Piracy or not?

[Hurlshort]

Societal pressure is plenty effective at dictating behavior.  Societal pressure should continue to say "Piracy is bad, m'kay."

 

You know, because it is.

 

 

It's debatable how effective this thread is as a means of societal pressure, sure.  But I see it as a good place to develop our thoughts on the subject.  If anything, it helps me to see what arguments are struck down easily.

[Malcador]

Well, the pressure is just mainly people raging about it and calling pirates bad names and really poor PSAs by the BSA/RIAA/MPAA or whatever, which get laughed off.  I guess it makes some people feel better to do it, but oh well.  Seems everyone's come in with the same thoughts they walk out with, too.

[Chilloutman]

Okay so just  to be clear on this point, your response to my question would be " yes I have a right to pirate a game if I don't have the money to purchase it? "

I would not say 'right' but in that specific case you must agree that Obsidian is now profiting from my previouse pirating

 

Another example could be some small local band. They will never sell their music until enough of people start listening to it, so they are happy that someone copy their CDs and spread it between people, so they then come to their concerts.

 

another example - pharmacetic company create cure fort cancer, but keep it secret and sell it for milions, dont you think that then it would be 'right' to 'pirate' that recepture and sell it for low cost to all affected? (really far from topic I know. but principle of copyright is same)

 

You dont have to have 'right' to do something which in the end become beneficial to others. Womens in muslim states doesnt have 'rights' but I think even you agree that it would be good if they have them no? even if its against law currently (I know, this is really 'out of place' example)

Edited June 6, 2014 by Chilloutman

[Mamoulian War]

Here we have so-called 'handicapped parking spaces'; parking in them is illegal unless you have a permit ~that you can get with a valid disability. People illegally park in them all the time and think nothing of it ~until they get caught and find out that the fine is 10x the penalty of mundane parking violations. People learn the lesson, and leave the spots open... So in that respect, it works.

 

*Sadly, you do get disability fraud, and people rushing to renew their parking tag the day before their cast comes off.

But on the whole it makes a dent in the callousness by taking a bite out of anyone idiot enough to so blatantly ignore the reserved parking for the disabled. Consider: The persons parking there illegally are taking what they want from people that probably can't do anything about it; it's not conceptually different from stealing from the blind, or even swimming in the neighbor's pool when they expressly prohibited it. You cannot justify anything as 'right' simply [only] because your friends all do it.

 

 

Comparing piracy to parking on handicapped parking spaces... OOOkayyyyy... Now I can safely quit the internet... Coz I have seen everything...

 

[Sarex]

Comparing piracy to parking on handicapped parking spaces... OOOkayyyyy... Now I can safely quit the internet... Coz I have seen everything...

 

 

 

You must not have read Gromnirs story with the ancient strippers. That was priceless too.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Sarex

[Mamoulian War]

After reading news about such ridiculous trials such as these almost every day, it's for many people harder and harder to sympathize with any copyright holder...

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/web-browsing-is-copyright-infringement-publishers-argue/

[Amentep]

 

 

It's like you just selectively read my posts, almost like magic. Almost every popular game that is pirated makes enough money to cover it's production cost. It seems you skipped that part of my post.

 

Also make no mistake, I am not condoning piracy or saying it's good, all that I'm saying is that I don't care that the big companies get ripped off, because they sure as hell have no qualms about ripping off their consumers.

Actually I misunderstood your post I asked my question on; re-reading and with this further discussion I see you're saying, regarding the big publishers -

 

"they make enough money now to continue creating games, so the only loss is to their profit margin which doesn't (typically) get invested in game development but lines investors/owners pockets"

 

whereas I read it as

 

"they have enough money now to make games, it doesn't matter if they make any more money".

 

So a total reading comprehension fail on my part.

 

its still bs. most large publishers lose money on a majority o' their games-- is a handful of successful titles that keeps the light turned on. also, lining the pockets o' investors is what makes the whole system work. if a publisher makes investor no more money than the investor would see from an ordinary savings account or even mutual funds, what is the motivation to invest in riskier game publishing ventures? decrease money that would otherwise go to investors decreases investor motivation to be investing in games development and publishing. am sure you can see how that impacts future game development, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Right, I don't disagree with you, but I did fail to understand what Sarex was getting at.

 

In a very general sense, yes if a money making endeavor is making - generally speaking - the expectations for returns on investment such that future development isn't impeded the piracy is only impacting the company having higher that expected profits.

 

The problems, however, come in when the company (for whatever reason - not just piracy) starts making less money in which case development of projects may be ended and the company may turn to chasing trends in an efforts to regain the former profitability.

 

In general, one would think that piracy is probably less likely to effect the big companies because they have more opportunity to cover their losses with huge return profits, but I tend to think mitigating loss may actually change corporate thinking.

[Agiel]

 

^

 

Don't know if you guys have noticed, but for a whole lot of the developers you know and love the livelihoods of the designers, artists, and engineers hang on a thread. Sure the lay-offs that happen once a AAA game is released is the result of poor and abusive business practices on the part of publishers*, but at least resolve to not add to the problem.

 

*I have always held that the industry should not be so hasty to push the development of new tech (which is one of the biggest multipliers on the cost of development, before marketing, obv) until the costs of game development corresponds to a state in which the studios are nearly guaranteed to remain in financial good standing (if said studio had competent people in it).

 

 

Pirated game =/= lost sales!

 

 

Lost sale or no, one is still sending a message to the developers for playing their full game without paying for it without their express permission: "The hard work you guys put into making this game is not worth one single measley dime from me."

[Gizmo]

Thats already answeard, once someone have enough cash they start buying it instead of pirating, actualy if I never start playing pirated games, I would probably not be here today backing up PoE

What makes anyone think their purchase is welcome if they've previously taken items from the seller?

 

I know that if someone stole [originals or copies] of my work, I would never sell to them ~period.

 

 

Pirated game =/= lost sales!

Irrelevant. If they freely offer it to all then fine, it's their right to offer it; but if they don't, and they charge for their service [and it is a service], then it's simply not free. Accessing it for free is doing so against their will ~why do you think they are selling it(!?) instead of asking for donations?

 

This is not justifiable. It is taking their work without their permission; when they've clearly prohibited this... it doesn't matter if it's a lost sale or a future sale.

 

It doesn't matter if they cannot catch the twerp, why would anyone ~even those unabashedly committed to screwing people over and generally being jerks~ ever delude themselves into thinking it's perfectly acceptable and sensible behavior to buy or steal interchangeably?

Edited June 6, 2014 by Gizmo

[Sarex]

Lost sale or no, one is still sending a message to the developers for playing their full game without paying for it without their express permission: "The hard work you guys put into making this game is not worth one single measley dime from me."

 

LOL, one single measly dime. Can I send it to them in the mail?

 

As I said the problem is that most pirates haven't got any money to give, ie. they are under someone else care or broke.

 

Irrelevant. If they freely offer it to all then fine, it's their right to offer it; but if they don't, and they charge for their service [and it is a service], then it's simply not free. Accessing it for free is doing so against their will. This is not justifiable. It is taking their work without permission; when they've clearly prohibited this... it doesn't matter if it's a lost sale or a future sale.

 

It doesn't matter if they cannot catch the twerp, why would anyone ~even those unabashedly committed to screwing people over and generally being jerks~ ever delude themselves into thinking it's perfectly acceptable and sensible behavior to buy or steal interchangeably?

 

That was not the point they were trying to make, they were saying that all the pirates hurt their profit. No one here is justifying pirating.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Sarex

[Gizmo]

That was not the point they were trying to make, they were saying that all the pirates hurt their profit. No one here is justifying pirating.

It hurts profit by saturating the market with free copies of their product. If someone spends several years investment in an endeavor, and brings it to market and they have to compete with free versions of their own product ~that hurts their profit.

[Agiel]

 

Lost sale or no, one is still sending a message to the developers for playing their full game without paying for it without their express permission: "The hard work you guys put into making this game is not worth one single measley dime from me."

 

LOL, one single measly dime. Can I send it to them in the mail?

 

As I said the problem is that most pirates haven't got any money to give, ie. they are under someone else care or broke.

 

Sure. And if you're so worried about it being traced back to you, send a pre-paid debit card in an envelope with no return address.

 

Believe it or not, those pirates can live without the luxury of playing games, insomuch that I can live without the luxury of dining on lobster and prime rib every day. And hundreds of millions of people around the world manage to live fufilling lives without playing video games too. Hell, if they wait they can even get it at prices far easier on their wallets.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Agiel

[Sarex]

It hurts profit by saturating the market with free copies of their product. If someone spends several years investment in an endeavor, and brings it to market and they have to compete with free versions of their own product ~that hurts their profit.

 

No, they don't compete with anything. There are example of games that couldn't be pirated and still tanked in their sales. I remember when starforce was introduced, Prince of Persia: Two Thrones wasn't pirated for a whole year and it was still a failure to Ubisoft as the sales were underwhelming for them. Simcity was never pirated and they still failed miserably.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about and you don't even know what saturating the market means, as it doesn't apply to digital distribution at all.

 

 

Sure. And if you're so worried about it being traced back to you, send a pre-paid debit card in an envelope with no return address.

 

Believe it or not, those pirates can live without the luxury of playing games, insomuch that I can live without the luxury of dining on lobster and prime rib every day. And hundreds of millions of people around the world manage to live fufilling lives without playing video games too. Hell, if they wait they can even get it at prices far easier on their wallets.

 

Nothing would happen even if it was traced...

 

Sure, the big companies can also live without making huge profits too.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Sarex

[Bryy]

 

Okay so just  to be clear on this point, your response to my question would be " yes I have a right to pirate a game if I don't have the money to purchase it? "

I would not say 'right' but in that specific case you must agree that Obsidian is now profiting from my previouse pirating

 

Another example could be some small local band. They will never sell their music until enough of people start listening to it, so they are happy that someone copy their CDs and spread it between people, so they then come to their concerts.

 

another example - pharmacetic company create cure fort cancer, but keep it secret and sell it for milions, dont you think that then it would be 'right' to 'pirate' that recepture and sell it for low cost to all affected? (really far from topic I know. but principle of copyright is same)

 

You dont have to have 'right' to do something which in the end become beneficial to others. Womens in muslim states doesnt have 'rights' but I think even you agree that it would be good if they have them no? even if its against law currently (I know, this is really 'out of place' example)

... are you serious?

[ManifestedISO]

Lock incoming.

[Sarex]

Lock incoming.

 

Why?

[Blarghagh]

I think the topic has been fairly intelligently discussed. I would like to remind everyone that admitting to or advocating piracy is frowned upon on a game developers forum, so please refrain from that. We'll allow the topic for now, unless the discussion turns sour.

[Amentep]

As I said the problem is that most pirates haven't got any money to give, ie. they are under someone else care or broke.

I wonder, are there any statistics on this?

 

I suppose it might depend on region, and such, but my limited experience in knowing people who pirate, they were all strictly middle-class people who had the money to buy the games, but found getting them for free allowed them to not have to spend money to play games so they could buy things they wanted they couldn't pirate.

[Hurlshort]

 

Sure, the big companies can also live without making huge profits too.

 

 

Uh not really.  That's pretty much their entire purpose.

 

 

I'm not a big fan of mega-corporations.  I'm terrified of them, actually.  But that has little to do with piracy.

[Mor]

 

People change all the time.  It's debatable how much influence a discussion on a forum may have on that, but having frank discussions on consumer/producer relationships and the value of ethics is hardly the same as speaking into a vacuum.  

 

Piracy is typically a young man's game, and again there are plenty of factors that play into most people giving up their pirating ways, but it's a bit overly skeptical to say these conversations have zero impact.

 

Well, when I meet someone who decides to stop working for Reloaded or downloading their stuff based on some Internet guy poo-poo'ing their choice I'll be properly amazed. This isn't the first time they'll hear this stuff, after all. When people do decide to stop doing it, I think it might just be things like buying it legitimately being easier and lower risk or desire to play with friends getting it legitimately rather than the growling they read online.

 

I am not sure why its need to be said, but change doesn't come by flipping the radicals, whose heart is set. They aren't the target audience, the mainstream majority is, its PR 101. So it is foolish to think that this here is about reloaded guys, there isn't anything that can be done about them, as I initially said there is no wining with crime, its about marginalizing the phenomenon.

 

Making legal purchase "easier and lower risk" as you said, is one way todo it, the good ol' tested stick and carrot, improving services while increasing enforcement. But it would be unwise to dismiss the good ol' tested social pressure. Its important to help them understand that this is not an acceptable behavior especially outside their little digital bubble. (and personally, I prefer it to the stick because it doesn't entail more strict DRM\licenses)

 

As I said the problem is that most pirates haven't got any money to give, ie. they are under someone else care or broke.

So is this boy. Can we agree that just because you want your "candy", and NOW. Doesn't mean you should get it, and that responsible adults should deal with this kind of behavior. Edited June 6, 2014 by Mor

[Bryy]

Quick note: I first saw that three years ago and it is the best commercial.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

It's like you just selectively read my posts, almost like magic. Almost every popular game that is pirated makes enough money to cover it's production cost. It seems you skipped that part of my post.

 

Also make no mistake, I am not condoning piracy or saying it's good, all that I'm saying is that I don't care that the big companies get ripped off, because they sure as hell have no qualms about ripping off their consumers.

Actually I misunderstood your post I asked my question on; re-reading and with this further discussion I see you're saying, regarding the big publishers -

 

"they make enough money now to continue creating games, so the only loss is to their profit margin which doesn't (typically) get invested in game development but lines investors/owners pockets"

 

whereas I read it as

 

"they have enough money now to make games, it doesn't matter if they make any more money".

 

So a total reading comprehension fail on my part.

 

its still bs. most large publishers lose money on a majority o' their games-- is a handful of successful titles that keeps the light turned on. also, lining the pockets o' investors is what makes the whole system work. if a publisher makes investor no more money than the investor would see from an ordinary savings account or even mutual funds, what is the motivation to invest in riskier game publishing ventures? decrease money that would otherwise go to investors decreases investor motivation to be investing in games development and publishing. am sure you can see how that impacts future game development, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Right, I don't disagree with you, but I did fail to understand what Sarex was getting at.

 

In a very general sense, yes if a money making endeavor is making - generally speaking - the expectations for returns on investment such that future development isn't impeded the piracy is only impacting the company having higher that expected profits.

 

The problems, however, come in when the company (for whatever reason - not just piracy) starts making less money in which case development of projects may be ended and the company may turn to chasing trends in an efforts to regain the former profitability.

 

In general, one would think that piracy is probably less likely to effect the big companies because they have more opportunity to cover their losses with huge return profits, but I tend to think mitigating loss may actually change corporate thinking.

 

with these long quotes it is easy to lose track.  piracy weren't directly being addressed.

 

"they make enough money now to continue creating games, so the only loss is to their profit margin which doesn't (typically) get invested in game development but lines investors/owners pockets"

 

that were sarex's rather naive observation. what he simply don't understand is that the only way to "make enough money now to continue making games" is for the investors to to be having the pockets lined. in point o' fact, the investors need have their pockets lined very well indeed to make their investment profitable and reasonable. investors in games publishing is not buying games. investors is buying moneymaking opportunities.  when you have money, the options for making money is quite diverse and very competitive. return on investment needs be very good to take the risk o' investing in game publishing. is even worse for publishers 'cause game publisher investment is rare viewed as a long-term investment. the publisher must produce quarterly returns, otherwise the investor will go elsewhere to make money. if investors go elsewhere, then there is no money with which to make future games.

 

"In a very general sense, yes if a money making endeavor is making - generally speaking - the expectations for returns on investment such that future development isn't impeded..." unfortunately, the money making endeavour is not a game, or even bunch o' games. most games published is fails-- they either lose money or don't make enough to have been worth the investment. publishers has a handful o' successful games that needs must be profitable enough to cover the loses of their remaining catalogue and still provide a return for investors that makes it reasonable to embrace the relative high risk o' throwing money at game publishing. even if every game by a publisher made a profit, that would, in and of itself not be enough to keep a game publisher in the business o' making money. and as noted above, given the slavish devotion to quarterly report, even if profits would be better invested by a publisher into projects or infrastructure that would improve company long-term, the publisher needs must provide those investors with a snazzy quarterly report, or the investors will leave. 

 

as for relevance to piracy specific, am suspecting that when folks read stuff that says piracy possibly only hurts 1.8 -3% o' profits (have seen higher % as well) they thinks such numbers is if not justifying piracy, they is at least marginalizing. it ain't. yeah, is the profitable titles that gets pirated, but a game publisher needs that money. is no surprise that game publishers and developers die at an alarming rate. is no surprise that that interplay sat on fallout 3 for so many years and kept churning out iwd titles instead. is no surprise that in spite o' finally making a profit, ps:t didn't get a sequel, 'cause it were a failure for the publisher. is a rough business, and when only a few titles is making profits at all, even 1% is far more meaningful than we think some folks realize.

 

is also no surprise that every publisher wants a successful mmo, but am gonna leave that alone for the moment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

I am not sure why its need to be said, but change doesn't come by flipping the radicals, whose heart is set. They aren't the target audience, the mainstream majority is, its PR 101. So it is foolish to think that this here is about reloaded guys, there isn't anything that can be done about them, as I initially said there is no wining with crime, its about marginalizing the phenomenon...

 

Making legal purchase "easier and lower risk" as you said, is one way todo it, the good ol' tested stick and carrot, improving services while increasing enforcement. But it would be unwise to dismiss the good ol' tested social pressure. Its important to help them understand that this is not an acceptable behavior especially outside their little digital bubble. (and personally, I prefer it to the stick because it doesn't entail more strict DRM\licenses)

Well, if it's not the actual pirates or the people downloading their stuff, then who is the audience for people like Hurlshot ? Heh. Increasing enforcement, meh, DRM hasn't really worked that well (well, besides encouraging groups to break the 'unbreakable' and taunt the publisher) and additionally just angers some of your audience, but I suppose that still is miles ahead of being preached at by some guy on a forum. For most things, I guess it's more about the people saying it though.

 

For the kinds of people who pirate, eh, depends on where you look. Outside the West, you'd probably find people who probably couldn't afford the legit price and just buy/download a pirated copy for cheap/free. In the west, I'd wager you'd get people who could definitely afford the game but decide why bother when it's sitting on the local DC++ hub at University or what ever. Doubt they are poor.

[Sarex]

I wonder, are there any statistics on this?

I suppose it might depend on region, and such, but my limited experience in knowing people who pirate, they were all strictly middle-class people who had the money to buy the games, but found getting them for free allowed them to not have to spend money to play games so they could buy things they wanted they couldn't pirate.

 

Idk, in my country when I was young there were no original games on sale as far as I remember, later when they became available they were astronomically expensive. In the second half of the 90', before the internet was wide spread, you had vendors who sold games for 100 dinars and the originals were something like 6000 dinars(a well of salary then was 40000 dinars, if not even less), which was crazy to most people at the time. At that time it wasn't really illegal to sell in the open, they were like any regular shop. This was all for the PC though which very few people even had. Most kids had consoles like the first Nintendo or Sega Mega 2, which was all bought abroad. Gaming essentially started very late in my country and only recently are those gamers getting old enough to have their own disposable incomes, the generation before them never really got in to gaming.

 

It wasn't after the turn of the second millennium that it was declared illegal and police slowly started to monitor them. Those vendors still exist today and they mostly sell from their bags on the street, but most people now days know how to download from the internet or at least their kids do. Tbh I didn't know a single person who bought original games. The originals were simply priced for a market that had a much stronger economy.

 

Now days though it's changing and people here are getting in to steam and waiting for sales and such, though that is such a miniscule percentage. I must admit as far as I see most people here still pirate. I guess they don't want to support the Western economy.

 

Time will tell if that will change.

 

with these long quotes it is easy to lose track.  piracy weren't directly being addressed.

 

"they make enough money now to continue creating games, so the only loss is to their profit margin which doesn't (typically) get invested in game development but lines investors/owners pockets"

 

that were sarex's rather naive observation. what he simply don't understand is that the only way to "make enough money now to continue making games" is for the investors to to be having the pockets lined. in point o' fact, the investors need have their pockets lined very well indeed to make their investment profitable and reasonable. investors in games publishing is not buying games. investors is buying moneymaking opportunities.  when you have money, the options for making money is quite diverse and very competitive. return on investment needs be very good to take the risk o' investing in game publishing. is even worse for publishers 'cause game publisher investment is rare viewed as a long-term investment. the publisher must produce quarterly returns, otherwise the investor will go elsewhere to make money. if investors go elsewhere, then there is no money with which to make future games.

 

"In a very general sense, yes if a money making endeavor is making - generally speaking - the expectations for returns on investment such that future development isn't impeded..." unfortunately, the money making endeavour is not a game, or even bunch o' games. most games published is fails-- they either lose money or don't make enough to have been worth the investment. publishers has a handful o' successful games that needs must be profitable enough to cover the loses of their remaining catalogue and still provide a return for investors that makes it reasonable to embrace the relative high risk o' throwing money at game publishing. even if every game by a publisher made a profit, that would, in and of itself not be enough to keep a game publisher in the business o' making money. and as noted above, given the slavish devotion to quarterly report, even if profits would be better invested by a publisher into projects or infrastructure that would improve company long-term, the publisher needs must provide those investors with a snazzy quarterly report, or the investors will leave. 

 

as for relevance to piracy specific, am suspecting that when folks read stuff that says piracy possibly only hurts 1.8 -3% o' profits (have seen higher % as well) they thinks such numbers is if not justifying piracy, they is at least marginalizing. it ain't. yeah, is the profitable titles that gets pirated, but a game publisher needs that money. is no surprise that game publishers and developers die at an alarming rate. is no surprise that that interplay sat on fallout 3 for so many years and kept churning out iwd titles instead. is no surprise that in spite o' finally making a profit, ps:t didn't get a sequel, 'cause it were a failure for the publisher. is a rough business, and when only a few titles is making profits at all, even 1% is far more meaningful than we think some folks realize.

 

is also no surprise that every publisher wants a successful mmo, but am gonna leave that alone for the moment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Pure conjecture, you can neither prove that pirated games = lost sales, nor that those % would make a difference. The more likely reason is that those companies simply got too big for the games they sold to support them, ie. the bubble burst. I know that was the reason with interplay. It's all to easy to blame the pirates for failed businesses. If it was the pirates fault then all game companies would fail.

[Bryy]

Pure conjecture, you can neither prove that pirated games = lost sales, nor that those % would make a difference. The more likely reason is that those companies simply got too big for the games they sold to support them, ie. the bubble burst. I know that was the reason with interplay. It's all to easy to blame the pirates for failed businesses. If it was the pirates fault then all game companies would fail.

You do know that you're also spouting pure conjecture?