TorrentFreak Reveals Top Pirated Games of 2011
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Amnestic said:
Well then, if one case is all it needs, I'm well within my rights to treat all gamers the same, and people who do the right thing are the same as people who do not. Stuff the vast majority, who buy the game properly, they don't matter. Lets focus on the minority.
That may be true, but that still doesn't excuse piracy. If I were a developer, I would be annoyed because these people are playing the game that I slaved over for years and put everything into for free. If I make a product and decide to charge for it - everyone who plays it should pay. Not being able to afford something isn't an excuse to engage with it for free.Athinira said:
Sure, because-ResonanceSD said:
"Treating all games as if their requirements may be inaccurate to the point where play isn't possible"
is completely equal to
"Treating every gamer like a pirate who never buys any games because one guy doesn't".
You are most certainly not engaging in any false equivalency, not about the situation, nor about the severity of such generalisations.
Not in the least bit sir.
Because believe it or not the entertainment industry is NOT one giant united group and if you pirate all the games of company Y but buy all the games of company X then sure the "entertainment industry" still gets the money but that isn't much to company Y is it?Belated said:
The reason some of us have been hard asses about the subject, is because it's a commonly used argument that isn't true. The crimes of Copyright Infringement and Theft are NOT the same, and thus, NOT equatable.maninahat said:
Even when discussing the topic from an Economic point of view, rather than a strictly-Legal one (the former of which the Copyright holders are far more interested in; it impacts their bottom line more directly), the consequences of both crimes are different, and thus MUST be distinguished.
Sticking to Economics, if something can be "stolen", it *must* be a Rival Good (its consumption or usage is limited physically. A cheeseburger is a Rival Good. For all practical purposes, even a Game Boy or a magazine is Rival).
If I steal a car, its owner cannot use it until it is returned. (Economically called: Rival, Excludable. Aka "Private Goods").
Video games (and in fact, all "intangible/data-based" goods) fall under a different category: Non-Rival, Excludable, better known as the "Natural Monopoly" category.
If I download a copy of Modern Warfare 2, I cannot actually deprive someone else of using their copy. Thus, it's established that video games and plain ol' private goods do not follow the same rules for excludability/usage, even though the modern market PRETENDS that is the case, for the practicality of mass-retail.
What this boils down to: In terms of economics, when a pirate downloads a game, it increases the Total Supply. In turn, this drives down the value of the game by the Laws of Supply and Demand.
Were it actual "theft", then Total Supply would not have actually changed at all (stealing a car does not create another car that satisfies one "firm's" demand. Rather, it satisfies one "firm's" demand while driving up the demand of another proportionally. Specifically, the firm that is now down one car).
In one instance, the average value of that good decreased, and with it, the average market value of that good decreases. In the other, the average market value remains the same.
Ergo, we have two different types of goods with two different crimes, and two different consequences.
(One can try to argue that the once a pirate has the game, they are a lost sale, and hence revenue was "stolen". Fact is, they weren't necessarily a guaranteed sale to begin with. If the piracy option did not exist [remember, we're treating it as another form of Supply], it's entirely possible that they wouldn't have bought the game anyway.
Whereas with the grand theft auto case, you can be damn sure there is always at least one person looking for a car.)
You call me dumb and base that off of the highly unlikely premise that there are people out there who select particular companies to buy into and particular ones to never pay anything to? Nobody cares enough to take the time to make calls like that. Yeah, maybe if they dislike the policies of one company, some might do things that way, but I don't think there's enough people out there buying all from X and pirating all from Y to base an argument on. And even if there are, there's probably just as many doing just the opposite.Aeshi said:
The way i see it, Piracy is a way for people to rebel against companies. Now, there is no question out there that some people are just jerks who wants everything for free, but other people use a combination of piracy and legit purchases to let companies know that they like their game, but not their way of conducting business/treating their customers.SillyBear said:
Option 1: Game gets bought -> A way for the gamer to tell the company he likes their game and likes how he is treated
Option 2: Game gets pirated -> A way for the gamer to tell the company that he likes the game, but not the way it's sold (price, conditions, limitations, consumer rights, you name it)
Option 3: Game gets neither pirated nor purchased -> A way for the gamer to tell the company he doesn't like neither the game or the way they sell it
Oh and finally...
I could turn that argument around and say that Copyright Laws and Intellectual Property doesn't excuse companies (*cough* EA and Ubisoft *cough*) from treating their legit customers as sh*t, which they still do. And if the companies can bypass "excuses", why can't pirates?SillyBear said:
Stop talking about piracy as if people need an "excuse" before they do it. They don't. Pirates don't need an excuse, nor do they need your (or anyone elses) approval of what constitutes an excuse, just like the game companies doesn't need an excuse to treat their customers any way they like.
That's also one of the reasons for rampant piracy: The companies, by their way of acting, send the signal that everything is 'fair game', because if they can be pricks, then consumers can as well (this goes both ways btw).
It's pointless to discuss what excuses and what doesn't excuse, because at the end of the day, people (no matter who it is) don't need any other excuse than their own. I can't order companies like EA and Ubisoft (who are some of the biggest piracy targets) to change the way they conduct business. I can, however, give them a good piece of advice: You reap as you sow
)
Sounds good to meAthinira said:The way i see it, Piracy is a way for people to rebel against companies. Now, there is no question out there that some people are just jerks who wants everything for free, but other people use a combination of piracy and legit purchases to let companies know that they like their game, but not their way of conducting business/treating their customers.SillyBear said:
Option 1: Game gets bought -> A way for the gamer to tell the company he likes their game and likes how he is treated
Option 2: Game gets pirated -> A way for the gamer to tell the company that he likes the game, but not the way it's sold (price, conditions, limitations, consumer rights, you name it)
Option 3: Game gets neither pirated nor purchased -> A way for the gamer to tell the company he doesn't like neither the game or the way they sell it
Oh and finally...
I could turn that argument around and say that Copyright Laws and Intellectual Property doesn't excuse companies (*cough* EA and Ubisoft *cough*) from treating their legit customers as sh*t, which they still do. And if the companies can bypass "excuses", why can't pirates?SillyBear said:
Stop talking about piracy as if people need an "excuse" before they do it. They don't. Pirates don't need an excuse, nor do they need your (or anyone elses) approval of what constitutes an excuse, just like the game companies doesn't need an excuse to treat their customers any way they like.
That's also one of the reasons for rampant piracy: The companies, by their way of acting, send the signal that everything is 'fair game', because if they can be pricks, then consumers can as well (this goes both ways btw).
It's pointless to discuss what excuses and what doesn't excuse, because at the end of the day, people (no matter who it is) don't need any other excuse than their own. I can't order companies like EA and Ubisoft (who are some of the biggest piracy targets) to change the way they conduct business. I can, however, give them a good piece of advice: You reap as you sow
How are you to know that the game is unplayable without opening the packaging? So the original point stands. You can't return a PC game.Kwil said:
The most pirated games are the ones that made the most profit???!!! Boy that piracy sure is destroying the industry!
Though I must admit I'm really surprised Skyrim's not on the list, considering it's popularity.
Though I must admit I'm really surprised Skyrim's not on the list, considering it's popularity.
saregos said:You're my goddamned hero!Mike Kayatta said:
Edit: Haha, fail snip XD I never was good at it ^.^;;
No one who isn't overreacting to it (like the developers are) said that piracy is killing the industry. The industry is fine.Jingle Fett said:
But that's a hell of a lot of money that potentially should've been theirs, that's not. I say potentially, because there's no way to predict which option a person will take if piracy was somehow eliminated with 100% efficiency.
Does said pirate bite the bullet and pay full price? Does he say "eh I can live without it" and not buy it? Is he forced to choose between titles that he can afford based on what appeals to him most (skyrim vs BF3. decisions decisions)?
There is no way to measure that, because it varies on a case by case basis. But looking at it from a developer's perspective, if you truly have faith that what you created is a good game (and better than what the competition has put out around the same time), then 2 out of the 3 scenarios listed above work in your favor. Can't blame them for trying to stomp out piracy with odds like that.
Nah, its not like the US would extradite a student from the UK for copyright infringement (facing 5 years).Atmos Duality said:
Oh wait, they are...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-15841234
[copyright infringement for commercial gain is a criminal offence in many countries, including the US. Advertising revenue also counts.]
I don't think that has actually been 'proved'.Magnicon said:
I think more games are moving to be online or use online persistent storage.
I have created a form of DRM based on the old 'clocker' virus I use on my personal software. It never stops you from using your pirated copy, or even lets you know it is there, it just gradually adjusts your hardware settings until your PC damages itself.
So either way, you pay to use my code!