TorrentFreak Reveals Top Pirated Games of 2011

[Naeras]

So how are they supposed to beat "Free" then? because I'm pretty sure that, by very definition, is better value than anything the legit copy can offer.

If there's any way, it's making sure that legit copies have better support and service than the pirated ones. Purposefully making the legal version riddled with annoyances compared to the pirated version, however, is definitely not the way to go.

 

[Dogstile]

I had no idea that there were this many piracy/IP theft apologists with such a fervour to defend what they do. 0_o

Anyway Mike Kayatta, for all the crap you've been given, I agree with you.

To be fair, most of us who are "defending" piracy aren't actually defending it, but more debunking arguments used against it that don't make sense. For instance, I hate pirates, however shouting its theft and that saying its not won't work in court doesn't make an argument right, so people like me will point out that you'll be sentenced for copyright infringement, not theft. Funnily enough, if I had to choose between what crime i'd do, it'd be theft, because the penalty for that is much less, which is ridiculous.

It's stealing. Plain and simple. You can list page after page of rationalization, but at the end of the day you are using someone's intellectual property, which they have every right to charge for without the intent of paying for it. That's called stealing, you don't own it, you didn't pay to use it, and so you shouldn't have it.

Oh, yeah, you should probably read what I just posted too. But hell, I expect i'll just get what I usually get for trying to be helpful.

 

[Amnestic]

So how are they supposed to beat "Free" then? because I'm pretty sure that, by very definition, is better value than anything the legit copy can offer.

Ease of use (click two buttons, it installs and plays. No cracks, no directory faffing about.)
Automatic updates/patches.
Offers to scans your hardware and prompts you (or automatically) to download new graphics drivers for your card.
Achievements. (Yes, this is a 'better' product addition, believe it or not.)
Guaranteed Backup (No need to rely on a torrent being seeded to provide the game if you delete it/need a new copy)


Those are just off the top of my head immediately after reading your post. There's probably some more possible service points which can be used to pull people away from piracy.

 

[saregos]

It's stealing. Plain and simple. You can list page after page of rationalization, but at the end of the day you are using someone's intellectual property, which they have every right to charge for without the intent of paying for it. That's called stealing, you don't own it, you didn't pay to use it, and so you shouldn't have it.

Nope. Wrong. Try again.

Actually, don't. Because pretty much every statement you make in your post is wrong.

1) It's not stealing. Legally, morally, technically or otherwise.
2) Nobody here is "rationalizing" it. We're pointing out, time and time again, that piracy is a service problem far more than it is a legal one. We're trying to point out ways to reduce the scope of the problem. That's kinda the opposite of rationalization.
3) Copyright isn't an unalienable right. The current state of copyright is disgusting and unnatural.
4) It's not called stealing, even the legitimate customer doesn't own it (check your EULicensingA), and you're misconstruing pretty much everything myself and others have been saying in order to set up a strawman argument.

 

[WhatIsThisIDontEven]

I'm surprised Skyrim isn't in there.

 

[saregos]

So how are they supposed to beat "Free" then? because I'm pretty sure that, by very definition, is better value than anything the legit copy can offer.

Others have presented several examples. Some of what I say will overlap with theirs.

1) Better service. Providing people who can be asked how to fix a problem improves the value of your product.
2) Patching/after-market content. DLC is a way to do this. And I'm fully aware that a pirate will probably figure out how to add in whatever DLC you release, but it's far more convenient if the game downloads/installs the new content automatically. Which brings us to...
3) Convenience. This has been covered already by others, but basically - people value their time. If your legit version works the first time after a 2-button install, it's a better product than a pirated version that requires an hour or two of tinkering.
4) Online community. Contained within this are things like the Steam overlay (allowing you to talk to friends while playing), Achievements, and multiplayer of all the various forms. There's nothing wrong with actively policing official multiplayer servers for pirates, either - It's not nearly as obtrusive as Ubi's (and now Blizz's) "must be online to play" stuff, since you're obviously online anyways if you're playing multiplayer.
5) Extras. Manuals, done right, can be truly amazing references/guides/immersion tools. Same with maps. And that statue that Bethesda packaged with Skyrim's CE was an awesome thing which no pirate can copy (well, without spending a huge amount of time and resources on a 3d printed replica).
6) Cloud storage. Let me store my save game online, access it from whatever computer I want. Don't make this a mandatory feature, though - i.e. still let people play the game with locally stored data. Steam Cloud does a good job of this.
7) (This one's more hazy/metaphysical) A legitimate copy does provide the ability to support a game company. Pirated copies, obviously, don't. So a legit copy can provide that hazy feel-good feeling (and a marginally higher likelihood of similar games being created), while I'm fairly certain pirates generally know that what they're doing is wrong.

And yes, I'm aware that Steam is also a DRM provider. The trick (which I wish more companies would catch onto) is that it's DRM that also provides benefits to the consumer. Community access, cloud storage, support forums, one-click (ok, 4-click) install: These are all features provided by Steam that can help drive pirates to a legitimate version.

Hell, in my case they've driven me to scrap an older legitimate version of a game (see: Sins of a Solar Empire) simply to gain access to these benefits. And stop supporting Gamestop, but that's another story.

tl;dr

Convenience, support, extras and the ability to support someone whose work you believe in.
Obviously, some of these benefits already weigh in favor of the legitimate copy. But some, currently, weigh against it. And I'm not going to go into DRM, which again weighs against the legitimate copy.
And as you pointed out, there is a pricing differential. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is - Let's try to make that the only advantage the pirated copy has over the legitimate one.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

snip

Eh. There's millions upon millions of gamers in places like South East Asia and Eastern Europe where video game prices are beyond their means, or there aren't any legit retail stores, or games aren't localized via digital distribution. A friend of mine went back to his home in Bangladesh for holiday and suddenly found out he couldn't buy any games on Steam because they were region-locked.

Do they have any other choice other than to pirate this stuff?

And trust me, you don't need expensive hardware to run PC games. My rig is running on an ancient ATi HD4350, and guess what? I finished Crysis 2 just fine (albeit at 800X600 resolution and low FOV).

Say, where's the report on handheld piracy numbers?

This is precicely the point I was about to say. However, Bangladesh has Origin, Pakistan does not. But Steam works here fine.
In India somes games are as low as 500Rs. If developers do this in Pakistan and Bangladesh sales are assured here.
A Pakistani game, Cricket Revolution, managed to sell here by ad support from Pepsi, some developers could try that for low-income markets and then watch the piracy numbers lower drastically.

 

[Jingle Fett]

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.

No one who isn't overreacting to it (like the developers are) said that piracy is killing the industry. The industry is fine.

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.

What you say is true, but I still think piracy more or less a non issue. Despite being one of the most pirated, MW3 has managed to be more profitable than any form of media in history, beating out even Avatar. So while Activision could complain that they've only made $1 billion vs say $1.5 billion (to just throw out a random number), piracy didn't stop them from being #1.

I mentioned in another post that piracy is a generally a good measure of the popularity of a game (though skyrim seems to be an exception). Popularity translates to good word of mouth, which is part of the reason MW3 sold so well ("all my friends are playing it, so I should get it too").
Pirates also might not contribute money directly but it doesn't mean the developers don't get their due compensation elsewhere. People who play the game the most are more likely to buy skins and map packs, which is why games like Team Fortress 2 and League of Legends and Mafia Wars/Farmville are turning such a large profit. Those games also happen to be immune to piracy because they're completely free. Piracy might result in fewer potential up front sales, but that doesn't mean the developers can't or don't make just as much money, if not more, using alternative business strategies.

 

[Asehujiko]

Most Pirated PC Games (by download)
1. Crysis 2 (3,920,000)

According to crytek, crysis 1 was downloaded 60.000.000 times. Something about these numbers does not add up.

 

[maninahat]

Pirating is stealing. Hence the use of the word "pirating". You keep saying that the notion is "debunked"; Try telling a court of law that; see if it stops them from sentencing internet pirates.

Ok. Since you're insistent on being stupid, I'll explain this one more time.

If it was stealing, it would be called "stealing". It is not stealing. Not legally, not morally, not factually. There is no equivalence.

Theft, by it's nature, deprives the rightful owner of whatever is taken. If I steal your car, you can no longer use it.

Intellectual property infringement (which is what "piracy", by all legal standards, is) does not. If I take a picture of a painting you own (technically, this is copyright infringement) it doesn't magically disappear off your wall.

While you're using a convenient strawman to claim that I said "pirates won't be sentenced", that's untrue. They will be sentenced. But they'll be sentenced under the laws governing copyright, not the laws governing theft.

For that matter, a non-commercial pirate won't be "sentenced" at all, as Copyright Infringement is, except under certain very specific circumstances, a Civil and not Criminal offense. They might be sued by the company, but that's all that's (currently) allowable under the law.

And it's a sign of the true absurdity of all of this shit that the allowable punishment for copying a CD is orders of magnitude higher than for stealing it.

You're too late, I've already had this discussion with others who managed to be a tad more polite about than you. Look at post 251 for the most up to date post on that argument. It covers a lot of what you said.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yeah, sure. Power to them then. I wonder what other crimes you could say this for?

Try "all of them". Yes, it's entirely possible for someone to commit a crime just to get what they want. A shocking revelation, I know.

If crime didn't pay, there would be very few criminals.

Nah, its not like the US would extradite a student from the UK for copyright infringement (facing 5 years).

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.]

Point taken, though the difference is being "for commercial gain".
It sounds similar to the difference between "possession" and "possession with intent to distribute".

Still, it's disturbing how they continue to contradict their own laws in practice.
Copyright used to end in civil suits because a company would extend the rights or degree of copyright to the public. Sounds as though that's ending now.

Can't wait for all of the double-standard enforcements when SOPA passes.
Good grief are we fucked...

Still with the DRM? If DRM has no negative effect on piracy(proven fact),

I don't think that has actually been 'proved'.

DRM works primarily on fear tactics. For consoles it's "You might brick your system if you tinker with it"
It's all up to how dedicated someone is to breaking it.

I think more games are moving to be online or use online persistent storage.

I agree with that.
I'm certain that games are going to turn into fully-online-only "services" in the future here, probably starting with the next console cycle.

At best, we'll have one-stop authenticators similar to Steamworks.

Assuming the mass-market doesn't flat-out reject it, but since they've stupidly fallen for price-gouging DLC and increasingly bullshit contractual obligations just to play games (Origin reserves the right to spy on you for marketing purposes.)

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!

Any hacker worth their salt would detect that immediately. Nevermind most of them use basic Heuristics practices such as PC emulation to sidestep nasty surprises like that anyway.

 

[I.Muir]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

Its never going to happen without the kind of total control that compromises everybody's freedoms that only sci fi films explore. Whilst it is still worthwhile in their minds to break copyright the law (i don't care which), they will continue to do so and no amount of DRM will ever stop them. Might as well stop punishing people who buy games and deal with their existence in other ways.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

Its never going to happen without the kind of total control that compromises everybody's freedoms that only sci fi films explore. Whilst it is still worthwhile in their minds to break copyright the law (i don't care which), they will continue to do so and no amount of DRM will ever stop them. Might as well stop punishing people who buy games and deal with their existence in other ways.

No, that's a moronic proposition. If we catch people violating laws, we'll go after them. There's an insane amount of money to be made off stupid criminals. And the more money it brings in, you can bet the industry will deploy even more resources to what could be a very interesting revenue stream.

EDIT: In terms of DRM, 90% of DRM software is relatively unobtrusive. Crap like GFWL is a pain to deal with, but I played the entirety of Driver: SF whilst offline, so Ubisoft is fine. I didn't even have to open steam to do so. Most of these cookie-cutter arguments made against DRM are made by people who are just repeating the old, tired lines. If you're noticing DRM impacting your performance, buy a new PC.

 

[I.Muir]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

Its never going to happen without the kind of total control that compromises everybody's freedoms that only sci fi films explore. Whilst it is still worthwhile in their minds to break copyright the law (i don't care which), they will continue to do so and no amount of DRM will ever stop them. Might as well stop punishing people who buy games and deal with their existence in other ways.

No, that's a moronic proposition. If we catch people violating laws, we'll go after them. There's an insane amount of money to be made off stupid criminals. And the more money it brings in, you can bet the industry will deploy even more resources to what could be a very interesting revenue stream.

It's a moronic proposition to stop punishing people who legitimately buy games with DRM that DOES NOT WORK and pursue pirates in other ways? In case you didn't actually read my post I was simply stating that nobody will EVER be able to completely wipe out pirates and criminals whilst there is something out there worth taking. I don't think I mentioned anywhere that these people aren't worth pursuing which is how you must have interpreted my post. I thought I was leaning more towards the industry could not be going about it in a worse way.

Also I don't think the industry is making any money at all chasing pirates, sure some people have probably been sued to bankruptcy but how much money has flowed into making the lives of gamers difficult without any result.

It's debatable whether the figures in this article mean anything but surely they show people that all the effort that has gone into pirates has done..... diddly squat.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

Its never going to happen without the kind of total control that compromises everybody's freedoms that only sci fi films explore. Whilst it is still worthwhile in their minds to break copyright the law (i don't care which), they will continue to do so and no amount of DRM will ever stop them. Might as well stop punishing people who buy games and deal with their existence in other ways.

No, that's a moronic proposition. If we catch people violating laws, we'll go after them. There's an insane amount of money to be made off stupid criminals. And the more money it brings in, you can bet the industry will deploy even more resources to what could be a very interesting revenue stream.

It's a moronic proposition to stop punishing people who legitimately buy games with DRM that DOES NOT WORK and pursue pirates in other ways? In case you didn't actually read my post I was simply stating that nobody will EVER be able to completely wipe out pirates and criminals whilst there is something out there worth taking. I don't think I mentioned anywhere that these people aren't worth pursuing which is how you must have interpreted my post. I thought I was leaning more towards the industry could not be going about it in a worse way.

Also I don't think the industry is making any money at all chasing pirates, sure some people have probably been sued to bankruptcy but how much money has flowed into making the lives of gamers difficult without any result.

It's debatable whether the figures in this article mean anything but surely they show people that all the effort that has gone into pirates has done..... diddly squat.

Sue one pirate for a million dollars. You now have a million dollars to fund further lawsuits. The industry doesn't lose money in these lawsuits, that's why they launch them.

 

[I.Muir]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

Its never going to happen without the kind of total control that compromises everybody's freedoms that only sci fi films explore. Whilst it is still worthwhile in their minds to break copyright the law (i don't care which), they will continue to do so and no amount of DRM will ever stop them. Might as well stop punishing people who buy games and deal with their existence in other ways.

No, that's a moronic proposition. If we catch people violating laws, we'll go after them. There's an insane amount of money to be made off stupid criminals. And the more money it brings in, you can bet the industry will deploy even more resources to what could be a very interesting revenue stream.

It's a moronic proposition to stop punishing people who legitimately buy games with DRM that DOES NOT WORK and pursue pirates in other ways? In case you didn't actually read my post I was simply stating that nobody will EVER be able to completely wipe out pirates and criminals whilst there is something out there worth taking. I don't think I mentioned anywhere that these people aren't worth pursuing which is how you must have interpreted my post. I thought I was leaning more towards the industry could not be going about it in a worse way.

Also I don't think the industry is making any money at all chasing pirates, sure some people have probably been sued to bankruptcy but how much money has flowed into making the lives of gamers difficult without any result.

It's debatable whether the figures in this article mean anything but surely they show people that all the effort that has gone into pirates has done..... diddly squat.

Sue one pirate for a million dollars. You now have a million dollars to fund further lawsuits. The industry doesn't lose money in these lawsuits, that's why they launch them.

How many pirates have a million dollars, I'm pretty sure most people don't have that kind of dosh lying around. Also they are not always guaranteed to win and even if they do, one down a couple of million to go and the first one took a month? How much does the Industry actually get after their lawyers have been through it.

In any case I was thinking of the money they sink into setting up new and exciting ways of pissing off their customers. These arguments however are all meaningless without some sourced figures but it's not as if the facts ever changed anybody's mind anyway.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

Its never going to happen without the kind of total control that compromises everybody's freedoms that only sci fi films explore. Whilst it is still worthwhile in their minds to break copyright the law (i don't care which), they will continue to do so and no amount of DRM will ever stop them. Might as well stop punishing people who buy games and deal with their existence in other ways.

No, that's a moronic proposition. If we catch people violating laws, we'll go after them. There's an insane amount of money to be made off stupid criminals. And the more money it brings in, you can bet the industry will deploy even more resources to what could be a very interesting revenue stream.

It's a moronic proposition to stop punishing people who legitimately buy games with DRM that DOES NOT WORK and pursue pirates in other ways? In case you didn't actually read my post I was simply stating that nobody will EVER be able to completely wipe out pirates and criminals whilst there is something out there worth taking. I don't think I mentioned anywhere that these people aren't worth pursuing which is how you must have interpreted my post. I thought I was leaning more towards the industry could not be going about it in a worse way.

Also I don't think the industry is making any money at all chasing pirates, sure some people have probably been sued to bankruptcy but how much money has flowed into making the lives of gamers difficult without any result.

It's debatable whether the figures in this article mean anything but surely they show people that all the effort that has gone into pirates has done..... diddly squat.

Sue one pirate for a million dollars. You now have a million dollars to fund further lawsuits. The industry doesn't lose money in these lawsuits, that's why they launch them.

How many pirates have a million dollars, I'm pretty sure most people don't have that kind of dosh lying around. Also they are not always guaranteed to win and even if they do, one down a couple of million to go and the first one took a month? How much does the Industry actually get after their lawyers have been through it.

In any case I was thinking of the money they sink into setting up new and exciting ways of pissing off their customers. These arguments however are all meaningless without some sourced figures but it's not as if the facts ever changed anybody's mind anyway.

The industry doesn't intentionally annoy it's customers. They realise that without loyal customers, the industry shrinks and then disappears. They're most likely using that money to fund new content. You know, for people to buy.

 

[DiMono]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

No pirates at all is never going to happen. Ever. There will always be people who want something for nothing. The thing to do is to remove possible motivations, to minimize the amount of people who would rather go through the trouble of pirating the software as opposed to just going out and buying it. If enough people go back to buying, then revenues will remain the same despite the lower cost.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Reducing piracy is deceptively easy, but nobody will do it: lower the price of your game. I think it's a fair assumption that many people who pirate games do so because they think they're too expensive. Lower the price, and there's less incentive to pirate. The same thing happened with CDs: people started pirating them, so they raised the price to make up the lost profit, and then lots of people started pirating them.

Lower the price, and make sure people know you're doing it, and fewer people will pirate.

The objective isn't to get lower revenue whilst having piracy continue. We don't want fewer pirates, we want no pirates at all.

No pirates at all is never going to happen. Ever. There will always be people who want something for nothing. The thing to do is to remove possible motivations, to minimize the amount of people who would rather go through the trouble of pirating the software as opposed to just going out and buying it. If enough people go back to buying, then revenues will remain the same despite the lower cost.

I fail to see the industry lowering prices in the hope that that will drive up demand. It's not really in the business of faith. As I've said before, there are plenty of ways to play games (a luxury hobby) for free, or cheaply. Lowering the price will not solve the underlying problem, that a minority of gamers are just a bunch of entitled twerps.


The humble indie bundle has had many scandals. Even with the 'Pay what you want' proposition, people will give as little as possible, or, nothing, in order to avoid paying for anything. Faced with that as an example of the mentality of gamers, why should the industry bother? If people are going to pirate, indie, cheap, fun stuff, where's the incentive to improve the AAA offerings?