Study Claims Handheld Game Piracy Losses Top $41 Billion

[rembrandtqeinstein]

To people claiming that not every download is a lost sale: That's true, but that's not the point. The fact that there's at LEAST $41bn of pirated software floating around out there is a staggering number. If even 10% of that was a lost sale, that's $4bn. That is a lot of money.

Many issues with "reporting" like this. One the number is pulled entirely out of the ass, so reporting it as having any kind of authority is just pushing an agenda. So your made up 10% of a large made up number is still a made up number. I can claim 0% of the downloaders would have made a purchase and be just as accurate as your 10% figure.

I would love to see that made up number next to the used game sales real number. However used game sale are codified into law (first sale doctrine) so the publishers can't complain about that. Instead they blame piracy on their failure to adapt their business model to technology.

Industry associations (really should be called special interest lobbying groups) release made up numbers like these to try to sway public opinion and legislators toward bullshit anti-consumer pro-corporate laws like DMCA and ACTA.

 

[John Funk]

To people claiming that not every download is a lost sale: That's true, but that's not the point. The fact that there's at LEAST $41bn of pirated software floating around out there is a staggering number. If even 10% of that was a lost sale, that's $4bn. That is a lot of money.

Many issues with "reporting" like this. One the number is pulled entirely out of the ass, so reporting it as having any kind of authority is just pushing an agenda. So your made up 10% of a large made up number is still a made up number. I can claim 0% of the downloaders would have made a purchase and be just as accurate as your 10% figure.

I would love to see that made up number next to the used game sales real number. However used game sale are codified into law (first sale doctrine) so the publishers can't complain about that. Instead they blame piracy on their failure to adapt their business model to technology.

Industry associations (really should be called special interest lobbying groups) release made up numbers like these to try to sway public opinion and legislators toward bullshit anti-consumer pro-corporate laws like DMCA and ACTA.

I realize we have no idea how many of the pirated copies would have been actual sales - you're correct in assuming that it's probably rather low. And laws like the DMCA are horrible.

That doesn't make piracy any less of an issue. Don't try to pretend it's not.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Once again PC is still indirectly pointed at as being the worst pirated platform in the same news report when something else comes out about pirating. I find that to be a typical even though it shows that piracy is rampant everywhere. It is not just the PC. Just because it is popular to say the PC is worst it isn't. Most people who pirate console games buy them from someone so of course they aren't going to have a massive number beside the torrent. I don't know a single person who downloads pirated console games they all buy them for a fiver. Yet I don't know anyone who pirates PC games.

 

[Motiv_]

To people claiming that not every download is a lost sale: That's true, but that's not the point. The fact that there's at LEAST $41bn of pirated software floating around out there is a staggering number. If even 10% of that was a lost sale, that's $4bn. That is a lot of money.

Many issues with "reporting" like this. One the number is pulled entirely out of the ass, so reporting it as having any kind of authority is just pushing an agenda. So your made up 10% of a large made up number is still a made up number. I can claim 0% of the downloaders would have made a purchase and be just as accurate as your 10% figure.

I would love to see that made up number next to the used game sales real number. However used game sale are codified into law (first sale doctrine) so the publishers can't complain about that. Instead they blame piracy on their failure to adapt their business model to technology.

Industry associations (really should be called special interest lobbying groups) release made up numbers like these to try to sway public opinion and legislators toward bullshit anti-consumer pro-corporate laws like DMCA and ACTA.

I realize we have no idea how many of the pirated copies would have been actual sales - you're correct in assuming that it's probably rather low. And laws like the DMCA are horrible.

That doesn't make piracy any less of an issue. Don't try to pretend it's not.

Yes, piracy is an issue to PC gaming. We get it. But, as it was said, publishers lose close to as much if not as much or more money to used game sales, or even friend to friend loans. For example, is it really illegal if I give my friend my copy of Left 4 Dead, and he gives it to a friend when he gets done? That's 2 lost sales right there, well, maybe you should throw me in jail then!

I understand that you are hugely against piracy, and to a certain degree I respect that. But the industry is quickly acting like a huge broken record, spouting the same argument over and over. They refuse to look at other causes for lost sales and immediately jump on the piracy bandwagon. It's like shooting at the thieves stealing your carrots but ignoring the arsonist lighting your house on fire.

I am really getting sick and tired of all these bullshit statistics, because it has been proven time and time again that they are fake or inflated. Hell, there was a story run on the Escapist not too long ago saying just that. I'll dig it up when I can be arsed and when my internet speeds back up. It would be like Jack Thompson making up a story of how someone tried to slit his throat with a game manual, just so he could further his agenda on anti-game laws. Every intelligent person would know it's bullshit, but then again, the intelligence to stupidity ratio is rather small these days, so naturally the soccer moms would be up in arms!

I am proud of you guys though, the title for the most part is unbiased and sums up the article, just sad that the article itself is either fake or inflated.

No offense intended, my opinion and mine only. Good day to you, sir.

 

[John Funk]

I realize we have no idea how many of the pirated copies would have been actual sales - you're correct in assuming that it's probably rather low. And laws like the DMCA are horrible.

That doesn't make piracy any less of an issue. Don't try to pretend it's not.

Except its circular logic at this point. "Piracy is a problem because we've said piracy is a problem."

They're operating on the idea that since piracy is illegal, they can issue any bullshit claim they want and anyone who argues is just a criminal, trying to justify their crimes. This is all down the line, everyone from anti-piracy forum rats to industry cheerleaders (you) to the industry itself.

I understand where they're coming from. Why pay money for in-depth research into a "problem" that would only undermine your many baseless claims? When googling a game title, then looking up the traffic stats of every site that claims to host that game, then multiplying every hit to every site by $30 gives a much more impressive number than any sort of real study and costs a fuck of a lot less too.

No, piracy is a problem because it's taking something that people spent years and millions of dollars working on, and taking their work for free. How can you justify calling people against this "rats" or "cheerleaders" if we just believe that people are entitled to getting paid for their work?

Yes, piracy is an issue to PC gaming. We get it. But, as it was said, publishers lose close to as much if not as much or more money to used game sales, or even friend to friend loans. For example, is it really illegal if I give my friend my copy of Left 4 Dead, and he gives it to a friend when he gets done? That's 2 lost sales right there, well, maybe you should throw me in jail then!

I understand that you are hugely against piracy, and to a certain degree I respect that. But the industry is quickly acting like a huge broken record, spouting the same argument over and over. They refuse to look at other causes for lost sales and immediately jump on the piracy bandwagon. It's like shooting at the thieves stealing your carrots but ignoring the arsonist lighting your house on fire.

I am really getting sick and tired of all these bullshit statistics, because it has been proven time and time again that they are fake or inflated. Hell, there was a story run on the Escapist not too long ago saying just that. I'll dig it up when I can be arsed and when my internet speeds back up. It would be like Jack Thompson making up a story of how someone tried to slit his throat with a game manual, just so he could further his agenda on anti-game laws. Every intelligent person would know it's bullshit, but then again, the intelligence to stupidity ratio is rather small these days, so naturally the soccer moms would be up in arms!

I am proud of you guys though, the title for the most part is unbiased and sums up the article, just sad that the article itself is either fake or inflated.

No offense intended, my opinion and mine only. Good day to you, sir.

Re: The L4D2 thing... not really. As long as there's only one physical copy floating around, you're good. The trouble comes when two of you are playing at the same time for the cost of one game.

Lending a book to a friend is one thing (friend has book, you do not have book); scanning all of the pages and sending it to them is another thing entirely.

 

[Kanima423]

As R Lee Ermey said in Full Metal Jacket "BULLSHIT! You did not convince me!"

 

[Trogdor1138]

Remember when pirates had boats, treasure and swords?

Now they're just c*nts.

It's 5:48 am, when I read this I lol'd hard xD Good job.

 

[jamesworkshop]

To people claiming that not every download is a lost sale: That's true, but that's not the point. The fact that there's at LEAST $41bn of pirated software floating around out there is a staggering number. If even 10% of that was a lost sale, that's $4bn. That is a lot of money.

Its abit different when taken in economic terms 41b doesn't actually exist in the market

 

[Loonerinoes]

To people claiming that not every download is a lost sale: That's true, but that's not the point. The fact that there's at LEAST $41bn of pirated software floating around out there is a staggering number. If even 10% of that was a lost sale, that's $4bn. That is a lot of money.

If money is indeed everything that is important (or the most important thing) within a game, then that statement is true.

Problem is a lot of people would not agree on that condition and would not agree that it is the only or most relevant point to make.

 

[polygon]

To people claiming that not every download is a lost sale: That's true, but that's not the point. The fact that there's at LEAST $41bn of pirated software floating around out there is a staggering number. If even 10% of that was a lost sale, that's $4bn. That is a lot of money.

I just copied my Photoshop folder 30 times (the one I paid for). That's $12,000 dollars the industry just lost to piracy, right?

It is a completely and utterly meaningless statistic. Don't try to claim otherwise.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Lending a book to a friend is one thing (friend has book, you do not have book); scanning all of the pages and sending it to them is another thing entirely.

And that is the distinction I honestly don't understand. You lend a book to a friend and he isn't buying the book from the publisher, publisher gets no money. You sell your book at a yard sale, stranger buys it, publisher gets no money. You donate your book to the library, dozens of people read it, the publisher gets no money.

According to your pro-IP world view all of those are perfectly moral actions yet they are "lost sales" and "taking someone's work that cost kagillions of euro do develop and umpteen brazillion manhours of hard work without paying for it".

Yet if someone scans the book and emails a copy to his friend then he is an evil pirate. If someone uploads a torrent of the book and dozens of people download it both the uploader and downloader are evil pirates.

It is a distinction without a difference. The mental gymnastics required to support libraries but oppose torrents is a level of self deception bordering on doublethink.

 

[Seldon2639]

I usually find myself critical of publications stating an overly inflated number as nothing more than sensationalism. We have to consider that these games don't cost the manufacturer the retail price to make these games. These games cost maybe a fraction of the retail price to make, so as far as losing invested money is concerned the number is actually much smaller. That and I disagree with the method in which they calculate the total losses. Multiplying by four on an already dubious number is stretching the truth for sensationalism. That's almost like saying that 40 billion is a fine number when you consider that the worlds population is around 7 billion people, that's like 5 bucks a person over the course of how many years? The statement pumps out numbers while using a flawed logic. The entire world does not have access to computers, or the devices necessary to pirate these games. When an individual considers that a tiny percentage of the market actually pirates handheld games, the numbers look inflated, indeed.

As it is, I doubt that number is even that high combined with Peer2Peer networks. The number is likely high, but nowhere near the number given.

(emphasis added)

I'm reminded of an exchange from The West Wing. Toby and Josh are discussing the blackmarket for generic HIV medications:

Toby: The pills cost them four cents a unit to make.

Josh: You know that's not true. The second pill cost them four cents; the first pill cost them four hundred million dollars.

The cost of the actual product is relatively limited (the physical cost of creating a disc/cartridge), but that's not really what the "cost" here is. The cost is in the development of the game. Your argument here is like saying that I (as a lawyer) should only consider the physical cost of the paper I use for pleadings when it comes to how much my effort is worth. I swear to you, if a client refuses to pay, I'm going to court for the full value of my time and labor, not just the cost of the physical product I produced.

And the other point would be that your figure of 10% just as justifiable as their figure of 41 billion, ie, not at all. It could be 100%, it could be 0.000000000000000001%, there is no way to know and, instead of claiming knowledge they lack and collectively punishing consumers on that basis, they should maybe do some studies which can produce workable outcomes such as; What can we do to encourage legal purchasing? What demographics actually engage in piracy?

That's a decent point. Though, from a normative standpoint, I'm not sure how much it makes sense to just say "some lawlessness is going to happen, let's accept it". As much as I agree that we should increase legal purchases, I'm not so much into the blithely accepting "some people are going to break the law, so let's just accept it". We don't really do that with much other law. What I'll never comprehend is the objection to games companies basically saying "we're getting screwed here, guys". Imagine if we had the same reaction to burglary:

"I just got robbed, call the police"
"Well, now, some robbery is inevitable. How can we encourage people to legally buy your stuff?"

Meh.

They could also start actually paying attention to the studies which have been done which produced workable outcomes, such as the one which showed that people who pirate music spend MORE than people who don't on legitimate purchases.

You... Mean the studies that show that they're 10 times more likely to buy music digitally than non-pirates? That's... Kind of a "gee, duh" claim, isn't it? Or the ones that are really bad at actually showing causation?

If you read the actual study (which is in Norwegian, and unduplicated elsewhere), they only show a correlation between higher free downloads, and higher paid downloads. "A ha!" I hear you cry "that means people who pirate buy the music they pirate, they're just demoing it". That's one interpretation. Another is that they buy what they can't pirate, and simply download more songs overall (they compare those with high rates of both legal and illegal downloads to those who have low rates of both. Even direct correlation does not imply causation). If we assume that people who pirate more and buy more simply acquire more music, the implication that piracy actually increases sales is dubious.

That'd be a bit like looking at a billionaire art thief, and saying "well, given that he steals a lot of art, and buys a lot of art, as compared to poor people who neither buy nor steal, we've shown that art thievery causes more art purchases. Theft is good for the art industry". A strained example, but an apt one.

Throwing around numbers and screaming "Piracy is bad, mmmkay" will not stop piracy, if they want to make more money maybe they should focus on ways to do that; constantly striving for an unachievable goal will only cost them more.

Again, is there another industry (or group of industries) who we'd look at and say "meh, if people are stealing your stuff, just make better stuff... That'll surely stop thieves". Do we really look at Apple and say (if people were stealing millions or billions of dollars worth of iPads) "well, if you focused on persuading people to buy them, you'd make more money. You should accept that people are going to steal them"?

I doubt it.

 

[John Funk]

No, piracy is a problem because it's taking something that people spent years and millions of dollars working on, and taking their work for free. How can you justify calling people against this "rats" or "cheerleaders" if we just believe that people are entitled to getting paid for their work?

I was talking about scale, not dictionary definition. All the over-inflated bullshit leads me to believe piracy is as relevant a market force as shoplifting or shipping damage. For as what little data I've collected, it appears if you count every pirated copy going to a territory that is even a relevant market as a lost sale, the actual impact is at most 25% of whatever they say. Not even considering the baseless core of the "lost sales" argument.

The fact they're saying the US is the biggest contributor to handheld piracy because the most sites are hosted there means they truly have no real data on this matter and are simply yanking numbers from their ass in desperate attempt to justify the amount of money being blown on draconian copy protection.

And I refer to you people as forum rats and cheerleaders because you don't ever for a second act like a single doubt enters your mind on this subject. As if you treat every clearly bullshit stat as gospel. I'm not even trying to justify piracy either, I just want someone to produce some real data or for everyone to just shut the fuck up about piracy. For if they can't produce some real information on the damage its causing, then its simply not a real problem.

I'm not treating these stats as gospel. I acknowledge that right off the bat.

What are you asking me to doubt? That I think piracy is wrong and morally reprehensible? That for the most part, pirates are entitled jerks? Sorry, that ain't happening, and I think trying to paint people who are pro-people-getting-paid-for-their-creations as "rats and cheerleaders" is fairly underhanded and makes it harder to have an actual conversation.

Are you asking me to doubt its impact? We have actual figures on certain games - 90% of the numbers showing up on the World of Goo sites were copies that hadn't been purchased, for one. When ~120,000 people connect to the Demigod servers but Stardock is only showing 18,000 purchases? Well, that's another factual number right there.

What *is* unclear - and I think where most people SHOULD have doubts - is how many of those people would have bought the game if they'd been unable to pirate it. Maybe 25% of them would have become customers. Maybe it's only 1%. Maybe none. That's what we can't prove.

But just because we can't say that "developers are definitely losing $X" doesn't mean that piracy isn't wrong. If a copy hasn't been paid for, you shouldn't get to play it.

 

[Asehujiko]

Bullshit statistic is bullshit.

Apparently piracy is so bad that they don't have enough money left to do actual research and have to resort to pulling numbers out of their ass.

That or their fat, lazy executives took it all away while the programmers are being paid exactly as much as if when they successfully sold a copy to every single person in the world.

 

[John Funk]

Lending a book to a friend is one thing (friend has book, you do not have book); scanning all of the pages and sending it to them is another thing entirely.

And that is the distinction I honestly don't understand. You lend a book to a friend and he isn't buying the book from the publisher, publisher gets no money. You sell your book at a yard sale, stranger buys it, publisher gets no money. You donate your book to the library, dozens of people read it, the publisher gets no money.

According to your pro-IP world view all of those are perfectly moral actions yet they are "lost sales" and "taking someone's work that cost kagillions of euro do develop and umpteen brazillion manhours of hard work without paying for it".

Yet if someone scans the book and emails a copy to his friend then he is an evil pirate. If someone uploads a torrent of the book and dozens of people download it both the uploader and downloader are evil pirates.

It is a distinction without a difference. The mental gymnastics required to support libraries but oppose torrents is a level of self deception bordering on doublethink.

Uh, no.

The important thing is not the physical copy of an item. The important thing is the information contained within said copy. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to deal with concepts like plagiarism - I can't just copy Harry Potter word for word and publish it as my own work, because JK Rowling has the rights to that information, even if I've owned the books.

You may own the DVD that contains the code to, say, Super Mario Galaxy 2, but that doesn't give you the right to copy all of the code and models and re-release the game as your own. Nintendo owns that information.

It's not hard to understand, really. If you have paid money for something, you can do what you like with that physical copy. You can give it to someone else (transferring ownership from you to them - they now have it, you do NOT have it). You can resell it (again, transferring ownership from you to them). A library has paid for X copies of a book, and can lend them out as they please: Only one copy of the information exists at any one time. But copying it and disseminating it for free is now infringing on the information that exists inside of it.

It's pretty simple. And you can argue without being a dick about it - discuss politely, or don't discuss here at all.

 

[Seldon2639]

I just copied my Photoshop folder 30 times (the one I paid for). That's $12,000 dollars the industry just lost to piracy, right?

It is a completely and utterly meaningless statistic. Don't try to claim otherwise.

\

If you gave away those thirty copies (and they worked), then at least some of them are probably lost sales. But let's assume they aren't for a moment.

Can you imagine another industry in which we'd simply say "meh" to theft? Yes, the price of these goods are inflated far beyond their actual worth. So's a Ferrari. But, no one decent looks at a Ferrari and says "you know what, I'm just gonna take this one". And no one else looks at the scum who steals the Ferrari says "you know what, he wasn't going to buy one anyway, so it's not like it's a lost sale".

Now, you come back with "but, there's inherent value to the car, it's worth the physical parts". A Ferrari costs a shit-ton of money; the parts don't account for a quarter of that. Most of the cost of a car is the design, labor, all that jazz. The initial creation of the car (*cough*game, movie, music*cough*) is what you're paying for, not just what goes into that individual unit.

And, not for nothing, but when did we accept that everyone deserves to play a game, listen to a CD, watch a movie, ect. even if they don't want to pay for it? I for one don't much like the idea of people driving Ferraris for free while I drive my Dodge Dart, how about you?

 

[poiuppx]

The thing is, I'm oppossed to piracy. In the end, it's just poisoning the watering hole; you do long term damage to something you suppossedly like, or even love. And yes, piracy is a problem, if for no other reason than it convinces folks this is the alternative. Don't like a company? It's an excuse to pirate. Think prices are too high? Piracy time. Believe the people who spent years of their lives making this game for you shouldn't be reimbursed for their hardwork? Go jump in a woodchipper. Oh, and pirate. It's not the alternative. The alternative is to buy games from other places or companies, to buy used, or to literally just NOT BUY NEW GAMES.

But... this? This is wrong. Utterly wrong. Sure, the truth MAY be hidden somewhere in the figures, but I look at these figures and can only think the folks who made it are idiots at best, dishonest snake oil salesmen at worst. It doesn't compell me to fight for the cause, it compells me to look down on them for being out of touch and blatantly lying.

Even if it were a meager 10% of this figure, you know what that means, John? It means they increased they reported 1000% of the real damages. Piracy as a cause might be something worth fighting, but things like this are not. They only pollute the air on your side, and bring you down off a moral high ground you deserve to own.