Slashdot Mirror
Console Players Are Pirates
According to a study by Macrovision one in five console gamers is a pirate, or uses pirated software. Interestingly the study, detailed on GamesIndustry.biz, also found that "three quarters of them would have paid for the games if they hadn't been available for free." Coverage also available on IGN.
But you are supporting consoles, you bought the unit didn't you? That is all that MS needs to know that they sold X units, which gives them bragging rights, plus it gives them sway with games developers as to what platform games should be ported to first. Remember the good old days when GTA was on the PC only? when Halo was originally developed for the PC?
You are playing the games, albeit they are pirated (so you say). However have you played these games in absolute silence? or did you tell friends about how cool game X is?
So unfortunatly your still supporting them...
E.
Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
I know far more than 5 console players and not one of us has a pirated console game. Hell, I've never even *seen* a pirated disc or cart for a console and I'm pretty sure most of my friends are in the same boat.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
In the article here, shareware author Colin Messit discovered that less than 20% of the people using his software would pay for it voluntarily.
He wrote his software in such a way that a user installing it would have a 50/50 chance of getting a crippled version or a non-crippled version at time of installation. When people registered, they sent their serial numbers which encoded whether or not they had the crippled version or the "honor system" version.
He discovered that the crippled version was registered (people sent money) 5 times as often as the "honor system" version.
Conclusion? Most people only pay if they have to.
I personally know of 12 people who have console systems and are regular purchasers of games. Of those 12, TWO have pirated games. Of those TWO one was pirated because of REGION LOCKING for a game that was never released domestically. The other is a college student with no income.
This is obviously a propoganda piece devoted to target the "common knowledge" specifically with the claim that piraters would buy the product if it wasn't pirated!
I can concieve that people actually doesn't have pirated games, but take this as example:
:P
Here in Argentina, I would say only hi-class people with no knowledge of games get to a game store and buy original games and consoles. Simply becouse they don't care about money. The rest use "pirateable" consoles like PS1/2 and Xbox, just becouse thay sell modchipped aquipment in the stores, and copied games too.
Enclosing things, make that survey here and you will get:
30% Sega Mega
30% PSOne
20% PS2
15% Xbox
5% Other
and a huge 90+% pirated stuff and a 10-% elite buying original games/consoles.
(I get it about actually buying the console and promoting it's games, but the 1 of 5 relation doesn't make sense to me)
Get real, look at the DC/eMuLe/BT networks and tell me you would rather download the game even before it hits the shelves and download it to your IDE 80 HD on your XBox.
P.S.: FBI Agents, I don't own a console so don't poke me
It takes a bit of savvy to be able to mod a console. It doesn't take any at all to pay someone to, or have a friend do it.
That said, modding a console is a pretty cool experience... I modded my own XBox (albeit with a solderless chip) and it was fun. I also transplanted the guts of my Dreamcast into a different body shell.
As far as I can see and hear, gamecube games are some of the hardest to pirate because of their backwards spinning mini dvd disc format. It's just simply not technology that you could easily have access to from the home, unlike a plain old dvd burner which can be bought pretty damned cheap these days.
My gaming systems include a pc and a gamecube, and while I've bought about a half dozen games for each in the past 2 years, my collection of pc games that I've aquired during that same 2 years is quite respectable. I must mention also that I know a few people who have bought an xbox or a ps2 over a gamecube because they knew it could be modded to play burned games.
Just makes me wonder if Nintendo would have a larger presense in the console world if it was easier to "evaluate" their games.
I think merely owning a GameCube indicates that you are a fairly honest person who is just interested in playing some games. The console has yet to be hacked in a way that really allows for widespread piracy. I've played a single downloaded game on my GameCube... and that was the Biohazard 4 DEMO, which wasn't available in my area.
I know that most of the people I know who have an Xbox bought one simply for the ease of piracy on it, and don't touch a GameCube, as they are expected to actually purchase their games.
Interesting. I don't know if that's an old version or I've been lucky, but I haven't had any problems with crashing. It's been extremely stable even when streaming video (including off of a remote DVD) over the network.
I don't mind using the Xbox controller as the interface is geared towards using it. I also use the Xbox for emulation and gaming, so the controller is my primary interface, although I do have the DVD remote. A wireless controller works well.
Neither can stand up to the Tivo remote which is the best I've ever used. So I don't have the best of both worlds in one unit. The Xbox has tons of flexibility you will never see in a commercial product, but yeah you have to make do with the controls.
I wish I could find a nice appliance that did everything from DIVX and OGG playback to recording and transfer over a network, but in this DRM headed world I find that unlikely in the commercial sector. The only better option is a
custom built media pc but the big difference is cost. A modded Xbox with a decent hard drive will run you only $300 or less.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
The amount of money he made should have little to do with how much work he did. Instead, it should correlate with how much service he did for others.
I think he should be applauded for serving so many with so little of his own effort. There are those that put plenty of effort into pointless tasks and serve no one.
Instead this man was able to, with just a few days work, provide something useful to thousands.
So what did those he served give him in return? Well, those that were honest, gave him money. Those that were dishonest did nothing for him.
Money is a promise to serve. Giving someone your money is a promise that they'll get something something back from you, directly or indirectly. It's a form of reciprocity.
Are you really defending those that would use this man's services and not even give him a "thank you"?
Secondly, my point is that the time he spent on that app is a more accurate estimate of its worth than the entirely arbitrary price he decided to charge for it. I haven't tried the app myself, but from description (it prints out windows helpfiles) and the time he spent on it indicate to my mind that it is overpriced. If people are given the choice between being honest and paying too much or being dishonest and paying nothing it is not a suprise that many of them choose to pay nothing. People are known for dishonesty when they feel they're being ripped off. However, if the choice had been between being honest and paying a fair price and being dishonest and paying nothing the percentage of people who decide to pay will be higher. Without further research at other price points this research is not conclusive.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that I think if his pricing were more reasonable he would have found a smaller gap between the "honest" and "dishonest" users. As I said, people who feel the price is unreasonable are more inclined to be dishonest. Take a look at his "five fundamenetals for sucess": a product users need, quality, advertising, distribution of samples, and a reason to pay. Notice that he's completely forgotten pricing. Yet most business owners will tell you that price is probably the number one thing you have to get right to suceed.This guy does the same amount of work and expects $50000+. Why is the difference so high?
Same amount of work? Really? How long did it take him to become a programmer? What about the time it took him to learn the Win32 API? He didn't get anything for that work until he turned it into software that users could take advantage of.
And the qualitative difference in the type of work is important too. Most people can, in some way, apply brute labor to help build a road. A smaller percentage of people have the skill to write software. This fact seems to suggest that the task of producing software is in general more difficult than the simple application of a person's labor.
You also seem to be suggesting that the value in something comes from the labor put into it. This labor theory of value is a poor performer. One reason is the subjective nature of value. People's degree of desire for a thing has little to do with the labor put into that thing and varies greatly from person to person.
It's because the software vendor has the capability to perfectly replicate his product, and while automatic replication of work is the key to wealth, it's hardly a fair situation.
Why should it matter to the users of the software how much money or wealth the programmer might earn? So what. He asks for money for his services. People can say yes or no. What's the problem besides the envy some might feel?
People are known for dishonesty when they feel they're being ripped off.
This feeling of being "ripped off" is silly and is hardly an excuse for dishonesty.
Look. This guy wrote a cheap program to do a job many people needed done. You might think it was too easy a job to justify his charging $25.
But where were the cheaper alternatives? Surely if it was such an easy task for the typical person, there'd be other options.