Poll: What's wrong with piracy

[Random Name 4]

Let me start off by saying that in all my life I have torrented 1 game, Doom 1. I have also been given a pirated version of Age of Empires 2 (a game I already owned but needed to run off a memory stick). Thats it, and both of those files are long gone.

None of this however is a moral objection to piracy, I have no objections to people that do it, I mainly don't pirate due to my desire to have a large physical collection of games, and the fact that old games are easier to find through legitimate means which usually work better. But when I see people complain about piracy I often wonder, why are you against it? I understand that there are some situations where piracy is harmful, like if a game sells poorly or if it is in support of a charity, but who gives a shit if a game like Modern Warfare 3 or Skyrim is pirated.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Because Piracy has the capacity to Kill the Video Game Entertainment Industry.

When it comes down to it, the investors in the companies hold the purse strings. If they can't see a viable profit to be made in the venture of 'make video games' simply because a huge chunk of the profit is lost to Theft... then they will just take their large bags of money and go else where. Invest in something that has safer or more reliable returns.

No more money = You won't see games like Modern Warfare 3 or Skyrim.

Although it is very 'gloom and doom'-y.
But it is something that is entirely capable.

it is undoubtable that many major investors have stopped putting money into Design studios and publishing companies simply because they did not feel that a +30-40% loss of profit due to Theft was acceptable.

 

[Radeonx]

I pretty much agree with you.
I mean, piracy is the lost of a potential sale, but all of the top pirated games are still selling massively well and are still making a fuckload of money for the creators of the game.
It isn't good, but I don't think it is as bad as a lot of people here make it out to be.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I pretty much agree with you.
I mean, piracy is the lost of a potential sale, but all of the top pirated games are still selling massively well and are still making a fuckload of money for the creators of the game.
It isn't good, but I don't think it is as bad as a lot of people here make it out to be.

not acctually all that true.

many of the creators of these studios don't acctually pocket that money you see as 'profit'
on some news paper or wallstreet report. A great majority of that money is used to pay off debts inccured through production, repay the investors for the risk they took in funding the production of that game, and to invest in a future for the company as a whole.

it is entirely not unheard of for creators coming out of a production cycle with an acctual loss even though the game is largely successful.

 

[Random Name 4]

Because Piracy has the capacity to Kill the Video Game Entertainment Industry.

When it comes down to it, the investors in the companies hold the purse strings. If they can't see a viable profit to be made in the venture of 'make video games' simply because a huge chunk of the profit is lost to Theft... then they will just take their large bags of money and go else where. Invest in something that has safer or more reliable returns.

No more money = You won't see games like Modern Warfare 3 or Skyrim.

Although it is very 'gloom and doom'-y.
But it is something that is entirely capable.

it is undoubtable that many major investors have stopped putting money into Design studios and publishing companies simply because they did not feel that a +30-40% loss of profit due to Theft was acceptable.

But Skyrim and Modern Warfare 3 have just sold millions of copies. I remain unconvinced that piracy has the capacity to destroy the industry, poor sales are what could kill the industry, and although sometimes piracy may contribute to that it is silly to say that piracy is the only reason. Personally I wish that publishers would be more honest and say "please don't pirate our games because we want more money" not the current rhetoric they spew that all game sales go into some mythic "new game fund" and that by buying games you are directly contributing to the next game.

 

[haruvister]

Not a gaming example, but a friend of mine recently produced his first indie feature film. He wrote the script, oversaw much of the editing, and blagged his way to Cannes - basically he was there from beginning to end.

To finance the film he had to present it as a reasonable investment opportunity to various independently wealthy people (hence the "indie" element). Two years later the film has enjoyed a brief festival and art cinema release, decent reviews, and is now on BR/DVD.

Sadly, it's also all over every torrent site known to man.

Some say that this wholesale breach of copyright "helps" independent film-makers, as it provides publicity. But this hopelessly optimistic logic is of no consolation to my friend. The naked fact is this: if people don't buy the movie, he can't pay back his financiers, and then he's out of a job.

My point is that piracy doesn't simply affect faceless executives presiding over callous corporations, but real, creative people, like us, who can't afford to give away the objects of their toil.

OT, I'm sure that if MW3 and Skyrim only achieved a million sales each, and the rest were pirated, then the developers would break even. But who makes the decision as to which million pay for the product? Everyone in Western Europe whose surname starts with J? No. Each of us must take personal moral responsibility for our actions. I pay for the artform I love because I wish for it to continue.

(EDIT: One vital missing word!)

 

[the spud]

...Because it takes away potential money for the developers? I thought that was kind of obvious.

And absolutely nobody should pirate Skyrim, nobody. It is a sign telling developers that multiplayer, online passes, and on disc DLC are not necessary to creating a commercial hit. Did You know that The Witcher 2 was pirated nearly 4.5 million times? Those kind of losses make developers a whole lot less likely to take risks and encourages just "playing it safe" with new FPS's every year.

 

[Random Name 4]

Not a gaming example, but a friend of mine recently produced his first indie feature film. He wrote the script, oversaw much of the editing, and blagged his way to Cannes - basically he was there from beginning to end.

To finance the film he had to present it as a reasonable investment opportunity to various independently wealthy people (hence the "indie" element). Two years later the film has enjoyed a brief festival and art cinema release, decent reviews, and is now on BR/DVD.

Sadly, it's also all over every torrent site known to man.

Some say that this wholesale breach of copyright "helps" independent film-makers, as it provides publicity. But this hopelessly optimistic logic is of no consolation to my friend. The naked fact is this: if people don't buy the movie, he can't pay back his financiers, and then he's out of a job.

My point is that piracy doesn't simply affect faceless executives presiding over callous corporations, but real, creative people, like us, who can't afford to give away the objects of their toil.

OT, I'm sure that MW3 and Skyrim only achieved a million sales each, and the rest were pirated, then the developers would break even. But who makes the decision as to which million pay for the product? Everyone in Western Europe whose surname starts with J? No. Each of us must take personal moral responsibility for our actions. I pay for the artform I love because I wish for it to continue.

You're talking about indepenedant films, while I'm mainly talking about AAA video games. Did the film lose money? Was it torrented a significant number of times?

I understand how this might not apply, but a film that gains exposure a lot of exposure via torrent, is more likely to make money than a film that that is so unknown no one even wants to torrent it

 

[Rhatar Khurin]

The poll is biased in it's phrasing i think

 

[Random Name 4]

...Because it takes away potential money for the developers? I thought that was kind of obvious.

And absolutely nobody should pirate Skyrim, nobody. It is a sign telling developers that multiplayer, online passes, and on disc DLC are not necessary to creating a commercial hit. Did You know that The Witcher 2 was pirated nearly 4.5 million times? Those kind of losses make developers a whole lot less likely to take risks and encourages just "playing it safe" with new FPS's every year.

1. Jim Sterling?

2. The devs of Witcher 2 didn't mind that, because the game still sold well. It doesn't matter how much something is pirated as long as it makes enough money to keep the developer making games. A game that sells 3 million copies and is pirated 6 million times has still sold 3 million copies, and some of those pirates might buy it next time.

 

[Bobbity]

Basically, because I pay for the game, and they don't. We can't all pirate our games, or the industry dies, and fuck the people who get free games while we pay.

It's easy to do, and (most of the time) there are no consequences, so it's really up to you to make that call. You might not be hurting the developers, and you might not even have bought the game in the first place, but, in the end, you're still enjoying something that people have gone to a lot of effort to make, and giving them nothing in return. Besides, you're making me grumpy.

 

[Phlakes]

Games are a luxury. Owning a game is a privilege that should be paid for. That's how economies work. Sure, games usually still sell well, but pirates are selfish dicks and there's no getting around it.

 

[Woodsey]

If everyone pirated, we wouldn't get games (nothing from a studio with a budget of more than a bowl of cornflakes and some lube, at any rate). If someone makes an entertainment product in order to make a living, you pay for it, or you don't get it. And the whole "well I wasn't going to buy it anyway" excuse is irrelevant; you pirate it, you assign a value to it. Don't want to pay full price? Wait for the price to drop.

I'm not quite sure what it is about pirates that requires we go through this infantile level of discussion with them, but it'd make things a lot easier if they paid attention. At least have the nuts to say you want something for nothing.

Wrong in a moral sense? Its theft (yes, go nuts with your technicalities all you want, it is still theft, only in the most contemporary sense of the word), so that's not what I'd exactly label as 'doing the right thing'.

 

[Ickorus]

Doesn't matter if it's a multimillion dollar publisher or a humble indie developer, stealing is stealing.

 

[plugav]

Is it wrong in a moral sense? Yes. Even if you're given a game for free, someone has paid for it. A pirated copy is a copy that no-one has paid for, which makes piracy akin to (but not the same as) stealing.

Is it as bad as the game industry says it is? I'm not convinced. Films and music get pirated a lot more than games, and yet these industries somehow manage to go on without the constant whining and trying to bypass basic consumer rights. They're different, I know, but maybe there's something to be learnt here? Because pirates aren't just going to stop at some point - it's the industry that needs to adapt.

 

[babinro]

I dislike it because I consider it a form of theft. Even though people are stealing from faceless corporations it makes it no better than steal from friend or loved one.

Keep in mind my the above statement is what I personally believe. You can tell me that piracy is not theft because it's not actually reducing the unit of a product and that said item is still available in store etc...but the fact is some company should have profited. Whether it's the developer from a new sale, EB Games from a used sale, or the game rental company.

 

[Chewster]

I don't want to get involved since I dislike discussions like this and where they go and how people generally act, but anyone who says piracy is equal to stealing, like stealing, very similar to stealing or equatable to stealing, well, you need to read up on the subject a bit more because you are wrong.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when people do that. Piracy =/= stealing. This is why piracy isn't called theft.

 

[Something Amyss]

Personally I wish that publishers would be more honest and say "please don't pirate our games because we want more money" not the current rhetoric they spew that all game sales go into some mythic "new game fund" and that by buying games you are directly contributing to the next game.

Indeed. I believe that people deserve to be compensated for enjoyment of their product, but this whole "Piracy will kill the games you love!" Shtick is utter crap.

I honestly don't think piracy is a very big threat. It doesn't mean I support it, I just think the arguments of its danger are grossly exaggerated. With many things, I think a more frank discussion would probably be very beneficial. This is one of them.

Though it's hard to shake the "greedy corporation" image, when one considers the way they squeeze the devs to make more money for themselves.

 

[Fishyash]

There's only one instance where piracy is ever exceptable, and that is if there is no convenient way of playing it (say, you can only get rare 2nd hand copies that cost over £100, or you have to move country).

Every other form of piracy is unacceptable. Piracy is a bad thing, which mainly effects the industry in a negative way.

However starting a war with the pirates/crackers is IMO the worst reaction the gaming industry made to it, and all it has been hurting is the consumers who are actually PAYING for the game (talk about incentive huh?). You don't see people being inconvenienced with accessing their music just because record labels wanted to crack down in piracy... Why does it happen to games? This has got to stop, piracy isn't an industry killing virus of doom.