To anyone who thinks piracy is ok

[Dastardly]

You could easily turn that around and tell companies to deal with piracy because "it's life"

And that's what the smart ones do.

Times are changing and those who don't change with them will become extinct. Like dinosaurs

The difference is clear. The company is well within their legal and moral rights. It's their product, they can sell it with NO advertising if they like. They can choose not to hand out review copies to published reviewers. They can choose not to have box art, demos, or anything. And they can charge what they like.

Your choices as a consumer are a) buy or b) don't buy. If you buy and then regret it, neither party has stepped outside the legal or moral right. Any unfortunate side effects (called "buyers' remorse") are just part of the learning process. You can make different choices in the future, or petition the company to offer more information in the future. Or just wait longer and ask people who are playing the game.

There are a multitude of sources of information available to prevent most cases of "This isn't what I thought it was." It's just that greed and impatience motivate folks to skip those, and then the same greed and impatience motivate them to blame their own impulsive mistakes on others.

If you pirate it, you ARE stepping outside your rights. It's not your program to take, to copy, or to distribute. It's someone else's. That is the clear difference when it comes to trying to tell the developer's "That's just life." No, it's feeble-minded justification from selfish brats who feel entitled to forcibly take things that are not theirs.

Options are no longer limited to "buy" and "don't buy". There's a third option "pirate it". From a moral or legal point of view that may be "wrong" but an option is an option and people will use it regardless of legal and moral issues. Companies will have to deal with it. Doesn't matter if they like it or not. That's just how reality is.

You're talking in circles.

Developers and publishers are taking steps against piracy because it is NOT a legal option in the consideration of buying a product. They're creating more demos, including more DRM, and so on. They are reacting to the reality of piracy. And then the pirates themselves turn around and claim that DRM is "ruining the experience" and "causing more piracy," even though data points to the opposite being true.

Your third option is an illegal one, which is why it's not on my list of "legal and rightful options" as presented above. As such, the publishers and developers are within their rights to take whatever legal steps are necessary to close off that option, if only for enough time to make enough sales to remain profitable.

Here's your circular reasoning:

A: It is illegal to pirate games.
B: People do it anyway.
C: Companies are taking steps to make it slower or more difficult to pirate.
D: (Your reasoning) Companies need to "keep up" and just deal with piracy.
E: (The circle) They're dealing with it by trying to prevent it, as it is (see A) illegal.

They're dealing with it by trying to close off the illegal avenue for as long as they can to try to gain some ground and keep game design profitable. That's "reacting to the digital age." Reacting to piracy doesn't mean excusing or capitulating to it.

 

[joinchoir]

Games aren't that expensive if you put a "per hour I played it" price on it. 60 hours into New Vegas and a buck an hour is looking pretty good.

 

[superbatranger]

If they started pricing right I wouldn't consider piracy. 60$ for medal of honor? 50$ for front mission evo? 40$ for dead rising 2? These games are not worth the price, and I've gotten ripped off way to many times. Oh and for anyone who says "you can wait for the prices to drop" take a look at CoD MW 2. Still 60$ after about 2 years, and it's only half as good as CoD 4. Price them reasonably and sure I'd buy it. The only time I wouldn't pirate ever would be for companies just starting.

If you can't afford it you don't play it. It's hardly a conundrum.

Well, most of them have the whole "I must play it no matter what" mindset. Here where I live, for example, piracy is so rampant because the cost of games are..well...ridiculously expensive. It's just as bad here as it is in Australia. A copy of Mass Effect for 110 dollars? Give me a break.

 

[joinchoir]

snip

Actually it's a perfectly valid reason not to boycott. Loss of jobs is a bad thing. Especially in a recession and especially when they're low skill jobs. As it stands me and my coworkers are unskilled. We need these jobs to pay for school. If we lost our jobs we'd have a hell of a time finding new ones because until we finish school we have no skills to set us apart. But without work we can't afford to get those skills which would get us jobs. Corporations aren't faceless entities being run by a guy in a top hat twirling a moustache, the majority are just people that need work.

Well said Mr. popcorn peddler!

 

[Dastardly]

When are people going to realize that attempting to guilt trip people into not pirating games from greedy corporations will never work?

It seems to me that more and more people are getting on board with it because it isn't any worse than what the corporation do to paying customers (ie, release unfinished games only to sell parts later, release broken games only to patch them later, trying to destroy the used market, etc...)

No, it seems like people are getting on board with it because, "HEY FREE STUFF."

Really? Where's your proof of that? I don't see most people here saying that.

The proof is in the data, which is based on what people DO, rather than what they SAY they do. The two are often not the same, and the actual behavior is far more accurate than the purported behavior. Look. Into. The. Numbers.

Pirates are already doing things below-board, so I'm sorry to say that it hurts the, "Take my word for it" credibility when they try to say they're doing it for a noble cause. There are plenty of ways to fight for that noble cause out in the open, and without also "happening" to get free games out of the deal.

People can say they'll do whatever they like. I can say I donate 30% of my income to charity every month. I can say I'll do 50% in the future. But until you see that it's ACTUALLY being done, it's just bluster. Look at the behavior, not the claim.

What data shows WHY people pirate? The data, as untrustworthy as it is, doesn't show WHY people pirate and the people right here are telling you why they pirate. I am curious why you believe anything except what people right here are telling you.

They're saying the pirate to try out the game, and that they later go back and purchase it. The data doesn't demonstrate that behavior, so the claim is bunk. A scattering of individuals may do it, but not in significant enough numbers to see a sales bump (or a decrease in piracy-related customer service tickets or downloads) a little while after release.

The data doesn't show "why" they pirate, but it does show that this particular reason they claim is not borne out by the data. The better a game is, the more it is pirated. The fact that piracy download rates can outstrip actual sales says clearly that MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO PIRATE do so to get the game for free. Otherwise, if even HALF of the people were doing what they claimed, the piracy rate could not possibly, over time, be even close to the number of sales--because each pirate would then turn into a paying customer.

Furthermore, other reasons for "why a person pirates" simply aren't admissible as evidence. Motive isn't admissible as evidence in a trial (though it may factor into closing arguments, certainly). The fact is that they do it. And that means they take something that is not theirs to take, even though it has been offered to them for a price of the creator's choosing (since it is, after all, theirs to price as they see fit).

And you can claim you stole the bread to give it to orphans, but so what? It doesn't prove you did, and it doesn't change the fact that you stole it. Motive is unverifiable and insignificant. CLAIMED motives are even less useful.

So you admit that the data doesn't show motive. So when given the choice to believe what people are telling you or to believe that they are lying, you choose the latter.

The data doesn't tell you how many people actually played the game, how far into the game they played and if they liked the game enough to purchase it, you just assume alot.

Incorrect. I don't choose to believe or not. I dismiss the motive as immaterial and I look at the data. I'm not saying "everyone who says this is lying," or "everyone who says this is truthful." I'm saying that the data doesn't back up the claims, and that anyone can claim whatever they want, true or not. So any claim that can be substantiated by some kind of data has no meaning.

There are things the data doesn't tell me. But it does still tell me that they pirated the game, meaning a copy exists for which the developer received nothing. Maybe they played it for 2 hours and quit. That's still maybe $5 of value they got out of the game, yet the developer received $0.

If they use the game as a demo because the dev didn't release an official demo, I see no problem since they can easily lose $50-$60 by buying it only to find out it doesn't run well despite meeting the specs. After all, it the devs had released a demo and they played it, they would be playing for free.

Devs should release more demos if they want to avoid this. Once you've been burned by inaccurate specs, you really don't trust the specs anymore.

Then bug them about more demos. They'll be more likely to listen if you stop taking their stuff for free.

Think of it this way:

You're on a ship, and it costs you a lot to keep that ship afloat. You'd like to start selling extended rides on your ship. Lots of people are interested, but they're not sure yet. To help this along, you want to offer free tours first. Short rides, give people an idea, all of that.

Now part of the "interested" population starts poking holes in your ship, in order to express their distaste that you won't give them free tours. Maybe they don't even realize they're poking these holes. They're just sneaking onto the ship by other means (and opening those holes in the process).

Well, as much as you'd like to give those tours, your attention and resources (read: money and time) are instead focused on having to patch those holes. You can't give them what they want because you're too busy trying to fix what they're breaking in the process of using STUPID ways to ask you for what you want. If they'd stop poking holes, you could focus on getting those free tours started.

Does that mean you'll instantly do it as soon as they stop? Maybe, maybe not. But you certainly can't until they stop poking the goddamn holes in your ship.

Stop poking financial holes in the developer's ship, and engage in a dialogue with them. Then they can focus less on copy (and profitability) protection, and they can get a demo out there. Most studios use a BARE MINIMUM of staff (to help keep costs down), so every person and dollar spent on preventing piracy is a person or dollar that can't be allocated to producing a representative demo.

 

[Kair]

Piracy serves none except pirates, but it does not either cost anyone. It might serve everyone: Infinite resources can be distributed nearly without cost. This is why a pirate will never pay for information, and will acquire it nonetheless through any means possible.

Plagiarism cost me a grade. Therefore, you cannot claim it does not cost anything at all times.

Stealing credit for the production of information (in hopes of profiting socially or financially from it) and the distribution of information are different.

A quite amusing image posted here earlier illustrates this to some degree.

 

[TheProfessor134]

People pirate simply because they can. Saying anything to defend why they do it is just an excuse. People want free things, simple as that. Well... Some people pirate games also because the game might not be available to the public.. Example: Boyfriend torrented Nascar 2003.. Only because he couldn't find it anywhere and prices for it on ebay were high.

 

[zombflux]

If I can't afford a soda but can get away with stealing it, I will steal it. sorry.

 

[Kair]

It only covers piracy in a market economy. I have drawn a little illustration to help you realize the error of limiting infinite resources for profit.

Well, you quite literally illustrated your point, but that doesn't substantiate your claims.

Your 'graph' is not based on real data and anyone examining it would see that it is ridiculous as it attempts to compare the variables "amount of people" and "cost". It also assumes that people would be willing to spend time producing software for everyone purely out of the goodness of their hearts. WOULD YOU?

1) Direct it to me, not the commenter.
2) Yes, I should have explained further. You might as well ask, not insult.
3) It is not a graph, but an illustration.
4) 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. The profit does not go to the developers, but the capitalists running the company. The costs include the wages of the developers. 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.

 

[Arehexes]

You could easily turn that around and tell companies to deal with piracy because "it's life"

And that's what the smart ones do.

Times are changing and those who don't change with them will become extinct. Like dinosaurs

The difference is clear. The company is well within their legal and moral rights. It's their product, they can sell it with NO advertising if they like. They can choose not to hand out review copies to published reviewers. They can choose not to have box art, demos, or anything. And they can charge what they like.

Your choices as a consumer are a) buy or b) don't buy. If you buy and then regret it, neither party has stepped outside the legal or moral right. Any unfortunate side effects (called "buyers' remorse") are just part of the learning process. You can make different choices in the future, or petition the company to offer more information in the future. Or just wait longer and ask people who are playing the game.

There are a multitude of sources of information available to prevent most cases of "This isn't what I thought it was." It's just that greed and impatience motivate folks to skip those, and then the same greed and impatience motivate them to blame their own impulsive mistakes on others.

If you pirate it, you ARE stepping outside your rights. It's not your program to take, to copy, or to distribute. It's someone else's. That is the clear difference when it comes to trying to tell the developer's "That's just life." No, it's feeble-minded justification from selfish brats who feel entitled to forcibly take things that are not theirs.

Options are no longer limited to "buy" and "don't buy". There's a third option "pirate it". From a moral or legal point of view that may be "wrong" but an option is an option and people will use it regardless of legal and moral issues. Companies will have to deal with it. Doesn't matter if they like it or not. That's just how reality is.

they aare dealing with it hense schemes like project 5 dollar and (poorly executed ) DRM it wouldnt exist without pirates, you have nobody but yourselves to blame for DRM tbh

DRM was around wwaaayyyy before the internet boom fest we have now. It was a fear of you sharing or selling your game to a friend. If I remember monkey island had a wheel used to decode the password to install the game.

 

[Arehexes]

When are people going to realize that attempting to guilt trip people into not pirating games from greedy corporations will never work?

It seems to me that more and more people are getting on board with it because it isn't any worse than what the corporation do to paying customers (ie, release unfinished games only to sell parts later, release broken games only to patch them later, trying to destroy the used market, etc...)

No, it seems like people are getting on board with it because, "HEY FREE STUFF."

Really? Where's your proof of that? I don't see most people here saying that.

The proof is in the data, which is based on what people DO, rather than what they SAY they do. The two are often not the same, and the actual behavior is far more accurate than the purported behavior. Look. Into. The. Numbers.

Pirates are already doing things below-board, so I'm sorry to say that it hurts the, "Take my word for it" credibility when they try to say they're doing it for a noble cause. There are plenty of ways to fight for that noble cause out in the open, and without also "happening" to get free games out of the deal.

People can say they'll do whatever they like. I can say I donate 30% of my income to charity every month. I can say I'll do 50% in the future. But until you see that it's ACTUALLY being done, it's just bluster. Look at the behavior, not the claim.

What data shows WHY people pirate? The data, as untrustworthy as it is, doesn't show WHY people pirate and the people right here are telling you why they pirate. I am curious why you believe anything except what people right here are telling you.

They're saying the pirate to try out the game, and that they later go back and purchase it. The data doesn't demonstrate that behavior, so the claim is bunk. A scattering of individuals may do it, but not in significant enough numbers to see a sales bump (or a decrease in piracy-related customer service tickets or downloads) a little while after release.

The data doesn't show "why" they pirate, but it does show that this particular reason they claim is not borne out by the data. The better a game is, the more it is pirated. The fact that piracy download rates can outstrip actual sales says clearly that MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO PIRATE do so to get the game for free. Otherwise, if even HALF of the people were doing what they claimed, the piracy rate could not possibly, over time, be even close to the number of sales--because each pirate would then turn into a paying customer.

Furthermore, other reasons for "why a person pirates" simply aren't admissible as evidence. Motive isn't admissible as evidence in a trial (though it may factor into closing arguments, certainly). The fact is that they do it. And that means they take something that is not theirs to take, even though it has been offered to them for a price of the creator's choosing (since it is, after all, theirs to price as they see fit).

And you can claim you stole the bread to give it to orphans, but so what? It doesn't prove you did, and it doesn't change the fact that you stole it. Motive is unverifiable and insignificant. CLAIMED motives are even less useful.

So you admit that the data doesn't show motive. So when given the choice to believe what people are telling you or to believe that they are lying, you choose the latter.

The data doesn't tell you how many people actually played the game, how far into the game they played and if they liked the game enough to purchase it, you just assume alot.

Incorrect. I don't choose to believe or not. I dismiss the motive as immaterial and I look at the data. I'm not saying "everyone who says this is lying," or "everyone who says this is truthful." I'm saying that the data doesn't back up the claims, and that anyone can claim whatever they want, true or not. So any claim that can be substantiated by some kind of data has no meaning.

There are things the data doesn't tell me. But it does still tell me that they pirated the game, meaning a copy exists for which the developer received nothing. Maybe they played it for 2 hours and quit. That's still maybe $5 of value they got out of the game, yet the developer received $0.

If they use the game as a demo because the dev didn't release an official demo, I see no problem since they can easily lose $50-$60 by buying it only to find out it doesn't run well despite meeting the specs. After all, it the devs had released a demo and they played it, they would be playing for free.

Devs should release more demos if they want to avoid this. Once you've been burned by inaccurate specs, you really don't trust the specs anymore.

Then bug them about more demos. They'll be more likely to listen if you stop taking their stuff for free.

Think of it this way:

You're on a ship, and it costs you a lot to keep that ship afloat. You'd like to start selling extended rides on your ship. Lots of people are interested, but they're not sure yet. To help this along, you want to offer free tours first. Short rides, give people an idea, all of that.

Now part of the "interested" population starts poking holes in your ship, in order to express their distaste that you won't give them free tours. Maybe they don't even realize they're poking these holes. They're just sneaking onto the ship by other means (and opening those holes in the process).

Well, as much as you'd like to give those tours, your attention and resources (read: money and time) are instead focused on having to patch those holes. You can't give them what they want because you're too busy trying to fix what they're breaking in the process of using STUPID ways to ask you for what you want. If they'd stop poking holes, you could focus on getting those free tours started.

Does that mean you'll instantly do it as soon as they stop? Maybe, maybe not. But you certainly can't until they stop poking the goddamn holes in your ship.

Stop poking financial holes in the developer's ship, and engage in a dialogue with them. Then they can focus less on copy (and profitability) protection, and they can get a demo out there. Most studios use a BARE MINIMUM of staff (to help keep costs down), so every person and dollar spent on preventing piracy is a person or dollar that can't be allocated to producing a representative demo.

I have called for more demos in this very thread but I didn't need to, devs already know that people want demos. In fact, they used to be quite common.

I don't pirate but if devs refuse to offer demos, I see nothing wrong with people downloading the full game to demo it. The devs have only themselves to blame for that because they could have and should have offered a demo. I can only think that the lack of demos is because they are trying to trick you into buying it without trying it because they are not confident in their product.

See I'm all for demons because i was going to buy a game but it wouldn't run on my comp with the demo (thank god they gave one so i could try it). But I rather demos be on the final product(some release a early demo to build hype only), instead of a early build where it not might be the same specs.