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

[Kpt._Rob]

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Reminded me of those 'you won't steal a car' ads before a movie... I laugh at them. You bloody well know I would 'steal' a car if I could make a copy of it and leave the original for the owner to enjoy. It is for this reason that piracy is not 'theft,' it is not even a crime, as there is nothing physically being taken.

It is a civil courts matter, where the producers can argue over loss of income but frankly suing someone for fifty bucks is generally frowned on. Costs a hell of a lot more to do just lodge the paperwork and is likely why most normal people will never see the inside of a court no matter how many movie, games or songs they have. Unless of course some arse wants to make a 'statement,' can never rule that out.

I stopped buying movies after I saw one of those ads. If a company accuses me of being a thief after I was generous enough to buy their product I will never deal with them again.

Which is why I stopped buying EA games as well. Historically anytime a company installs DRM on my PC they are accusing me of being a thief and because of it I cease giving them my money. There are exceptions when folks remove the DRM at a later date, but until then I take a pretty firm negative stance.

In the world of Piracy if you were stealing a car what would happen would be you walking into a dealership, and with your own metal and tools rebuilding from scratch the exact model of a car you wanted and driving that one off the lot.

If folks could do that without imposing on the sales of cars in that dealership I'm pretty sure it would be a difficult court case .

I'm not sure what your point has to do with anything. Is this some rediculous attempt at a counterpoint?

Not an attempt. It IS a counterpoint whether you like it or not. The limiting of spreading of information is a severe compromise of the freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if that information is spoken words or some ones and zeros on a computer, it is still information. And once you have relinquished certain information to someone else, it is pretty much impossible to claim "ownership" of it any more. If you want to OWN information, then don't ever trade it with someone else (not even for money), because once that inforation is out there, it is everyones to spread and do whatever they like with. Trying to limit that spreading is... Censorship, no matter how you look at it. : )

Oh I just love it when the very cornerstones of most "free" societeis start to contradict eachother, making hypocrites of everyone. XD

The very base of copyright law IS that you can own information and still trade it (Although if you want to get technical, copyright actually says that the information is never traded, but instead it gives the buyer lisence to view the information). This is recognized by almost all countries, and reflective of the general consensus on moral philosophy. Without copyright law the creation of information would not be profitible, some people would still make information, but many people could not afford to make information, because they'd need to devote their time to profitable activities so they could eat. This means that the amount of information created would be drastically reduced. That is to say, people would have a lot less to speak freely about. Copyright law means that both parties benefit, the creators because they are rewarded for their creation, and the buyers because their purchase ensures that the creator will be able to afford to create new information for future consumption by the buyer. Without copyright law both parties suffer.

This is why people are allowed to have ownership of certain information, is because it is beneficial to both parties. Your freedom of expression has not been impeded except where that expression involves the duplication of information that you do not own so that someone else can view it without purchasing a lisence.

The interesting thing is to note that if copyright laws had existed in the past the world would have never experienced the Renaissance. All of the worlds greatest artists from the Renaissance broke copyright laws on a nearly monthly basis.

So be sure to condemn Leonardo and Raphael when you get into these discussions.

PS. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.143485 - It appears that I developed a system better than any DRM for promoting game sales.

The information created during the Renaissance was not electronic. The artists who created it always got paid for their work, because there was no way to pirate it (unless you actually broke into their studio to steal the work, an act we can all agree is illegal because then the artist has nothing to sell). The Renaissance isn't even relevant here, because the issue is that modern artists aren't being compensated for their work like Renaissance artists were. If modern artists were compensated as well as Renaissance artists, perhaps we would find ourselves in the middle of a second Renaissance?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Okay, but if these are luxaries, that means you don't NEED them. They are not a right afforded to you. They are a privalage of which you can choose to partake for a price. This is the implied social contract between the creator and the viewer. Pirates break this social contract. I'm saying that either A: You should purchase games legally, fulfilling the social contract. or B: You should not purchase the game, and find some alternative means of entertaining yourself.

Okay, we'll play it your way. Let's say I pay for the game, but when having completed the game I think it sucked. I won't get a refund by saying that I thought the game was bad and I don't want it anymore now will I?

Seems like the customer involved in deals where these copyright laws reside always get's the ass end of the bargain.

If I, on the other hand, played the game through and considered it to be good, I could purchase it. That way my purchase of it would be well informed and I could know that I would be satisifed with my product.

The same goes for movies, books, music etc.

But most o the time the corporations don't want me to be able to do that. They want me to just take a leap of faith with my money and just "believe" in their commercial bullshit that their product is worth the cash. Sure, if I were a millionaire I might be able to do that, but im not (like most of us)...

 

[theultimateend]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

I'll accept your point on my metephor refering to borrowing of a product, and retract it. But I will restate that my primary concerns with piracy are that the people who created the information are not being fairly compensated for their work. Regarding the "the company wouldn't gain anything, I would just lose a little" comment, the reason that this is true is because you are refering only to one individual. The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects. Your poll isn't quite as responsive as you think it is, you'll notice I voted "no," the end of piracy would not change what games I buy, because I don't pirate to begin with. And frankly, it's hard to say how people would behave if piracy weren't a norm. You're right, there probably would be a lot less people playing the game, but I would bet my arms that if there weren't piracy, some people who currently pirate games would convert to people who actually buy games, which would mean some increase in profits for the people who create games, movies, and music.

See you are still assuming that folks would buy the stuff if they couldn't pirate. Which is a pretty big assumption. Games aren't a necessity they are a luxury.

Like I said "some people will" but it is a negligable amount when considering the cost of development of games.

Likewise I don't think the polls show us who said yes or no . So I won't notice (well I will now since you said it). In your case I think I should have had it say "Other/Unsure" instead of just unsure. Since you don't really fall into the category. But from the posts on here I'm thinking you are a special case.

Basically if I make a game for 60 million dollars and I get another 200 people to buy it I won't even notice that on my spreadsheet.

When folks couldn't get alcohol cheap and easy anymore they started making their own. If people couldn't pirate games they'd likely either make their own or do something else. Rarely do folks suddenly conform.

Another thing is the assumption that the money lost from each pirated copy is equal to the cost of the item pirated. The estimated value of data is just that, an estimation. If games were more properly priced (as with any other medium) they would sell. Zune Marketplace is a freaking fantastic deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated Music. Gamefly is a fantastic freaking deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated games. If I actually liked modern movies I'd have an example for that but I tend to just ignore their existence (District 9 aside...great movie).

Piracy isn't the primary cause of lost sales in various luxury businesses. The assumption that these luxuries aren't luxuries is.

Just my two cents at least (don't go pirating this in quotes now!)

Okay, but if these are luxaries, that means you don't NEED them. They are not a right afforded to you. They are a privalage of which you can choose to partake for a price. This is the implied social contract between the creator and the viewer. Pirates break this social contract. I'm saying that either A: You should purchase games legally, fulfilling the social contract. or B: You should not purchase the game, and find some alternative means of entertaining yourself.

As for the price of games, considering the colossal amount of work that goes into their creation, and the massive risk taken by the people who produce them, I am more than happy to pay in return for the service they provide. And I am not the only one. People pre-order games all the time, in fact pre-orders are the measure that the games industry uses to judge how well a game will probably sell, pre-orderers are definately not pirating the games they buy, and are proof positive that people will buy games whether they have the chance to pirate them for a demo or not.

There are three groups of people in the gaming world. Now I want you to read this next part slowly to help you comprehend my point (I am getting yours and I understand where you are coming from):

A) People who already are buying games and will buy them.
B) People who are on the fence and issues such as price or DRM delay their purchase.
C) People who want things for free and will be Pirating regardless.

The first group here doesn't matter. All those pre-order people make no difference in our discussion. That is called a straw man, you built him up and burned him for absolutely no reason. The second group of people are who you are looking at (or should be). These folks don't buy pre-orders or rarely do. They are on the fence and it is the wild prices (honestly a possible gain of 1 billion dollars is excessive for ANY game title ever made) or the DRM that turns them away. If these folks didn't have access to piracy they'd likely be no more likely to buy because the main issues that are cited have little to do with piracy (aside from piracy removing DRM).

The last group aren't going to buy regardless. DRM is made to fight them and it has no effect. It never did and never will. In fact good faith attempts towards these folks has been shown to be far more affective than the morality attack that is so commonly used instead.

When you talk about piracy you act like folks will NEVER buy a game if they pirate it. Which isn't exactly founded, I don't recall any correlation between piracy and a 100% loss in income. What seems more reasonable, and has been supported in many of these discussions I've had or read, is that folks are waiting for the price to match the product.

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
- Publius Syrius

If people are pirating the games the games are obviously not worth the cost they are charging. If people are not pirating the games then they are obviously worth the cost they are charging.

I really should have just said that to you in the first place I apologize for my lack of succinctness.

The information created during the Renaissance was not electronic. The artists who created it always got paid for their work, because there was no way to pirate it (unless you actually broke into their studio to steal the work, an act we can all agree is illegal because then the artist has nothing to sell). The Renaissance isn't even relevant here, because the issue is that modern artists aren't being compensated for their work like Renaissance artists were. If modern artists were compensated as well as Renaissance artists, perhaps we would find ourselves in the middle of a second Renaissance?

During the renaissance various artists would go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

During our modern age various people go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

I don't see how plaster which is a collection of atomic data and code which is a collection of electronic/binary data (or dare I say atomic data as well) are so different.

If it is a matter of how difficult it was before should we just force pirates to use 56K? That would help get them to about the same speed as people replicating artwork or sculptures.

So yes I see how these are in no way related.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

I pirate games because I'm poor. If pirating is defeated [won't happen] I can't buy games in it's place without money.

 

[asinann]

I already buy my games.

 

[Fragged_Templar]

the way I see it, If you really like a game you DL, you should go buy it, same goes for movies... However if you don't like then just remove it from your hard disk. I like to think of Dling as a kind of extended demo.

also the defeat of piracy would have little or no effect on my purchasing habits, since I buy 95% of my games/movies

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

I'll accept your point on my metephor refering to borrowing of a product, and retract it. But I will restate that my primary concerns with piracy are that the people who created the information are not being fairly compensated for their work. Regarding the "the company wouldn't gain anything, I would just lose a little" comment, the reason that this is true is because you are refering only to one individual. The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects. Your poll isn't quite as responsive as you think it is, you'll notice I voted "no," the end of piracy would not change what games I buy, because I don't pirate to begin with. And frankly, it's hard to say how people would behave if piracy weren't a norm. You're right, there probably would be a lot less people playing the game, but I would bet my arms that if there weren't piracy, some people who currently pirate games would convert to people who actually buy games, which would mean some increase in profits for the people who create games, movies, and music.

See you are still assuming that folks would buy the stuff if they couldn't pirate. Which is a pretty big assumption. Games aren't a necessity they are a luxury.

Like I said "some people will" but it is a negligable amount when considering the cost of development of games.

Likewise I don't think the polls show us who said yes or no . So I won't notice (well I will now since you said it). In your case I think I should have had it say "Other/Unsure" instead of just unsure. Since you don't really fall into the category. But from the posts on here I'm thinking you are a special case.

Basically if I make a game for 60 million dollars and I get another 200 people to buy it I won't even notice that on my spreadsheet.

When folks couldn't get alcohol cheap and easy anymore they started making their own. If people couldn't pirate games they'd likely either make their own or do something else. Rarely do folks suddenly conform.

Another thing is the assumption that the money lost from each pirated copy is equal to the cost of the item pirated. The estimated value of data is just that, an estimation. If games were more properly priced (as with any other medium) they would sell. Zune Marketplace is a freaking fantastic deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated Music. Gamefly is a fantastic freaking deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated games. If I actually liked modern movies I'd have an example for that but I tend to just ignore their existence (District 9 aside...great movie).

Piracy isn't the primary cause of lost sales in various luxury businesses. The assumption that these luxuries aren't luxuries is.

Just my two cents at least (don't go pirating this in quotes now!)

Okay, but if these are luxaries, that means you don't NEED them. They are not a right afforded to you. They are a privalage of which you can choose to partake for a price. This is the implied social contract between the creator and the viewer. Pirates break this social contract. I'm saying that either A: You should purchase games legally, fulfilling the social contract. or B: You should not purchase the game, and find some alternative means of entertaining yourself.

As for the price of games, considering the colossal amount of work that goes into their creation, and the massive risk taken by the people who produce them, I am more than happy to pay in return for the service they provide. And I am not the only one. People pre-order games all the time, in fact pre-orders are the measure that the games industry uses to judge how well a game will probably sell, pre-orderers are definately not pirating the games they buy, and are proof positive that people will buy games whether they have the chance to pirate them for a demo or not.

There are three groups of people in the gaming world. Now I want you to read this next part slowly to help you comprehend my point (I am getting yours and I understand where you are coming from):

A) People who already are buying games and will buy them.
B) People who are on the fence and issues such as price or DRM delay their purchase.
C) People who want things for free and will be Pirating regardless.

The first group here doesn't matter. All those pre-order people make no difference in our discussion. That is called a straw man, you built him up and burned him for absolutely no reason. The second group of people are who you are looking at (or should be). These folks don't buy pre-orders or rarely do. They are on the fence and it is the wild prices (honestly a possible gain of 1 billion dollars is excessive for ANY game title ever made) or the DRM that turns them away. If these folks didn't have access to piracy they'd likely be no more likely to buy because the main issues that are cited have little to do with piracy (aside from piracy removing DRM).

The last group aren't going to buy regardless. DRM is made to fight them and it has no effect. It never did and never will. In fact good faith attempts towards these folks has been shown to be far more affective than the morality attack that is so commonly used instead.

When you talk about piracy you act like folks will NEVER buy a game if they pirate it. Which isn't exactly founded, I don't recall any correlation between piracy and a 100% loss in income. What seems more reasonable, and has been supported in many of these discussions I've had or read, is that folks are waiting for the price to match the product.

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
- Publius Syrius

If people are pirating the games the games are obviously not worth the cost they are charging. If people are not pirating the games then they are obviously worth the cost they are charging.

I really should have just said that to you in the first place I apologize for my lack of succinctness.

The information created during the Renaissance was not electronic. The artists who created it always got paid for their work, because there was no way to pirate it (unless you actually broke into their studio to steal the work, an act we can all agree is illegal because then the artist has nothing to sell). The Renaissance isn't even relevant here, because the issue is that modern artists aren't being compensated for their work like Renaissance artists were. If modern artists were compensated as well as Renaissance artists, perhaps we would find ourselves in the middle of a second Renaissance?

During the renaissance various artists would go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

During our modern age various people go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

So yes I see how these are in no way related.

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.

 

[Charley]

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Reminded me of those 'you won't steal a car' ads before a movie... I laugh at them. You bloody well know I would 'steal' a car if I could make a copy of it and leave the original for the owner to enjoy. It is for this reason that piracy is not 'theft,' it is not even a crime, as there is nothing physically being taken.

It is a civil courts matter, where the producers can argue over loss of income but frankly suing someone for fifty bucks is generally frowned on. Costs a hell of a lot more to do just lodge the paperwork and is likely why most normal people will never see the inside of a court no matter how many movie, games or songs they have. Unless of course some arse wants to make a 'statement,' can never rule that out.

Ah, I love those adverts... especially on pirate DVDs with no loss of quality (take that fat-blacksmith-ad-dude!)

The civil courts thing is a nice idea, but piracy is one of those funny "crimes" with unlimited fines attached in a lot of places. Recording companies have a hell of a lot of political clout, and have a tendency to sue for loss of earnings, plus penalties, plus all legal fees, and their lawyers are in the $10k + per day bracket, it seems.

 

[theultimateend]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

I'll accept your point on my metephor refering to borrowing of a product, and retract it. But I will restate that my primary concerns with piracy are that the people who created the information are not being fairly compensated for their work. Regarding the "the company wouldn't gain anything, I would just lose a little" comment, the reason that this is true is because you are refering only to one individual. The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects. Your poll isn't quite as responsive as you think it is, you'll notice I voted "no," the end of piracy would not change what games I buy, because I don't pirate to begin with. And frankly, it's hard to say how people would behave if piracy weren't a norm. You're right, there probably would be a lot less people playing the game, but I would bet my arms that if there weren't piracy, some people who currently pirate games would convert to people who actually buy games, which would mean some increase in profits for the people who create games, movies, and music.

See you are still assuming that folks would buy the stuff if they couldn't pirate. Which is a pretty big assumption. Games aren't a necessity they are a luxury.

Like I said "some people will" but it is a negligable amount when considering the cost of development of games.

Likewise I don't think the polls show us who said yes or no . So I won't notice (well I will now since you said it). In your case I think I should have had it say "Other/Unsure" instead of just unsure. Since you don't really fall into the category. But from the posts on here I'm thinking you are a special case.

Basically if I make a game for 60 million dollars and I get another 200 people to buy it I won't even notice that on my spreadsheet.

When folks couldn't get alcohol cheap and easy anymore they started making their own. If people couldn't pirate games they'd likely either make their own or do something else. Rarely do folks suddenly conform.

Another thing is the assumption that the money lost from each pirated copy is equal to the cost of the item pirated. The estimated value of data is just that, an estimation. If games were more properly priced (as with any other medium) they would sell. Zune Marketplace is a freaking fantastic deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated Music. Gamefly is a fantastic freaking deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated games. If I actually liked modern movies I'd have an example for that but I tend to just ignore their existence (District 9 aside...great movie).

Piracy isn't the primary cause of lost sales in various luxury businesses. The assumption that these luxuries aren't luxuries is.

Just my two cents at least (don't go pirating this in quotes now!)

Okay, but if these are luxaries, that means you don't NEED them. They are not a right afforded to you. They are a privalage of which you can choose to partake for a price. This is the implied social contract between the creator and the viewer. Pirates break this social contract. I'm saying that either A: You should purchase games legally, fulfilling the social contract. or B: You should not purchase the game, and find some alternative means of entertaining yourself.

As for the price of games, considering the colossal amount of work that goes into their creation, and the massive risk taken by the people who produce them, I am more than happy to pay in return for the service they provide. And I am not the only one. People pre-order games all the time, in fact pre-orders are the measure that the games industry uses to judge how well a game will probably sell, pre-orderers are definately not pirating the games they buy, and are proof positive that people will buy games whether they have the chance to pirate them for a demo or not.

There are three groups of people in the gaming world. Now I want you to read this next part slowly to help you comprehend my point (I am getting yours and I understand where you are coming from):

A) People who already are buying games and will buy them.
B) People who are on the fence and issues such as price or DRM delay their purchase.
C) People who want things for free and will be Pirating regardless.

The first group here doesn't matter. All those pre-order people make no difference in our discussion. That is called a straw man, you built him up and burned him for absolutely no reason. The second group of people are who you are looking at (or should be). These folks don't buy pre-orders or rarely do. They are on the fence and it is the wild prices (honestly a possible gain of 1 billion dollars is excessive for ANY game title ever made) or the DRM that turns them away. If these folks didn't have access to piracy they'd likely be no more likely to buy because the main issues that are cited have little to do with piracy (aside from piracy removing DRM).

The last group aren't going to buy regardless. DRM is made to fight them and it has no effect. It never did and never will. In fact good faith attempts towards these folks has been shown to be far more affective than the morality attack that is so commonly used instead.

When you talk about piracy you act like folks will NEVER buy a game if they pirate it. Which isn't exactly founded, I don't recall any correlation between piracy and a 100% loss in income. What seems more reasonable, and has been supported in many of these discussions I've had or read, is that folks are waiting for the price to match the product.

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
- Publius Syrius

If people are pirating the games the games are obviously not worth the cost they are charging. If people are not pirating the games then they are obviously worth the cost they are charging.

I really should have just said that to you in the first place I apologize for my lack of succinctness.

The information created during the Renaissance was not electronic. The artists who created it always got paid for their work, because there was no way to pirate it (unless you actually broke into their studio to steal the work, an act we can all agree is illegal because then the artist has nothing to sell). The Renaissance isn't even relevant here, because the issue is that modern artists aren't being compensated for their work like Renaissance artists were. If modern artists were compensated as well as Renaissance artists, perhaps we would find ourselves in the middle of a second Renaissance?

During the renaissance various artists would go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

During our modern age various people go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

So yes I see how these are in no way related.

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.

If the consumer cannot trust the developer to produce a quality product at a reasonable price then I don't see how there is a true social contract here.

Likewise most demos are extremely misleading and provide the customer with a sense that there is far more to the game than the demo when it tends to not be the case.

The last time I DIDN'T pirate a game was SPORE. I just pre-ordered it (Omg one of those people) and I played the Demo. It was 60 dollars of wasted income because I made the mistake of trusting the other side of the contract.

Now if you really wanted to kill piracy as a reasonable option. Give me the ability to bring back shitty products. If my remote control sucks balls I can return it. If SPORE makes me cry blood I can just sit on my thumbs and try to resell it for a pretty sizeable loss.

At any rate I gotta go get some sleep I work all day tomorrow. If you find trouble in seeing how recreating someones painting is no different than recreating someones data I'm not going to be able to help you. Since it is the exact same action with a different medium it is kind of hard to clarify beyond the example. During the Renaissance many artists understood that people would copy their works and they treated it (as far as recorded history shows) as a compliment.

But don't go believing me. Feel free to read any popular college texts on the renaissance. They'll all go for chapters and chapters about how even the worlds most renowned artists each copied one anothers works. If it is just a matter of the cows head being an inch to the left we could easily request that pirates make sure the title screen is a bit skewed.

I will admit I enjoyed that form of piracy better, seeing as it resulted in diverse thought and a restructuring of how people viewed the functions of the world. It didn't leave folks in a rut about how things are 'supposed' to work as if the world never changes.

PS. What is the difference between waiting till a game is 20 dollars and buying it and pirating a game then when it is 20 dollars buying it. The developer still gets the same amount of money they would have gotten from you either way. I'm just curious. So far the contract you speak of sounds like "If people want the game they must get it at full price or they are breaking a contract."

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

The civil courts thing is a nice idea, but piracy is one of those funny "crimes" with unlimited fines attached in a lot of places. Recording companies have a hell of a lot of political clout, and have a tendency to sue for loss of earnings, plus penalties, plus all legal fees, and their lawyers are in the $10k + per day bracket, it seems.

I wasn't putting it forth as an idea, it is the reality. No criminal court will arrest, charge and imprison you for copying data. It is a civil matter, to be taken to civil court. I do have to say it is ridiculous when some arsehole decides to 'make a statement' and sues a old woman or a child for 'gazillions' of dollars over a lost two or three bucks production and maybe another ten to twenty in profit.

 

[Sir_Montague]

It would cause me to start purchasing music, movies, programs, and a few other essentials to my computer life... But i always come across games in stores... So technically, yes, technically no.

 

[RanD00M]

No way. I only pirate things I wouldn't normally pay for anyway. If I couldn't pirate, then I'd just go without and not lose any sleep over it.

Pretty much this.I would just get the games i´m sure about then.

 

[Beatrix]

Not applicable.

Piracy will not be defeated.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't pirate in the first place, and I still buy games even if I'm unsure as to whether or not they'll be good. I realize pirating games (as well as music and movies) is kind of a norm, but personally speaking I feel it speaks poorly of humanity as a whole that so many people pirate. The economy, particularly in America which doesn't actually make a lot of physical products anymore, is based mostly on dealing with information. Movies, games, music, these are the things that we do produce here in America, as well as in other so called "industrialized" nations. Just because these forms of electronic media aren't physical doesn't mean that they aren't real products, they are. Even if you're saying that you're just pirating games as a way to test them, the analogy can be made that you would not steal a couch or a TV to test it for a while, then decide later whether or not to return it or pay for it. I think it's quite likely that the end of piracy would lead to a great boost in the American economy, and the world economy as a whole. Tested or not, people will still purchase electronic media, and if more of them are actually paying for the product they're using, then it can only stimulate the economy.

The reason that analogy doesn't work is because if I take the couch or the TV another customer cannot buy it. A closer one would be sitting in the couch at the store or checking out the TV at the store. Because another customer can still purchase it. When someone pirates a game they don't take away from a limited quantity of anything.

Which is why when folks compare stealing data to stealing cars most times they get an eye roll. If cars could be generated nearly instantly by resources the thief themselves is maintaining then our thoughts of car theft would be vastly different.

Likewise you are making the assumption that people would buy products if they couldn't pirate when the very poll you are looking at already shows otherwise. It's small but consistent thus far which says something.

As someone said earlier "The company wouldn't gain anything I would just lose a little."

I'll accept your point on my metephor refering to borrowing of a product, and retract it. But I will restate that my primary concerns with piracy are that the people who created the information are not being fairly compensated for their work. Regarding the "the company wouldn't gain anything, I would just lose a little" comment, the reason that this is true is because you are refering only to one individual. The fact is though that because piracy is an accepted social norm companies are losing massive amounts of money as a result of its affects. Your poll isn't quite as responsive as you think it is, you'll notice I voted "no," the end of piracy would not change what games I buy, because I don't pirate to begin with. And frankly, it's hard to say how people would behave if piracy weren't a norm. You're right, there probably would be a lot less people playing the game, but I would bet my arms that if there weren't piracy, some people who currently pirate games would convert to people who actually buy games, which would mean some increase in profits for the people who create games, movies, and music.

See you are still assuming that folks would buy the stuff if they couldn't pirate. Which is a pretty big assumption. Games aren't a necessity they are a luxury.

Like I said "some people will" but it is a negligable amount when considering the cost of development of games.

Likewise I don't think the polls show us who said yes or no . So I won't notice (well I will now since you said it). In your case I think I should have had it say "Other/Unsure" instead of just unsure. Since you don't really fall into the category. But from the posts on here I'm thinking you are a special case.

Basically if I make a game for 60 million dollars and I get another 200 people to buy it I won't even notice that on my spreadsheet.

When folks couldn't get alcohol cheap and easy anymore they started making their own. If people couldn't pirate games they'd likely either make their own or do something else. Rarely do folks suddenly conform.

Another thing is the assumption that the money lost from each pirated copy is equal to the cost of the item pirated. The estimated value of data is just that, an estimation. If games were more properly priced (as with any other medium) they would sell. Zune Marketplace is a freaking fantastic deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated Music. Gamefly is a fantastic freaking deal, so I use it, before it existed I pirated games. If I actually liked modern movies I'd have an example for that but I tend to just ignore their existence (District 9 aside...great movie).

Piracy isn't the primary cause of lost sales in various luxury businesses. The assumption that these luxuries aren't luxuries is.

Just my two cents at least (don't go pirating this in quotes now!)

Okay, but if these are luxaries, that means you don't NEED them. They are not a right afforded to you. They are a privalage of which you can choose to partake for a price. This is the implied social contract between the creator and the viewer. Pirates break this social contract. I'm saying that either A: You should purchase games legally, fulfilling the social contract. or B: You should not purchase the game, and find some alternative means of entertaining yourself.

As for the price of games, considering the colossal amount of work that goes into their creation, and the massive risk taken by the people who produce them, I am more than happy to pay in return for the service they provide. And I am not the only one. People pre-order games all the time, in fact pre-orders are the measure that the games industry uses to judge how well a game will probably sell, pre-orderers are definately not pirating the games they buy, and are proof positive that people will buy games whether they have the chance to pirate them for a demo or not.

There are three groups of people in the gaming world. Now I want you to read this next part slowly to help you comprehend my point (I am getting yours and I understand where you are coming from):

A) People who already are buying games and will buy them.
B) People who are on the fence and issues such as price or DRM delay their purchase.
C) People who want things for free and will be Pirating regardless.

The first group here doesn't matter. All those pre-order people make no difference in our discussion. That is called a straw man, you built him up and burned him for absolutely no reason. The second group of people are who you are looking at (or should be). These folks don't buy pre-orders or rarely do. They are on the fence and it is the wild prices (honestly a possible gain of 1 billion dollars is excessive for ANY game title ever made) or the DRM that turns them away. If these folks didn't have access to piracy they'd likely be no more likely to buy because the main issues that are cited have little to do with piracy (aside from piracy removing DRM).

The last group aren't going to buy regardless. DRM is made to fight them and it has no effect. It never did and never will. In fact good faith attempts towards these folks has been shown to be far more affective than the morality attack that is so commonly used instead.

When you talk about piracy you act like folks will NEVER buy a game if they pirate it. Which isn't exactly founded, I don't recall any correlation between piracy and a 100% loss in income. What seems more reasonable, and has been supported in many of these discussions I've had or read, is that folks are waiting for the price to match the product.

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
- Publius Syrius

If people are pirating the games the games are obviously not worth the cost they are charging. If people are not pirating the games then they are obviously worth the cost they are charging.

I really should have just said that to you in the first place I apologize for my lack of succinctness.

The information created during the Renaissance was not electronic. The artists who created it always got paid for their work, because there was no way to pirate it (unless you actually broke into their studio to steal the work, an act we can all agree is illegal because then the artist has nothing to sell). The Renaissance isn't even relevant here, because the issue is that modern artists aren't being compensated for their work like Renaissance artists were. If modern artists were compensated as well as Renaissance artists, perhaps we would find ourselves in the middle of a second Renaissance?

During the renaissance various artists would go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

During our modern age various people go look at other people's works and they would use their own materials to replicate the works for their own personal gain.

So yes I see how these are in no way related.

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.

If the consumer cannot trust the developer to produce a quality product at a reasonable price then I don't see how there is a true social contract here.

Likewise most demos are extremely misleading and provide the customer with a sense that there is far more to the game than the demo when it tends to not be the case.

The last time I DIDN'T pirate a game was SPORE. I just pre-ordered it (Omg one of those people) and I played the Demo. It was 60 dollars of wasted income because I made the mistake of trusting the other side of the contract.

Now if you really wanted to kill piracy as a reasonable option. Give me the ability to bring back shitty products. If my remote control sucks balls I can return it. If SPORE makes me cry blood I can just sit on my thumbs and try to resell it for a pretty sizeable loss.

At any rate I gotta go get some sleep I work all day tomorrow. If you find trouble in seeing how recreating someones painting is no different than recreating someones data I'm not going to be able to help you. Since it is the exact same action with a different medium it is kind of hard to clarify beyond the example. During the Renaissance many artists understood that people would copy their works and they treated it (as far as recorded history shows) as a compliment.

But don't go believing me. Feel free to read any popular college texts on the renaissance. They'll all go for chapters and chapters about how even the worlds most renowned artists each copied one anothers works. If it is just a matter of the cows head being an inch to the left we could easily request that pirates make sure the title screen is a bit skewed.

I will admit I enjoyed that form of piracy better, seeing as it resulted in diverse thought and a restructuring of how people viewed the functions of the world. It didn't leave folks in a rut about how things are 'supposed' to work as if the world never changes.

PS. What is the difference between waiting till a game is 20 dollars and buying it and pirating a game then when it is 20 dollars buying it. The developer still gets the same amount of money they would have gotten from you either way. I'm just curious. So far the contract you speak of sounds like "If people want the game they must get it at full price or they are breaking a contract."

I have the good fortune to know people involved in forensic accounting, one interesting thing I learned from them is that people who commit fraud generally believe they are justified. The money they stole, they are certain they deserved it. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. People are fickle, maybe you can be trusted to pay for a game in retrospect if you felt it was good, but maybe you subconsciously convince yourself it wasn't worth it, even if you did enjoy it. Much like how the companies can't be trusted to always provide high quality, the viewer can't always be trusted to pay. Even honest customers may or may not decieve themselves. This is fundamental to human psychology. The only way to prevent people from decieving themselves, thereby swindling the creator out of the money they may or may not deserve, is to make sure that the viewer pays before they are allowed access to the information. You will notice that this arrangement does favor the artist, one side in any arrangement risks getting screwed. The reason that I have favored the artist, as I have stated before, is that without the artist there would be no games, music, or movies to start with. It is true that sometimes we suffer for fulfilling our end of the social contract, but if we choose not to participate in the social contract at all, then we suffer more, because there is no work to enjoy in the first place.

Regarding the contract, it is that the viewer pay for the lisence to view the media, this lisence has originally been purchased from the creator, and can pass from owner to owner, because only one owner can use the lisence at a time. As long as the person who originally acquired the lisence purchased it from the creator for a price they agreed upon at the time of purchase, everything is fine.

Finally, regarding the Renaissance. The reason the Renaissance is different, is because when a work is sold during the Renaissance the actual work is sold just once for a relatively large sum. Electronic media does not work like this. The actual work is not sold for a relatively large sum, instead a lisence to view the work is sold to many people for a relatively small price, this allows for the creation of pieces that the Renaissance could not have produced, because instead of one individual paying for the entirety of a piece, many individuals are paying for a small part of the creation of a bigger piece, and as a result of their cooperation they can all enjoy the piece. Regarding the copies of works, unlike a painting, which would still require a master to reproduce, the copying of a game requires only that the pattern of 1's and 0's of which it is made be duplicated, this does not require anything more than something to copy it into, there is no talent involved (except perhaps that of the hacker breaking DRM, but the effort he puts out is still far less than the effort put out by the team who collaborated to create the game), so the second piece is now bringing the copier benefit without having to put out effort equal to that of the original creator. The men who copied other men's paintings were admirers, and excelent artists themselves, they had to put out effort that was at least close to equal, and in some cases greater than the original artist's; those people who break the digital protection on electronic media are nothing more than leaches, breaking the skin of DRM to suck the blood of the creator, their effort does not match the creator's, or even come close.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

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.

 

[AvsJoe]

I don't Pirate games and I only purchase games for 3 reasons: I already know I'm gonna like it (namely Atlus, Square Enix, and sports games), it's cheap (<$20 used), or it was recommended to me by someone with similar tastes. So if pirating was outlawed or defeated or whatever it wouldn't really affect me.

 

[Signa]

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.

 

[Glass_House]

I said no purely because as many people have said in this post so far. I only pirate games that I wouldn't spend money on / am unsure about there level of awesomeness. So i guess if piracy was defeated I would still purchase games at the same rate, I just wouldn't end up playing games I was unsure about. Which may mean I end up missing out on some great gaming experiences but hey, that is the way the proverbial cookie crumbles.

Edit: It may also have something to do with my low rate of income forcing me to avoid careless shopping choices.

 

[riskroWe]

Most games suck, I wasted a fair bit of money in my childhood because I hadn't yet discovered filesharing.