To anyone who thinks piracy is ok

[Snor]

ok this is the deal: i dont have money to fork over X amounts of euros for every game coming out, this restricts me from buying only the games i really really want. good thing right?

now your buddy has that one game you were interested in but not enough to spend your money on (lets say you can only buy 1-5 a year?). you will obviously ask him to lend it yo you.

Result: no money paid, game played
Piracy: no money paid, game played

the only difference for this particular consumer is.....oh no there isn't any, as he/she wouldn't buy it anyway.
the difference for the company is that the buddy in this case did buy it...

what game developers should do in my opinion is lower the price for new games and maybe make them free of charge after one year. this way people will become interested and play the game and be exited for a sequel. This is not a definite solution but its something better then retaining the status quo

 

[Dastardly]

First of all, i never said its a sample! I said if your truely a fan of a game you will buy it. For instance, i hate halo, so ill never buy it.... i might get a pirated copy though! No incentive to buy you say? Have you ever downloaded a pirated game? Its full of complicated installations, bugs, software incompatibilities! Sure its free but its like getting a mongrel in a box, sure hes kinda cute in a mangy kinda way but it makes weird noises and humps about a bit and just isn't really the real thing you wanted. And its NOT the whole game now, maybe 5 or 10 years ago, but now that every multiplayer/co-op modes need special activation you actually get, the single-player so.... 50% of the game... maybe more.

My heart bleeds for you, and how difficult it is for you to get hold of something illegally to which you are in NO WAY entitled. And this whole mess of "if you're truly a fan, you'll buy it"--please. There is NO DATA to back up that claim, because it's just not happening on any scale large enough to care about.

If you get it for free, you HAVE IT. FOR FREE. You're not going to go back and retroactively pay for it, and you're not going to pay for the sequels. Why? Because you've just learned you can get it for free. The evidence is ALL OVER the data.

And its not other peoples stuff, its YOUR stuff, you paid for it, why can't you share that with people?

No, it's not. Read the EULA--you're not "buying" the rights to copy and/or distribute the software. You're buying a license to use THIS SINGULAR COPY of the software. You never have to pay again, but that doesn't mean the software itself "belongs" to you. That's like saying, 'Hey, this book I bought belongs to me, so I can use, copy, and distribute copies of all of its contents as though they were my own.' Not true.

And sure, if you pirate it, you don't have to accept the EULA. That's because you've ALREADY STOLEN IT. It's like going to a car rental place, taking a car without asking, and then claiming it's yours because you never filled out the form. It's ridiculous, has nothing to do with any logic or reason, and it's illegal.

If you can't pay for it, why pay? The company wouldn't make any money from you anyway so there is literally zero harm in you downloading it. Your not killing the system, your just taking what you can get.

If you can't pay for it, why should you have it? What gives you the right to have it? You already know you're absolutely wrong about "zero harm." You've just convinced yourself the people you're harming aren't good, hard-working folks. You just paint long black mustaches on them in your mind and say, "Evil, greedy corporations!" like so many other pretended activists. No, you're contributing to stealing from the developers themselves in so many ways that you may as well be sneaking into their houses at night.

No evidence? Screw evidence,

See? There's your problem.

its a well known fact that piracy while "infringing on copyright" reduces income from the multi-million publishers (boo-hoo, taking candy from a fat candy stuffed baby...with plenty of more candy on hand) thus effecting the makers, but still garners support for the makers (see TPB)! Not just for gaming but music. THAT'S GOOD! There's plenty of evidence online to support this - google is your friend.

This "well known fact" is bullshit. And you have absolutely no evidence to support this claim, because there is none. Simply pointing me toward google is your way of saying, "I don't know jack shit about what I'm talking about, and you're supposed to do the work for me." I already have. I've considered all of the evidence, and the conclusions match up with reality. Yours do not.

TPB? Really? You don't keep up much with news. Why don't YOU go to google and find out what they're up to now because of the game they've been running--begging people for donations while raking in millions in advertising dollars. Really. Your complete ignorance on the topic is showing.

How many artists have given up because of the photograph?

This is called a non sequitur. The logic you're appealing to doesn't follow from the conversation we're having. This isn't about people not "keeping up with digital media," or artists claiming that downloading is affecting their art. This is about developers (artists) that are not happy that their software (art) is being downloaded BY PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO PAY ONE RED CENT FOR IT.

The rest of your bullshit is just you trying to convince yourself you're not stealing right out of their pockets. Just cop to it, and we could have a little more respect for you that this, "Sharing is caring" pigshit.

 

[z3rostr1fe]

ok this is the deal: i dont have money to fork over X amounts of euros for every game coming out, this restricts me from buying only the games i really really want. good thing right?

now your buddy has that one game you were interested in but not enough to spend your money on (lets say you can only buy 1-5 a year?). you will obviously ask him to lend it yo you.

Result: no money paid, game played
Piracy: no money paid, game played

the only difference for this particular consumer is.....oh no there isn't any, as he/she wouldn't buy it anyway.
the difference for the company is that the buddy in this case did buy it...

Upon reading this, I now remember the other side of DRM: and that is to limit such a thing from happening(i.e. an owner sharing his/her game to friends or relatives). However, in piracy, technically it's just the same thing, only that one person shares it TO THE REST OF THE WORLD, which makes the company producing the product concerned about the GARGANTUAN amount of potential sales lost.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

What game developers should do in my opinion is lower the price for new games and maybe make them free of charge after one year.

Sort of this.

I would buy more games if they were cheaper.
Sixty dollar games? LOL ONLY IF IT'S REALLY GOOD.
Thirty dollar games? I'm more likely to buy it now.
Twenty dollar games? Yeah, I'll buy a few.
Ten dollar games? Gimme.
Five dollar games? I will buy it multiple times.

I wouldn't want them to be free after one year though. The developers should get the money they deserve for working hard on their product, but cheaper things do sell better.

This is partly why Minecraft sells so well in my opinion. It costs so less, and it's an enjoyable game. Even if it slightly sucked, I'd be more likely to try it out because of the low price.

 

[D_987]

I would buy more games if they were cheaper.
Sixty dollar games? LOL ONLY IF IT'S REALLY GOOD.
Thirty dollar games? I'm more likely to buy it now.
Twenty dollar games? Yeah, I'll buy a few.
Ten dollar games? Gimme.
Five dollar games? I will buy it multiple times.

I wouldn't want them to be free after one year though. The developers should get the money they deserve for working hard on their product, but cheaper things do sell better.

I think you should look up how much money the developers actually get for each copy of the game sold; at those prices they'd never be able to fund another project...

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

What game developers should do in my opinion is lower the price for new games and maybe make them free of charge after one year.

Sort of this.

I would buy more games if they were cheaper.
Sixty dollar games? LOL ONLY IF IT'S REALLY GOOD.
Thirty dollar games? I'm more likely to buy it now.
Twenty dollar games? Yeah, I'll buy a few.
Ten dollar games? Gimme.
Five dollar games? I will buy it multiple times.

I wouldn't want them to be free after one year though. The developers should get the money they deserve for working hard on their product, but cheaper things do sell better.

This is partly why Minecraft sells so well in my opinion. It costs so less, and it's an enjoyable game. Even if it slightly sucked, I'd be more likely to try it out because of the low price.

sad thing is, if this happened, no one would buy new released games, you realize how many ignorant people there are out there? people already do it by the buttloads, they wait a year or two for the game to drop a measily 10-20 dollars maximum and then they still are iffy about getting it, if it dropped down to 5-10 dollars within a year or two the developers wouldn't be making jackshit because no one would've bought it when it came out.

the "video game" product is the same as any other product, they go down, just at a more steady rate usually. there are some companies who are better about this than others but its their product so you can't complain really. (i.e. dragon age was like 25 bucks or something last time i went to the store, while mw2 is still like 60)

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Without wanting to add another full page to a thread where little new has been said, but I'm in agreement on two points:

Firstly, that piracy was RIFE at my school, back in the 90s, and I imagine it was the same all over the UK, and probably elsewhere too, people swapping copies of ZX Spectrum games on tapes, then Atari ST and Amiga games on 3.5" floppies. The few people I know still, from that era are still huge gamers, and OWN dozens, if not hundreds of games, from the SNES thru to the PS3.

I'm not saying piracy is good, or right, of course it's illegal and it's morally wrong to enjoy someone's work without paying for it, that I'd hope we all agree on. However, the people who used to get £2 a week pocket money, and would ask for a couple of new original games at Xmas, so they could share em with friends, are likely to now be the people with the spare disposable income to just buy the games they want. I knew I was wrong back then, and now I have over 100 games on Steam, despite not being able to afford a current gen console.

Secondly, Steam is the way forward, or at least digital distribution, but it needs to get brave and take more steps to be easier. Most of the time, I'll run Steam, and it'll say '50% off Oblivion GOTY edition - £6', and I'll click it, read it, consider it, click buy, tick the agree box, and I own it. However, every CD key, online activation, additional software etc, is one more hoop I have to jump thru that the free torrented version doesn't have.

Make games 'click, buy, install, play' and they're then EASIER to buy than they are to torrent, and you'll pull in the people who have the money but just are too damn lazy to order the game online or go to a Gamestop and listen to preorder sales patter.

Look at itunes, click, buy, listen. On top of that, they piggyback ads onto youtube videos, unlike the annoying new ones forced on the beginning, just a tiny banner under it, going 'buy this tune now'. That is the way to go about sales, not stomping around the internet with an army of lawyers, issuing takedown orders on anyone daring to display your music video (or 'advert for your clients' as music videos are intended to be).

Also, as was said in PC gamer, get more stuff on Steam! Dungeon Keeper 1 and 2, Syndicate, hell there's a Syndicate sequel on the way, what's the only way to play the original? piracy, or paying some total git £50 for a rare copy online thru ebay.

The facts are, after the first month, a video game has made the majority of its sales. If it's a couple of years old, get it on Steam for £5 or less and watch the cash roll in. I've not only bought games I pirated in the past on Steam, I've bought games I bought legally, just so I don't have to mess with C swaps or going to find a virus laden no cd patch.

Yet again, I've failed to be short, but I hope I've at least been relevant.

 

[Mikazuki]

I'm a student and I don't have much money. I live on my own, ride buses to school and I have a part-time job in the evening hours. I own a Xbox 360 for which I only buy original games (because I want to play them online). I download music and movies for free, yes.

But keep in mind that an average dvd costs 30 euros here(Holland). And a cd for 20. I can't afford to buy all the cd's and dvd's I want. I work hard enough as it is and the ridiculous prices for a cd with 3 good songs on it and a dvd with the mandatory anti-piracy ads is not something I have the luxury of being able to afford.

That's how I 'justify' myself. That, and the fact that downloading music and/or movies is 100% legal in my country. It's just illegal when you start uploading it aswell. I love my country >.>

 

[steveredd]

DO me a favor. go to youtube and look up your favorite song BAM you just pirated. >.=.>

 

[Kair]

Firstly, sorry about quoting the wrong person. However, the 'illustration' is still at the very least incorrectly labelled - if you wish to display the revenue/sales of the software title/game/whatever, you should label it so, because it's current label implies that you are trying to show a contrast between a number of people and an amount of money.

I'm not exactly sure what this illustration is promoting, and whether or not you agree with it, but in the hypothetical world of free information - your capitalists do not actually make any money - if he is not allowed to put a dollar value on his product - rather, he must give it away - he is not making money, he is losing it by paying his developers to produce the product. Therefore, where the hell is his incentive to make the product in the first place?

Replies:

-

However, the 'illustration' is still at the very least incorrectly labelled - if you wish to display the revenue/sales of the software title/game/whatever, you should label it so, because it's current label implies that you are trying to show a contrast between a number of people and an amount of money.

Reply:

The cost of production illustrates the cost as compared to the sales from the customer group (blue), as you can see there is a margin of profit on both hypothetical capitalist worlds.

Clarification: The green bar represents the amount of people needed to buy the information to cover the cost of production.
-

but in the hypothetical world of free information - your capitalists do not actually make any money

Reply:

There is no profit in the hypothetical world of free information, because there is no sale of commodities, only the payment of those who produce the information.

More on this topic: The third hypothetical world is not necessarily a capitalist one. A market economy hinders intervention.
-

See that I could reply mostly by using the reply you replied to. I will explain further, but please attempt to read what I say, then ask the questions regarding what I said.

 

[CrazyMedic]

has anyone seen that video thats says "would you steal a car?", "would you steal a handbag?". piracy is stealing

erm ive just bought this film legally so why are you telling me this?

in all seriousness if they charge £8 to watch a film and a further £6 for a snack and beverage and stop you from bringing your own then they are the criminals

you understand they sell you your tickets at a 75%(I believe at the lowest I think it was 40%) loss then they charge anywhere from 100% to 80% extra for the other stuff so all in all they end up doubling their money and beating their profit margins so all in all most of the people who ***** about it don't understand economics, it is like bitching out a pawn broker because he wants to double his money off, he can't be a good guy and just cover his operating expensises he needs some profit.

 

[Deleted]

This thread probably said what I am going to say, since its 24 pages.. but oh well here goes.

Piracy is bad depending on your moral code. Some people see it as stealing from the devs, others see it as "I wasn't going to buy it anyways". Its impossible to compare two people's different values like this and it won't get us anywhere. Piracy (of any kind) is the natural result of a free internet and tech savvy population, to expect people to not do such a simple crime (its just a few clicks away) is to be incredibly naive about human nature.

Personally I don't feel bad pirating, since I'm broke as fuck and I do not seed the games I pirate. I don't think pirating old games is as big a deal, so I'll talk about current gen/last gen specifically. I'm going to admit that I pirate wii games on a soft-modded wii (mods if this is not allowed to be said, tell me). It saves me a lot of money and I pirate a lot of games that I never would have even considered buying, so in a way I am stealing fun.

 

[jaketheripper]

Honestly, i respet the gaming industry enough to buy my games, but not my music, the only music i buy is from artists that are good people, like the lead singer of disturbed, a guy in a wheelchair fought thru the mosh pit and david(the singer) saw that, brought him on stage, and let him backstage after the show to have a beer with them, i respect that. ive also met him and he is genuinely cool. but if an artist(musical or otherwise) is a corrupted dickhead(s)(*cough* gene simmons(i dont like kiss but hese a good example)) then they dont deserve anything more than a cardboard box, therefor i dont buy their shit. thats my view on piracy, it just a personal thing for me.

 

[InnerRebellion]

My friend pirates everything, and I mean everything. I don't even borrow games from him once I found out all of his games are illegal...mainly cos I'm a paranoid nut.

I can see why companies hate pirates, but at the same time, I don't see why it's so bad.