Engaging Debate on Piracy and Videogaming
koworld writes "WotR have put out a really intriguing issue on piracy this week. It has Jeff Minter arguing that piracy robs developers of their livelihoods and then a senior industry figure (writing under a pseudonym) offers the counter that piracy has done more to expand the overall videogaming market than any other factor. Just to round off the debate a number of insightful personal accounts of piracy and its effects are also included."
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
50 bucks for Max Pain 2?! For 5 friggin hours of gameplay?
Yea there are alot of games I have downloaded but could not play online multiplayer because my cd key was invalid, but since I liked the game so muc h I bought it so I could get the valid cd key.
if im not going to buy them anyway, does anyone lose out?
If they had no value to you, you wouldn't want to copy them anyway.
Ergo, they do have value to you - which means that you should pay for them.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
No doubt this is a two way street. Depending on the popularity of a game, piracy is going to help or hinder.
Those games that have massive massive popularity, helped along by friends copying from friends, will still manage to make money. By becoming legendary, they guarantee enough sales to keep a company or lone developer going.
Unfortunately for those games which are less popular, piracy is just going to dig in HARD to the smaller income, and what happens to those developers? the ones making some headway into a business but still need a little more skill. They lose out completely, the gaming industry for them becomes nothing but something to suck their time and energy.
In the end all that happens is we're left with the huge gaming houses (Sony sponsored ones, for example) and the odd few developers who are lucky enough to get it right first time. The raw up and coming talent gets whacked down with a big pirated 2"x4" as soon as they make an effort. You could say that they don't deserve success without the effort and without the ability to overcome obstacles, but games aren't about making developers work hard. It's about letting the really good ideas come to fruition and work for us as players.
Lies, deceit and propaganda - the state of Broadband in Australia
why not paying the games by approved hours of gameplay they provide??
and why are there nofurther adventures ala "monkey island" ?
---
awake and alert!
-Penguin Mints
But if he couldn't afford to buy it, and thus wouldn't have, no money is lost.
If they had no value to you, you wouldn't want to copy them anyway.
Having no value and having a value less than $50 are two different things. There's plenty of games out there that people wouldn't mind playing for free, but would never consider paying $50 for. The Sims comes to mind.
Something that I've observed lately with a lot of games has been that cracks have come out that will support an early version of the release. Once the game-crippling bugs have been fixed (corruption in low ver Civ3 anyone?), the crackers have either moved on, or the software has been changed to the point that the game is no longer crackable.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, for one, there has been a great deal of games that my friends and myself have bought that there is no way we would have without a "Try before you buy" version floating around. I mean, who really wants to shell out $50 for 5 hours of MP2? If I'm going to be spending $10 an hour on personal entertainment, then she should have at least shaved that day.
Some people don't buy certain games because they don't last long enough-- especially if they have multiplayer. Even if they do find them fun.
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
I don't even want to bother discussing any ethics involved with piracy right now. I know tons of people have their own opinions about that kind of thing. The one thing I do want to say, however, is that with an easy (and free) way to obtain video games, a lot of developers are realizing that if the game is crap, people aren't going to buy it. To a certain extent that pisses them off because they can't make any money churning out horrible titles (of course this doesn't always work in real life because of the idiots that countless sequel regardless of quality). If I ever pirate a game, I use it almost like a demo, I play it for a while, and should I really consider a quality game that I enjoy, I'll go out and buy the whole thing just to support the folks that made it. I believe that if every one else treated piracy like this, then it wouldn't be too much of a problem. But there are folks out there that only pirate and don't give any returns by buying 'em... -E
First my Atari cartridges (early 80s) were so high because manufacturing was expensive, then the cassette tapes weren't sold in enough volume, etc. etc. Once a store salesmen told me prices were high because of piracy! Yeah, that's an incentive to buy your product, just yank the price up.
If I can buy a game for $10 at W-M or other big chain (put a $10 bill in a machine, press a button, a CD pops out) then I will buy other games than the overly-hyped big titles that occasionally come out. Of course I'm not talking about the Visual Basic games that are $10 now. Also a slot is nice where you can deposit a broken CD and new, clean one will pop out for free.
I don't want to pay a whole lot for box/manual artwork, TV advertising, and copy-protection licenses.
Chaos Engine.. Xenon 2. Man, what memories and what awesome fucking games. I've done my fair share of pirating for the last 15+ years, but I've bought my fair share of games too. Not when I was 15 though - I had no cash of course. If it wasn't for piracy, I wouldn't have bought an Amiga.
And the guys that are acting as the hubs - ie. the major distributors, usually get so much stuff they are spending all their time copying cd's (disks in my day!) that they cant *play* the games. So why bust the guy that's giving you free advertising?
Am I the only one who kind of tuned out after (or even before) reading this?
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Imagine a cute fluffy puppy, frolicking happily and wagging its silly puppy tail. Imagine someone offering that puppy a lovely pig's ear. Think of the bright eyes and lolling tongue of the cute little puppy as the treat is offered, imagine the little nosie twitching in anticipation. then imagine that just as the puppy goes to take it, the pig's ear is harshly snatched away, and the bearer gives the poor little puppy a hefty kick in the nuts.
That is what pirates do
How did this get passed the mods? it's meaningless and boring, poorly-executed humor. There is no news, at all, anywhere here.
You know what that's called? A troll. I call bullshit.
If piracy is good for the industry, then it should be encouraged, right? Unfortunately, once piracy reaches a certain point, it destroys the industry.
This is really no different than the outsourcing issue. It's just one group of people who already benefit from a market of plenty seeking to deprive others of their share and keep it for themselves. The ever-famous something for nothing.
Just pay for the game.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I may sound stupid, but in reality, I am simply not a 'gamer'. :) So, of course, I am behind the times. Who is Jeff Minter? (N.B.: I am a retro-gamer; I miss the days of the NES, Genesis and SNES, and classic DOS/Apple games...)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Piracy will be around as long as people want the software/games/etc. It's human nature!
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
What do we call people who take things of value to them without the permission of the owner - who it also has value to?
Are you talking about TAKING or unauthorized copying?
Contrary to what the RIAA and MPAA would have us believe, there is a difference.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
by making their games so complicated and in depth that you NEED to have the manual to play it.
Then again, even with the rampant piracy of Doom and the Quake series in their day, I doubt that iD would trade places with 3000AD.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sam and Max 2 and Full Throttle 2 were both canned by Lucas Arts. Although the details are sketchy, I have long suspected it's because pirating single player games is stupidly easy.
Grim Fandango is largely heralded as the greatest adventure game of all time, and yet it's sales were weak. Incidentally, the 2-disc set is avaiable at suprnova.org as of this moment for your pirating pleasure.
Multiplayer games are harder to pirate simply because you need a unique CD-key to get on the networks. Blizzard and Valve are experts at this.
Not to say that piracy is killing the single player genre (Knights of the Old Republic for example), but multiplayer games are a safer bet if you're trying to avoid piracy.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
When I was 8-15 or so I pirated every game I played. My parents sure as hell wouldn't have paid for them.
This year alone I have paid nearly $200 for computer games and we are only 5 months in. I will probably carry on spending about this much for the rest of my life.
Is this adequate compensation for getting me into video games and computing? I happen to think so. Piracy amongst the young should be tolerated (but not legalised because these things are a hell of a lot more fun when they are illegal) as long as they do it themselves rather than buying it from someone else.
Beep beep.
Someone who steals your grandma's panties is a thief, someone who copies a CD is merely a pirate.
Are you talking about TAKING or unauthorized copying?
Contrary to what the RIAA and MPAA would have us believe, there is a difference.
That is true. If you were taking the source code and artwork from the developers, I suppose that would be stealing (certainly if you then deleted it from their hard drives as well), but downloading an illegal copy is copyright infringement.
Im no writing expert... (Im far, far from it) But don't the writing styles of both articles seem veeeeeery similar? Both are written in a british, light humoured way. Could be wrong of course.. Also, I haven't seen the bit where the pro-pirate article says it's from "A senior industry figure"
... but if this article is any indication, I would say he's a cunt.
But let's forget that, just for a second. I could forgive what a cunt he is, if only his article said anything new or different, made any unique or creative arguments against copyright violation, or indeed made ANY ARGUMENT AT ALL. But he fails to do that. Instead, he uses lots of profanity and random, irrelevant analogies, to what purpose my mind cannot fathom. He admits that "there is too much software out there, and yes, a lot of it is shit," and then rather than make a reasoned argument as to why we should be buying all this shitty software anyway, he falls back to another offensive analogy.
His one seemingly sensible argument is against a strawman: people who rebrand software and sell it as their own. Now, I don't know about you, but I have _never_ seen any claim that anyone is doing this in all the software "piracy" arguments I have ever read. It's a non-issue! People just don't DO it! Maybe, maybe they used to. But the issue here is file-swapping, and you know it, and I know it, and he knows it, and anything else is disingenuous.
And in case anybody would still argue in his favor because he is taking the "moral high ground," I recommend you read where he says that file-swapping in violation of copyright is not so bad after all, when MUSIC is being traded; no, it's only software that deserves the protection of the law. Double-standard, anyone?
No, not only does this Minter guy have nothing useful or intelligent to say, he's also a hyprocrite. In short, a cunt of the worst kind.
It doesn't matter if it helps spread games (I'm sure lots of things would spread if they were completely free!) or bring it to more people.
One doesn't have the right to violate the rights of the copyright holders and spread their intellectual material everywhere. It just doesn't matter what justifications are given because it's still illegal and no permission was given by the copyright holder.
I remember Nintendo busting ROM sites, and people were saying, "B-but Nintendo doesn't even sell these games anymore!" It didn't matter--it was Nintendo's property and they had the right. And of course fast-forward to now, and Nintendo is planning several old NES releases for the GBA, as well as compilations coming out for the Gamecube.
Copyright holders' rights are being completely ignored. Well, except when it's a GPL violation article, that is! Suddenly copyright enforcement becomes a really big deal then...
However, there are games that I wouldn't pay for if I had to, not because I don't like the game, but because technically or content-wise the game is lacking. ( Hello cheapo-console ports, bad translations, lousy rip-offs. )
I'm not paying good money for a crap product that one might or might not enjoy.
So, I download questionable games and put up with the bugs. Good games ( Hello Bioware! ) usually end up being bought. After the hype dies and the price hike is dropped, thank you.
Also, what about games that are no longer being made?
Hate me!
It's a kind of checks & balances system if you ask me. The video game industry has become such a gold rush that people are packaging sun-dried dog turds and selling them at premium prices. To me, buying a game, realizing you don't like it and returning it to EB or something is just as bad, if not worse (cd key now compromised, thus it starts to really cost companies money after a while, especially when you multiply it by millions of people) than pirating a copy with an unuseable CD key and seeing if you like it.
.02..
These days, "FPS" and "Online Multiplayer" aren't enough to warrant a $50 pricetag. What if the interface sucks? What if the framerate sucks? What if the internet playability is crippled? What if etc, etc, etc. People are sick of wasting money on crappy games.
A solution: All videogame companies' business model (or roadmap for a particular game) should include a full-featured demo (limited to 1 map only, or something similar), which includes multiplayer, internet support, all that, BEFORE the retail release of the game. If you do this, and your game is good, people will respond, embrace it and not worry about pirating it and just go buy it (in most cases). It's no different than listening to records in a record store before you buy them. I'm sick of seeing demos for games come out months after the retail version is released. In my opinion, this is practically asking for pirates to "check out the game" before buying it.
Bottom line: If your game is good, people will buy it.
My
This might save you some money for 2 teenage gamers :)
please note though, I have yet to try it this service so this is not an endorsement... but the idea seems like such a good one (basically netflix for games) I am really just waiting till my next game to sign up.
meep
...being FEMALE!
Or at least, that seems to be the gist of Jeff Minter's anti-piracy argument.
I couldn't even finish reading his article.
If you would pay for a title if you couldn't get a free copy, then you should (pay for it).
Making a copy of a game is only theft from the IP perspective, it costs the developer/distributer nothing. Choosing to make a copy of software/music/whatever instead of purchasing it does effectively cost the developer/distributer money.
That said, remember that even copying for evaluation or limited use is illegal. Be prepared to accept to consequences, or don't make the copy.
Try looking at free games. You'd be surprised how many there are. Of course most aren't worth playing, but that still leaves quite a bit.
Here's a few places to get started:
Remakes.org - remakes of many many classic games.
Freeware World Team - many categories including games.
Freestle freeware - small but good.
fullgames
world of free games
Feel free to suggest more / better resources.
P.S. So many console games drop to $20 if you're just willing to wait a year. The sports games are even cheaper if you don't absolutely need this year's updated roster. If you don't want to buy games at $50, just wait a bit.
Piracy is directly related to convenience which is only indirectly related to price.
It's much easier to just download something than it is to go out and pay for it. Once you are familiar with the avenues for acquiring illicit software it's easy. It's as easy as searching on Google. Software on tap. Want to see what this-and-this game is like? 40 minutes later I've got the leaked ISO and with Alcohol 120% I don't even need to burn it. No credit card bills, no going to the ATM, no driving to the store, no waiting for the official release date. Is this game worth $50 to me? Is it worth $20 to me? Is it worth $5 to me? I don't even need to think about it because it's $0 every time.
Ok.. solution.. just give away the software right? Wrong! I'm too lazy to even pay for it after I've played it and enjoyed it. Pay for it... that requires getting a credit card or going somewhere... pain in the ass and it's time I don't need to spend because I've already played it.
The only reason this is working for the games industry is because the people that get all the games are walking advertisements. Whenever they open their mouths and talk about a game the word of mouth is worth more than a spot during the Super Bowl. That and, for most people the convenience is not there. They don't know P2P, they don't know where the crack sites are, they don't want to figure it out. These people are the ones paying, but if it ever comes to the point where it's just as easy to pirate there's little holding them back.
Are there people that pay because of morals? Sure. Should we ever count on the morality of the common man? God help us, no.
Convenience is king. If it's ever easier to buy a game than pirate it then we'd all be buying them. But for those of us that know how to pirate it's much, much easier on so many levels.
Actually, its funny you mention Civ 3. I never really was a Civ fan, but I managed to get my hands on a demo of Civ 3 Gold a few weeks ago... and it was shit. You could only play for like three hours total (and as any civ fan knows - thats NOT a lot of time), limited to 30 minute stretches, and confined to the middle ages as far as progress.
So, frustrated and annoyed, I dug around and found a warez copy of the game. I just wanted to check things out, sans-bullshit, you know? I never planned on buying it, never mind keeping it for more than a game or two. But then, a funny thing happened. I got hooked. Its like crack, I couldn't stop playing the game! So, I went out and found a used copy of Civ 3 + a new copy of Civ 3 Conquests. Now i'm happy, and i'm sure the publisher (Atari) and developer (Firaxis) are happy too. Thanks to warez.
Funny how things can turn out, no?
as of late their are fewer and fewer pc (windows) games coming out and more moving to the increasingly impressive and inexpensive consoles. Consoles have a great many advantages over pc to both the user and the companies making games for them. Piracy on consoles is possible but considerably more difficult (did u see the modchip install on a ps2 its insane - 40 points all over the board connected to the chip via wires).
And with the fact that realistically i dont think their will be much more native development for linux thats not bad. Ill continue to run linux on my pc and game with my ps2.
Hi their, just in case things go sidewise as it were I have put up a mirror.h tm is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_139/www.wayoftherod ent.com/backissues/33cover.htm d ent.com/guests/bob_yak5.htm t m is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_139/www.wayoftherod ent.com/guests/bob_cubit1.htm
The mirror of http://www.wayoftherodent.com/backissues/33cover.
The mirror of http://www.wayoftherodent.com/guests/bob_yak5.htm is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_139/www.wayofthero
The mirror of http://www.wayoftherodent.com/guests/bob_cubit1.h
What nobody mentions, and most dare not say is that piracy is a reponse of the market to unbearbly high prices on software.
;).
Piracy is a competitive factor - if companies price too high compared to the features or quality of a product, people don't pay.
If companies start doing anticompetitive shit or in general, perform actions that piss the customers off, they lose sales to piracy.
If more executives would realise that they are in the end to blame for piracy THEMSELVES, we would have much much less piracy. But no, they insist on releasing full upgrades ever other year - at full price. But the gain in productivity for most users is negligible.
Does anyone here seriously think that say, the jump from Office 97 to Office 2000 or 2000 to XP made them a lot more productive? Did Photoshop 5.5 to 6 make you more productive ? How about Mac OS X 10.2 to 10.3 (yes i dare say, keep in mind that I'm a Mac user myself, so no flames please
Piracy is mostly due to the customer base being pissed off.
An interesting point related to this is cell phone ring tones. They cost $1 each and to get them you just pick it out and they charge you on your monthly bill. This is a billion dollar industry! Paying $1 for a stinking 5 second sound bite!
Maybe if you download computer programs like games your ISP should check for a digital signature and charge the cost of the software to your monthly ISP bill? Your ISP can verify if you are actually the one getting it because they can trace the destination of the packets properly within their own network. Maybe the distributor like EA.com will tell the ISP like Insight to add the software to the bill at the time of download and they'll keep track of the purchase. It won't completely thwart all piracy but it will sure grease the wheels of distribution.
I think that you have just hit an important point here. IMHO, the reason behind piracy is that most people find that game titles have a value to them, but such a value outweighted by the cost by far.
Diego Rey
diegoT
Video games are addictive. They lead to anti-social pursuits like staying in one place pressing buttons for purely retinal stimulation. Video games are only better than pr0n because they don't actually display naked bodies and shiny fluids.
Okay, that's over the top, but really the software industry functions the same way as any other system which distributes habit forming or addictive substances. If enough people get "hooked" then they raise the price to milk the machine for all its worth. Who doesn't? So while all the people who can afford games are out getting "high", the people who can't afford them are pirating.
Rather than bashing pirates all the time we need to take a good hard critical look at the industry. They're there to make money. So is everyone else. Why should the software industry get all the pity and remorse while the pharmaceutical industry gets tagged left and right for producing overpriced products?
It's all the same thing, folks.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Having no value and having a value less than $50 are two different things. There's plenty of games out there that people wouldn't mind playing for free, but would never consider paying $50 for. The Sims comes to mind.
But that doesn't justify anything. If there's something you would be willing to play for free but not be willing to pay $50 for, guess what? You just don't buy it. You move onto something else.
I mean, if someone's actually going to justify piracy with "Well, I just didn't want to pay that much," you'd have to be pretty silly to think that's a valid argument that's going to fly. It doens't matter if it was priced more than you could afford--that just means you don't buy it and move on. Or wait until it drops in price. It's called capitalism.
You can't violate copyright holder rights just because you didn't like how they priced their product. Hell, I remember those old shareware games you could buy for $10-$15, and people still pirated them. Why? Because if given the chance, people just like to get things for free instead of paying for them. It doesn't really matter how much they're priced if you can just go onto eMule and grab whatever you want for free--people will download it no matter what.
Piracy games?
r el easenum=42 ....
http://www.firaxis.com/company_showrelease.cfm?
what?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I refuse to pirate games. I really believe that unlike the music industry, games aren't really that over priced. I never understood until I started programming how long it takes to do even simple things sometimes. When I look at a game I see the millions of lines of code, the hours of artwork, and the sheer amount of time spent to get the sound right. For a really good game, $50 is not a bad price to pay. Unfortunately that price is a bit much for starving college students like myself. Is pirating tempting? You betcha. Is $50 too much for the majority of the games found at your local Wal-Mart? Definately. Consequently I think that instead of complaining about the price, we should all just be really selective about what we buy. I won't drop $50 for anything less than a HALO, Half Life 2, or Metroid Prime quality game. If anything else looks even remotely interesting I grab it from Gamefly. The point is stealing at any level is wrong. I also don't buy into the "Sampling a lot of games is expensive" bit. Not when I can go to Blockbuster or GameFly and rent as many games as I can handle in a month for $20. Every game out there has somebodys blood, sweat, and tears in it. The least I can do is show them a little respect and pay for their work if I play it.
that consumers don't have much choice.
Trial licenses don't work very well. And the video game industry puts its propaganda machine to buy and pay for electronic games media which are supposed to inform. The industry thinks they are entitled to have their consumers decide based on the box? Fuck you and hell no!
Publishers make gobs of money off quality titles because MOST people know it is wrong to utilize piracy as a substitute for purchase when a game is played and enjoyed to its fullest. They lose money when a pirated low-quality title gets tried for three or four hours and ends up as a coaster.
I don't feel bad for manufacturers of poor quality titles that I have played that were pirated. For games that my friends and I did play through and enjoy, we have kept our end of the social contract and purchased. It keeps us from getting ripped off and doesn't reward deceptive advertising and packaging.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
How did that sentence ever get "passed" (sic) your brain? ;)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
This is similar to any economy that has seen a new need/shift - required resources are not always properly rewarded/assigned.
The problem is that in the case of software bootlegging, it is that the individual end user is usually committing the harm(not some privateer or trader). This also directly effects the perceived piracy costs - if you think 1million people should want something at $30, but 30% will just copy it the market price then becomes $50 or so if you want to make most of what you feel you are owed. This ignores the fact that if it was only available at $30, then most of that 30% would probably not buy it anyway.
It comes down to costs for the user/buyer, and as it gets cheaper or more expensive, the number of buyers is not scaling linear(or generally modelable) to the revenue from them. So publishers randomly pick a sweet spot and hope(what the market will bare). What this means is that if you can only afford it at $30, but enough dumb/rich people want it at $50 then the publisher will be a success at $50(if publishers are happy with the number of dumb/rich people paying). If you want it, then you have to wait till there is no one wanting to buy it at any price between 50-30 or just copy it from someone who was rich enough.
The economics for different parts of the world dictate different prices for software. That is why piracy can be good for non-piracy users. ie. In countries with rampant piracy, publishers must compete on price and value.
Companies who have a strangle hold on a specific software domain (ie. MSFT) can do whatever they want once piracy is significantly small enough. If they can guarantee limited piracy then they can force you to buy the product at any price.
Piracy is also good for regular publishers. It creates a market where normally there would not be one. ie. People who should not be buying games, can afford them and get 'hooked' on the low priced ripoffs. Then a few years later, the pirates are removed producing a new market that the publisher would have never entered before. So everyone there either gets more money for this luxury or they trade some other luxury/need.
MSFT did this is many countries, even the US in the 80's. DOS 6.2 was free from their BBS for godsake! This made computers more easy to acquire and become prevalent and a requirement for business and education. Many application publishers got rich this way as then there are more people needing the next upgrade whether pirated or not. All that is left is to slowly crack down on pirates and add copy protection as the market will bare (ie. no new revolts of willful piracy).
Now with P2P and the internet, many things that relied on distribution being the anchor of the market value (ie. the value of geting physical CDs of software, music, even movies) are losing ground. The only publisher solution is to either prohibit copying someway or find another market value (hard for people like the RIAA/MPAA).
The natural tendency of piracy is to make something's value only the cost of distribution.
OT:
Things like F/OSS come from this notion of the value of a copy and the realization that somethings people will just need in a specific society. People using computers on the internet have to have certain software - OS, email, etc. and it is natural for people to develop 'public works' as it were to provide them legally.
This is also why FOSS companies can still succeed if they can bring additional value to market (consulting, support, etc.). FOSS should naturally have a stronger capablility to enter new markets(ie. it is allowing legal 'piracy' build the market for other valuable services).
The entire issue of piracy is not an issue of whether or not the developers are getting paid for their efforts, or whether the people who copy and distribute are stealing.
Beneath the entire issue of copying and cost is the point that there has not been the order of magnitude increases of productivity in the software development field that there has been in the hardware field. This is because software developers refuse to press for new types of software writing tools that will make it possible to develop a commercial game in 1/10 of the time that it takes today.
Software is basically a 'cost-plus' industry. Developers take as long as they like to make their product and then add up the number of hours and expected sale units and price each unit accordingly. There is no incentive to conceive and code whole new classes of development tools that will give order-of-magnitude in productivity.
This is the real reason that software costs so much and why the developers get so upset about copying. But, hell, most of them are still using C or C++: the most backward, cryptic, and unproductive languages imagineable.
Software development has really changed since the early 1970's. Although, it's not completely the software community's fault. Every time they begin to feel that the tools that they are working with are inadaquate, the hardware people come up with a order-of-magnitude performance increase that sends back to assembly language (like the microprocessor did to the VAX in the mid-1970's, and the flash Harvard-bus microcontroller did to the microprocessor in the mid-1980's, and the net did to the PC in the 1990's, and the next-big-thing will do in a few years).
Piracy is GOOD because when developers can't make enough under the old approach, they will actually be forced to develop the tools that will allow to get the order-of-magnitude gain in productivity that has been eluding them since the development of the first compiliers (40 years ago).
If Intel was a software development company they would be pissed that they can't charge $100 for an 8088 anymore, and would be taking legal action to remedy the situation in the interest of fairness.
I'd call such a person a nonpotential consumer. They're not going to pay for the game, so whether they have the game or not is irrelevant from an economic standpoint. Just because it has value to them doesn't mean that they'd ever pay money for that value.
True story.
I could have sworn that's what demos were for.
99% of the other Kazaa users aren't trying before they buy...they're just getting and not paying.
You can never justify illegally distributing someone's copyrighted materials, because it will always be illegal and immoral, there will always be the exceptions like you that don't matter (you know, the ones who claim they buy what they download) since that's an extremely small minority.
I mean, what would John Carmack say if you told him "Yeah, I downloaded Doom 3 just to check it out." He'd tell you you should have tried the demo, read reviews, seen someone else play it, or just bought it yourself and take a chance. He's not going to tell you to pirate warez of his game just so you can decide after you've played it if you feel it's worth buying. You buy a game so you have the chance to play it fully. Even if publishers didn't give you demos and such to play, that still doesn't give you the right to steal the full version of the game and not pay them for it. And the way P2P apps are designed, other people will be pirating it off of you as you download it, so you're just spreading it even more.
I mean, why do Slashdotters think so many companies are moving to console now? It's harder to pirate the fuck out of console CDs. I see PC games coming out on eMule before they're out in stores! I'd hate to be a PC games developer right now, especially with Internet2 looming on the horizon like a big sailing ship with a pirate flag...
I guess it just surprises me how supportive people around here can get of software piracy, considering so many here are supposed to be developers. But then again, after that poll that showed most Slashdotters aren't employed but are college students, I sort of stopped being surprised by it...
Those against piracy seem to clench onto the idea that if games are pirated, then there availability is decreased because there's less incentive for companies to produce games. And, at a certain level of piracy there would be no games made. Consumers as pirates are aware of this, but they're also aware of more.
They're aware that with the production of the games comes also the production of the desire for the games. The hype surrounding them. They know if all of sudden there were no games, their lives would not be directly affected negatively in any important way. "Oh, no new games? I guess I'll just go outside and play shoot some hoops." There is no natural desire to create grand, expensive, consumeristic forms of entertainment. There is merely a natural desire for entertainment itself. Without the production of games people are without desire for the games, and so will merely do something else for entertainment, and be no less happy. Piracy is a strategy of the masses. An unsaid(unrecognized?) strategy to save the product of their work created with the knowledge that all is relativistic.
Piracy is the healthy reaction to overpricing. It is the "wonder" of capitalism in action. I am sorry but if I know that a product costs $2 overall to make and an "arbitrary" price of $15 is set on it, it doesn't matter that I CAN affort to buy it, I still know that I am being ripped off! Reaction: I'll find a pirate version and enjoy myself for free or I will not buy the product unless I have to for some reason. Morality is a relative principle. If it is moral for some corporations to overcharge because they can do so, it is moral for me to do anything within my powers to acquire their product as cheep as possible. Does this screw them over? Of course! Does this hurt capitalism and the "foundations" of our society? Of course not. It just prevents some CEOs buying the next condo in Florida as quickly as they thought. Life is tough I know...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
According to the pirates, it's a "culture movement." They'll go to great lengths to justify it. They'll tell you games are overpriced (doesn't matter, you still don't have the right), or if they made better games piracy would go down (if games are crappy, why are you pirating them?), and so forth.
:P And if you bring it up? The pirates will label you "greedy!" Greed is a mass of people demanding free entertainment, not a company expecting to get paid for the fruits of its labor.
Hell, I'm surprised it hasn't been turned into an "anti-SPA" issue like the MP3 issue...painting the RIAA as the scapegoat was the most devious and clever distraction of the issue I've ever seen. Somehow an organization is bad for protecting its own copyrights!
If piracy is good for the industry, then it should be encouraged, right? Unfortunately, once piracy reaches a certain point, it destroys the industry.
When Internet2 becomes the norm, just you wait and see--shit is going to hit the fan. Why even bother getting your ass out of the chair to drive to the store when you can fire up eMule and grab the CDs in less than an hour? Price won't even matter, they could price it $15 and people would still rather pirate it, because it's there, and it's free.
Morality and the issue of ethics doesn't even come into the picture unless you're the poor sob who actually worked on the thing for a year of your life, only to watch it get sucked away by self-righteous pirates.
I call bullshit. We've HEARD that argument before, and nobody believes it.. let me refresh your memory.
"CDs cost too much, for just a few songs that are good. If I could pay just a little bit, for just the songs I wanted, and have them sent eletronically, I wouldn't pirate music anymore, honest!"
Nothing new here, folks. Justification is the first skill the unjust learn.
... and, so began, the legend of the Five-point Atkins Exploding Heart Technique!
Game companies should invest in broadband titles and then just remove the copy protection.
If games were priced at around $20 MSRP, I'd buy them just to put into my library. In a sense, they'd be like collectibles that I might play occasionally, especially when friends are over.
I find DVDs are actually pretty reasonably priced (CDs not!), especially some of the ones that have been on the market for a while and have come down to $10. I have a huge library of DVDs and friends will sometimes borrow them. I like this.
Games have no such collectible value. Unless I absolutely LOVE the game, I'm not going to add it to my collection for $60 for the sake of having it. But at $20, I would buy many of them.
At the risk of being called flamebait, I don't mind great games costing more. I'd be willing to pay more for a game like Gran Turismo 4 when it comes out because of its play value. But for those cool but not great racing games (I'm a driving game fan), I'd pack in a bunch of them at $20 a piece that I would never consider buying at $60.
Sunny
Be my Friend
If I spent time, energy and money creating something, why don't I have the right to say "if you want to enjoy the fruits of my labor you must pay me $50."
Is that so wrong? Is that terribly evil?
It's just a collection of monkeys who want something for nothing and will go to whatever ends to justify it.
Yeah yeah. There is a blurry line of what to call it. Theft, while not entirely descriptive of the crime, is pretty darn close. If the owner of something hasn't granted you the right to that something, then you have no business using it. You are benifiting from someone elses work without compensating them for it.
If this had been a story about how a company was redistributing a GPL'd program in binary form only, there would be countless posts from zealots crying bloody murder on the part of that evil entity. But an opinion about how taking software without permission is wrong yields retards who think they have some inherint right to whatever they lay their grubby hands on.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Let me refresh your memory...
-----
CDs cost too much, for just a few songs that are good. If I could pay just a little bit, for just the songs I wanted, and have them sent eletronically, I wouldn't pirate music anymore, honest!
-----
My prescription costs too much. I only need a few weeks' worth of pills. Why do I have to pay for the development of all of these classy pharmaceuticals when I just need an antibiotic. If they could just make cheap penicillin then I wouldn't need to use Medicare to afford this prescription, honest!
Okay... it's a little over the top but if you have a brain and aren't a robot programmed to argue by default, you'll catch my drift.
The pharmaceutical industry is getting slapped for charging too much for its products. What makes you think that the software and music industries are so much more benign? You can say that no one _needs_ software or music, but in all reality, you don't need your anti-cancer drug either. Just accept your crappy life for what it is. If you can't afford the drug then deal with it.
So again, why is it that the music and software industry is so benevolently protecting its developers but we need Medicare/Medicaid/insurance to cover the costs of your drugs?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Why is it bullshit? Isn't iTunes some sort of success of the buy-only-the-tracks-you-like idea?
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
Paying $50 for ICO is an absurd rip-off. That's why I just forgot about it until I saw it used for less than $15, bought it, played it off and on until I beat it, then brought it back to the store. I paid $10 for my copy of Starcraft, and that was before WCIII was out, and this was right out of a retailer. Bitching about CD prices is one thing because CDs NEVER go down in cost unless they are absolute crap. Games are another story.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
I've pirated games in the past.
Still do, sometimes.
Now that I have an income, however, it is much easier to track down games at the store than it is to find them online.
Still, I ALWAYS had rules on my pirating.
If I pirated a game, and liked it, I purchased it.
'Nuff said.
I downloaded Master of Orion 3. It sucked. I deleted in two days.
Total Annihilation was pirated too. I liked it so much that I purchased 3 copies (got boxed sets for my friends), the expansion packs (core contingency), and even purchased TA: Kingdoms solely on the strength of TA. (Kingdoms sucked, but thats besides the point).
I feel like I should get more of an opportunity to try out games before I buy them.
Sure, pirating is wrong. If the stores allowed me to play those games for 15-30 minutes before I selected them, however, I would never pirate games.
Lately, however, I've been too lazy. I purchased Universal Combat on a whim, as well as Command and Conquer generals.
I still have ABSOLUTELY no 'ethical' objection to piracy.
But if you are a game developer, rest assured, that if I like your game, I will buy it, possibly buy copies for my friends (Savage: Battle for Newerth had me buy 5 CD keys *evil grin*), and generally evangelize your product.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
No matter how many arguments anyone may have against intellectual property, bandwidth theft is "real" theft.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
Piracy is selling the games/movies/music that you download. Selling. Not just downloading.
So sick of seeing 'piracy' everywhere, as if it actually applies to what is being discussed.
Is charge for the online account access, and only charge for the media and manual that the game is packaged on. Then collect the revenue from those who pirated the game, but are forced to create an online account to use the game. Everquest, Merdian 59, and other 3D Muds could be like that. Chances are the pirate is going to play for a few years at $20USD - $30USD a month. Since the pirate does not want to pay for your software, but is forced to create an online account to use it, you actually earn money off the pirated copy. Just not the initial $35 USD to $60 USD for the initial purchase. So you earn $480USD off the pirate if they use your game for two years. You earn $0USD if you put copy protection on the disk and the pirate cannot use it. Multiply that amount by a few thousand or whatever, let's say 10,000 for this example, though piracy can copy more than that, but 4.8M revenue extra in two years if you allow pirates to use your game for free yet pay for online access to it, or a loss of $4.8M in potential revenue if you don't.
So use piracy to your advantage and earn that extra revenue.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I think the guys at Epic have zero issues making their UT2004 game 5 CDs. For every CD their game is, it only becomes that much harder/annoying to massdownload it from usenet (proken pieces), bittorrent (will take forever), p2p networks (no promise of getting it all) and where ever else.
just my two cents
Sunny Dubey
PS: Bless the Epic guys for UT2004. It has the software renderer back, comes with a single DVD version, and supports linux
Companies like Game Stop allow people to buy/sell/trade used games. If $60 to $50 is too much, look for a slightly used version in one of their stores or on their web site. Many people buy the game new, and then cannot play it, or find it wasn't what it was advertised as, etc and then sell it. Also check Half.com for used copies of games and other things.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Okay, I've been around a while. I've seen piracy in the form of ZIP disks of Police Quest 1 on the local warez BBSes. I've met the biggest warez pirates out there, the type that have 4 drawer file cabinets FILLED with photocopied manuals, and disk boxes stuffed with 3.5" disks that complety filled closets.
A few observations. In my youth, my parents could have never afforded to buy me the programs I pirated. They did buy me some software, thousands of dollars worth over the years. Boredom and curiosity led me to download other games, but I never spent much time playing them. Heck, there were Sierra games I never spent much time playing (Space Quest III was the BOMB though!).
In terms of applications, when I got older it helped me out in terms of being familiar with business applications. 14 year olds don't normally need Autocad, 16 year old's can't afford 3d Studio. Once you hit the business world though, things change. Lets not forget though, some prices are artificially high (Abobe bought and killed Aldus Photostyler which was awesome, eliminating competitive products, etc).
Another thing, the warez people like to collect programs. Many of them don't use them, it is just some sort of wierd obsession with collecting programs in mass. Given the amount of time it takes to play or complete a game, can someone with 2900 games in their pirate library really utilize them?
Given the costs of software, if every person bought all of their software at retail prices and there was no piracy, do you think many people would possess skills with apps like Photoshop? I can't think of many cases at all where I've not purchased a program (having the money to do so) and opted to warez the software.
I think the console games are priced as they are because the market will bear it, and there are many young adults that have jobs, living with parents, who can afford to pay the $70 or whatever it costs now for a single medicore playstation title.
Look at ID software, they made good titles and profited well. I know their stuff was pirated, but people with the money purchased the games.
A friend pirates every new game. He buys the good ones. I've seen the stacks of boxes, I'm sure he spends well over $2k a year in new releases. He was one of the evil pirates that had Dreamcast and other console hacks. What if pirates are your biggest customers?
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
I feel that this is true for most people. If I had the money to purchase a game I would and have done on many occasions (BF Vietnam being the most recent) but for a growing segment of the population it's not viable to spen $50-60 on a piece of software that may be total crap. By my logic I would never have played the games I've pirated anyways thus the developer is losing NO money by me pirating because I still make an effort to buy anything that I actually enjoy and don't discard by the wayside. I am 99.9% positive that if people could afford games they would buy them, I know I would. But the cost is unreasonable don't forget add the cost of hardware to play the new games onto the cost of the software (games are requiring hardware farther and further towards the bleeding edge of technology $500-$600 Video cards, etc. and it puts buying the hardware and games out of the reach of most of thier audience. As I stated before if someone who would never have bought the game to begin with pirates it how is the developer "LOSING" money as opposed to the person never buying or pirating it.
BTW the subject should be DUE not DUTE. Typing too fast :P
Life without music or video games sucks because it's simply more boring. The answer is: "Wah. Deal with it. If you can't afford it then that's your own problem."
Life without pharmaceuticals sucks because you might die or be plagued by a disease. The answer is: "Wah. Deal with it. If you can't afford it then that's your own problem."
I'd say that's pretty much the same.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Very hard to do when organizations still use Classical Management and want everything done quicker and cheaper.
For example getting rid of experienced developers who thoroughly debug the programs and produce quality code because they earn too much, and replacing them with developers who work cheaper but write sloppy code full of more bugs.
Perhaps you forgot the trend in business these days for programming? Outsource to the cheapest source of labor, that works the fastest. Then hope they have a quality assurance analyst working for them that knows how to do their job correctly. If not, you have a low quality product.
Also when the games are outsourced to reduce the costs, the game price stays the same. No benefit is passed on to the consumer, except a buggier game of a lower quality than they wanted. But hey, instead of $24/hr developers, you got $3/hr developers working for you, so who cares? Right?
The concept of total quality management is lost on most modern US corperations and game-makers. Release the game on time, and like Microsoft, slowly release bug fixes that should have been in the product during its launch.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
last I checked cdrecord has no issues with any of those antipiracy measures. Unless they've started coding the media with some special chemical while I wasn't looking.
"Every game out there has somebodys blood, sweat, and tears in it" And thats why, even as a developer, I'm not too concerned about piracy. I'm currently playing a few SNES and Amiga classics that without piracy would be a bitch (if not almost impossible) to get a hold of. In 10 years time, I'd be guttered if all the hours, pain and suffering I'd put into the 3 titles I've worked on thus far, had vanished without a trace. Piracy is a form of preservation, and gives people who couldn't afford, or weren't able to play some games first time round, the chance to experience some wonderful gaming moments.
Calling information sharing and helping a friend in nasty names.
If these video games wouldn't exist in order for us to regain the freedom to do these things - then video games should not exist, they are not worth our freedom.
I would never buy a copyright-protected piece of software because it is against my principles, and I also try to avoid infringing on existing copyrights because that also encourages the general use of the copyright-protected software.
Almost all of those who still support copyright only do so because it is unenforced, and they infringe on it themselves (with all sorts of self-justifying reasons).
Between freeware, shareware, demo's, and 'last years'...most of mine come in under $20, much less $50. And my kids don't notice the diff. A couple of weeks ago, my 13 year old asked "Dad, can we get Commander Keen on this machine again?"
I think the absolute most I spent was $40, twice, for one of the Quakes, and Ratchet & Clank. It is actually a very good game.
I understand your prob, though...
A) Directly contributed to the Growth of the video game market.
Reasoning... I've seen many people who pirate a good game and love it, eventually by the game. Why? Because after awhile you get tired of looking for cracks for the latest patch etc. And most people pirate because of a lack of money... when they get older, the tend to buy if they can.
B) Piracy of Computer Games and Software made Microsoft the monopoly it is today.
Reasoning... People wanted DOS/Windows because Apple and other OS vendors didn't have the game support for all the pirated computer games we played. Many Others who saw the fun factor of Windows and weren't savvy enough to pirate, had to go out and BUY the stuff they wanted...
Did I say piracy was a bad thing?
That particular part, the fluffy dog, the cuddly cat, and the neglected sheep, the individual parts themselves didn't make a very compelling argument, but at the bottom of the article it was all brought together.
... they were cute. However, since the people being depicted doling out the treats were "cunts" in the authors words, they never paid out.
... the developers metaphorically representing the animals are "cute" or "good" in the sense that they're doe-eyed wishfuls making games to surprise and please the masses. The masses in turn show their appreciation by waving dollar bills (aka the Pirate-it-be-for-your-buy-it BS), but realistically just steal the damn games off of BitTorrent.
We who make the software - we are not out to rip you off; we are lovely people who just want to make an honest crust, and we smell nice. We are pretty sheepies, we are happy puppies and we are the fluffy kittens. And all we ask is that if you should happen to find yourself in a situation where you can try before you buy - then do so, but if you like what we do, then please make a point of offering us the Digestive biscuit of your approval, the pig's ear of your support, and the half a dead rat of a little financial cooperation.
As an explanation for the most braindead amongst you....
The animals were being mistreated in the sense that someone wanted to give the fluffies a treat in the first place, because
Meaningless? Not entirely
So it's not utter tripe. It's a bit silly, a little crude even, but the author makes his point.
What do you get when you cross a mountain-climber with a mosquito? Nothing! You can't cross a scaler with a vector.
It's more my experience that they don't drop to $20 so much as drop off the face of the earth entirely. The $10-$20 racks are full of crap I'd never consider buying at any price.
Final Fantasy X is $20 everywhere. Ikaruga's $20 online at bestbuy.com, and my local Best Buy (for example) has five remaining copies of Ico for $15. These are all arguably the best games in their respective genres.
The discount racks are full of low-quality stuff, but that doesn't mean the odd gem isn't there, just that it's not that easy to find.
It seems people don't read reviews, and if they do read them, ignore them anyway, or as the article put it, prioritise different inputs (i.e. the marketing and how cute the movie star was rather than if the game plays ok).
I can understand that attitude for pop music, since that is a very personal taste, but I would consider games to have more things that can be criticised objectively, so it seems odd to me.
Thou shalt not steal.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
[o]_O
When I was about 6 years old, my father got an Atari ST 520 for our house. After I begged for him to bring the color monitor home and use the black and white a one at work.
My dad and I loved this computer, and played Silent Service together on it. We wanted more games, but the Atari platform was not exactly popular in Maryland at the time. Silent Service and SunDog were all we could find. SunDog, however, was one of the best games ever made, but I was too young to appreciate it.
A fellow at his office, who went by the name "The Roe" told my dad to come over on the weekend and pick up some software for the ST, since he was a major enthusiast. My dad and I went to The Roe's place and he loaded us down with well over 100 Double sided disks of games from Brattacus to Time Bandits to a Spy Hunter clone who's name eludes me at the moment.
I played those games for 10 years. My life was irrevocably changed by that large stack of pirated Atari ST software. Today, my life revolves around games, though I buy them now since GameCube games aren't only available from a single small shop stall in Virginia.
But The Roe's single afternoon of piracy made me who I am today.
Don't Crease the Weasel!
The guy who wrote about being a pirate knows his shit. How can you tell. The man listed ICO has a work of art.
BINGO. ICO, REZ and Prince of Persia: Sands of time were all incredible games.
The sad thing is that most folks never got to experience ICO.
how do you think M$ made M$ office the number one office product, they made it easy to copy and install without any checking of licensing.
Doom, Wolfenstein, Heretic, Quake, all became the most popular because a) they were fun and b) you could download and install it and not have to worry about squat. Games that suck, suck, and should die off.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Let's ask an 1828 copy of Webster's dictionary instead of you... as you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Yep just as we thought. Copyright Infringment = Piracy.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Why should he have to deprive himself? This is silly. We aren't obligated to masochistically thrash ourselves with the spiked whip of capitalist 'ethics'. If he wasn't going to buy it, he hurts no one.
By your logic, I am well within my ethical rights to take any GPL software I want, and use it in my own closed source software, without releasing my software under the GPL. After all, no-one is hurt, and I shouldn't have to deprive myself of using the GPL'd source code in my own closed-source binary.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Could game availabiliy be counted for piracy cause?
;)
In poor countries that availability is almost nill. When you go to a store you find the latest game to be the original Homeworld. So if you want a game you can buy it from Amazon (or whatever store you want) with a 60% price increase because of customs tax and shipping. so the only way to get a game for most is to download a pirated copy (you surely can pay it, but you would have to stop eating for the next 2 months)
UgaBuga!
And I have far too many friends who have been laid off after a project due to sales not panning out as hoped. The games usually however did great in various warez avenues. Most of them have moved to console development, where piracy still exists, but in far far smaller numbers.
Anyone who thinks piracy helps the developer is not a true developer who's livelihood is made or broken by the sales numbers of their game. My money says Mr. Psuedonym works for a publisher...if a game sells poorly they fire the dev team and write off the game as a loss.
"But, hell, most of them are still using C or C++: the most backward, cryptic, and unproductive languages imagineable." Games are typically coded in C/C++ because that is currently the best compromise between ease of use and efficiency of generated code. Skilled programmers spend their time solving language-independent software development problems, not battling syntax errors. The previous generation of console games were mostly coded in assembly; on modern consoles assembly is used fairly sparingly. Even C++ is considered too inefficient by many console developers. On a given hardware platform, the more efficient the code, the more graphical detail and behavioral complexity (e.g., physics and ai) can be achieved. Game developers typically write many custom tools to increase productivity, optimize scene data, etc.
"This is because software developers refuse to press for new types of software writing tools that will make it possible to develop a commercial game in 1/10 of the time that it takes today." If we knew of some magical language that would let us develop in 1/10th the time with the same quality we would all use it! The main potential for lowering development time (and thus cost) is the increased use of middleware such as Renderware and pre-made physics engines. However, besides the expense of most of these products, there is also the decreased efficiency and utility of a general "one-size fits all" toolchain instead of a custom, product-specific engine. We make the best guesses we can about how to best achieve our development goals--while we might screw up sometimes, it is inconceivable that we would deliberately avoid any solution that would increase our productivity. Game development is very competetive, and we will do just about anything to get an edge. Use of middleware will probably increase dramatically with the next-generation consoles, especially the PS3, but any savings in development time will be overshadowed by the ever increasing demand for more game complexity, more textures, more complex scene data, more special effects, more animation, more online support, etc, etc.
Piracy won't "force" any improvements in the game development paradigm--the main effect of piracy is to lower the sales of games (when people who would have purchased the game pirate it instead), and to cause developers to spend more time devising anti-piracy schemes. Many pirates claim they use piracy like shareware (if it's actually good then I'll buy it), but in practice this happens rarely enough that there is no positive "reward the good games" effect. When total sales are lowered, basically the market shrinks and developers and publishers go under, fewer and less-ambitious games are developed. However, since many people who pirate games wouldn't have bought them anyways, the true effects of piracy on sales are impossible to accurately measure.
Doesn't have a single word about used game sales.
Therefor, it can safely be ignored.
Perhaps game developers should simple stop investing millions of dollars developing state of the art copyright protection and reduce the price of games by ten or twenty dollars. What's the point of the CD and Copyright Protection - It's cracked in minutes by the companies who crack and release the games, so what's the point.
I'll buy a game if I like it. I've downloaded many games that I thought would be great titles, but after playing them for 15 minutes, realized that it was total crap and never played it again. If I enjoy a game enough to play it numerous times, I will go spend the $50 and buy a legit copy.
I picked up Final Fantasy X for $20 this past winter. Really nice game.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
"Lost profit" claims are based on the assumption that those who downloaded the games would've purchased them regardless without question. Of course, those of us with brains who can actually think realize that this isn't true.
I download 2-3 PS2 games a week, and to be quite honest, none of them have really been THAT good. Those are "lost sales/profit" to the industry, but again that's under the assumption that I would have purchased each and every one of those games regardless. I can assure you right here and now that I would NOT be buying $150 in video games every single week. That's half of a house payment right there.. at some point you gotta be realistic with this data. Even if I spent every last dime of my paychecks on video games, what about those games I DIDN'T purchase? If I downloaded them, it would be irrelevant as there's no possible way I could spend money I don't have.
A lot of people will take a black and white stance on this and say, "Well, you're playing those games without having paid for them.." Yes, you are 100% correct, however, the industry hasn't lost any money because of it.
The thing is, this is the fantastic difference about downloading vs. stealing an actual item: no one is losing money since the sale isn't a done deal. You might not agree with it, but it's the truth.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
but if I couldn't play Tribes, I wouldn't have bought it just to make sure the devs got paid.
I write software, and while it can be cold comfort, people using my software is far better than no-one using it, regardless of my finacial standing.
i.e. piracy is good, it is the radio of the 21st century. Fight it if you think your org can waste the resources.
If you want to be upfront about it, piracy is illegal according to a piece of paper.
Years ago the pilgrims lifestyle were restricted by law in a thousand ways. Years from now, people will realize laws against piracy is completely useless.
I am not saying developers should not be paid. I am just saying if the government really want anti-piracy initative, they would have to force M$ to create an OS where games literally run off centralized servers on a $$ basis.
If this had been a story about how a company was redistributing a GPL'd program in binary form only, there would be countless posts from zealots crying bloody murder on the part of that evil entity. But an opinion about how taking software without permission is wrong yields retards who think they have some inherint right to whatever they lay their grubby hands on
Now, the question you have to ask yourself is whether the same people going ballistic over GPL violations are the same ones defending other forms of copyright violations. Considering how many versions of your post I've run across attached to articles about piracy, I would be very interested in finding out whether there is a significant percentage of posters who are IP hypocrites, or whether the two classes of article draw posts from two different groups.
If nothing else, it might demonstrate how much groupthink, if any, exists among posting users.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Given the costs of software, if every person bought all of their software at retail prices and there was no piracy, do you think many people would possess skills with apps like Photoshop? I can't think of many cases at all where I've not purchased a program (having the money to do so) and opted to warez the software.
;)
I once knew a guy that taught himself 3DSmax, Lightwave, and Maya using pirated versions of the software. He approached a member of the dev team for Lightwave (a $1600 piece of software) and asked him some pretty in-depth questions about technique and other things. The guy just answered them, straight off. Never mind that this was an 18-year-old high school senior who could never have afforded to buy Lightwave legitimately.
Knowing this, it certainly does make sense that companies that write creativity software (Adobe, Newtek, Discreet, etc) don't worry much about IP theft because it breeds more trained professionals, who then get jobs with companies that will buy their software in large amounts
Tell me something. Some ppl said that high prices of games are due to piracy. However we are talking of corporations who are always greedy for more money. Reduction in piracy is no way gonna bring down the prices of games.
Well I first want to point out whatever role piracy may have played in the initial spread of videogames I doubt it is significant now, at least not for the big developers. Quite simply it seems that everyone who is going to do so is hooked on videogames, there isn't a child out there who isn't exposed significantly to a video games system. Sure, one might claim that a certain percentage of piraters out there is good for the game industry by 'seeding' their friends, who aren't willing to pirate, to buy the game. Yes, but it is still in the industry's interest to discourage this practice, i.e. send people to jail who engage in it, to keep it small. Hell, if they wiped out all the pirates they can accomplish the same seed effect by running an internet giveaway of a certain number or copies, which no doubt would let them perfect the process making sure they hit differnt geographic areas proportionally and etc..
Now in the posts on slashdot I noticed two types of responses justifying piracy, some right-headed the other just outright selfish.
The first I noticed is probably the oldest excuse in the book, and one of the most annoying. The games are too expensive, why should I have to pay for failed games etc.. etc.. BECAUSE IF NO ONE DOES NO ONE WILL MAKE GAMES. There is no absolute price video games *should* be and they are over this price...the very notion is absurd. Neither is it the case that videogame companies are handled by complete incompetents who are just wasting money. This is just a thinly disguised excuse, "I don't want to shell out any money"
The second objection is more reasonable. Namely that they wouldn't be willing to buy the game so it doesn't hurt anyone should they play it anyway. This is entierly reasonable except for the fact that there is a natural slipperly slope here. It does however point out a terrible flaw in our pricing of intellectual property. We are being terribly inefficent because we have members of our population who could be living better at no cost to anyone (i.e. have extra entertainment in this case).
Instead the clear answer is to pay for IP directly via taxes. Fix a certain percent of total income and then distribute it to creators of IP via estimates of the use and ranking by it's readers of the work, in other words a scheme of mandatory liscenscing to all citizens. Now of course people will cry that this is socialicstic. Perhaps, but it would do well to remember *why* we use capitalism. Because it is the best way we discovered to divide goods.
It is a good way to divide goods provided that the price per good is roughly constant (for instance chairs...the price is just the materials and craftsmanship for that chair). However, intellectual property is essentially differnt, the additional cost to make one more good is essentially zero. This is why we have the government run things like the army where the cost of protecting one more individual is essentially zero (the cost of protecting the US is independent of the population). It simply wouldn't be efficent for everyone to pay for only their personal protection.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
20 years ago I pirated games for the Spectrum 48k and the C64. I would buy a game and tape it for my friends. They would return the favour.
...and that's how I justify my piracy these days too.
...now they want to make Part II. It will also flop because of lack of gameplay and originallity.
Now these games were poor. Some didn't work and some shops refused to believe me on this. They were expensive back then in my eyes too. A good 3 or 4 weeks worth of pocket money.
"Without me, the games industry today would be nothing" - Inda.
The other point to make about developer not having food to eat is bollocks. Your games are crap. It has nothing to do with piracy.
Recently, a few thousand of us commented on a game in the making. This was an old 2D game that was going to get revamped into 3D. I, along with others, commented that some of us had more experience with games than the developers and they should listen to our worries. The game flopped, it contained none of the elements that we loved from the 2D game. I deleted my Warez copy after a couple of days...
You want to eat? Don't sell half finished buggy games at unreasonable prices.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
As a lot of people have pointed out, some people cannot simply afford tools that they need either for work or for school. In my case my parents were somewhat poor and basically refused to buy me any software. Being a minor and having no job, I really had no choice but to pirate Microsoft Office and Windows. Sure, I could have used some open source office productivity suite, but that is just too much of a pain in the ass to deal with considering Office only took 30 minutes to download and install. Now that I am older and have a job, I pay for all software I deem worthwhile after trying it out with a pirated version. I cannot fathom how many hundreds of dollars I would have wasted if the theory of "try before you buy" was inexistant. It is true that FPS are taking a big hit due to piracy, but many methods could be taken to help curtail the problem. Starforce 3 or modified Securom anyone? Offer special incentives for people that do purchase your products (see private betas of FlashFXP for members only). I think the STREAM idea developed by Valve that allows you to download new games the second they hit retail shelves is brilliant and saves gamers money. Cut out the bullshit costs passed on to consumers and you'll get your revenue back. Simple.
Ergo, they do have value to you - which means that you should pay for them.
A fallacious argument - does the air have value to you? What about sunshine? What about freeware and open source applications? Have you paid for all that?
I am not going to buy a lot of games. If I couldn't get very cheap pirated copies, I wouldn't play them. And I only should do what I consider right, not what someone else says I "should do". And piracy is right.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
While I believe in the good ole 'if somebody has put effort into creating something, and you use/play it, buy it' principle, it seems to me that game dev costs would fall significantly if there were better/quicker game authoring tools around. There's a bunch of rapid development tools like Virtools, Quest3D, Radishworks etc out there that attempt this, but it hasn't quite reached the point where you can grab a 1K game authoring package with a decent 3D engine, physics, GUI driven workflow etc off the shelf they way you'd grab, say, Studio MX. Might be something the open source community ought to look into.
The most common thread here is that games are over priced for what you get. Yet people are saying like $50 is two much for 5 hours of game play. That is only $10 for entertainment. Try doing much better then that at a proffessional sports game or even the movie thearter. Maybe the best ratio you get there is $5/hour but most likely if you're sitting where you can actually see or going to a facility where you want to spend two hours in its closer to $10.
The realeative price of games does not seem to change that much either, but we know the costs have gone up. I was paying just as much for my NES games as I pay now for stuff on GC, but with NES Nintendo never had to higher voice actors, artists and modles, which is what most people expect today. So really in a certain sense the price of games is actually falling. Now lots of poeple argue that half the games that come out are crap and that might be true but the same holds for yesterday's games. People think back on the classics and go "Oh those were all so good" but that is because they have forgotten the bad ones. There were lots of really terrible NES and Atari games same for archade.
I think all this piracy has more to do with greede and lack of scruples then most people here care to admit. If you don't like the commercial software modle, like I don't use open source. I have very little PC software that is not FOSS and what is not I have paid for it. I have lots of FOSS games that I really enjoy and I thank the authors very much. Still I recognize that FOSS will never produce certain types of software, one of which is games with voice actors, live models, and highly technical artwork. Sometimes you do see the art work Tux Racer is a good example. When I want those games I go out and by the GC version and enjoy it, but that is pretty rare might be 2-3 games per year. The rest of my games time is spent with FOSS. $150 is not too much to spend per year on games, add $10-20 and you can rent things form the video store and try before you buy at least in the console world. You pirates need to just admit you're greedy and that you want something for nothing.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I think it seems like the majority of people feel similar to myself. Why buy something that you wouldn't pay full price for? Of course you would pay something, but not much, not even as much as it may go for on ebay.
I recently bought call of duty and C+C generals. You better believe I pirated the games first to see how I would like them. UT2004? No thanks, not worth $40 to me.
Also, most pirates have trouble using the games for multiplayer purposes, which really is no fun for a lot of us who live for multiplayer games as well.
Lets look at the industry parallel to gaming software. Application software. I am sorry, but Microsoft doesn't need $100+ for a program for me to TYPE in. Does that mean I should have to be cursed to a pencil and paper for the rest of my life? Or spend countless hours seeking an incompatable and foreign application of lesser value?
Only the inconsiderate will contend that piracy doesn't hurt anyone. Of course it does, but then again, you must look at the other side as well to see that unfair prices and perhaps disapointing quality of games drivers people to such measures.
Well, some of us are just theives and always will be I suppose.
I play games and music that I haven't paid for.
Do I feel even an iota of guilt? Not really.
I'm not going to glorify it and say that I ultimately help increase sales, because I don't think it's relevant.
Nor do I particularly feel for the artists who cry that their art has been "commoditized". What artist gets upset about people enjoying their work? You create something because you want it to be enjoyed, otherwise you don't release it.
What concerns me most are people who believe that copying data creates victims, and that if there are victims then there must be criminals and that the criminals need to be punished, and not only that, but that an invasive copy-control infrastructure needs to be built to thwart these criminals.
The idea of controlling information has always been awkward, but today that position is outright ludicrous. The internet is the first step of our civilization towards eliminating scarcity, and we've started with information scarcity. Anything you want to see or hear available to you anywhere at any time. We're almost there.
Sure, the people who have built business models that depend on the existing infrastructure will be upset, but trying to prevent its collapse is sacrificing the future for the convenience of a few in the present.
One day this may carry over to the physical world: replicators. Replicators would solve so many world problems, but there will be opposition. Which side do you think you'll be on?
One of my friends is doing a senior project on Piracy...check out PiracyForums.tk.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Keyword: robbing.
Downloading video games isn't robbing anyone of anything if you had no intention on buying it in the first place. You're assuming those who downloaded would've purchased either way, and that's not always the case. If I had no intention on buying a game and I download it, please explain (to those reading this thread) how they lost money. That logic is EXTREMELY flawed almost every which way you look at it.
You're thinking in black & white, and it's just not that simple.
I don't know why these posts get modded up. We all know that comparing copyright infringement to theft is like comparing apples to oranges. It's completely irrelevant and holds no water. It's a lame cop out used by the entertainment industry to make them look like the victim.
Piracy != Copyright Infringment, and I think your post just proved it.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Websters is written by fucking americans and is full of hideous american newspeakings of common queen's english terms. Just because something's in a dictionary doesn't make it right. It just makes it in the dictionary. If the nazis published a dictionary saying "Jew: primate related but distinct from human, capable of great deceit", would that make the definition right? You have just appealed to an authority I do not acknowledge.
You're more than welcome to get a subscription to the OED and post their definition of piracy here.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Piracy != Copyright Infringment, and I think your post just proved it.
According to the dictionary definition they are equivalent. But go ahead... keep arguing to absurdity.
Downloading video games isn't robbing anyone of anything if you had no intention on buying it in the first place. You're assuming those who downloaded would've purchased either way, and that's not always the case. If I had no intention on buying a game and I download it, please explain (to those reading this thread) how they lost money. That logic is EXTREMELY flawed almost every which way you look at it.
If you have no intention of buying it in the first place, what makes you think you have the right to have it anyway?
You don't.
By taking it anyway - and using that lame argument to justify what you're doing - you are depriving the vendor of the sale of that game.
You see, in civilized society we have this thing called "free trade" and the "marketplace". One of the ideas behind this free trade system is that the market is policed so that people don't take things anyway if they don't like the price they're being sold for.
If you REALLLLLLLLLLY wanted that game, why didn't you pay for it?
If you weren't willing to pay that much for it, then you should have just left it there - and NOT copied it. Instead you break the law.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
A fallacious argument - does the air have value to you? What about sunshine? What about freeware and open source applications? Have you paid for all that?
The difference being that air and sunshine are free by virtue of them being part of the environment. Freeware and OSS apps are given to you by the author's decision to release those things for free.
Pirating software, however, is in direct contravention of the terms and conditions that the author has set on your use of their work.
I am not going to buy a lot of games. If I couldn't get very cheap pirated copies, I wouldn't play them. And I only should do what I consider right, not what someone else says I "should do". And piracy is right.
Ahhhhh... ok... so it's your natural born right to pirate games because you deserve (somehow) to be entertained?
I wish I could live in your freeloader "entitled to everything because I want it" state. You're in for a big shock when you get out into the real world and discover that other people get pissed when you do that.
Or when you end up in jail.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
According to the dictionary definition they are equivalent. But go ahead... keep arguing to absurdity.
... starts to fall apart with circular logic once you introduce something that can be infinitely duplicated.
Um, no, not quite. It's absurd because you don't agree? The definition you put in bold said "The robbing of another by taking his writings." If you download a game, you are NOT robbing anyone. If I own a store and you walk in, steal a game, you're robbing ME because you actually took something I could've sold to someone else. If I download a game, you're assuming that *I* would have purchased that game. Look up the definition of robbery.
Want me to prove it? Hitman Contracts just came out for PS2. I have NO fucking idea what that game is. I know it's the third in the series, but I've never played any of them nor have I ever had the desire to. If I download that game and play it just to play it, I'm robbing them of a sale? No, because I've never had the slightest inkling EVER to buy a "hitman" game.
If you have no intention of buying it in the first place, what makes you think you have the right to have it anyway?
You don't.
You're 100% right. I never said I have a right to have it. I said no one's losing money because of it.
By taking it anyway - and using that lame argument to justify what you're doing - you are depriving the vendor of the sale of that game.
What lame argument? It's a perfectly valid one, albeit one you don't happen to agree with. How am I depriving the vendor of a sale of a game that I had no intention on buying in the first place? Now you're just contradicting yourself.
At this point, you're arguing on speculation: the "what if" side of the coin. You can't do that, it's just not logical.
You see, in civilized society we have this thing called "free trade" and the "marketplace". One of the ideas behind this free trade system is that the market is policed so that people don't take things anyway if they don't like the price they're being sold for.
If you're talking about physical items, that makes perfect sense. While I do understand your point, it just doesn't apply to what we're talking about here.
If you REALLLLLLLLLLY wanted that game, why didn't you pay for it?
Who knows. Perhaps I didn't have the money? Maybe I just didn't feel like it!
If you weren't willing to pay that much for it, then you should have just left it there - and NOT copied it. Instead you break the law.
Yes, it's against the law but... no one lost any money. I'm not saying it makes it right, I'm just saying it doesn't really matter.
Please give me (and those reading this) an example on how the industry loses money on items that one had no intention on purchasing to begin with.
You're 100% dead on in stating that I have no RIGHT to have the items, but... we're talking profits here. We're talking about LOSING MONEY, which is all what it boils down to.
Everything that you've stated makes perfect sense when dealing with PHYSICAL items, but
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
that Jeff Minter dropped the C-bomb. For the first time in my life I'm actually glad I never paid for Revenge of the Mutant Camels.
Programmers have to eat, but they don't have to programme. You don't hear me getting pissed off because the sewage company don't pay me money for every piece of shit that comes out of my arse. If someone gives you money that's fair enough, but you have no right to expect it. As a member of the human race, you are obliged to contribute to the sum of human endeavour; this is in return for the fact that every aspect of the difference between your life and a feral existence owes itself to past human endeavour. If you benefit from civilisation, agriculture or technology then you should contribute freely to the advancement of the state of the art. Writing software does not mean you own it. The benefits of all human endeavour belong to all of humanity.
As far as I am concerned, copying a piece of software is not stealing -- any more than baking my own bread is stealing from the bakeries, or growing my own veg is stealing from greengrocers, or walking around barefoot is stealing from shoe manufacturers. As far as the author is concerned, it would make no difference to the amount of money they would get if I simply did without their product. Everyone going without would put them out of business just as quickly as if everyone ripped it off. Not that I have to do any illegal copying: I simply refuse to use any software that is not Open Source {and I'm still spoilt for choice}.
There's a lot of software theft going on, all right, and it's theft when companies like Microsoft keep their source code to themselves so ordinary users cannot share and improve their products.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
no doubt about it, copying something without paying is wrong in a way, but not in the manner you are trying to convey. you have too much of a 'stealing a candy bar from a store' mentality going on here, which is frequently disregarded and out of place in a debate such as this.
If everyone copies a game, and no-one buys it, do you still believe that no-one will be hurt?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Want me to prove it? Hitman Contracts just came out for PS2. I have NO fucking idea what that game is. I know it's the third in the series, but I've never played any of them nor have I ever had the desire to. If I download that game and play it just to play it, I'm robbing them of a sale? No, because I've never had the slightest inkling EVER to buy a "hitman" game.
YES. Because at no point have they given you permission to just download it and play it just to pay it. They set the price they are charging for you to have that privilege. If you feel that this is unfair, your only valid legal and ethical recourse is to abide by their decision and not use that software.
[snip]
What lame argument? It's a perfectly valid one, albeit one you don't happen to agree with. How am I depriving the vendor of a sale of a game that I had no intention on buying in the first place? Now you're just contradicting yourself.
No, it's a perfectly lame argument. It's great for rationalizing and justifying piracy, but not much else. Saying "Hey, you know, I would have bought that game, but it was 5 times what I would have paid for it, so I copied it anyway - I wasn't going to give them money anyway" is a really rather piteous excuse for what you're doing.
As for my argument only applying to physical items, how about this:
1. What happens when no-one buys the game - or only one person - and everyone copies it?
Answer: the games company stops producing games because they cannot recoup the cost of development.
2. What happens when very few people buy the game and most people steal it?
Answer: the games company stops producing games because they cannot recoup the cost of development.
Games take years to develop, involve large teams of highly skilled and talented individuals to create, and are a highly risky proposition - the chances that a game will flop are much higher than that it will be a hit, and no-one knows the magic formula to create a hit game --- because there IS NO MAGIC FORMULA. (The same, by the way, applies to making movies).
As such, the cost to produce all games increases, because only 1 in 5 (or less) will make enough money to cover the development of all of the other games in the portfolio.
Are you seriously saying that you have a RIGHT to use commercial software that you haven't paid for?
If so, show me WHY.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
That's a different argument from the one you originally made. Do you admit your first one was wrong? Now you say that one should pay for things according to the terms set by the author. This comment costs 10$ to read. Will you pay me? Why not? Have you not read it?
A rather idiotic argument you've got there. You can't charge people to read your comments on slashdot. Posting to a public forum means that you intended to distribute it for free. Selling a game in a store means that they intended to sell it for a price.
Notice the difference?
And no, you do not deserve to be entertained. That is not a right or privilege.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Because "Prince of Persia: Sands of time," was a financial disaster.
Oh, wait, no it wasnt.
no
I want to go pirate this asshole's games now.
:-).
There's no need to, sir. Mr Minter has already released almost all of his previous work as freeware
H.
--
"'Tell me, you dumb beast,' demanded [Zarathud] in his commanding voice,
'Why don't you do something worthwhile. What is your Purpose in Life, anyway?'
Munching the tasty grass, The Sacred Chao replied 'MU'.
Upon hearing this, absolutely nobody was enlightened. Primarily because
nobody could understand Chinese."
[Malaclypse the Younger -- "Principia Discordia"]