Poll: Would the defeat of Piracy cause you to start purchasing games?

[SulfuricDonut]

No, I don't pirate games anyway, because if it is a game I really like and I want to play, I will buy it anyway.

 

[Ganthrinor]

Would the defeat of Piracy cause you to buy games you wouldn't have otherwise?

Piracy, like thievery, will always be around. There is no way to stop it barring some sort of wierd communism effort that gives everybody everything always. For Free. Then there would just the people that wanted two stealing form people that didn't give a damn.

If, by the graces of whichever imaginary diety you worship, Piracy somehow stopped tomorrow, my game collection would still be fairly small and game developers better damn well return to the glory days of Demo Discs or Downloads (remember those? not many publishers do this anymore. Why?). A bad demo is only a few hours, a bad game is forever. Until you can hit the local pawn shop or Gamestop.

 

[Deleted]

I only pirate software I'd otherwise never afford so if piracy stopped my quality of life would decrease.

 

[Jedoro]

I don't pirate, I read reviews from sources that I trust.

 

[Mercsenary]

When piracy is defeated, humanity is dead.

 

[oppp7]

I don't pirate games because I don't hate the industry.

 

[Lazzi]

I buy my games or steal them from people I know. Besides purchasing a bad game its part of the experince of being an early addopter. If you really want to avoide bad games then jsut wait awhile and see what people say about.

 

[Pilot Bush]

FUCK NO!

 

[Pimppeter2]

No, but it would make me have to take off the eye patch and learn how to express my emotions through real words other than ARRRR

 

[Mozared]

No. I have my own code for whether to buy/download games, and I generally only buy games I know will be actually worth it - games I will complete the singleplayer mode off, possibly multiple times, and then continue playing sandbox/multiplayer for at least a couple of months. Assuming the interface/online services aren't complete shite.

This is the reason I would never buy a game like Red Alert 3 myself - I now got it for my birthday and have already had multiple online fikkups that range from me being unable to chat to me being unable to load games to the game simply going apeshit and having to control-alt-delete out of it. Games like those are the ones I pirate, enjoy playing singleplayer for a week or two, and then discard. Should piracy be defeated I still will not buy such games unless the prices drastically drop (I'm thinking a game like RA3 would be 5-10 euros)

 

[theultimateend]

I swear this thread is jailbait (and the first use of the word not being applied to young women)...

All I'm going to say is that I think there's nothing wrong of making a copy of something and taking that copy home.

EDIT: I'm not going to reply to long-ass explanations of how very wrong you think I am, because I'm not going to spend half an hour of my precious video game time to read about how much of a douchebag I am.

I don't think you are a douche bag >_>.

Course I don't think you mean me.

 

[TrailerDrake]

Well the only games I pirate are old ROMs that they don't sell any more (not including Virtual Console) so I wouldn't know about more recent games. However, I would say that most people would say no as well.

 

[Gadzooks]

I don't really play many PC games, but I like to pirate them.

Because pirates are cool, right?

 

[theultimateend]

OT: If piracy was defeated, I would probably stop buying most of my games. It would hurt sales as far as I'm concerned. I've got enough old games that I can just live off of them for decades and not worry about the new ones coming out.

Off topic, and pertaining to the conversation between theultimateend and Kpt._Rob, Aimed at Kpt._Rob:

What I'm saying is that it's not fair for group A to fulfill their end of the social contract, but group B to only fulfill their end of the social contract if they feel like it's worth it. I would say that you're right that the system as it is isn't good for the gamers, who do get screwed on occassion as a result of shitty games. But this doesn't mean that group B should break the rules, what it means is that a change in the system has to be pressed for. We are seeing this, as most games do now offer official demos, as this trend increases the justification of piracy as "demoing" the game should dissappate. As for the renaissance and the duplication of other people's works for one's own benefit, I would still contend that this is wrong.

Keep in mind that the rules that Group B are breaking are there only because of the influence the copyright industry put in place. I'm not speaking so much of games, as I am with movies and music, but game makers are allowed to use the same rules. Anyway, such companies have made so much good stuff in the past, that they got money coming out of their ears. Now they are using that money to make laws that benefit them, and restrict us. By making laws, they are dictating morality to the masses. I've heard your argument a lot, and it's usually based on what is legal and not what is arguably fair.

Don't get me wrong, you are correct that people need compensation for their works. You will not hear me argue that one bit. My point is that if you are going to say that Group B is "breaking rules" when all they are trying to do is level the playing field, then some one, somewhere probably got their opinion injected into your brain because THEY wanted more money with less necessary effort. It shouldn't be about "social contracts" at all, it should be about what is fair. If you want to call it a contract, then fine, but I'm not signing until I've read all the fine print and allowed my own clauses to be added. It's not fair to have some one else write up this contract and decide what happens with my hard earned money. They aren't any more entitled to my money than I'm entitled to their product. By following your idea of this social contract, they in fact are.

Another point I want to make is that when you mentioned the license to use a product that is copyrighted, you really get the short end of the stick again. If I purchase a game or movie, and the disk breaks, I have to purchase a "license" again because my original broke. You shouldn't be able to break licenses you buy. Name one other instance where this is possible. I can maybe destroy my proof of a license, but the license is still mine. The whole system is just set up to make more money, and once again, you are buying into it. Take a look at Mass Effect on the PC. They wanted you to buy a whole new copy if you burned through your limited installs. Granted, I'm sure the instances of that were limited, but that was some BAAAAD PR right there.

And before you jump on me now, bear in mind that I am completely with you on the thieving pirates. Not paying for something just because you can get it free is undeniably a sin against your fellow man. Even worse are the people who profit over piracy. That's all money that should have gone to the original copyright holders, and not some douche-bag who is quite literally stealing from the authors

Lastly, and not directed at you Kpt._Rob, I want to see more systems taking advantage of Steam. Steam is DRM done right. I WANT to run steam on my PC, and yet it's only real purpose is DRM. I would also like to see Steam, and other similar online systems that I'm not using to allow some sort of integration so I can buy a game on one system, and be allowed to use it across all others. I have so many Steam games now that I won't even consider buying a game for Direct 2 Drive or Windows LIVE because it would require using their system to play the game, and Steam has all my games already. IF they could work out some sort of agreement, they could stand to make some more money.

Well, if you'll read my last post, the one after the post you quoted I believe, you'll find that my argument is that unfortunately, at least with the system we have, one side is always going to risk getting screwed, the gamers or the creators. I've favored the people who create and produce the game because the effort they put into its creation, and the financial risk they take in its production, are far greater than the risk that I have to take purchasing a lisence to play the game. Regarding the use of a pirated copy to demo the game, the problem is that group B, quite like myself, are human. Humans are very good at decieveing even themselves for their own benefit, even the most honest of us are subject to this unfortunate fact of our own psychology. It is far to easy for someone to convince themselves that a game they pirated a copy of wasn't worth it. Not to mention, who should be the ultimate judge of which games are worth paying for, and which games aren't worth paying for. If the value of a game comes in part from the quality of the game, but my judgement of the quality of the game is subjective, I might find the new Alone in the Dark worth paying for, while many others would not find it worth paying for. My judgement and the judgements of the people who wouldn't pay in no way affect how much effort was put into the game's creation, so a subjective standard can't be used to judge whether or not a game should be paid for. Even more popular games like Fallout 3 and Halo have people who absolutely hate them, but again their distaste for these games does not mean that there was not a great ammount of effort put into their creation. Group A is keeping themselves honest in all cases, even when they do get screwed, by making sure they pay for every game they play. Group B risks being unintentionally dishonest (the unfortunate fact of all of our humanity, as I will admit myself that if I were in Group B I could very easily decieve myself into not paying for games that I should've paid for). Furthermore, Group A's method encourages not just the production of new games, but the production of experimental games different from those we've experienced before (because they pay both for successful and failed experiments), while Group B's method of only paying for what they judged to be fun encourages an industry that is afraid of experimentation because the risk of experimentation can become too great to afford in the case of a failed experiment. Those concerned with a potential future where we all play nothing but "Captain Bland's Monotonous Adventure" should be very disturbed by the actions of group B who punish potential experimenters when they fail (as all experimenters inevitibly will from time to time).

Since I see where you are coming from (and as one would expect I feel differently but that's how life is) I will mention one thing.

I don't tend to see people buying games as opening up room for experimentation. Generally the companies making the highest sales are experimenting the least. The more they sell of any particular type of game the less they produce other types and the less they introduce more things.

As it stands most folk already feel they are playing Captain Bland's Monotonous Adventure. Mainly because the only thing that seems to sell is a pretty generic romp that is just REALLY shiny.

I'm part of group B. I have thousands of dollars in games I'm sure from as far back as Atari. As it stands I would have purchased none of them without friends to pirate from or from the internet. In both cases I tried the games first. All my friends have functioned in the same manner.

As it stands, I don't think there exists a similar contract between games and people as there does between any other product and people.

If a PC doesn't function as advertised I can get my money back, if a Car doesn't function as advertised I can get my money back, if Food makes me Ill or tastes bad I can get a Refund, if a Chair is extremely uncomfortable I can get a refund.

Video games have had a 0 return policy for far longer than copying has even been a viable option. It is an extremely dangerous situation fiscally for any consumer and that is why I understand Piracy. Demos rarely tell the honest truth about a product and one shouldn't expect them to, they are part of PR and Marketing just like commercials.

Likewise it is the fear caused by the 0 return policy that forces folks to only buy surefire hits. Like Halo. Which means the only games that sell are games, like Halo. Which means that there is no diversity. In fact without the option of piracy to verify abstract titles there is no incentive at all to buy anything else BUT Halo.

I'm of course using it as an example. Insert any top selling franchise in its place for a similar effect.

So. Basically to me. If Video Game Developers didn't already label their customers as thieves, perhaps their customers wouldn't act as such.

Since you know about Psychology I imagine you understand that People will always rise to the bar you set for them. If you tell a child he is retarded all the time, nearly every child treated this way will end up performing poorly.

Zune Marketplace provides me a nearly 0 danger purchase of music. So I don't pirate music.
Gamefly gives me a nearly 0 danger purchase of console games. So I don't pirate console games.

These are examples of progress, examining how things now work and providing a service that matches the modern needs of people. As opposed to the archaic model that the companies you are currently defending (which I admire your spunk) are using.

However there is no similar option for PC games. I am not only treated like a thief the second I buy the item (no return unless it can't install and then only for another copy of it), but the DRM gets more hardcore which shows me that I am less and less welcome to enjoying the product.

 

[theultimateend]

I'd dl it to see if it's worth buying (like i did with scribblenauts) and if i love it i'm buying it(like i did with scriblenauts). but some times it's hard to get the game, or it's to much to buy (like tetris DS is 35 bucks at game stop used WTF) or old games you can't find cause they are out of print. And it would hurt for me beacuse i like to try before i buy(and i refure to give blockbuster my debit card info just to rent a 360 game)

Not to tug on their nuts too much in this thread (already feels like a gamefly infomercial a little in my OT) but you should really try them. 15 bucks a month for 1 game at a time or 22 for 2. I find that I can burn through a full 60 dollar game in two days tops and with two games I'm always playing something when I'm not working, reading, or writing.

Way better than paying full price for Infamous and then slitting my wrists with the disc after I realize that I just paid full price for Infamous. (Sorry...I really think that game was sub par...just a personal opinion. Save that rant for another day.)

You figure even if people sold their games for just 2 dollars. I every person who owns a Wii bought a Wii title that was 2 dollars in the US that company would make 106,536,794. I'm hard pressed to believe that any company has released a title where 106 million dollars wouldn't be some pretty solid profits.

Yes but for my DS it is helpful when I can have all 47ish ds games and all my gba games in one card and leave them at home

Word I do the same thing.

All my DS games are at home and all my PSP games are at home. I just have the DS games on a CycloDS and the PSP games saved to my 16 GB card .

This way if either is stolen I only lose the cost of the machine and the memory cards. Which quite frankly is better than hundreds of dollars in games.

After all I am not made of money (anymore...got it fixed at the doctor...since I had to pay for healthcare....BOOM! *bows to the audience*)

 

[Marcus Dubious]

Big media companies, especially games companies, must like piracy, It hits the new, innovative, up and coming games developers hardest.

These small companies work on tight budgets and can have huge financial deficits by the time their game is launched.
A small percentage loss due to piracy can make the difference between making a profit and bankruptcy.
Financiers take this into account when considering to invest,
Big companies with many games already selling can easily ride these losses and make huge profits while some (not all) smaller competitors, that could put them to shame, either never start or go under.