Study Links Game Piracy To Critics' Review Scores

An anonymous reader writes "A new study (abstract) published at the annual ACM Foundations of Digital Games conference by researchers from Copenhagen Business School and the University of Waterloo explores the magnitude of game piracy on public BitTorrent trackers. The researchers tracked 173 new game releases over a three-month period and found that these were downloaded by 12.7 million unique peers. They further show that the number of downloads on BitTorrent can be predicted by the scores of game reviewers. Overall the current paper gives a seemingly robust overview of the state of game piracy on BitTorrent. Although the results may not be all that surprising, it's certainly refreshing to see a decent report on BitTorrent statistics every now and then."

Comments

Piracy and indie games

[zget]

As can be seen from the table below, the most downloaded games are all major commercial titles.

If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them. Such argument would hold more water if it was said that game piracy is linked to overall sales, but here it's saying that the better reviews and comments from people games get, the more they are pirated too. The most sad thing is when people pirate indie games

Re:Piracy and indie games

[zget]

What other arguments would you like to see than this study?

Maybe World of Goo is a good example. A great indie game that got great reviews. Still 90% of people pirated it while it didn't even cost that much. Later they even offered pay-what-you-want model, but still the piracy rate is the same. Another indie game also had 90% piracy. It's just the norm, it has nothing to do with how good the game is. People just rather pirate than buy, if they can. I'm not surprised companies are looking for DRM methods, even if just to keep the piracy out for a little bit during the first few weeks so that people who want to play it buy it because they cant pirate it.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Digital Vomit]

I'm not surprised companies are looking for DRM methods, even if just to keep the piracy out for a little bit during the first few weeks so that people who want to play it buy it because they cant pirate it.

Are you serious? A few weeks? You're as deluded as the software publishers who punish their paying customers with DRM.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[zget]

Most do fail in that, you're right, but there has been cases where the DRM haven't been broken within a whole year.

However, what is even better for game companies is to make the game only playable online, or integrate so much gameplay online (co-op etc) that it makes no sense to pirate. That is s where it's been heavily went recently and those slashdot users and everyone who rather have single-player experience should support the companies who still make good single player games. Otherwise everything will be online games soon.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you claim "math is your passion" yet you seem to be under the impression that in any statistical study, if the sample size isn't "everything ever" then any results derived from the study are taken out of context?

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Zemran]

Do you honestly believe that DRM helps sales? I do buy games but I will never buy one that I cannot play. I buy certain games and I am happy to buy them but I do not buy one that has DRM until a good crack comes out. What is the good of a game that is crippled? and why would I pay for something that is deliberately made into crap? I do not believe that I am the only one that thinks like me but I am sure that there are far more that do not bother to buy the game in the first place. I buy the game for the manuals etc. but now you often do not even get any thing but a disk, so more and more people cannot see why they would want to buy a broken product with no value added... If the games makers want to get the customers back they need to supply something that is worth buying.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce and distribute something. Any reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work by someone who is not the rights holder is an infringement of the copyright.

So yes, downloading World of Goo from Pirate Bay, is in fact piracy even if the developer no longer charges for the game.

You are right that most people ignore copyright, but there's a difference between "everyone does it" and "it's not illegal", see: speeding, drugs, prohibition, skipping school, etc.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Samantha Wright]

Here's a question for you—not that I necessarily disagree with your viewpoint—at what point do you consider an amount of money you've paid to access to something sufficient to reacquire it through any means you wish? I.e., if you were charged ten cents for access to an extremely DRMed e-book, would you still feel like you had the right to 'pirate' it and lend it to a friend?

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Anonymous Coward]

If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them. Such argument would hold more water if it was said that game piracy is linked to overall sales, but here it's saying that the better reviews and comments from people games get, the more they are pirated too. The most sad thing is when people pirate indie games

Uhm.. what are you smoking?

If a game gets bad scores people will think it is crap and will avoid it at all costs.
If a game gets good scores poeple will be interested in it.

Now, if you had actually went out and bought some games of your own instead of just trolling you would have known that good scores is not the same as a good game. I can fully understand why someone would like to try a game before buying it.
It is also unlikely that people are willing to try all games just to see if one of them is good.
This fully explains the positive correlation between good reviews and piracy with the intent to try before buy.

So really, you are either trolling or don't know enough about the subject.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[TheRaven64]

I have 30 games in my account on gog.com, and I signed up less than a year ago. I have a CD wallet full of game disks that I've bought. I still occasionally play some games that I bought 10+ years ago, in DOSBox or WINE. The ones without copy protection work fine. The ones with, typically, don't. I therefore will not spend any money on a game that comes with any form of DRM. No compromises, no 'but Steam DRM isn't really that bad,' if you won't sell me your game then I'll spend my money on someone else's product. I don't pirate: there are enough publishers willing to sell me things under terms that I consider acceptable to keep me entertained, so if you release a game with DRM it simple doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.

So, the question is, are there more people like me than there are people who are forced to buy the game because of DRM? I have no idea. Anecdotally, I've met lots of people who have refused to buy games because of the DRM, but no one who has bought a game because the DRM prevented them from pirating it. I have no idea how representative that is, but DRM costs money and I've yet to see any real evidence that it actually increases sales, so it seems like a bad investment.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[i kan reed]

Yes, DRM is literally the worst thing for consumer freedom since company stores.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[zget]

So a great game is broken and has no value because they don't come with manuals anymore? Usually the information that is in manuals is made into the game. And I can see the response "but the manuals were more personal and had artwork, funny stuff and lots of extra material". No, they all didn't. Some of them did, but just as well some game developers spend time to make the tutorial parts or whatever it is that teaches you the game more fun and interesting these days.

As I now buy 100% of my games from either Steam or Good Old Games, I don't exactly want to read the manual on my computer screen. They can just as well integrate it into the game. It's not more unfinished or broken product because of that, that's only in your mind. Hell, you could just as well say that a game is unfinished if it doesn't completely simulate the universe and beyond. There is always something you could add.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[hairyfeet]

Well I'd say it is also shame. I mean who would want to get busted for sharing "Kane&Lynch II: Dog Days"? it would be like being grabbed for a Uwe Boll movie! To be fair I actually bought Kane&Lynch II (Shut up! It was only $4 with shipping!) but I sure as hell wouldn't want to share the thing. Once I added the patch that removed the stupid as hell "Jap porn" pixelation crap from the titties and the head shots (You have a game where every other word is fuck, and the whole goal is to slaughter in masse, and you care about a little blood and titties? WTF?) I figure it was worth the $4.

And since TFA doesn't seem to be loading for me ATM I have a question: Is there any comparisons in TFA between DRM and piracy? because as we saw with Spore if you take the Goatse pic as the blueprint on how to treat your customers it WILL come back to bite you in the ass. As a PC repairman I've seen first hand what some of the nastier DRM can do** So I can understand those that really want to play a game simply bypassing the bullshit. So any comparisons of DRM VS piracy? Because I bet the nastier DRM games get snatched more than the easier ones.

**-Protip: do NOT install a Starforce game on an X64 OS! Not only does it cause all kinds of glitches because it tries to jam 32 bit code into a 64 bit kernel but the uninstaller does NOT work on X64! the only way to remove is to boot into another install and remove it manually or hope you have a system restore before you put that crap in!

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Samantha Wright]

Changing the question a little: in the case of such a heavily DRMed e-book, you probably wouldn't be paying for the right to possess a copy of the data to do with as you please, but only a license to read it, perhaps even just a few times, like the DVD and VHS rentals of yesteryear. What do you feel is a fair pricing model for different levels of access (where the lowest is "no access" and the highest is "a complete licence to edit and exhibit the content") to an e-book/movie/album, and at what point would you feel uncomfortable violating the terms of this pricing model?

Alternatively, how should artists and distributors (if applicable) be reimbursed for their work?

Re:Piracy and indie games

[cheekyjohnson]

If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them.

How did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps they want to try out these games because they've seen the reviews for them. It's quite difficult to accurately guess peoples' feelings and thoughts.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[cheekyjohnson]

There is no honor among thieves.

Too bad the article is about copyright infringement.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[blahplusplus]

"If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them."

The opposite is true, so many games are rehashes of old tropes or are half-baked on release, therefore people check the game out to see if anything has changed. You can use numbers to lie about anything but for many of us with all the DRM, half-baked releases, etc, we now live in an era of a "true" free market. We get to decide whether dev/pub screwing us gets paid.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Requiem18th]

Skipping school is illegal? Talk about a criminalised society.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[metamatic]

Not the person you're asking, but personally, if the terms are rental terms because of DRM, I expect rental pricing, or pricing less than the cost of buying the thing, reading/playing/watching it, and then selling it used.

So typically I buy PSN titles, but only if they're $5 or less. One recent exception was Assassin's Creed II for $9.99, because that was cheaper than buying it, playing it, and selling it on used.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[registrationssucks]

Here's a question for youâ"not that I necessarily disagree with your viewpointâ"at what point do you consider an amount of money you've paid to access to something sufficient to reacquire it through any means you wish? I.e., if you were charged ten cents for access to an extremely DRMed e-book, would you still feel like you had the right to 'pirate' it and lend it to a friend?

Riddle me this:

- Does the privacy agreement give the company a blank check to abuse my information (within the law)? Most privacy agreements lie by saying "we value your privacy" and then explain how they will do anything, within the law, to abuse this information.

- Does the company track my reading or viewing habits? What is done with that information?

- Does the purchase immunize me - to some extent, but explicitly so - from lawsuits related to the IP of that specific content? If not, what the hell am I purchasing?

- What rights does the company retain to refuse my future access to that information? Will I lose my account if I bad mouth them or my account information is not up-to-date or inaccurate?

- Does the company sue its customers or promote legislation I find abhorrent like slavery or copyright time extensions?

- What is the company's view on "fair use" rights and does the DRM interfere with them?

- Can I purchase the item with as much anonymity as a guy with cash at a store?

Re:Piracy and indie games

[sourcerror]

"If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them. "

Maybe they're legitimate customers who can't get past the DRM.
/sarcasm

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Vanderhoth]

I just wanted to point out that in terms of speeding, drugs and skipping school, not everyone does those things. In fact relative to the general population I believe most people disprove of these activities, which is why they're illegal... That being said I'm not sure skipping school is so much illegal, but generally frowned upon. Also there's speeding, like 5 MPH over the limit, which no one cares about and is rarely enforced and then there's speeding, like 20 MPH over the speed limit, which people do recognize as dangerous and is enforced. I'm also assuming you mean illegal drugs and not something like Tylenol.

Prohibition on the other hand was a law put into place by a small vocal minority who knew the right people, or at least knew how to intimidate the right people. It's not an activity and it was repealed precisely because everyone (being most adults) ignored it and drank in secret anyway. Similar to how copyright is a law, but most people (most people I know anyway) ignore it and copy and download content in secret anyway. By "in secret" I mean people don't go bragging to the cops they do it, but may be quite open to discussing it with peers. IMHO it's only a matter of time before someone removes that law because it's broken and only a small vocal group wants it kept around.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Kell Bengal]

Amen, brother (or sister). I don't draw the line at DRM, though; I extend that to online activation schemes as well. Why should a piece of software dial home just to function? It's like buying a car and then having to call some guy's number to have the wheel clamps removed before you can drive it home. We wouldn't put up with it for hardware, so why should we put up with it for software?

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Yamioni]

It is, but it is hardly ever prosecuted except in cases where it is a repetitive problem. Also, it is usually the parents that get in trouble for it. Which is the way it should be. If you can't be responsible for your kids, don't have them in the first place. Only in cases where parents can prove due diligence are when the kids are actually punished, usually with juvenile detention.

Disclaimer: This is all from personal experience (I was a good kid, but knew others that weren't), so as always YMMV.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Vanderhoth]

I have to admit I only half trust game reviews. I can't count the number of times I've bought a game because of a couple good reviews and then was seriously disappointed in it. So now if I see a game with a good reviews I might want to buy and I don't know anyone fist hand that owns it, I download it and then buy it if lives up to the hype. It's the only way to be sure I'm not getting screwed over. After all I only have a finite amount of money and would rather reward good games then waste the money buying something that's crap.

Of course that hasn't been a problem lately because I don't even look at games once I find out they're using some screwed up DRM. I also don't pirate indie games, they're normally cheap anyway. I also trust that if an indie developer tried to screw over gamers with some crap DRM, saying their game does something it doesn't or is something it's not, it would be the last game they sold.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[vux984]

we now live in an era of a "true" free market. We get to decide whether dev/pub screwing us gets paid.

Not really a free market; since you don't have to pay for the product. You can just help yourself. And many do.

Its more of a charity.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[blahplusplus]

"Not really a free market; since you don't have to pay for the product."

Given the whole theft of the public domain we can say piracy is a counterbalance to this overwhelming corporate theft of the public domain. So IMHO piracy is par for the course. Companies get to redefine the law and set cultural boundaries buy buying government influence to create laws in their favor so customers have no right to own (theft of rights). These industries are even more shifty then any pirate. For instance software is 'never owned' so one doesn't have the source so one can't modify one's own software which one paid for.

Things like http://www.descent2.de/ and http://scp.indiegames.us/ should be much more common then they are but the so called "rights holders" have stolen the rights of customers to own via legal shenanigans because most people aren't bright enough to revolt against these practices.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[cheekyjohnson]

Oh, right. I temporarily forgot that copying was the exact same thing as taking away someone's physical property without their permission.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[CastrTroy]

But then the correct solution is just not play the game at all. If you don't like the way they are licensing the game, be it for DRM, activation, information gathering, or whatever, you could just not play the game. There's enough good games, software, movies, books, and music that come with fair licenses to keep just about anybody entertained for a long time. If you choose to pirate something because you don't like the terms, then they can count that against you. However, if you decide just to not play at all, then you are truly standing up for the problems you have with the game publisher.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[brit74]

> "Given the whole theft of the public domain we can say piracy is a counterbalance to this overwhelming corporate theft of the public domain."
Funny, I thought the pirate mantra was that "theft" involved physically depriving someone of something. All of a sudden, the pirate thinks the "public domain" can be stolen. How does that work again? I can't think of any game company that has deprived someone else of using the public domain. It's not like World Of Warcraft has a patent on MMOs, roleplaying, or fantasy-medieval themed-games and prevents any other game company from making games in that niche.

My theory is that pirates manufacture a sense of victimization to justify their actions.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[zifn4b]

While I agree that software piracy is probably morally wrong. I don't think it can be classified as stealing. Stealing would be like I break into my neighbor's house and steal his/her property. Notice I said "property". I am transferring his/her physical property into my possession. When you pirate a game, there is no transfer of property. In software piracy, you are making a copy. Now would you say that if I looked in my neighbor's window and saw a piece of artwork he/she made, liked it and created a copy of it and enjoy it in my residence. Is that morally incorrect? Is that a crime? Did I steal something?

Re:Piracy and indie games

[blahplusplus]

" It's not like World Of Warcraft has a patent on MMOs."

You're missing the whole point, games before the net were sold as finished products (stuff you owned) it's only through publics lack of intelligence and ignorance that stuff like software licensing for certain kinds of software got off the ground and so we have a blanket model in favor of corporations, and if you don't think that corporations have stolen the public domain then you clearly are one of the ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

The whole point of IP, copyright, is to lock up works so that corporations can perpetually control/resell profitable ideas. So things like this become impossible.

http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/

There is more then enough evidence to indict the whole industry.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[TenDollarMan]

There is a very strong correlation indeed.

The equation:
y = 951809x^(-0.4086)

The R^2 value:
R2 = 0.9791

As you can see the correlation is very good.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Grishnakh]

So the answer to piracy looks pretty simple, judging by the results of this research. All the game companies have to do is make their games lousy, so that they get really bad reviews. Then their piracy rate will be very low.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[cheekyjohnson]

morally it's the exact same thing.

According to whose morals? Keep in mind that morality is probably subjective.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Cederic]

You appear to be a member of the "Give me all your money" club, with a stunning inability to comprehend other viewpoints, factor in societal and economic considerations or accept that the effort/cost to create something is under many circumstances completely fucking irrelevant and something many people just don't give a shit about.

If you don't like that, don't put the effort in, and don't try and make money off it. We wont mind.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[brit74]

I doubt game companies were involved in the copyright term extension act. By in large, game companies don't give a crap about extending copyright because games and software in general have a bad shelf-life. After about ten years, old games are often given away for free or sold for $5 or less. I'm certain that game companies aren't making any money on ten-year old games, much less twenty year old games. So, why would game companies spend money lobbying to increase copyright to 100+ years?

http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/ [opcoder.com]
There is more then enough evidence to indict the whole industry.

Assuming that the US' original 28-year copyright was still in effect, that project would still be inside the copyright term because Chrono Trigger was published in 1995. Heck, the project was shut down in 2004, which means it was 9 years after release (which is also inside the 14-year copyright term). I also can't figure out why you think "Chrono Trigger" is "public domain", or why the "Chrono Trigger" situation is evidence to indict the whole industry. "Gang Garrison" didn't run into any problems with Valve (who made Team Fortress), does that count as enough evidence to justify the whole industry?

Re:Piracy and indie games

[dadelbunts]

How is that the way it should be. I used to catch the school bus to school and then not go to school. Should my parents be faulted because public transportation provided by the school didnt make sure i actually went to school . Hell even if you could get me into the school it was very simple to get out whenever i wanted.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[dadelbunts]

I feel the same way about marijuana.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Garwulf]

Last I checked, stealing was taking something that was not yours to take. The definition depends on the thing being taken not being yours.

So, yes, software piracy counts.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Pentium100]

90% is probably the piracy rate of everything. However, what you need to ask is out of those 90%, how many would have bought the game is the pirated version was not available. My guess is vast majority of them would just pirate some other game if WoG was not available. I know because I do this (though I did not pirate WoG, nor did I buy it). I usually go something like this:
1. Oh, a new (previously unknown to me) game that I might like, let's see it it can be played on PC as I do not have a console.
2. Good, it can, let's go to TPB.
3. If it is available, download, if not, choose a different game and goto 1.

Yes, I sometimes buy games, but rarely and only if the price is less then 15EUR and I feel like I should support the developers (which means mostly indie games, not games from huge corporations, to buy one of those the price needs to be less than 9EUR).

Re:Piracy and indie games

[blahplusplus]

"I doubt game companies were involved in the copyright term extension act."

No but they are now on the same side with the rise of online DRM and all sorts of bullshit like DLC. The fact remains though that copyright / licensing is being abused by corporations. The fact that you just accept it as "just the way things are" is proof of your lack of critical thinking. You want to have no rights then you're one of the ignorant.

The whole point of me pointing out chrono trigger is that many games fall into defunct status never to rise again because their companies go out of business so they become "abandoneware" you can't fix these old games or update them for modern platforms without the source and that's all because of copyright/licensing bs where the customer "never owns" the things he buys which is a bunch of bullshit to keep stuff out of the public domain.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[blahplusplus]

"You can't paint all corporations with the same brush, and steal from one group because of actions of another group."

Yes you can because it's the entire culture of criminal underhandedness that profiteering brings. What happens to really old games or abandonware I've purchased? I can't as an owner of mech2 or Fantasy General (abandonware) go grab the source from say a library and fix it/update it for modern systems even though *I invested in* and *paid for* the product, its development, etc buy buying it. This is the whole point of abusing language to enact laws that are underhanded and criminal to deny customer rights because most of the population is not bright enough to defend itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_General

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Yamioni]

Parents should put in a "best effort" to raise a child that does what they are told (go to school) rather than does whatever the hell they want. While it is true that parents cannot possibly watch their children 24 hours a day when school is involved, it is still their responsibility to raise a child that doesn't have to be watched 24 hours a day. If parents do their due diligence by punishing the child when they are found truant, then you really can't punish them for having a kid that won't fucking listen. (Note I said parents get in trouble for it, not that they are necessarily punished for it.) As long as the parents do their job and try to correct the child's behavior, they cannot be seen at fault. Self-same, the schools should be getting repremanded for not keeping of track of kids that skip out while under their watch as well.

I fully respect that some kids just cannot be reached. Those are the kids that are truant time and time again despite any escalating punishments they may incur. However, in my not so humble opinion, if parents do their job of raising their child properly from birth, then you are only going to have a very small set of fringe cases where the child is still unruly. Those would tend to be cases where the child actually has psychological or emotional problems. In these cases it is rather understood that no matter how hard anyone tries, the kid is going to be unruly, and no-one is really to blame.

The sad part is that many parents anymore (in the US at least) do not seem to want to spend the time to raise their child properly. I understand that some people may have very busy schedules that prevent them from spending as much time with them as they should. But if that is your situation, are you really sure that you are at a place in your life that kids are a good idea? It is simply irresponsible to have kids when you "want" them, rather than when you are actually able to raise them. If you don't have the time to devote to properly raising a child, then don't have one; it isn't fair to the child, and we certainly don't need more people in this country that grow up to be complete assholes because their parents were never around, or never paid attention to them.

Irresponsible parents raise irresponsible kids. Such irresponsibility should not go unchecked.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Pluvius]

Last I checked, stealing was taking something that was not yours to take.

Yes, stealing is taking something that is not yours, by which "take" is universally regarded to mean "remove from someone else's possession."

So, no, software piracy doesn't count.

Rob

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Pluvius]

Funny, I thought the pirate mantra was that "theft" involved physically depriving someone of something.

No, it just involves depriving someone of something that is theirs; it doesn't have to be physical. Unlike pirates, who simply increase the number of copies of an intellectual product, corporations have rigged the patent and copyright systems of the United States in their favor, which takes intellectual products out of the public domain.

That said, I don't think piracy of video games has anything to do with the ridiculous copyright laws in place, except in the case of abandonware. Rather, aside from the obviously large number of people who don't think that the games they pirate are worth the price charged for them, it has more to do with DRM, which is a software-specific way of taking rights away from the consumer.

Rob

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Vanderhoth]

So do many others. As far as marijuana goes I could care less about the substance itself. I dislike smoking, which isn't illegal where I'm from, but it is illegal now to smoke in restaurants, hospitals, coffee shops and basically any public place. I prefer it that way as I can now actually sit down to a nice meal and not have the person sitting next to me light up. I think it would be a little counter productive to allow smoking marijuana, but not allow smoking.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[vux984]

What happens to really old games or abandonware I've purchased?

I'd be more worried about the new ones. Those are the ones that are going to be broken beyond repair in 20 years thanks to their hooks to online systems.

The old ones are being resurrected by sites like GoG.com.

go grab the source from say a library and fix it/update it for modern systems even though *I invested in* and *paid for* the product, its development, etc buy buying it.

You can't have the architect's drawings for a random building you like, or a the authors notes on a book he wrote, or the schematics for your microwave either. Even if you "paid for it" by buying an apartment, book, or microwave respectively.

Rewriting a game to work on modern platforms is no different than translating a book to a foreign language. And yes, the copyright holder has the eclusive right to do that. If he doesn't bother, abandons the book, lets it go out of print... tough. You still can't translate it to Japanese and distribute it. At least until its out of copyright.

And once games come out of copyright, then there will be nothing stopping you from creating your own versions, using the the original artwork etc.

I agree that the duration copyright is too long, but this is not the game companies fault. Few have been around long enough for any titles to even come out of reasonable copyright.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Creepy]

Technically you don't own a copy of the copyrighted material - the publisher owns all of the copyrighted material. You own the physical media it is published on and (usually) a perpetual license to use it, so by that definition you are stealing because you are taking a license and you didn't pay for it

In the US you technically can't even show that licensed media to anyone without having them also pay for a license, which is why DVD and Blu-ray movies often say something about "for home use only" (fair use allows you to show it to your family and friends if they are there, but it is ambiguous about when that becomes a public display).

Re:Piracy and indie games

[blahplusplus]

"Rewriting a game to work on modern platforms is no different than translating a book to a foreign language. And yes, the copyright holder has the eclusive right to do that. If he doesn't bother, abandons the book, lets it go out of print... tough. You still can't translate it to Japanese and distribute it."

And this here is where we part ways, you don't believe in public domain at all. The whole point of copyright/licensing is to DENY anything from ever entering public domain through abusing language and the law. You have no interest in your own rights to own the things you buy. You are entirely centered around capitalist contracts rather then the public good, and until you can get out of "ownership mode" you'll never understand what I'm saying. Everything you've ever made is drawn from nature (the commons) therefore the public has a right to have what came from the commons go back to it so future generations can build on the work of others.

We already see this in patent law already where patents are hindering innovation and there needs to be a way to get at work that is common that everyone builds upon.

A whole lot of gaming history is going to end up being stifled just because of these ridiculous laws.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[cheekyjohnson]

But, you didn't actually take anything; you copied it. Nothing was removed from the original owner's possession so that they do not have access to it any longer.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[vux984]

And this here is where we part ways, you don't believe in public domain at all.

You misunderstood me entirely.

. The whole point of copyright/licensing is to DENY anything from ever entering public domain through abusing language and the law.

It should enter the public domain when copyright term expires. I agree the term is too long and should be shortened. But I don't think that a 15 year old game should be in public domain yet.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[cheekyjohnson]

It does seem to apply, but to many people, it is probably just confusing. When someone hears that someone "stole" something from someone else, most people would probably think that a piece of physical property was removed from the victim's possession. Using the word "thief" or "steal" doesn't make much sense to me because they are truly different scenarios.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[another_twilight]

I downloaded a torrent of World of Goo as, at the time, there was no demo available for it.

20 minutes later I was paying for and downloading an official copy. Then picked it up again as part of the Humble Indie Bundle.

I purchased a copy of Machinarium after being alerted to its existence by the author complaining about piracy - and after downloading a torrent of the game, first. Got it again with the HIB.

I know that this is anecdotal, I assume I am not typical but find it hard to believe I am unique. More, if there were some magical breakthrough that made DRM perfectly effective and prevented me from doing this, my response would not be to risk purchasing a game where all I know of it is the (paid for) 'review', it would be to not purchase it in those first few weeks but to wait until people I know can provide a report I can trust or to simply not buy at all. In my case, more effective DRM reduces the possibility of sale.

People just rather pirate than buy, if they can

Many, maybe even most, but not all and those who do are not going to turn into customers if you can somehow prevent piracy. Quite the reverse, some of those pirates may become customers.

even if just to keep the piracy out for a little bit during the first few weeks so that people who want to play it buy it because they cant pirate it

Perhaps, but the number of those who when unable to pirate the game pay, rather than wait, is smaller than the total number of pirates and I see very little work trying to quantify that number. More often it is assumed that all piracy represents lost sales.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[registrationssucks]

But then the correct solution is just not play the game at all.

Yes. I'm a linux-using freetard so my position is not 100% hypocritical. I would further agree that people pirating MSFT or Adobe or other products are an EXTREME disincentive to fix free versions or even to create lower cost non-free versions.

But, here is the rub, which is the greater evil, buying an album/movie/software and sending money to Sony/Disney/Microsoft or pirating it? We know that Bill Gates preferred people pirate than use competing versions.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[brit74]

> "I doubt game companies were involved in the copyright term extension act."
> No but they are now on the same side...
Let's put your statement in more plain terms: the copyright extension act has NOTHING to do with the games industry.

> No but they are now on the same side with the rise of online DRM and all sorts of bullshit like DLC.
DRM is a consequence of piracy. When PC titles routinely show piracy rates in the range of 85%-95%, it's not hard at all to understand why companies are looking to make sure only paying customers are getting their work.

> You want to have no rights then you're one of the ignorant.
"No Rights" is just pro-piracy hyperbole.

Out of curiousity, since you've indicted the whole games industry, do you feel the least bit guilty about pirating indie games with no DRM, pirating indie games with no DRM and "pay what you want" (as with the humble bundle), or pirating Id Software's games, even though they're giving away the source code and suggesting that other companies do the same (http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/08/04/2129223/Doom-3-Source-Code-To-Be-Released-This-Year)? You actually sound like a racist who wants to condemn an entire race of people because you pick out examples of people of that race behaving badly, while ignoring people of that race behaving well.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Mathinker]

Thanks for the thoughtful question. It all depends on how I would view the DRM. If the author would make it clear to me that the point of the DRM is that his business model is "ten cents per read" (kind of like a rental model), unlike dead tree books for which it is clear the business model is "you can read it as many times as you like", then I probably wouldn't download a copy for my use under the second business model, or at least until I'd already paid him (via repetitive payments for the "per read" edition) as much he himself charged for that second business model, or if he didn't offer the second model, I'd probably make a personal judgment comparing the book to other books which were sold with that model and guess at a "fair price".

If he didn't make it clear, then I probably would be confused. Quite a lot of people seem to be going for the "low price, high volume" model of marketing nowadays...

Your question actually highlights something I hadn't thought of, before. If breaking the DRM were actually trivial, and I could easily do it myself, it would be legal for me to do so and convert his ten cent eBook into an unprotected one --- but I wouldn't feel OK with that morally (unless, as I stated above, I somehow paid the author more). On the other hand, if I had to scan / OCR every page myself from my eBook reader in order to get the unprotected version, I admit it would probably piss me off enough that I might actually end up paying the author less.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Samantha Wright]

That payment is a moral question is the point I wanted to raise. We spend so much time running around inside of legal questions of what the law says we can and cannot do, that we completely forget about the simple, much more real question of "does this artist deserve to eat for my enjoyment of his or her work?"

Radiohead's stunt a few years ago really highlighted this idea for me, and ever since then I've been a lot more sceptical of any anti-DRM viewpoint that inherently implies the author's effort doesn't entail compensation, regardless of opinions on whether or not the resultant artwork should be that author's property. It's certainly true that DRM has a lot of inherent flaws, but assuming a non-evil vendor like you mention, it seems to me that as long as consumers aren't setting their own prices (and thereby making capitalism purely voluntary), they need some electronic equivalent of a movie ticket or a DVD rental, so they can say "I'll pay for the privilege to use this once or twice, but it's not currently worthwhile for me to purchase the privilege to use it at any time."

Re:Piracy and indie games

[pandaman9000]

Are these -your- kids? The government does not own me, or my children. I do not even own "my" kids. So, please, feel free to take your communist (I hope you are an idealist, and not a Socialist) views, shove them up your ass, and add a twist for effect. I refuse to respect any law that forces my children to go anywhere against their will.

Summary: go piss up a rope.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[pandaman9000]

The limitation to smoking, and smoking marijuana should be the same as that of other laws created sanely: you cannot perform an activity that encroaches on those rights of others defined by the Constitution. If smoking cigarettes, drinking, or smoking marijuana presents a direct health risk, or indirect (you get in vehicle and drive under influence), then you are in the wrong. Marijuana is not physically addictive, cigarettes (nicotine) are, as is alcohol.

The argument for legalization of marijuana is strong (in my opinion) largely because it has less bad effects than currently legal substances, and has been shown (in Amsterdam) to not see larger use in adults when legalized (or, in that case, where law looks askance). Incidence of use among younger folks is lower there than here, also. I won't bother citing, go look it up for yourself. I believe the same study cited lower use of addictive, more dangerous drugs in Amsterdam also. This makes sense, because if you can get a clean "high", for cheap, why bother to spend many times the money for known dangerous and illegal drugs. Sure, some do. The interest for casual, productive users is probably less, because cocaine, for example, is less convenient, risky, and questionable in content.

Sorry to side track there. To the thread, I say that copyright, trademark, and patenting, all need to be reviewed, and seriously changed.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[pandaman9000]

I disagree. If you haven't made your money in 15 years, let others build on it, and reap the goodwill from "giving" something to the world.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[pandaman9000]

Interesting...... So... if the software companies are enjoying a >300 billion dollar business, with 85% piracy, I guess that they actually deserve more like 2 or so TRILLION per year, right?

Could we stop with making up numbers for copyright infringement that are supposed to represent losses, when there is no way that the shovelware being pushed out could ever actually get that much purchased? Sure, i'm pulling that "fact" out of my ass, much like pundits for industry are doing with their numbers.

It's all a joke. The companies are thriving, and I don't see people profiteering from sales of copyrighted works. Well, not in the U.S., anyway. Blatant in China and other places? Sure. Yet we seem to love making consumers look like cheap-asses that would never buy anything unless forced. Laws do not resolve problems. Enforcement does. We have too many problems with violent criminals to pay so much attention to this. If we actually enforced these laws fully, rapists would do a 30 day term, due to overpopulation.

The idea that we need more laws and restrictions on this, to fill prisons and cost tax payers, despite our other real issues, is sad. It's also wrong.

Re:Piracy and indie games

[Yamioni]

Sorry but are you trolling? Seems like the viewpoint of not forcing your kids to do something is more communist or socialist than what I support. My stance on this topic is conservative, which leans more towards dictatorship (forcing people to do things against their will) if you try to exaggerate things as you are apparently trying to do.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support government mandated action in almost all circumstances. I fully oppose seat-belt laws. But there's a difference between the two. With seat-belt laws, I am only responsible for myself. Unless you are driving in excess of 100 MPH, there is no way you will crash through your windshield with sufficient force to injure anyone but yourself. The government has no place creating laws that protect us from ourselves. With truancy laws, the parents are responsible for someone not themselves, their children. Children deserve an education growing up, and society deserves to have new members added to it that aren't useless and ignorant. Truancy laws help protect others from the shortcomings of parents. Here, government mandated action is completely warranted.

And not for nothing friend, but the system does provide a way for you to legally remove your child from the system if they do not want to go. But there is a compromise to be made. Either you must take it upon yourself to teach them at home, or they must be old enough to start working. So the answer here is not to buck the system. Bucking the system just turns you into a non-conformist that refuses to play the game everyone else is already playing simply because they don't like the rules. The government really doesn't "force" your children to go to school, they force your children to get an education so that they can become a productive member of society, rather than a drain on public resources via welfare because they are ignorant and unemployable.

Would you like to take the time to teach your children yourself? Would you like your children to live on welfare for the rest of their lives because you never taught them personal responsibility and didn't endeavor to get them an education? Then make your kids go to school. A parent's job is not to be a friend to their kid, it's to be their parent. They'll thank you when they're older.

Wait... what?

[Wolfling1]

How is a tautology even vaguely newsworthy?

Re:Wait... what?

[bjourne]

Because someone will, or already has, misinterpreted the correlation to mean that more torrent downloads leads to higher game reviews. So as you can see, piracy is really good for the game industry!

Re:Wait... what?

[FrootLoops]

It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.

[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like "a blue horse is blue" or "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational". Usually the former example--which is essentially an error of redundancy--is the type "tautology" refers to in common speech, while the latter is used in formal logic.]

Re:Wait... what?

[captainpanic]

Because someone will, or already has, misinterpreted the correlation to mean that more torrent downloads leads to higher game reviews. So as you can see, piracy is really good for the game industry!

Tomorrow, mainstream news websites will report that game reviewers boost downloads.
Next week, talkshows will discuss the financial consequences for the gaming industry of allowing websites to review games.
Next month, politicians will consider banning game reviewers.

Re:Wait... what?

[smallfries]

The second example is true, but it is not a tautology. The statement "a is a rational number or a is not a rational number" would be a tautology. The difference is that when you translate the statement into a formal logic a tautology is always true because of the syntax e.g "A v !A" where-as the example that you give depends on the behaviour of the predicate is-rational. So although "R(a) ^ R(b) -> R(ab)" is true for some predicates R, it is not true over all possible predicates R.

Re:Wait... what?

[agentgonzo]

It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.

[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like ... "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational".

That's not a tautology. That's a mathematical consequence. Tautology is a repetition of meaning. "a and b are rational" has a different meaning than "ab is rational", even though one can be shown to always imply the second. Otherwise you could say that the entirety of provable mathematics is tautologous.

Re:Wait... what?

[Dynedain]

Your second example adds additional meaning and information (because it is a mathematical extrapolation) and therefore is not a tautology. A tautological statement adds no new meaning, value, or understanding.

Re:Wait... what?

[Torvac]

does this mean people only steal good or usefull stuff ? and if review scores and torrent stats dont match, is the review score wrong ?
anyways, people who read reviews have less sex than pirates

Re:Wait... what?

[jandrese]

A better example would be: A and B are rational, therefore A is rational.

Re:Wait... what?

[smallfries]

Damn. I thought I was the most pedantic person on this thread. Yes, it does depend on the law of the excluded middle. Or not. Sometimes.

Re:Wait... what?

[FrootLoops]

Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to the various people who corrected me at once, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".

Re:Wait... what?

[FrootLoops]

Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to all the people who corrected me at once, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".

Re:Wait... what?

[FrootLoops]

Yes, thank you. I wish I could respond to the people who corrected me simultaneously, and edit my original remark, but oh well. It was late and I had in mind a formal system that included axioms about the rationals. This is highly non-standard and stretches the term considerably. A much better example is "if A and B, then A".

Re:Wait... what?

[smallfries]

I've wanted a message board that threaded comments as a DAG rather than a tree for many years, but this is the first real need for it :)

Re:Wait... what?

[FrootLoops]

Hah, that's hilarious. I wish I could think of more use cases for it.... Making one and seeing how people use it would be an interesting experiment at least.

Let me get this straight...

[Haedrian]

The more higher rated a game is, the more people download it on BT?

Is that it? What an unexpected result.

Higher rated -> More people want to play it -> More people buy it OR More people download it

Simple.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[montyzooooma]

Not quite that simple. There are a couple of games in the top ten with low review scores but are from popular franchises - Tron and Star Wars. There's also at least one, Two Worlds 2, that had a staggered release with a gap of several months between territories.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Totenglocke]

I'd like to see them look at the correlation between a game having DRM (or the severity of the DRM) and the amount of copies pirated.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been more interesting if they would compare the ratio of the number of downloads vs. sold copies to review score...

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Not quite that simple. There are a couple of games in the top ten with low review scores but are from popular franchises - Tron and Star Wars.

To me that's still simple: many people want to play $Star_wars_game regardless of the score.

You're right though: we don't see a relatively small title in the top 10 because of its high rating and the top 10 isn't ordered by rating (better score, more downloads). The highest rated game (Mass Effect 2) didn't make it in the top 10.

The authors mention something about the moment to start tracking piracy for a given title, with some attention to the difficulties of determining that moment. The authors also mention that they see widely varying torrent activity per title. The authors claim to see a correlation between torrent-activity/-peers and review score. However, I can't find anything in their report (only skimmed the text) about if something is seen when availability as torrent is noticed and the moment review data becomes available. That would make the conclusion more solid imho: if a title would be available for some time and show a considerable spike in sharing right after a highly positive review is published but not when it gets a medium score.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[sgt scrub]

That sample is a bit small for a good correlation but the game listed at the top is an add on for a game with very light DRM. Well, light in comparison to most games. To add myself to your data: It is something I would never download. The game was very good and DRM was light.

This sounds like something that would be a good /. poll.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[RivenAleem]

What it shows me is that if the game is free, people will trust the review implicitly and get the game purely on the reviewers opinion. If the game costs money, people are more likely to wait and see the reaction from the gaming community before buying.

Again, nothing we didn't already know.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[KiloByte]

Wait, mandatory worse-than-WGA activation is now "very light" "unintrusive" DRM? If that's not a slippery slope, I don't know what is.

I'm not ever going to install an uncracked game with a rootkit anywhere near a computer I care about. Steam might do less damage than SecuROM, but it still sits there with administrative rights to do things beyond your back.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Opportunist]

I kinda think there would be not much of a correlation. At least not 'til you also take sales into account.

Don't forget that there are also a lot of crappy games with severe DRM that ain't even worth the time needed to download them, let alone crack their DRM. Considering that there are about as many good as crappy games, I'd guess that just looking at DRM and copying will result in a gauss bell. Because DRM has little if any influence in copying.

I'd like to take a closer look at the factors review score, DRM, sales and copying. No, I wouldn't let the review scores out of this even though we'd expect a better review score lead to more sales and copies, but there were quite a few games with stellar reviews that sold only a few 100k copies. If you normalize along the review score and then look at the correlations between DRM, sales and copies, I'd guess we might eventually gain some insight into whether DRM affects copying, and in what extent.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[tlhIngan]

You're right though: we don't see a relatively small title in the top 10 because of its high rating and the top 10 isn't ordered by rating (better score, more downloads). The highest rated game (Mass Effect 2) didn't make it in the top 10.

Because Mass Effect 2's wide release didn't make the cut.

The survey was the 3 month period between late 2010 and early 2011. Mass Effect 2 was released January 2010. The only reason it's in the study is because Mass Effect 2 was released for PS3 in January 2011, a year later. Everyone who wanted to pirate ME2 would've done it in 2010 already. The only people pirating ME2 during this survey would be those with PS3s (hacked ones, at that).

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DavidTC]

I'm not ever going to install an uncracked game with a rootkit anywhere near a computer I care about.

The parent post is wrong, Fallout New Vegas is not an add-on for Fallout 3. It is a different game on mostly the same engine. New Vegas does not have any sort of rootkit. It requires Steam, even if you buy it in the store, like Half-Life.

Steam might do less damage than SecuROM, but it still sits there with administrative rights to do things beyond your back.

That's nothing. I was going to install a stand-alone game once, and the installer wanted admin rights! It could have done anything behind my back!

Jesus Christ, get a grip on yourself.

Any game actually sold has 'admin rights', at least during the install, and can do things behind your back. I've never seen a windows game willing to install in a user's home directory before.

Incidentally, do you actually have any evidence that Steam does have admin rights? It seems to be running under my user ID on my computer. (It can do this because the Steam game directories are world-writable, which is, uh, kinda stupid. Although nice for installing mods.)

I love how some people have to try to justify some reason to hate Steam. Steam is pretty much the least bad DRM we're ever going to see.

There are legit reasons to dislike Steam, like inability to resell, or even loan, games. Or the fact your computer has to be on the internet. (Which is, at this point, a silly complaint.) But don't go making up 'It could install a rootkit if it wanted' nonsense. Yeah, so could every game you've ever installed.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[sgt scrub]

Your right. Fallout had mandatory online activation. For some reason I was thinking of the Oblivion install. My bad.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Swanktastic]

It's actually much more interesting that the correlation only explained 10% of the variance! So in a certain sense, it's very unexpected- and misrepresented by the researchers.

What if the story was more accurately called "Study shows Piracy mostly unrelated to Critic Scores?"
 

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Haedrian]

Or the fact your computer has to be on the internet. (Which is, at this point, a silly complaint.)

Only to install. And for the first time you run it. Then you can stay without, there's no need to remain connected - there's an offline mode.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[KiloByte]

That's nothing. I was going to install a stand-alone game once, and the installer wanted admin rights! It could have done anything behind my back!

Jesus Christ, get a grip on yourself.

Any game actually sold has 'admin rights', at least during the install, and can do things behind your back. I've never seen a windows game willing to install in a user's home directory before.

I hope you're joking. Have you, uhm, tried installing a Windows program some day? A good majority is distributed as .msi -- which, unless specifically marked as requiring admin rights, can be installed as non-root just fine. On Win7 for example, it goes to C:\Users\Bill Gates\AppData\Local\. Every well-behaved program does this or an equivalent. And that DRM-infested games are not well behaved is an argument against them.

I love how some people have to try to justify some reason to hate Steam. Steam is pretty much the least bad DRM we're ever going to see.

"But Tommy will butt rape you with a CONDOM while Bubba does this with a spiked dildo! Tommy is so good, pretty much the least bad cell mate you can have!".
Newsflash: it is possible for a game to come with no DRM at all

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Totenglocke]

New Vegas does not have any sort of rootkit. It requires Steam, even if you buy it in the store, like Half-Life.

Which is exactly why I did not purchase New Vegas, despite wanting to. What you don't seem to realize is that Steam IS DRM. Just because it's not as bad as some forms of DRM doesn't change that it's still bad. As such, nothing from Steam will ever touch my computer.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Riceballsan]

Indeed also from the placement I've seen, Duke Nukem forever seems to be selling far better then it deserves to.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DavidTC]

I think you have to reconnect every week or so. It might depend on the game.

But, seriously, the idea that people have a computer that's not occasionally on the internet is just silly now.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DavidTC]

Have you, uhm, tried installing a Windows program some day?

Please read what I wrote. I did not say 'Windows program' I said 'game'.

And I just love the analogy between network authentication on install and rape. Stay classy.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DavidTC]

I love it when people say 'DRM=bad'. Why, exactly? Do you have any actual reason for that, or is it something you just learned by rote?

Does this extend to all 'DRM', like the fact games often will only install off a DVD, and want the DVD in the drive to play. Does it matter if there's copy protection on the DVD, or does the fact it just wants a DVD count as 'DRM'?

Do series numbers count as DRM? What about Windows activation? (You do realize that Fallout New Vegas isn't even an option without Windows, right? Has that touched your computer?)

What if a game won't let you play online with two copies with the same serial number? Is that DRM? If not, how exactly is that different than how Steam operates? Oh, look, it asked a server if you were allowed to install the game. The horror!

Do you even have a definition of DRM? Do you understand that different things called 'DRM' work entirely different ways?

Some DRM fucks with your computer. It installs rootkits, it does whatever it wants. This is patently unacceptable...but Steam doesn't do that. (Someone else here thought it was relevant to point out it could...yeah, pretty much any program you have installed could install a rootkit on an update. Let's work in actual facts here.)

Some DRM often results in you getting locked out of things you've purchased. No one's run into this problem with Steam as far as I know. It helps that if something breaks, people can just switch to Offline mode and operate fine. In fact, right after I installed Dragon Age via Steam, Steam screwed up and complained about my DLCs, and I thought something was wrong with my purchase (It was wrong for all of Dragon Age.) and I just kept it offline until I had time to google about it and learned that 'Oh, that was broken all weekend, but is now fixed'.

Some DRM limits resells. Steam does do that, and if you plan to resell your games Steam is obviously a stupid choice to buy them over.

However, selling things that people can't resell, when it's patently obvious they can't resell, does not seem to me to be 'bad'. Plenty of people don't resell games, and at least Steam is upfront about it. Unlike all those games that come with 'free DLCs', forgetting to mention that those get tied to an account..you can resell the game, but the person you sell to doesn't get the DLC...and they're putting more and more content in those and less in the actual game. Unless we get some actual laws on the matter, reselling games is going away, and it doesn't have much to do with Steam at all.

That is a valid complaint when the game isn't available any other way, like FO:NV. If I resold games, I certainly wouldn't buy it.

So tell me, without using the word 'DRM' or reciting how 'DRM=bad': Why is it 'bad' for games, when they install, to check that you have an account that said game is registered on? How exactly does this cause any harm to you?

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Totenglocke]

Wow, that's some pretty sad arguments there. Then there's the fact that you're unable to understand the difference between copy protection and DRM.

So, lets get started, shall we? Copy protection is a means of preventing illegal copies of a game while not interfering with the owners use of the game or infringing their right to resell their property. The olden days of checking to make sure the disc was in the drive and matching a serial key during installation were copy protection. You could resell the game if you wanted (and the new owner could sell it and so on). You could also install the game on as many of your personal computers as you wanted and you could still install and play the game even if the company no longer supported the game or even went bankrupt and ceased to exist. DRM on the other hand violates all of that.

DRM means that you can only install the game as long as they say so - if you bought a new computer each year and installed the game on your new systems too many times, your ability to install the game you paid for is revoked. If the company goes bankrupt, you can no longer install the game. Hell, if they decide that they want to try to force you to buy Cool Game 2012, they just have to turn off the activation server for Cool Game 2011 and you can no longer install your game, or play it if it requires a persistent connection to their server to play, ever again. Your game you paid good money for is now just an expensive coaster. DRM also revokes your ability to resell games (in most cases) by tying it to one and only one account. DRM also causes frequent problems for paying customers, such as activation server issues preventing people who just bought a game at launch to be unable to install it for several days - other DRM requires each account on the same physical computer to use a separate license, thus for games with low activation counts (I believe it was Bioshock that had a limit of three), installing it once on a family computer and each person playing under their own account on that same computer means you can never reinstall the game. The best you can do is call the company and beg them to let you use the product that you paid $60 for.

Tell me, how is it good for you for a game to require you to connect to their server (which may or may not be operational and which you may or may not have an internet connection to get to) to install and to prevent you from being able to ever resell an item that you no longer want?

You may enjoy flushing your money down the toilet on crap that DRM'd games that can be bricked in a split second. Those of us who work hard for our money don't want to piss it away on garbage, nor do we want to pay someone to punish us.

Oh, and FYI, in your beloved Steam's EULA they state that if they remove a game or go bust they MIGHT give you an offline version of the game or that they MIGHT give you a refund, but basically, you're just going to be fucked. DRM only exists because foolish people are willing to take it in the ass from corrupt businesses. If you stopped buying, the DRM would vanish quite quickly....the same goes for the DLC bullshit - stop buying DLC and they'll stop removing items from the game to resell you as DLC.

One last thing:

Oh, look, it asked a server if you were allowed to install the game. The horror!

Because it's my goddamn game that I bought. Why the fuck should I have to ask permission to install it? Do you think it's OK for you to have to contact your car manufacturer for permission to start up your car? What about the company that built your home - should you have to ask permission to enter your own home? Your inability to comprehend basic property rights is astounding.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DavidTC]

DRM means that you can only install the game as long as they say so - if you bought a new computer each year and installed the game on your new systems too many times, your ability to install the game you paid for is revoked.

So you're saying that rootkits like SecuROM (Which, after all, don't stop you from installing however often you want?) aren't DRM? You might want to tell everyone else here bitching about DRM and meaning what you say is just 'copy protection', because in everyone else's universe they're the same thing.

In fact, most of the complaints about DRM are complaints about rootkits and whatnot. We started this discussion talking about Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas, and how Fallout New Vegas had less DRM than Fallout 3...whereas, in your universe, Fallout 3 has no DRM at all.

And they are right, and you are wrong. DRM is a term for access control technologies, and certainly does include 'check for oddities on the disk' (Which is how copy protection works.) If you can't burn a normal working copy of the disk using standard burning software, which is the definition of 'copy protection', you have some sort of 'access control technology' according to the law, and you have DRM according to pretty much any definition of the term. (However, serial numbers without any sort of activation don't seem to count as DRM.)

In fact, some of the most obvious and intrusive forms of DRM have been copy protection. I point to Sony's rootkit mess. Trying to retroactively say 'that's not DRM' is insane. That's where half the county learned the term.

If the company goes bankrupt, you can no longer install the game. Hell, if they decide that they want to try to force you to buy Cool Game 2012, they just have to turn off the activation server for Cool Game 2011 and you can no longer install your game, or play it if it requires a persistent connection to their server to play, ever again. Your game you paid good money for is now just an expensive coaster.

You know someone's having trouble in the argument when they have to invent hypothetical situations. Especially when they're explicitly banned under the contract I have with the company (Steam cannot take away games.), or require a company division making a billion a year to just go bankrupt. (And it folds for some reason, instead of being sold to another company.)

DRM also revokes your ability to resell games (in most cases) by tying it to one and only one account.

As I said, if you want to resell your games, you obviously shouldn't buy games with activation. Some of us do not resell games, and in fact have nowhere where we could resell games, and thus do not give a flying fuck about that ability.

DRM also causes frequent problems for paying customers, such as activation server issues preventing people who just bought a game at launch to be unable to install it for several days - other DRM requires each account on the same physical computer to use a separate license, thus for games with low activation counts (I believe it was Bioshock that had a limit of three), installing it once on a family computer and each person playing under their own account on that same computer means you can never reinstall the game. The best you can do is call the company and beg them to let you use the product that you paid $60 for.

Luckily, Steam doesn't work anything like that at all. You can download, install, and run games form Steam on as many computers as you want. Steam stops you from running multiple instances at the same time, it has no problem with multiple installs not at the same time. In fact, you can use the 'backup files' ability to download on one computer, burn to DVD, and then install on as many as you want. (You've never actually used Steam, have you?)

And complaining about such hypothetical install problems is surreal...have fun attempting to purchase a popular game in the first few days it's out at the store. And Steam does

Re:Let me get this straight...

[pandaman9000]

What if I don't want steam running on my machine. I am sure you think it's fine. I don't . I run my machines lean, and I refuse to install Steam due to it's insistence on being a launching platform for when I play.

I grew up with: Buy game. Install game. Play game. End game. No game services or processes running. Play next game. repeat.

This is MY PC and I want absolute control over every fucking bit of software running, and if it's done running, it's processes should fuck off and die. Until resurrected by me.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DavidTC]

Huh? You don't have to run Steam in the background at startup if you don't want. That is optional.

If you're not running Steam, it will launch when you run a Steam program, which will produce an annoying five second delay as it authenticates you, but I guess that's well worth it to save the eight megabytes (six megs, plus a two meg service) of memory that Steam takes up when it launches at startup.

And, of course, it wickedly stays around in the background...until you right click on the icon to close it, which closes Steam and the service it launches.

This is MY PC and I want absolute control over every fucking bit of software running, and if it's done running,

Yes, your machine must be utterly controlled by you, we get it. You're the big macho man with a big whip and you will force that machine to do what you say.

What you have failed to notice is that, uh, Steam is under your control, unless you can't spend two seconds right clicking to shut Steam down after playing a Steam game. Not that the amount of memory that Steam takes up is even slightly relevant on any modern computer. Windows Explorer appears to take four times as much memory on my computer.

Once again, I'm forced to ask: Has anyone here complaining about Steam ever seen how it works?

You know, you actually can install it without buying anything, and they do have occasional free games. You can get an account, with no obligation, download it, install it, play around for a bit, and uninstall it.

Perhaps instead of just making shit up, some of the people complaining about Steam should actually see how it actually functions.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Totenglocke]

Wow, what a bunch of bullshit. I'm sorry that you don't respect your rights or your wallet. I'm sorry that you bend over and take in the ass from companies who want to tell you that you no longer own your property. However, all your bullshit isn't going to change the fact that DRM means you're fucked. Oh, and if you don't believe me that a company would turn off servers, just look at EA genius. They turned off their servers for multiplayer for sports games less than a year after the game came out to try to force people to buy the new version.

People like you are why the good game companies have almost all died out and why gaming as a hobby is rapidly reaching the point of imploding due to punishing customers.

Better games are more popular

[pep939]

Great news...

Nothing to see here

[Kohlrabi82]

When I first read the title I assumed that they found out that games with lower scores get pirated more. This would have made perfect sense to me, since I understand the idea of "try before you buy", especially for games which are reported to be flawed in some ways. Then I saw that they didn't weigh the amount of pirated copies by the sales of the specific game, which then only shows that good games are popular.

Re:Nothing to see here

[lazlo]

I'm right with you there, that's kind of what I was interested in as well. I could definitely imaging a pirate feeling more justified in downloading a game they expected to be crappy.

But it really is a shame, they have the piracy data (or at least their estimation of it), and the sales data is reasonably freely available, all they need to do is see if sales or piracy has a tighter correlation to reviews, and it could be fascinating.

Bring back the ppirates

[Chrisq]

Better game scores. Combating global warming. We should all be pirates

Re:IEA !! LET'S ALL STOP BUYING AND STEAL INSTEAD

[MadJo]

What's this stealing thing you're talking about.

Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to fight piracy is to make shitty games

Re:Conclusion

[Carewolf]

The best way to fight piracy is to make shitty games

EA is already doing the best they can on that mission.

NEWS: Review Scores Positively Influence Demand

[sarkeizen]

...and in other news water is wet.

I guess companies should continue to buy or otherwise influence reviews.

I just skimmed the actual study and it doesn't really provide much more info. It does make the claim that their methods are closer to the true number of pirated copies and refreshingly that these are not necessarily correlated with lost sales. However it's conclusions aren't all that interesting. My guess? This was more about their measurement techniques and the outcome was tacked on so it could get published (or have a chance of getting published)

Re:NEWS: Review Scores Positively Influence Demand

[jandrese]

Seems more like: Good games are correlated with good review scores AND with larger numbers of illegal downloads.

Already been tried

[Overzeetop]

The music and movie industries have already tried that tack, and it doesn't seem to be working.

Strange conclusion looking at their own stats

[beef3k]

Looking at the table presented in the article, their conclusion seems a bit odd...

Fallout: New Vegas - Downloads: 962,793 Avg. rating: 83.7
TRON Evolution - Downloads: 496,349 Avg. rating: 59.5
Starcraft 2 - Downloads: 420,138 Avg. rating: 89.5

"Metacritic Scores explain 10% of the variance in the unique peers per game on BitTorrent,”. I guess the remaining 90% is just noise then...?

Re:Strange conclusion looking at their own stats

[paziek]

Yes, they ignored the fact, that Starcraft 2 pirated version is just campaing mode, while the most important one for this game - multiplayer - is only for legal copies.
Fallout doesn't have multiplayer part, so if you pirate, then you get 100% of the game.

Re:Strange conclusion looking at their own stats

[thegarbz]

Yes, they ignored the fact, that Starcraft 2 pirated version is just campaing mode, while the most important one for this game - multiplayer - is only for legal copies.

That's a matter of opinion not fact. I have never had a desire to fire up a multiplayer game of Starcraft 2. The campaign was just fine. It's not like it's a MMORPG or anything

What about the hype?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that more hyped games generally get higher review scores *regardless*, and more hyped games are more likely to be pirated just because there are more people who want to play them, I'd hardly say that a correlation like this can be used to say anything conclusive.

Were they really surprised?

[complete loony]

Better game gets downloaded more, well duh.

Re:IEA !! LET'S ALL STOP BUYING AND STEAL INSTEAD

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the story of Robin Hood where you take ("steal") from the rich and give to the poor (the "thieves"). More common day it's called "They owes me!", and, "They make a lot of money so won't notice.", and, "FU Man! I take what I can!", and this classic, "My boss stole my GPL!", only that's sort or pe/reverse.

Not at all surprising

[ripdajacker]

I thought it was obvious that the better games got downloaded more.

If someone linked the number of downloads with number of purchases I wouldn't be surprised if they were following the same curve.

Question about method...

[mat catastrophe]

How do you count downloads on bittorrent? At best, you can get a sketchy number of peers and seeds but how does that translate to actual downloads?

Also, how do those download numbers stack up against actual sales? Is there a method to determine what portion of these downloads represent actual loss for the companies (copies that were only pirated) versus what is essentially pre-sale test drives?

Re:Question about method...

[Tukz]

Also, how do those download numbers stack up against actual sales? Is there a method to determine what portion of these downloads represent actual loss for the companies (copies that were only pirated) versus what is essentially pre-sale test drives?

Or people who just can't play the game because of DRM crap and use a pirated version to play their paid for game.

Re:Question about method...

[blueg3]

They probably explain in their paper, yes?

The easiest way is probably to hack a BitTorrent client to act like it's downloading the game but never actually download data -- acquire peers through all the normal means, contact them, ask for their piece bitmap, and then choke off the connection. You can even recontact the peer multiple times to watch their piece bitmap fill in, though it's probably a reasonable assumption that every non-seed person in the swarm will eventually finish the download.

Re:Question about method...

[Garwulf]

Tweakguides did some research on this, and crunched the numbers. The article (which is very long, but very worth reading), is here: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

As far as methodology goes, I think that's covered here: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html

But, in brief, for the console market, the numbers for a popular game (they used Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2) in the console market was 1 pirated copy for every six copies sold. For the PC game market over the same period, it was 10 to 12 pirated copies downloaded for every legitimate copy sold (both download and CD/DVD).

Loss is a bit more complicated, but measurable. The most measurable part is the freeloader effect - pirate copies using authentication servers and technical support (and some of the supporting data is the number of copies authenticating on the servers vs. numbers sold, which can be over 10:1 at times), and that's costs of time, server bandwidth, etc.

As far as lost sales, that requires an understanding of the game market. You have hard core fans, who will buy the game no matter what - that's a small core of guaranteed sales. You have hardcore pirates, who will never pay for the game, so there's no point in even trying to market to them. The lost sales take place in a third group - call them "casual gamers." This group is interested in playing the game, but they aren't particular on how they get it. So, if they can't download it, they'll buy it. Most of the sales for a game tend to be in this third group. So, the longer the piracy can be held off, the more sales occur in this group. Zero day piracy wipes any sales from this group off the map.

Now, again, this makes it very difficult to measure exact numbers of lost sales, but you can get a sense through trends. So, if a game had 400,000 sales with piracy held off for two weeks, and the sequel to that game had 50,000 sales with zero-day piracy, you can draw some general conclusions about lost sales, as well as the sizes of the various market groups.

Re:Question about method...

[cheekyjohnson]

you can draw some general conclusions about lost sales

Not really. They're two different games and two different scenarios. All you can do is make assumptions.

Re:Question about method...

[Garwulf]

As I mentioned in another reply, Tweakguides did some research on this, and crunched the numbers. The article (which is long, but worth reading), is here: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

To answer your question, they found that the DRM only had a negative impact on piracy, and that was when it was successful. Lack of DRM (or light DRM) showed absolutely no impact on piracy rates whatsoever. So, either the people who are pirating to get away from DRM are an insignificant minority, or it's just an excuse.

Now, with PC game piracy at a rate of around 10 to 12 pirate downloads per copy sold (both download and disc), the highest percentage of illegal downloads that can be accounted for by people downloading pirate copies to circumvent the DRM on copies they bought is 10% (1/10), and that's assuming that no copies sold match up with a pirate copy downloaded first (eg. somebody downloads the game, tries it, and decides to buy it). So that's a basic rough estimate based on the numbers I've got.

Re:Question about method...

[Garwulf]

Well, the difference can be a source of uncertainty, but there are trends based on general similarities that can be calculated. For example (pulling numbers out of my hindquarters), if the average sales for an RTS by company X is 400,000, and they've not only produced several RTS games, but they've got a consistent ability to hold off piracy for two weeks, then they do have a reasonable expectation that if they release an RTS with the same level of quality and they can hold off piracy for two weeks, they will sell around 400,000 copies. If this new game has zero-day piracy and only sells 50,000 copies, then they can draw some legitimate conclusions about the impact the piracy had.

Re:Question about method...

[cheekyjohnson]

but they've got a consistent ability to hold off piracy for two weeks

Unless "crackers" don't care about said games at all, I wonder how they would do that.

then they do have a reasonable expectation

Except that "reasonable" is subjective.

with the same level of quality

"Quality" is also subjective.

Again, two different scenarios. When it comes to how "good" or "reasonable" something is, people will have different opinions. It's simply an unknown scenario. Some people might find a correlation that they deem as "good enough," but not everyone will share that opinion.

Re:Deus Ex

[Elbart]

This is really nothing new, a good example is Deus Ex: Human revolution, the 10-hour leaked demo (everyone has their suspicions the devs leaked it on purpose) has done amazing things for the game.

Wasn't a Steam-account from an Italian game-journalist phished to get access? Plus Square filed a lawsuit to get Valve to surrender the access-logs.

Deus Ex: 2 was a horrible failure of a game, but after the 10hour leak they've seen an increase in pre-orders and the developers have pushed up the release date.

[citation needed] First time I read that.

Bad summary

[wjousts]

They further show that the number of downloads on BitTorrent can be predicted by the scores of game reviewers.

Since the link is blocked at work, it would be nice if the summary actually included what the link was. I assume higher reviews correlate to higher piracy. Which is another way of saying popular games are pirated more than unpopular games, which is another way of saying popular games are popular, which ultimately says fuck all.

Re:Correlation is not prediction

[Darkness404]

But with Starcraft you don't get the full game, with Fallout you do. With Starcraft all you get is the campaign mode, which really isn't much fun. You don't have access to multiplayer which is the entire reason why you play Starcraft (to get pwned by Koreans). On the other hand, with Fallout, a pirated game is missing nothing but the DRM.

What about sales?

[khr]

This would be more interesting if it was also correlated with sales... Some things that aren't answered by the numbers in the article could indicate that a well reviewed game has higher sales, too. For instance, what if pirated downloads of those were a smaller percentage of sales than with less well reviewed games?

Just showing the review scores and the number of downloads is too far from a complete picture...

Re:What about sales?

[Garwulf]

Tweakguides did that: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html

Also, the entire article is worth noting: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

Basically, when they crunched the numbers, they found that the determining factor for whether a game sees large-scale piracy was popularity. For the popular games, the piracy rate came out at around 1 pirate copy for every six copies sold for the consoles, and 10-12 pirate copies for every legitimate copy sold for the PC.

You're too kind

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not even that. Here's what it should be:

"NEWS: Good games are both highly reviewed and heavily downloaded."

I see nothing in the article that would hint to causality. Especially with only 10% of the variance in downloads linked to scores - wouldn't you expect at least that much association just from both variables being linked to game quality?

It could have been interesting to show that reviews lead to a temporal spike in downloads. Of course, that would require reviews to be published after games ship, which often isn't the case.

Re:IEA !! LET'S ALL STOP BUYING AND STEAL INSTEAD

[Opportunist]

You think that's bad? In German, it's called a "Raubkopie" (robbed copy). Know what a Raubkopie really is? If I go into a store and hold a clerk at gunpoint to create a copy of a CD, then take the copied CD without paying.

In other words, there's no problem with "Raubkopien". I've never heard of anything like this happening, ever.

The obvious solution

[iteyoidar]

Rather than developing expensive DRM solutions, publishers can cut piracy rates tremendously by ensuring their games get low review scores. Everyone knows that game sales are based mostly on hype, and ever pirated copy is a Lost Sale, so it follows that a game with a high hype to review score ratio will actually outsell a hyped game that also has high review scores.

Re:The obvious solution

[cheekyjohnson]

What we need to do is use all of our resources to go after people who potentially cause a loss of potential profit. This is clearly a good use of our resources and money, so we should get as many FBI agents and policeman involved as possible (as well as politicians who rush through new laws because of how important these potential losses are).

Re:The obvious solution

[brit74]

What we need to do is use all of our resources to go after people who potentially cause a loss of potential profit. This is clearly a good use of our resources and money, so we should get as many FBI agents and policeman involved as possible (as well as politicians who rush through new laws because of how important these potential losses are).
--
Failing to give me all of your money and property deprives me of potential future gain, and therefore makes you a thief!

This isn't at all a surprising argument strategy for a pirate to use. Afterall, when the facts are so much against them, there's really no other strategy than trying to exaggerate reality and play mind games so that they can justify their self-serving actions.

Re:The obvious solution

[cheekyjohnson]

This isn't at all a surprising argument strategy for a pirate to use.

It was just a joke. And how did you come to the conclusion that I myself am I pirate? Just because of the arguments that I use?

Afterall, when the facts are so much against them

What facts? Don't you mean opinions on morality? It's interesting that you speak as if you know all about my opinions and how I think (unless I am misunderstanding you) when I haven't really said anything revealing in this article yet.

there's really no other strategy than trying to exaggerate reality and play mind games so that they can justify their self-serving actions.

Why would someone need to justify anything that they do when morals are subjective to begin with?

Re:The obvious solution

[Musc]

> Why would someone need to justify anything that they do when morals are subjective to begin with?

So you honestly believe that everyone should just do whatever, and not even try to justify or explain why their actions are the right thing to do, just because someone out there might have a difference of opinion?

Re:The obvious solution

[cheekyjohnson]

That isn't what I said at all. I said that justification isn't absolutely necessary for your opinion to be "valid" because morals are subjective to begin with. If you don't care about trying to "persuade" other people, then it's probably a waste of your time. Meaning that just because someone believes that piracy is "immoral," and you can't convince them otherwise, that does not necessarily mean that you are "wrong."

explain why their actions are the right thing to do

What is "the right thing to do"? Who defines what is "right"?

Re:The obvious solution

[Musc]

That isn't what I said at all. I said that justification isn't absolutely necessary for your opinion to be "valid" because morals are subjective to begin with.

Interesting, I guess here is where we disagree. To me, an opinion can be more or less valid depending on how much careful, logical thought went into developing that opinion, and how much relevant education and experience the person has. True, there are people out there who don't think and don't know anything, and they can have opinions, but to me those opinions are more likely to be flawed compared to those of someone who knows a lot and thinks carefully.

I find it interesting that you say morals are subjective to begin with, when there are lots of people who believe in absolute, objective morals, on religious or philosophical grounds. Of course, you don't have to agree with them, but isn't your statement that morals are subjective actually a subjective opinion in and of itself?

Re:The obvious solution

[cheekyjohnson]

To me, an opinion can be more or less valid depending on how much careful, logical thought went into developing that opinion, and how much relevant education and experience the person has.

Yes, but we are talking about morality. Morality essentially boils down to liking or disliking certain behavior. When speaking of those types of opinions, I don't believe that anything more than liking or disliking something is necessary to have a "valid" opinion (since it's all just based on feelings anyway).

Of course, you don't have to agree with them, but isn't your statement that morals are subjective actually a subjective opinion in and of itself?

Yes, it is. Since there is no evidence either way, that is just my opinion. I recommend not stating either views as facts (as I did).

In other news...

[sorak]

In other news, shitwater brand bottled water will be changing their names...The CEO attributed the decision to a recent study showing that people care about the quality of products.

DRM now = Don't Rate Me!

[webbiedave]

Those who review games without permission will be hauled into court (all records sealed, of course).

If correlation were causation...

[Qatz]

If correlation were causation, then that would mean that good reviews cause piracy. Which also would mean they found the root of their piracy problems. The easiest fix would be to get bad reviews. To do this just make really bad games. And BAM people will stop pirating them.

Am I missing something?

[s4ndm4n]

How is this study even useful? Am I missing something? I mean of course, I can't imagine pirating a game that has a 4 out of 10 stars in reviews any faster than I'd purchase it!

Re:Ironic.

[PPH]

I suppose now they'll try to add their payola expenditures to civil suits for piracy.

Re:Wait... what? (truth != meaning!)

[rocket rancher]

It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.

[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like ... "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational".

That's not a tautology. That's a mathematical consequence. Tautology is a repetition of meaning. "a and b are rational" has a different meaning than "ab is rational", even though one can be shown to always imply the second. Otherwise you could say that the entirety of provable mathematics is tautologous.

No. GP has it right, and you do not. Tautology is not about meaning, it is about truth. Bertrand Russell's quote from the Wiktionary entry is particularly apt, here. The proposition "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational" *is* tautological, because in the deductive modality, the conclusion is always implicit in the premise; there is no way to "deduce" a new truth via the deductive modality. One can only restate a truth that was already present in the premise, and that is what makes the deductive modality tautological. Think GIGO, replacing "garbage" with "truth". So, as you implied, the entirety of provable mathematics is definitely not tautologous. There indeed exists another modality that is not tautological. The other modality is inductive logic, which *can* produce new truths, rendering it non-tautological.

Do people actually get paid for this crap?

[digitalPhant0m]

I wish I could get paid to just point out the obvious.

Re:Wait... what? (truth != meaning!)

[Barefoot Monkey]

It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.

[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like ... "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational".

That's not a tautology. That's a mathematical consequence. Tautology is a repetition of meaning. "a and b are rational" has a different meaning than "ab is rational", even though one can be shown to always imply the second. Otherwise you could say that the entirety of provable mathematics is tautologous.

No. GP has it right, and you do not. Tautology is not about meaning, it is about truth. Bertrand Russell's quote from the Wiktionary entry is particularly apt, here. The proposition "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational" *is* tautological, because in the deductive modality, the conclusion is always implicit in the premise; there is no way to "deduce" a new truth via the deductive modality. One can only restate a truth that was already present in the premise, and that is what makes the deductive modality tautological. Think GIGO, replacing "garbage" with "truth". So, as you implied, the entirety of provable mathematics is definitely not tautologous. There indeed exists another modality that is not tautological. The other modality is inductive logic, which *can* produce new truths, rendering it non-tautological.

If a and b are rational numbers, then is ab rational? That depends on the closure of rational numbers, which I would argue is not part of the premise at all. You are extrapolating from assumed properties of the word "rational" which are not given in the statement.

Consider this: "if a and b are imaginary numbers, then ab is imaginary". The same syntax, but not even true. What if we define "rational numbers" to be imaginary? Then the original example isn't true either.

A variation of the original example that is tautological would be "if a and b being rational numbers is sufficient for ab to be rational, and a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational".

Non sequitur

[KingSkippus]

How the hell did you make this leap?

If the piracy is directly linked to review scores, it means that people just want the games for free and aren't that much interested in trying them out before actually buying them.

How many of us has bought a popularly reviewed game, then found out it sucked? Maybe (as is common today) reviewers are basically being paid to give glowing reviews of crap. Maybe in spite of a game having mass popular appeal, it's just not my type of game?

Maybe you're just making a wild assumption with nothing to back it up, and assuming that everyone will accept it as a valid premise?

Re:Correlation is not prediction

[Whorhay]

Has no one managed to publish a crack to allow LAN play?

Re:Deus Ex

[slashmo]

...there have also been studies showing people who pirate music are more likely to buy it after.

And there have been studies that show that studies are just as likely to be bullshit as factual. Like that one or the "New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models" hoax.

What is the ratio #peers/copies sold?

[sergueyz]

That would be interesting. Does review score affects sold copies more than torrents, or not?

Re:No way to study "ethical" piracy

[neminem]

3) They dislike the horrible, annoying, potentially-computer-breaking restrictions imposed on them by the DRM of the legal version. Possibly they're boycotting paying for it for that reason, possibly they actually *did* pay for it but still want to avoid said restrictions. I've done both of those things (for instance: a long time ago, I once wanted to play Duke 3d, which I owned, on a computer that lacked a cd drive. Duke 3d had a cd-is-in-the-drive check). I agree your first two reasons are probably the most common, but my addition's pretty common too (I wouldn't mind seeing a study about *that*, though I'm not sure how you'd get around the fact that your previously-mentioned scumbags would have no reason to not lie about it. ;))