed in law enough to make that a definitive statement.

 

[Saelune]

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

In a single player gamer no effin way, if the game was made grindier because of this "fake wall" then I am quite displease. Back then game were made more "difficult" to prevent finishing them in 2 hours. Please designer, dont put fake wall in your game put CONTENT! I am willing to pay a game higher price if its as content not to skip those ridiculous wall, but almost none of the AAA have really show it

 

[Tanis]

Did you BUY the game? Yes?

Then it's not 'piracy', it's a 'hack'.

One, not paying at all for the game, is wrong.
One, using code to not have to pay for optional extras, isn't.

Unless you're talking about expansion packs, then...I'm not sure.

 

[laggyteabag]

I'm gonna say no

piracy - the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work

Unauthorized use - If one legally bought the product they are authorized to use it

Reproduction - You could replicate the 10k gold benefit through other means but it wouldn't be piracy
Unless its an exact reproduction of the method they are selling it isn't piracy

 

[American Tanker]

FUCK micro-CANCER anyway. Anything that bypasses that shit's a good thing.

 

[Veldel]

You mean using trainers in PC games to bypass microtransaction bullshit? I see it as accaptiabler as you paid for and own the game and thus its okay to do with your game as you see fit.


Just dont cheat on online thats being a dick.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

OK so we need to tackle the root of microtransaction justification here in Shadow of War. The root of it is in thinking of games as a service, as we all know, instead of games as a product. So service, in the context of games, can be defined as a system or way of doing things supplying a certain constant need or needs. So hosting a company's website on your servers can be perfectly justified as a service because it requires constant upkeep and bills to maintain the product sold.

Now we apply this to games. Shadow of War (single-player) does not require constant labor or bills to keep the single-player game going. The user buys the game as a single-player experience, giving the $60.00 to the supplier not only for a permanent copy of the intellectual property, but of course a license to own a permanent copy of the intellectual property to interact with and enjoy. Once the game is developed and is given to the customer, that is (pretty much) the end of the company's obligation to the customer. Unlike, say, an MMO, there is no "service" involved. There is a one-time singular product that is sold to a singular customer and that is the end of the trade.

Shadow of War (single-player) falls very neatly into this "games as a product" category as defined above. Therefore, it is not, in reality, a service. Therefore, microtransactions are not justified in any way to maintain any part of the single-player experience which the customer has already paid for. Therefore, morally speaking, they are perfectly justified in bypassing microtransactions (which are not justified at all) to see some of or the rest of the product that they already paid to see and experience.

 

[Marik2]

Weren't people doing this with Skyrim or something?

 

[Zhukov]

Editing the code of a game you legally purchased is not piracy.

Mods are not piracy.

If I install a mod for my RPG that boosts my character to level 9999 then I haven't pirated anything.

If I do that in a game where the developer has included the option for me to pay $1.99 to gain ten levels then I still haven't pirated anything.

If I install a mod that lets me teleport to any point on the map I have not pirated anything.

If I do that in a game where a portion of the map is behind a paywall then I still haven't pirated anything.

A developer charging you money to change the code of your game does not make it illegal or immoral for you to change it yourself.

For example, say I have a car that has broken down and needs some parts replaced. I have the spare parts. I could pay a mechanic to install them. However, if I chose to install them myself then I haven't cheated the mechanic out of money.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Weren't people doing this with Skyrim or something?

They modded the microtransactions out of Bethesda games (As in removing the banners and menus for it) if that's what you mean. I think modding in micro-DLC that must be bought to be experienced is piracy.

Not that everything Bethesda is currently selling wasn't released on their games years ago for free already...

 

[McElroy]

If you don't have to crack any copy-protection, it's fine.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

There was a thread about this the other week if I remember...

Technically yes, but I'd love to see a dev actually try and make such a claim stick as their justification for micro-transactions every *fucking* time is "Oh, well all of the content can be unlocked via gameplay, we're just offering our fans the opportunity to short-cut this process!" or similar. So, if you are using a hack to give yourself in-game currency then you could argue that all you're doing is bypassing in-game grind for items that are freely available through gameplay, and any dev arguing that you're stealing from them is basically admitting that currency packs are there for the sole purpose of earning them post-sale cash rather than "enhancing the experience for our loyal player-base".

I stand by my previous statement.

 

[CritialGaming]

To answer the question simply, yes it is piracy. By taking any digital content that you would have to pay for and getting it for free is piracy plain and simple.

I know we are all pretty much universally against microtransactions in 90% of all forms. I think cosmetic content in free-to-play games if perfectly fine to charge for.

Here is the thing though. People really really need to vote with their wallets on shit like this. If you buy Shadow of War and then just pirate the lootboxes, WB isn't going to learn any lesson in that at least not really because you bought the game. They got that 60 bucks out of you and that's sending a message that the lootbox thing didn't matter to you, regardless of whether or not you buy any extra lootboxes.

The problem is that with IP like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are going to sell. The problem is the huge majority of any games player base is not up to speed with the goings on of the game industry the way us forum lurkers are. They don't see the plague of lootboxes as a plague, they just see it as a thing games are doing now. They may buy into the boxes and MT's (actually we know they do because these things are becoming more and more prevalent in gaming, so you know the business model is working), but they don't actually notice the huge downward shift the industry takes because of them. Hell if I remember correctly I think the average gaming console owner only buys a 3 new games a year.

It's this ignorance of the general public that ultimately hurt gaming as a whole. Although I do feel like we are nearing a point in which even Joe Blow will notice that MT's and lootboxes are bullshit. Shadow of War for example is rumored to require lootboxes, or a shit grind in order to reach the final ending. When it publishers start to go overboard like that and shove their shit into everyone's face, locking content behind extra monetary payments, then it'll start to be noticed by even those with their ears far from the pulse of the industry.

It'll only be when Joe Blow starts to ***** about it, that the industry will have to pull back.

In the meantime, DO NOT BUY Star Wars Battlefront 2, or Shadow of War. I know you guys are probably really excited for it, but if you want to make a stand and put your foot down that these MT's are not right, you have to show control and not put your money into that shit. Even just buying the core game and never touching the lootboxes, still supports this practice. DO NOT DO IT.

Or buy it and give Lootboxes and Mt's your stamp of approval. That's fine, but if you ***** about MT's and then buy the games that have them anyway, you are just being a hypocrite and your protests against MT's is invalidated.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Stuff like Lootboxes in fee2pay or pay2earn titles that are gating in-game content while trying to encourage a gambling state of mind, I absolutely consider it not to be piracy for anybody to find options circumventing such despicable practices. I'd stretch it to day-one DLC also, but after that, things get a bit harder to pin down as intentionally anti-consumer.

Not particularly bothered about piracy towards bigger publishers, they can more than effortlessly shoulder the costs and a tax haven or two surely helps, unlike a lot of independent developers on tight budgets. On an unbalanced playing field in an unbalanced world, you have to work with you're own ethics, not those placed upon you by the privileged in society.