Piracy or not?

[Amentep]

Those big companies aren't putting you well being as their main goal, so why should anyone put theirs?

Who is putting the companies well being as their main goal?

 

I think most people are anti-piracy due to self-interest. If the companies can't make money off of games, they have no way to continue to make games.

[Malcador]

 

Since when did we get to a point in society where people feel entitled to pirate something because they deem the cost of it too expensive?

Try wrapping your head around this chestnut:

 

People pirating Humble Indie Bundle sales.

 

 

What's special about that ?  People pirating demos were the funniest thing, I found.

 

Who is putting the companies well being as their main goal?

 

I think most people are anti-piracy due to self-interest. If the companies can't make money off of games, they have no way to continue to make games.

Those two do seem to be the same thing - you want some company to make money still in either case, no ?

Edited June 4, 2014 by Malcador

[Sarex]

Who is putting the companies well being as their main goal?

 

I think most people are anti-piracy due to self-interest. If the companies can't make money off of games, they have no way to continue to make games.

 

They have enough to make games, that is my point, they don't have enough to meet their impossibly large numbers.

[Hurlshort]

Well, I guess we've come full circle.  We are back at the "what about the poor entitled children and the big bad corporations?"

[Amentep]

 

Who is putting the companies well being as their main goal?

 

I think most people are anti-piracy due to self-interest. If the companies can't make money off of games, they have no way to continue to make games.

Those two do seem to be the same thing - you want some company to make money still in either case, no ?

 

The distinction - to my mind - is that I doubt the average consumer cares terribly much who makes the game as long as its good.

Ie, you're buying Call of Duty to play a hot game, not to support Activision.

 

YMMV.

 

 

Who is putting the companies well being as their main goal?

 

I think most people are anti-piracy due to self-interest. If the companies can't make money off of games, they have no way to continue to make games.

 

They have enough to make games, that is my point, they don't have enough to meet their impossibly large numbers.

 

How will they continue to have enough to make games if they've not bought in sufficient quantities to cover the cost of making them?

Edited June 4, 2014 by Amentep

[Malcador]

The distinction - to my mind - is that I doubt the average consumer cares terribly much who makes the game as long as its good.

Ie, you're buying Call of Duty to play a hot game, not to support Activision.

 

YMMV.

Hm, I see what you mean, I guess they differ but not in a significant degree to me, but alright. I'm relatively indifferent to it, it hasn't wrecked the industry and is also hard to gauge the "damage" anyway (as it's hypothetical would they buy it and at what price). That and doesn't really affect me that much. Consumers getting keyed up over it does cause a chuckle sometimes.

[Sarex]

How will they continue to have enough to make games if they've not bought in sufficient quantities to cover the cost of making them?

 

But then it doesn't work like that does it, and I already explained it, but you are being intentionally daft to confuse the topic. Well I'll explain it again, devs have salaries, they are paid by the hour, part of the money made from the game goes in to covering the cost of the next game the rest of it goes to the CEO to do with what he will... wait no scratch that, all the money goes to the CEO and he decides what he is going to do with it.

 

At least that is the case with big companies which I already said I was talking about.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Sarex

[Kiofs]

Is it me or are people at Obsidian forum all white knights who never pirate software? (and it doesn't make sense when you justify it by saying you only download music or movies, but not games , pirate = pirate)

 

Because, I don't know a single person in my life who doesn't download illegaly. None of my relatives, friends or colleagues watch Game of thrones on HBO. Even a friend of mine, who is a software developer doesn't think twice before downloading music, series, movies or games. None of the students at my university mind sharing PDF version of a book for free. So I find it really hard to believe.

 

If people pirate, let them. There is nothing you can do to stop them. This simply means that you need to accept that the world is changing. Companies/artist have already accepted that by adapting to it (online gamplay modes/concerts).

 

My question to the people on their horses: Have you never pirated something in your life? Because I find it hard to believe that you have never even downloaded a song illegaly.

 

But don't worry though, I am planning to back POE (haven't done it yet, because I'm still considering whether to buy the physical  or digital edition). Obsidian is the only company who is trying to revive the  classic isometric RPGs, so I would totally support them by buying their games and I really hope that they continue doing this. Can't say the same for companies like EA though .

[BruceVC]

 

How will they continue to have enough to make games if they've not bought in sufficient quantities to cover the cost of making them?

 

But then it doesn't work like that does it, and I already explained it, but you are being intentionally daft to confuse the topic. Well I'll explain it again, devs have salaries, they are paid by the hour, part of the money made from the game goes in to covering the cost of the next game the rest of it goes to the CEO to do with what he will... wait no scratch that, all the money goes to the CEO and he decides what he is going to do with it.

 

At least that is the case with big companies which I already said I was talking about.

 

 

Wow Sarex, you really don't understand the structures of your typical business do you? You seem to think that all companies have to worry about when calculating if a product is profitable is : Sales - salaries of Devs- CEO Salary -  " cost of next game "

 

Almost every single company in the world wants not just to cover expenses but to be profitable, but before they can determine profitability there are long list of expenses that could include

 

• Salaries of developers
• Salaries of non-developers which would be admin staff
• Rent of property or bond payments
• Insurance of all office equipment
• Software and hardware maintenance
• Bonuses
• Overtime
• Office expenses such as phone lines
• Marketing costs
• Travel costs
• Distribution costs

 

All these factors  come off the total sales so course Obsidian has to not only cover all these expenses but also show good net profit so they reinvest in staff and grow the business

[Bryy]

One more thing to add is that most pirates are children and while yes their parents will buy them a computer they may not be inclined (as is mostly the case) to purchase every game for them especially when the games cost 1/10 of a well off salary (in my country at least), new.

 

Companies ramp up prices as high as they can get away with (great example is Australia(the best example there is Adobe)) and then aggressively market their products with non stop commercials that are borderline brain washing. So yeah excuse me if I don't blame the children for pirating games.

 

Also don't paint it out like it's hurting the poor devs and costing them their jobs(true indie companies excluded(but they don't push their products as hard as the big publishers)), the fact is that devs have a set pay and work by the hour and almost every game covers that production cost, that the ceo's and stock holders have some impossible numbers they want to reach is another thing entirely and I am not at all said when they don't hit it.

 

Those big companies aren't putting you well being as their main goal, so why should anyone put theirs?

This is the biggest load of BS I've yet read on this forum outside of an anti-woman rant.

[Sarex]

This is the biggest load of BS I've yet read on this forum outside of an anti-woman rant.

 

Where was the anti-woman rant?

[Bryy]

 

This is the biggest load of BS I've yet read on this forum outside of an anti-woman rant.

 

Where was the anti-woman rant?

 

I was trying to think of posts I've seen on this site that were more ridiculous than yours.

[Sarex]

I was trying to think of posts I've seen on this site that were more ridiculous than yours.

 

I know, but in what thread was this anti-woman rant you talk about?

[Amentep]

But then it doesn't work like that does it, and I already explained it, but you are being intentionally daft to confuse the topic. Well I'll explain it again, devs have salaries, they are paid by the hour, part of the money made from the game goes in to covering the cost of the next game the rest of it goes to the CEO to do with what he will... wait no scratch that, all the money goes to the CEO and he decides what he is going to do with it.

 

At least that is the case with big companies which I already said I was talking about.

Under your scenario presented

 

"devs have salaries"

 

Yes, as does every employee of the company. This money has to be achieved somewhere.

 

"part of the money made from the game goes in to covering the cost of the next game"

 

Which would be here. But if the game makes no money, how can it cover the cost of the next game?

 

Nintendo famously had so much money after the SNES era, it didn't matter if the Nintendo64 was a success - they had plenty of capitol to keep working on. But after a while that model is just unsustainable, no matter how much of a cash reserve you have you will exhaust it if you continue to be unprofitable.

[Sarex]

Under your scenario presented

 

"devs have salaries"

 

Yes, as does every employee of the company. This money has to be achieved somewhere.

 

"part of the money made from the game goes in to covering the cost of the next game"

 

Which would be here. But if the game makes no money, how can it cover the cost of the next game?

 

Nintendo famously had so much money after the SNES era, it didn't matter if the Nintendo64 was a success - they had plenty of capitol to keep working on. But after a while that model is just unsustainable, no matter how much of a cash reserve you have you will exhaust it if you continue to be unprofitable.

 

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.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Sarex

[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.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Amentep

[Sarex]

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

"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.

 

Ah, apologies on my part then. I though you were intentionally muddying the water. I spent too much time in the Ukraine thread...

Edited June 4, 2014 by Sarex

[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!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Is copying pictures, artwork and stills from TV shows and movies from the internet piracy? I've always found it odd that a lot of people who are vocal against piracy will copy artwork from the internet without a second thought. To use in their games, like portraits in the IE games, or to use as avatars on forums. It's so easy to right click and download on your computer.

[Hurlshort]

Is copying pictures, artwork and stills from TV shows and movies from the internet piracy? I've always found it odd that a lot of people who are vocal against piracy will copy artwork from the internet without a second thought. To use in their games, like portraits in the IE games, or to use as avatars on forums. It's so easy to right click and download on your computer.

 

Nope, it is typically fair use.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Is copying pictures, artwork and stills from TV shows and movies from the internet piracy? I've always found it odd that a lot of people who are vocal against piracy will copy artwork from the internet without a second thought. To use in their games, like portraits in the IE games, or to use as avatars on forums. It's so easy to right click and download on your computer.

 

Nope, it is typically fair use.

 

 

Okay. I'll just go to artists websites and download all their pictures. Thanks.

[Sarex]

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!

 

Now that is a load of BS. It's just the accounting arithmetic all large companies do to avoid large taxes. I mean Warner Bros claimed a loss on the lord of the rings movies... Every Hollywood production company claims a loss on their movies, I'm sure it's the same with game publishers.

 

Not to mention how stupid it is to claim that piracy caused a loss on a game/movie.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Sarex

[Gromnir]

 

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!

 

Now that is a load of BS. It's just the accounting arithmetic all large companies do to avoid large taxes. I mean Warner Bros claimed a loss on the lord of the rings movies... Every Hollywood production company claims a loss on their movies, I'm sure it's the same with game publishers.

 

*chuckle*

 

is good that you know better.  but hey, am betting you get loads o' mileage from the lord o' the rings lawsuit.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps for fun, try google to take a looksee at video game publishers that has gone outta business in last 10 years.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

 

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!

 

Now that is a load of BS. It's just the accounting arithmetic all large companies do to avoid large taxes. I mean Warner Bros claimed a loss on the lord of the rings movies... Every Hollywood production company claims a loss on their movies, I'm sure it's the same with game publishers.

 

Not to mention how stupid it is to claim that piracy caused a loss on a game/movie.

 

 

That is how taxes actually work for companies. 

 

New Line Cinema claimed that LotR did loss to avoid compensations for Tolkien Estate (and Peter Jackson), which is why they did go in court, which lead to settlement where Warner Bros paid not disclosed sum of money for Tolkien Estate. This lawsuit was also reason why Hobbit films were made so long after LotR trilogy. 

[Sarex]

ps for fun, try google to take a looksee at video game publishers that has gone outta business in last 10 years.

 

You wanna say they went out of businesses because of piracy?