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.
I don't believe this for a second. A survey of 6000 people does not represent the millions of gamers in North America. Also... the main bias of this survey is that Macrovision is trying to peddle their copy protection services to MS and Sony.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
I may have missed something, but they go from talking about software to games... software is not the same as a game, and that stat seems wildly out of whack. There are a handful (at least) of hurdles that one has to overcome before being able to priate a game, and it doesn't seem like the average gamer would neccesarily also be tech savvy enough to have, and keep the motivation in order to actually pirate the material.
That people who only have a passing interest or curiosity in a game would pay money for it. (outside of a rental)
Now if they could download and burn the same game they may be more willing to give it a wirl.
No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
May I ask why? You supported them when you purchased the XBox. Why not buy games for it. If a software developer puts out a title that is to your liking and of suitable quality why not pay the company that produced it?
Please elaborate.
No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
I don't suppose Macrovision would have the slightest bit of bias in this sort of a study? Seeing as they sell copy-protection technology...
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
For a number of reasons, including who conducted it (Macrovision), their sample target (Techno-savvy gamers), and their sample size (6,000). Not to mention that we haven't yet seen the actual survey that they (presumably) e-mailed these people. There's also the issue of multiple responses from the same person. I assume they tried to prevent this with IP logging, but it is certainly still feasible. Also unknown are they type of "gaming" sites. If they attached a survery to GameCopyWorld.com, that just might skew the results a tad bit. I will take this article and with it, a giant-sized cube of salt.
=======================================
Doer of bad deeds, screenwriter-wannabe
savagexp
ARRRRR!!!
Modding a PS should not be a suprise as many games from Japan don't work in a US version. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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
A new study conducted by California-based firm Macrovision
Just stop there, with that source, the rest of the article is worthless.
I would be willing to grant that such piracy probably happens, but this sounds like a scare tactic comming out of Macrovision trying to prop up sales of their anti-copying technologies. I expect a study to follow which claims that games with their newest technology are pirated far less. It will, of course, be the same level of bullshit at this study, but if it drives one or two companies to adopt their technology then it will easily pay for the minimum wage they paid someone for half a day to call random gamers and ask a misleading question.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
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.
This is arguably the most pirated game.
The US gov says government corruption at an all time low.
Hot dog vendors say now is a good time to buy a hotdog
My point is that this research only tells us that crippleware worked better in this particular case, a case where I think the registration fee was set way too high. Looking at just the uncrippled registrations, he made $3900 in about a year for his couple of days work. To me that seems pretty fair, and certainly not something I'd complain about. All registrations totaled $34000, and he claims it would have been $50000 if all versions had been crippled. That seems like an awfully good return for a couple of days work. Good on him for making that, but it seems a bit off to be complaining about his users honesty given just how much he made from that software.