TorrentFreak Reveals Top Pirated Games of 2011
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Belated said:
Magnicon said:
Basically, the point is, (as someone who works for a billion dollar corporation which gets affected by piracy),
Pirates are a loss of a sale. Let's not kid ourselves, people who pirate games aren't going to bother buying them later. What's the point? They've finished a game for free. Back on point, if they decrease potential revenue, they hurt the industry.
Or you could take this version.
It takes a shitload of income to support a billion dollar corporation. We want the pirates' money. We love the fact that they like our content, but as long as they take it for free, we'll slap more paywalls and DRM on stuff, to maximise our revenue. Evil? Not really, just protecting our interests.
I didn't hear any facts or evidence in that post. You just stated personal commentary. I provided an article linked to a study. Y'know, those things that prove things. Where is your argument against the notion that proves my point? My evidence is that people who pirate things do not spend any less money on entertainment. My evidence is math. Where is your evidence that refutes math? If you want to win this argument, you need to prove that study wrong.ResonanceSD said:
And I already explained very clearly why piracy is not a loss of a sale. You can't just say "Piracy is a loss of a sale" without any explanation as to why. I explained my position, you just stated yours. I said "It's not a loss of a sale because the physical game is still there on a shelf for someone else to buy." You said "It is a loss of a sale because..." and you provided no because. Do you even get how debates work?
I'm getting sick and tired of this crap about "potential sales"
It's not a potential sale if the person wasn't going to buy it in the first place, and this is including people who may have bought the game afterwards or who may have already owned the game. >.>
It's not a potential sale if the person wasn't going to buy it in the first place, and this is including people who may have bought the game afterwards or who may have already owned the game. >.>
Belated said:
I made my position very clear. We want more money. Until you can prove to me that every pirate actually does the right thing and buys a copy of whatever it is s/he downloaded, the industry has no reason to change current policies on DRM and other paywalls.
And I can guarantee you that not every pirate, or even the majority of pirates, buy the stuff they steal. Who's going to buy their entire music library if they already have it?
I never said they did buy the stuff they steal. I only said, no, proved that it doesn't matter. Now you're relying on arguments against things I never said. You really don't understand how debates work!ResonanceSD said:
You can talk all you want, but I don't see you linking to any facts or evidence. Quit ignoring points that refute what you have to say. The study shows that pirates do not spend any less money on entertainment than non-pirates. Therefore, the same amount of money is going into the industry whether piracy is a thing or not. Do you even understand math? It doesn't matter whether they buy the stuff they steal or not. If they didn't "steal" those things, they wouldn't buy them either. Their entertainment budgets don't magically get bigger the moment they stop pirating.
Seeing how Copyright Law is handled by Civil Court, and not Criminal Court, there is a 100% chance they will *not* CONVICT (not to be confused with "sentence") any software pirate of Theft.maninahat said:
I still think companies use piracy as an excuse to try out a lot of stuff like DRM which nobody else should tolerate and in the end doesn't even affect the pirates. The situation has been spelled out before, all DRM is doing is hurting the people still buying their damn games.
In the end I think this will all end up as companies attempting to call second rate, buy half the content on day one release their protection against piracy. Releasing what is a phoned in service for the same or more money is every companies goal, it's what companies do and evil may even apply. EA and Bio ware are of course the worst perpetrators but what boggles my mind is people defend these decisions as if they enjoy losing freedoms and dosh left right and center.
In the end I think this will all end up as companies attempting to call second rate, buy half the content on day one release their protection against piracy. Releasing what is a phoned in service for the same or more money is every companies goal, it's what companies do and evil may even apply. EA and Bio ware are of course the worst perpetrators but what boggles my mind is people defend these decisions as if they enjoy losing freedoms and dosh left right and center.
Except I know at least five games I'd have used money on if people like you didn't insist on scanning my computer in order to let me play their games. How exactly does treating your customers like shit and making them not want to buy your games maximise your revenue? Not to mention the fact that you've got to use time and money on making that DRM in the first place.ResonanceSD said:
Why the fuck is the industry hell-bent on punishing legitimate customers like me?
If you had of actually read the article, and understood it, you would have seen that an actual government studied the subject, and using facts, concluded that piracy is not a loss of profits for your corporation. So everything you said literally does not make any sense.ResonanceSD said:
As for DRM specifically. DRM does not stop piracy, or even slow it down. This has been proven. Just check the torrent sites within the first week of a release. So if DRM does not stop piracy, what is it actually doing? Its negatively effecting paying customers. Some of which become angry and decide that they will pirate future games with DRM. Which in turn lowers your profits. So how exactly are you protecting your interests?
The major industries, and even independent developers are benefiting financially form piracy. The information that proves this is in this thread, and in articles posted on this website. If you choose to ignore it and continue spewing the same anti piracy crap over and over, then you are simply a troll.
Isn't that (relatively) good news in the eyes of a "PIRACY IS EVVVUUUUUL" person? Each of those games sold well (even Crysis 2, being an unmistakable piece of shit) and 3 out of 5 of those games are heavily multiplayer-oriented, so the people who pirated them probably either played a relatively insignificant part of the game (weren't the target audience) or were even more likely just trying the product before purchasing it. Don't get me wrong, you can set up servers for that sort of thing, maybe run them through virtual networks and stuff, but that takes some know-how and you'd be surprised how many pirates are struggling to even copy/paste a few files to apply a game crack.Mike Kayatta said:
And if you're counting Crysis 2's leaked downloads, that's just silly, most people who downloaded them likely redownloaded the thing when the full version came out, pretty much doubling the number (which makes sense, considering, as I mentioned previously, the game is a pile of bantha poodoo).
Ok, so I don't understand maths or debate, awesome. Now, where's the defense for piracy? Why should the industry tolerate people obtaining for free, products that are sold? Do you understand how a business actually works?Belated said:
Oh yes, and it's a loss of sale.
Here's two scenarios
1 copy of a game bought, well done! - Company MAKES ANOTHER COPY, someone else buys it.
1 copy of a game pirated. It's still there to be sold! huzzah!
The problem here, is that the company should be getting money for their product being used. It doesnt' matter if "someone else can still buy it". The problem is that someone did not buy it, and is enjoying the content. You're either wilfully ignoring this or being disingenuous when you and every other self entitled "someone else can still buy it" team member goes on about this.
Stick to Ubisoft and Steamworks. The industry will attempt to protect it's interests. If piracy ends up inconveniencing legitimate customers, that's hardly the industry's fault. If the industry at large could trust consumers to, you know, actually pay for stuff they want, you wouldn't have to deal with DRM. However, we can't.Naeras said:
Okay, if we're talking about morals here, then no, it's not necessarily right. You win that debate. I'm not arguing that point with you. However, because math proves there's no loss of revenue, therefore piracy does not warrant extensive DRM that punishes legitimate consumers, nor does it warrant suing individual pirates, especially for the large amounts we typically see lawsuits going for, such as the case of the girl who shared about 12 songs and ended up being $1,000,000 in debt for it.ResonanceSD said:
Pirates aren't angels, but they're not devils either. By the way, if you're going to accuse me of criminal activity, have some proof of that too. Accusations without evidence are slander, and I'll report your next post if you do it again. You have no idea just how much money I've paid into the industry. I'm one of gaming's most loyal customers.
And as I stated before, if everyone acted like you, and actually paid for things they wanted, there would be no need for DRM and intrusive measures. I'm also reasonably certain that large lawsuits are brought against individuals who, let's make no bones about it, steal things, because they're the ones who get caught. If the industry at large could bring a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against pirate websites and file hosting sites, and win, you wouldn't see stuff like SOPA being thrown around. However, we can't, so SOPA it is. (And it's likely to get passed, too)Belated said: