Poll: Piracy Drive, the new Boycott?

[t3h br0th3r]

I'm basing this off the Jimquistion Boycott episode discussing boycotts.

Nobel as they are intended, boycotts tend not to work among gamers. No mater how asinine the affront, it seems like boycotts never get enough people behind them and even those that do join in tend to buy the game anyway. But what if you could play and still make your stance.

What if instead of telling everyone to not play the game,would be boycotters encouraged people to take the jolly roger approach instead? This idea has been swirling around my head for a while now, and I'm wondering what the Escapist thinks.

 

[lacktheknack]

"I protest your game by downloading and playing it anyways."

The whole point of a boycott is to GIVE UP something to screw over its makers. All you've communicated with this method is A. "I'm an entitled twat who deserves no respect", B. "I love your game anyways, as I insist on playing it", and C. that an unbreakable (read: ludicrous) DRM needs to be found as soon as possible.

Go ahead, screw yourselves over. I don't play many AAA games anyways.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I'm basing this off the Jimquistion Boycott episode discussing boycotts.

Nobel as they are intended, boycotts tend not to work among gamers. No mater how asinine the affront, it seems like boycotts never get enough people behind them and even those that do join in tend to buy the game anyway. But what if you could play and still make your stance.

What if instead of telling everyone to not play the game,would be boycotters encouraged people to take the jolly roger approach instead? This idea has been swirling around my head for a while now, and I'm wondering what the Escapist thinks.

I would never condone anything so blatantly illegal and immoral.

[sub][sub][sub]Careful they are listening!!![/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[mornal]

"I protest your game by downloading and playing it anyways."

The whole point of a boycott is to GIVE UP something to screw over its makers. All you've communicated with this method is A. "I'm an entitled twat who deserves no respect", B. "I love your game anyways, as I insist on playing it", and C. that an unbreakable (read: ludicrous) DRM needs to be found as soon as possible.

Go ahead, screw yourselves over. I don't play many AAA games anyways.

This.

Also, you don't exactly convince people to be on your side when you pirate. Regular boycotting puts the developers/publishers in an unfavourable light. Whereas pirating overshadows the dick moves on the developers sides by the consumers illegal actions.

 

[Phlakes]

Pirating is wrong no matter what, especially if there's an easy alternative.

Anyway, if you want the game but you don't want to boycott, just fucking buy it. The entire reason behind boycotting is to make a point, but when you're playing the game anyway, that's instantly lost and you just look like a whiny douche.

"You" in the universal sense, not directed at OP.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I'm basing this off the Jimquistion Boycott episode discussing boycotts.

Nobel as they are intended, boycotts tend not to work among gamers. No mater how asinine the affront, it seems like boycotts never get enough people behind them and even those that do join in tend to buy the game anyway. But what if you could play and still make your stance.

What if instead of telling everyone to not play the game,would be boycotters encouraged people to take the jolly roger approach instead? This idea has been swirling around my head for a while now, and I'm wondering what the Escapist thinks.

So, your suggesting the Spore route?

For anyone who doesn't know what that means, read up on this. It's pretty interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_%282008_video_game%29#Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM#Spore

 

[Zhukov]

How about making a point of buying it used?

Same effect without the moral element.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No, and it'll just add fuel to the anti-piracy brigade. The idea of a boycott is to refuse to buy the product in any way shape or form in order to send the message to the manufacturers that you're dissatisfied. Stealing their product just tells them that they need to protect themselves from theft and thus we'll get more DRM crap.

 

[lacktheknack]

How about making a point of buying it used?

Same effect without the moral element.

This here is a better idea, unless you hate game retailer policies.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I was actually wondering the same thing about renting.
Sometimes I'm curious about a game but if the company has a practice I find distasteful, I'm not going to put down $60 for one of their games.

 

[julesville]

I tend to agree that Gamer boycotts are kinda pointless. We're not the most consistent of people, nor have we ever really cared about the behind-the-scenes crap if the screen shots looked sweet. And besides, let's face it, the "informed" gamer crowd is a small minority with little power other than our computer savvy. Every member of this site could boycott Halo 4 and it would still sell a billion copies.

The piracy idea is an interesting one. Personally, I fucking hate theives. Their scummy assholes leeching off decent folk cause their too lazy get a real job. However, I find it really really difficult to look at software piracy as equal to thievery.

Honestly, look at the situations. I'm not taking someone's hard earned property, no one is really losing anything, I'm just taking a copy of some digital information, shit that doesn't even physically exist (or does it, ah whatever). I can download a billion albums, video games, and movies and I have not taken one solid piece of anything. At most, I've fucked up some mega-company's bottom line, and that, I do not give a tiny rat's ass about. I would gladly walk into Newscorp or Time-Warner and steal the fillings out of their teeth, but I don't cause I'd get thrown in jail and raped. Piracy seems the best way to both shove my cock up "The Man's" ass and have a fun time doing it.

 

[Signa]

I really wish it would work. It gets around that whole issue of the gamer who is boycotting is also the person who wants to play it the most. But as others have said, it's immoral, and the wrong message is sent.

It doesn't help much either when you consider that if the right message was sent by pirating, each tracked downloaded copy isn't like a signature in a petition saying "I would have bought this if..." Those stats are going to be skewed by people who just didn't want to pay, and those who are so angry could have downloaded it multiple times just to scream louder at how mad they are. Bottom line, there are just too many things wrong with it. It would be easier and more effective to convince a ton of people to just not cave in and truly promise to never buy.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'm not condoning what the OP is talking about, but I think that's basically what happens. Piracy is, in large part, a response to the price of games being artificially high. Unfortunately, since piracy is illegal, publishers look at it as theft, instead of what it is: being outdone by the competition. Also, contrary to popular belief, you can compete with free -- you just have to put out a superior product at a fair price. The current problem the industry has is that the paid product often winds up being inferior to the free one, thanks to intrusive DRM and the lack of things like LAN support and dedicated servers. The industry just seems to enjoy punishing itself and then blaming the people that buy the games.

 

[DustyDrB]

What you're describing is what we call a "dick move". Not only because you're copyright infringing (I will use that term for it from now on, because ye are no true pirate), but because you'll be encouraging companies to implement and support more DRM and policies that screw over the honest consumer.

 

[burningdragoon]

You base your idea off of Jimquisition even though he gave the answer in the same episode: stop being entitled brats, show some willpower, and follow through with it. That is the only solution.

Piracy: I want to play your game, I just don't want to pay for it for

Buying used: I want to play your game, but I don't want to pay full price. (note: not bad, just doesn't send the right message)

Actual boycott: I don't want to play your game, or I want to play you game, but I won't, for

There is a key distinction between boycotting and the other two, and that is the game is not being played in any way. That says something is wrong. Now, that something likely won't be understood, but at least it shows something is wrong.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I Think the idea of civil disobedience is to peacefully protest a law by staging demonstrations and intentional breaking the law you see as unjust. Unless you are protesting the bans on pirating, that's a stupid idea because your breaking an unrelated law to protest something else entirely. That's a mixed message and lacks punch. Also, pirating is whole nothing can of worms and conflating the two issues is like the perfect mix of a category 5 hurricane and a 9.5 earthquake.

 

[DustyDrB]

What you're describing is what we call a "dick move". Not only because you're copyright infringing (I will use that term for it from now on, because ye are no true pirate), but because you'll be encouraging companies to implement and support more DRM and policies that screw over the honest consumer.

That seems like a dick move on the publishers part. They share just as much, if not more blame in that case.

-"Hey, these guys just cracked and pirated our game again because we loaded it with shit
DRM, what should we do?"
-"Load it with shitty DRM again, that'll learn em."

Yeah, but players who boycott due to DRM and pirate the game anyway know the publishers' response is going to be more DRM. I'm not excusing the publishers, but gamers who protest by pirating are taking the easy way out and making things worse for the rest of us. Sit out the game.