I'm generally opposed to paying for services or things that disappear over a given period of time. Pay Per View on TV or any sort of On Demand services are a huge turnoff for my wallet. When I buy something, I want it to be there tomorrow, next week, year, and on my deathbed. I realize that's probably not going to happen with my car, but I guess I can deal with it.
This is a hurdle that Cloud-based and streaming services are going to have to deal with. And its certainly one that I can sympathize with. I collect video games, and even though I occasionally use download services such as Steam, I never consider games purchased that way to be part of my collection. And even if a developer leans on digital distribution for the bulk of their profit, I always appreciate it if they release a physical copy.
But I think that in this day and age, that attitude is shrinking quite rapidly. This is especially true for more casual individuals who don't have as much invested in this hobby. Such people don't really care to have physical copies, and are only concerned with the experience. They think nothing of throwing a few dollars to access a game, whether or not they have access to it several years down the line is immaterial. I would once again shake my fist at GameStop for fostering this disposable "rental" attitude towards games. People who are used to treating games as temporary commodities won't have any issues making the transition to digital distribution and streaming.
On a different note, I'm still entertaining the idea of merchandising-supported development. This approach has worked for films and television. And in some instances it has even been leveraged with games. A lot of on-line comic artists make a goodly portion of their income in this fashion. I can't think of any reason why smaller indie developers might not be able to take advantage of such an approach.
You could release your game for free, and use the game as a platform for advertising and promoting merchandising related to the IP used in the game. This would maintain your ownership of your IP, it could potentially recoup your development expenses, and piracy is not an issue when the intangible portion of the product is free from the beginning. Thanks to CafePress and other inexpensive product services, such an approach is even open to smaller developers.
Well I am, and I live in a country where both western and eastern games are available, so we're blessed.
Now, taking a look at strictly MMOs, East and West generally do this differently.
(there are exceptions on both sides, so I don't mean this in the strictest sense)
The Western method - Buy the MMO, install it, register an account, pay monthly subscriptions to play.
The Eastern method - Download the game, install it, register an account, start playing for free. But you have access to very little and basic content. You want more? Well buy our in game *coins/credits/gold/gamepoints/etc* so that you can go to the shop and buy that shit.
EA tried to do this with BF Heroes, because micro-transactions are the "future". And who am I to say that this doesnt work out? This model works in earning cash, but you end up with clones of clones and entirely boring games that are slapped together to look pretty and make a quick buck.
Would you support this type of trend? Where would your "indie and innovative" games be?
And a reminder, this *only* works for MMOs. DLCs and additional content are something I don't necessarily support because sometimes I just want to play a well made RPG.
And here I thought expansion packs were bad enough.
~ I'm not promoting Piracy. I'm just gonna say raise your motherfucking hand if you own absolutely NO
Pirated Software,
Games,
Music,
Ebooks,
Tutorial Videos,
Movies,
or TV series.
Only that person(s) may speak on anti-piracy.
At the end of the day, the people who are left arguing this are:
A. The people who want to justify piracy because it is convenient, and they enjoy doing it. These are the people who will come up with the most complex explanations for why they are in the right, and always blame "the system" for being broken, never wanting to take any responsibility for their actions.
B. People who have/do pirate software/games/etc, but when able, support products that they enjoy. These people tend to at-least recognize how their actions effect others, but are of course inherently hypocrites.
I myself find that I the less free time I have, the less I spend downloading stupid warez shit, and in the free time that I do have, I will pay to support the games that I enjoy, the movies that I like and the bands that I listen to. I think this is all just part of growing up.
I dont think anyone is really "innocent" in these arguments, if they are, I have yet to meet them!
At the end of the day, the people who are left arguing this are:
A. The people who want to justify piracy because it is convenient, and they enjoy doing it. These are the people who will come up with the most complex explanations for why they are in the right, and always blame "the system" for being broken, never wanting to take any responsibility for their actions.
B. People who have pirated software/games/etc in the past, but when able, support products that they enjoy. These people tend to at-least recognize how their actions effect others, but are of course inherently hypocrites.
I dont think anyone is really "innocent" in these arguments, if they are, I have yet to meet them!
Are you not doing that same thing?
You blame people for justifying their actions, because you refuse to accept their logic as a reason. So you label it an excuse, thereby trivializing their opinion. But isn't that merely an excuse for trivializing other people's point of view?
As far as I see it, file-sharing is in direct competition with publishers and the sharers offer better goods than the publishers for a better price. You can say that people put hard work into making those games, and that's true, but the pirates aren't competing with the developers, they're competing with the people who currently invest in the developers. Nevertheless, the publishers barely put any more work into that game than the sharers do. In the end they're both just distributors and neither have put one ounce of effort into making those games, yet we hate on the ones that compete while the "legit" distributors get to play the victim.
The real victims here are the developers and the fans. The publishers cheat them both. They do it by using the developers' skills to create and sell an imaginary product to people whom they treat like criminals, imposing unfair restrictions on work they paid good money for. They take what developers create and call it their IP. They milk hard-working people for franchises that sell in the millions and when the cash cow dries up, they drop them like a one night stand. The difference between the publishers and the file-sharing community is that those that share only screw the publishers directly and the developers indirectly. I'd say the publishers are worse than the so-called "pirates". At least the majority of them aren't out to screw everybody invloved and make a quick buck doing it.
As far as I see it, file-sharing is in direct competition with publishers and the sharers offer better goods than the publishers for a better price. You can say that people put hard work into making those games, and that's true, but the pirates aren't competing with the developers, they're competing with the people who currently invest in the developers. Nevertheless, the publishers barely put any more work into that game than the sharers do. In the end they're both just distributors and neither have put one ounce of effort into making those games, yet we hate on the ones that compete while the "legit" distributors get to play the victim.
The real victims here are the developers and the fans. The publishers cheat them both. They do it by using the developers' skills to create and sell an imaginary product to people whom they treat like criminals, imposing unfair restrictions on work they paid good money for. They take what developers create and call it their IP. They milk hard-working people for franchises that sell in the millions and when the cash cow dries up, they drop them like a one night stand. The difference between the publishers and the file-sharing community is that those that share only screw the publishers directly and the developers indirectly. I'd say the publishers are worse than the so-called "pirates". At least the majority of them aren't out to screw everybody invloved and make a quick buck doing it.
As much as I usually hate on publishers, especially activision, I will always recognize their important part in the play as the people who will eventually fund your project, and who will handle the distribution of it.
And the same here, piracy doesn't automagically target publishers, it targets everyone, down to the lone self-publishing indie-dev, his games will be up on the torrents too.
Most pirates don't have an agenda, those that truly do are in the tiny minority.
The pirates who aren't even willing to buy the game in the first place is probably even less likely to buy the DLC and expansion.. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but I don't think the way of solving piracy is to release a DLC..
Having a montly subscription feels like such a greedy way of thanking someone for buying the game. "Thanks for buying the game! If you want to continue playing the game you will however need to pay a little token of gratitude on a monthly basis, this amount is dynamic and well let you know when we want more.."
I'm not going to get in to this discussion since I'm a hypocrite at heart when it comes to pirating.. Hard to not be since the last movie I watched in a Cinema was Iron Man 2... And my friend was constantly mocking the other observers as well as throwing smelly cheese doodles in my face in the rhythm of the soundtrack.. Intense to say the least...
But I still think it's important to support the few original ideas created in this world. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and TES as well as some movies and series here and there..
As much as I usually hate on publishers, especially activision, I will always recognize their important part in the play as the people who will eventually fund your project, and who will handle the distribution of it.
And the same here, piracy doesn't automagically target publishers, it targets everyone, down to the lone self-publishing indie-dev, his games will be up on the torrents too.
Most pirates don't have an agenda, those that truly do are in the tiny minority.
"down to the lone self-publishing indie-dev, his games will be up on the torrents too."
This is true, and the examples of this that I've seen actually helped their game sell really well. World of Goo, I'm looking at you. (rhyme not intended)
I'm sorry, but I don't think the sharing is hurting everybody. The big companies use DRM and other anti-copying measures to thwart sharers which they know full-well will get cracked in days, if not hours. So they're only punishing the innocent, but that's not the sharers' fault. It's the publisher's choice and they chose to respond by giving hackers an irresistible challenge.
The pirates who aren't even willing to buy the game in the first place is probably even less likely to buy the DLC and expansion.. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but I don't think the way of solving piracy is to release a DLC..
Having a montly subscription feels like such a greedy way of thanking someone for buying the game. "Thanks for buying the game! If you want to continue playing the game you will however need to pay a little token of gratitude on a monthly basis, this amount is dynamic and well let you know when we want more.."
I'm not going to get in to this discussion since I'm a hypocrite at heart when it comes to pirating.. Hard to not be since the last movie I watched in a Cinema was Iron Man 2... And my friend was constantly mocking the other observers as well as throwing smelly cheese doodles in my face in the rhythm of the soundtrack.. Intense to say the least...
But I still think it's important to support the few original ideas created in this world. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and TES as well as some movies and series here and there..
Well, that's just insisting on minor points though.
There are so many games now that don't even charge you a box fee. You download the entire game for free, play it for free, and pay them if you feel like it (and want to experience their locked content). I mean, this isn't anything new. I've had Shareware literally shared to me before the internet was around. The idea is to play the numbers game. Get your game out there to as many people as possible, and reach the largest audience.
So the point about subscriptions of course doesn't work for every game. But for some it does. DLC is the same thing.
Sure, the point could be argued that if a the base of a game was given away for free, you'd be losing money on the box-sales. But that's not taking into account the customers you lose who are not willing to pay $60 to try your game.
Just to throw an example out there. I got Darksiders over the Christmas break, played it, loved it, and actually finished it. It's done now, and I have to wait for DS2. That's just the way it's always been. But think of the larger audience they could get if the base of the game (just the intro and that little area with the demon that sends you on missions) was completely free. I'm not talking about a demo. I'm talking about the actual game with gated content. Then sell the missions as DLC in chunks for a certain sum, totaling $60. Same thing, different pricing option. I don't know, I think it could work. And then why stop? If I could be paying more money right now to play another area in DS, I would.
This is true, and the examples of this that I've seen actually helped their game sell really well. World of Goo, I'm looking at you. (rhyme not intended)
This is patently false. World of Goo's sales didn't increase due to piracy. They increased after the developer reported to the general press how much their game had been pirated. The attention that their story got in the media was what helped them to boost sales. They were able to get free publicity and marketing because their product was the victim of piracy.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the sharing is hurting everybody. The big companies use DRM and other anti-copying measures to thwart sharers which they know full-well will get cracked in days, if not hours. So they're only punishing the innocent, but that's not the sharers' fault. It's the publisher's choice and they chose to respond by giving hackers an irresistible challenge.
No, it isn't hurting everybody. But its hurting ENOUGH people, and its hurting the people that any responsible game enthusiast shouldn't want to see hurt.
Yes, the large publishers have not responded well or intelligently to this situation. They could definitely be handling this more effectively, and hopefully in the future they will. But they are responding to a real competitive threat. File sharing has been consistently growing over the past decade, and is now easier, faster, and more efficient than ever. The problem is going to get a lot worse before it ever gets better, and the companies in question are being forced to react in SOME way.
Piracy and file sharing aren't the greatest threats to the industry. (shakes fist at GameStop yet again) But they are real issues that are doing real damage. They are getting worse. And addressing this topic in a permissive or dismissive fashion only encourages people to continue taking advantage of the situation instead of supporting the game industry. Its adding insult to injury.
If you want to rebel against the man, build your own indie studio and compete against them directly. This is a far more constructive way of dealing with the issue than queuing up the latest blockbusters in your torrent client.
Piracy and file sharing aren't the greatest threats to the industry. (shakes fist at GameStop yet again) But they are real issues that are doing real damage. They are getting worse.
And addressing this topic in a permissive or dismissive fashion only encourages people to continue taking advantage of the situation instead of supporting the game industry. Its adding insult to injury.
Now, I know this wasn't targeted at me, but I feel like it applies to me too. And I hope that this is not how what I'm saying is coming across. Piracy is definitely a big problem, and I don't mean to be dismissive of it.
But, I'd hate to see us going all Metallica on people's asses, or worse yet, RIAA. Suing fans, threatening their ISP with lawsuits, shutting down people's internet connection, etc. That's all BS, and there are much better and more civil ways of dealing with it.
Because there has never been any piracy on consoles and handhelds?...
its harder on consoles
the console has to be modded (warranty is gone)
risk damaging/shortening its life span the console by modding it
still need a pc to burn/download/load games on the device
firmware/update issues
not that any of that actually stop some
but i do know some that rather not mod their stuff for one or more of those reasons
the best drm would always be risk/self made inconvenience is what i believe
Now, I know this wasn't targeted at me, but I feel like it applies to me too. And I hope that this is not how what I'm saying is coming across. Piracy is definitely a big problem, and I don't mean to be dismissive of it.
But, I'd hate to see us going all Metallica on people's asses, or worse yet, RIAA. Suing fans, threatening their ISP with lawsuits, shutting down people's internet connection, etc. That's all BS, and there are much better and more civil ways of dealing with it.
You're right about it having little point to try to fight them, but there's always some constant pressure needed, since the computer illiterate gamer crowd will actually think they are in danger of getting caught, and actually thinks twice.
Most developers will often just look the other way and give special treat to their customers instead, hunting pirates is bad PR these days, since it gives off the image of the MAN going after the small guy.
You blame people for justifying their actions, because you refuse to accept their logic as a reason. So you label it an excuse, thereby trivializing their opinion. But isn't that merely an excuse for trivializing other people's point of view?
Again, complex excuses etc, you can't actually argue what i've said, but instead argue the way i've said it.
These discussions are always the same, they end in arguing semantics, "oh its not "stealing"!!!!" you say, but that is just a way to trivialize the real impact it has on the industry.
At the end of the day, piracy hurts sales, less sales causes publishers to close studios, studio closings cause your friends on polycount to lose their jobs, and create an ever more volatile working environment for everyone in the industry. - This is an undeniable truth, and only the extent to which it affects us can be argued.
Certainly piracy is not the only factor in the equation, but to sit back and feign ignorance to what you're doing to your peers, well, its simply insulting to anyone working in the industry.
The whole "publishers are bad, piracy is good!" arguement is the perfect "issue" for lazy people to get behind, because all they have to do is sit on thier ass and leech with their internet connections, and post some tripe on internet forums. If you guys really had any interest in benifiting the community, you would go to work developing more sustainable ways of producing income off of games/art. Not sit on your asses stealing shit, complaing that everyone has it wrong.
If the system is so broken, DO something about it. Talk is cheap, develop the systems you think will "work" and write about them, publicize them, raise awareness. Think in a constructive manner, not in the destructive "fuck the man" way, as all this does is hurt your peers, the little guys, not the big guys who you have the problem with.
Lead by example, show that you can create positive and constructive solutions, vitriol and hate is never going to change anything.
If the system is so broken, DO something about it. Talk is cheap, develop the systems you think will "work" and write about them, publicize them, raise awareness. Think in a constructive manner, not in the destructive "fuck the man" way, as all this does is hurt your peers, the little guys, not the big guys who you have the problem with.
I have been kind of reading this thread and shaking my head-- I totally agree with EQ, but I was also thinking about it from the other perspective.
All these people trot out this tired arguments, usually to justify doing this thing they have been doing that doesn't work. Notch is a shitty artist compared to all of us here, but his art is in a million-selling game. It's because instead of sitting on his ass saying "oh noes, what am I going to do?" he said "how can I make some money with the skills I have?"
My problem with habitual pirates isn't their arguments, but that they are often worthless assholes-- I have no reason to interact with them, ever. They can smoke their weed, and pirate a billion games and spend all day playing them. I don't give a fuck about those people, and they may as well not exist as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to be in control of your future don't leave it up to some corporate douchebag at a publisher, or up to a bunch of basement dwelling stoners who complain on the internet all day. Take an active roll in your own life.
I think the whole piracy subject is quite complex and would like to discuss specific arguments. Which would be really daunting in writing.
But here are two things that are bugging me:
1. The argument "It is a crime, so it's wrong."
2. The "I'm not taking anything away from anybody" thing.
The first one is a circular argument and follows the logic of "because I said so". Something being a crime doesn't necessarily make it morally objectable. I think we can all agree there are some pretty stupid laws, no matter which country you live in. That doesn't mean I think piracy is good. My point is, saying it is a crime doesn't really do the discussion any good, because no one has doubted that.
The second is just as bad a case of flawed logic.
Yes you are taking away something. Let's - for the sake of the argument - go with that caveman similee. But with a slight alteration. It's not like taking away the idea of making fire, it's more like taking the finished fire.
Granted, fire can multiply so both have fire now. But the person making the fire had to spend time making it. The poor guy wasn't able to go on the hunt and now has nothing to feed his family with.
Now the other people say "well, you give us some of your fire, and we'll, in return, give you some meat". But then someone comes along and says "Why? he still has the fire, if I give away my meat, I won't have it any more. That's not fair!"
Enough rambling for me. If you have good counter arguments, I would love to hear them.
Again, complex excuses etc, you can't actually argue what i've said, but instead argue the way i've said it.
These discussions are always the same, they end in arguing semantics, "oh its not "stealing"!!!!" you say, but that is just a way to trivialize the real impact it has on the industry.
At the end of the day, piracy hurts sales, less sales causes publishers to close studios, studio closings cause your friends on polycount to lose their jobs, and create an ever more volatile working environment for everyone in the industry. - This is an undeniable truth, and only the extent to which it affects us can be argued.
Certainly piracy is not the only factor in the equation, but to sit back and feign ignorance to what you're doing to your peers, well, its simply insulting to anyone working in the industry.
The whole "publishers are bad, piracy is good!" arguement is the perfect "issue" for lazy people to get behind, because all they have to do is sit on thier ass and leech with their internet connections, and post some tripe on internet forums. If you guys really had any interest in benifiting the community, you would go to work developing more sustainable ways of producing income off of games/art. Not sit on your asses stealing shit, complaing that everyone has it wrong.
If the system is so broken, DO something about it. Talk is cheap, develop the systems you think will "work" and write about them, publicize them, raise awareness. Think in a constructive manner, not in the destructive "fuck the man" way, as all this does is hurt your peers, the little guys, not the big guys who you have the problem with.
Lead by example, show that you can create positive and constructive solutions, vitriol and hate is never going to change anything.
I wasn't trying to argue what you said, because... I agree with you! I don't know how many times I have to repeat it.
And also, what is this "you guys" business? As if I'm the king of the pirates, the online Jack Sparrow or something. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right to treat pirates who, after all, are still our fans, as if they were complete criminals. You have people likening it to murder or physical theft. I just don't think that's right. But that's not to say then that I somehow support the activity, or think it's fine.
Which I've said numerous times, over and over again, that I do not. And yet you choose to ignore it.
But no. My problem with what you're saying isn't even all of that. It's that there are people out there who put out actual arguments about the role and impact of piracy in our industry. And you don't like those arguments. So instead of adopting the Agree to Disagree attitude, you're being completely dismissive of the other side, trivializing their message as mere excuses, instead of respectfully disagreeing with an opinion. Which is fine of course, everyone is entitled to do whatever they want. But! They then do the same. You're basically giving pirates the middle finger and cover your ears. Well, they then give you (us really) the middle finger, and cover their ears.
At the end, we're the ones who get hurt by it.
And because I know what I said at the beginning will get ignored, I'll say it again: I think piracy is bad, and I don't support it, and wish it would go away.
I wasn't trying to argue what you said, because... I agree with you! I don't know how many times I have to repeat it.
And also, what is this "you guys" business? As if I'm the king of the pirates, the online Jack Sparrow or something. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right to treat pirates who, after all, are still our fans, as if they were complete criminals. You have people likening it to murder or physical theft. I just don't think that's right. But that's not to say then that I somehow support the activity, or think it's fine.
Which I've said numerous times, over and over again, that I do not. And yet you choose to ignore it.
But no. My problem with what you're saying isn't even all of that. It's that there are people out there who put out actual arguments about the role and impact of piracy in our industry. And you don't like those arguments. So instead of adopting the Agree to Disagree attitude, you're being completely dismissive of the other side, trivializing their message as mere excuses, instead of respectfully disagreeing with an opinion. Which is fine of course, everyone is entitled to do whatever they want. But! They then do the same. You're basically giving pirates the middle finger and cover your ears. Well, they then give you (us really) the middle finger, and cover their ears.
At the end, we're the ones who get hurt by it.
And because I know what I said at the beginning will get ignored, I'll say it again: I think piracy is bad, and I don't support it, and wish it would go away.
Those are some good points. I think the biggest problem is that both sides are being undiplomatic in the argument at large. The number one rule that one must never violate if they want to successfully persuade others to their point of view is: Don't be a dick. As soon as you enter the debate with insults or a completely dismissive attitude, you've just lost all hope of persuading that person because now they've tuned you out. Ask yourselves this: Would you take anything someone says seriously if they called you an idiot, thief, or worse? It's also hard to persuade people that not only take the polar opposite stance, but are completely irrational about it. It's difficult to convince a person that they are not thinking rationally when they aren't thinking rationally. Many people often take this extreme stance on issues that they consider part of who they are. When you question someone's religion, they don't feel you're arguing the validity of their choice, but questioning who they are as a person. This goes for all deeply held beliefs that people use to define who they are.
Many behavioral economists see this type of cognitive dissonance when dealing with money. Since this is an issue tied to money (it's peoples' source of income after all), they get very emotional and irrational. They've chosen a particular business model for their goods and see the other choices as inferior in order to rationalize their choice. The human mind doesn't like unresolved conflicts of interest, so it finds ways to resolve them, even if the reason is completely irrational. When someone else employs another method that conflicts with and even outlines the flaws in their irrational choice, a conflict occurs that the mind needs to defend against, resulting in the whole, "You're stealing", "you're a thief", or "You not entitled to it" mantra. Whether these are rational statements or not is immaterial, because the reason for making those claims tend to be fueled by irrational thinking.
Just to be fair, the other side of the argument behaves in a similar manner. They believe that their choice doesn't do harm and is superior to the traditional methods of acquiring content. They see this as the better way to do things and see the pay model as inferior resulting in a conflict of interest when others decry their choice. So you can see that it's very important that you give their point of view as much credence as yours because they believe their point is as valid as you believe yours is. Not respecting that will result in everybody just tuning out and the argument goes nowhere, as it has for the past ten years.
But no. My problem with what you're saying isn't even all of that. It's that there are people out there who put out actual arguments about the role and impact of piracy in our industry. And you don't like those arguments. So instead of adopting the Agree to Disagree attitude, you're being completely dismissive of the other side, trivializing their message as mere excuses, instead of respectfully disagreeing with an opinion.
Of course! If you're on the common sense side, then it's absolutely correct to call the other side BS and disrespect it! Where is all that weird politically correct thing coming from ? Why not being honest for a minute and call a lazy person lazy? (I think "lazy" is the strongest insult EQ actually used hehe)
Of course! If you're on the common sense side, then it's absolutely correct to call the other side BS and disrespect it! Where is all that weird politically correct thing coming from ? Why not being honest for a minute and call a lazy person lazy? (I think "lazy" is the strongest insult EQ actually used hehe)
It's not so much what he said, but how it sounds in your head when you read it. It comes off as snide and uncompromising. That just puts people off from taking you seriously.
It's a good start, but they didn't really address any of the issues of WHY piracy hurts the industry. Most gamers really do think it's harmless and that's part of the problem.
Well according to my business class, software firms and companies analyze the proximity of pirating their product after it is in the market so they tag the price accordingly so they make sure they wont get hurt by piracy.
So I'll assume the same case with games and them being a bit expensive then usual. Big branded games though, not the startup studio games or middle studios.
Of course! If you're on the common sense side, then it's absolutely correct to call the other side BS and disrespect it! Where is all that weird politically correct thing coming from ? Why not being honest for a minute and call a lazy person lazy? (I think "lazy" is the strongest insult EQ actually used hehe)
Yes, but everyone thinks they're right. Everyone believes they're on the common sense side. Nobody believes they're wrong, and argue that point anyway. Wouldn't you agree?
To your point, there was a post by someone who used to pirate games, but then found Steam and stopped. He said something like "Steam taught me that I'm not cheap, just lazy". Which ties to my original point that if we're trying to get pirates to pay, and the problem is that they're lazy, then threatening them with a lawsuit isn't very helpful. If it's too much of a hassle to whip out a credit card each time, then maybe we need to start providing 1-click shopping (ala Steam) for consoles too.
If pirates say that they want digital downloads, then maybe we should provide that. Instead of insisting they buy a boxed game every time a new 360/ps3 game comes out.
But either way, ignoring all of that, and just saying that those reasons are excuses for piracy, and are thereby invalid, seems a bit foolish to me. That's all I'm saying. Not that piracy is right.
the console has to be modded (warranty is gone)
risk damaging/shortening its life span the console by modding it
still need a pc to burn/download/load games on the device
firmware/update issues
not that any of that actually stop some
but i do know some that rather not mod their stuff for one or more of those reasons
the best drm would always be risk/self made inconvenience is what i believe
I really have an issue with the restrictive nature of consoles. I understand their apprehension with those that infringe on their rights, but in their zeal to stop those people, they step all over the rights of their paying customers. Copyright grants the consumer certain rights of use. Rights such as personal archival backups of your purchased works, transferring that content to different devices, or, indirectly, using homebrew software. The problem lies in the DMCA, they have circumvented your fair use rights to use archival backups of your legal purchased software and blocked your ability to use homebrew software. They impose DRM locks that incur criminal penalties if you break the restrictions and share the tool.
Copyright doesn't deal with the homebrew portion, but they have no legal right to restrict your ability to do so. The EULA and the ToS agreements are barely even considered enforceable and have been struck down in several cases. They can deny you access to their services, not because you agreed to the terms, but because that's their right regardless. They can't, however, dictate to you how you can use your console outside of those services. If I want to modify the hardware I paid for to do things they don't want it to do, they have no right to stop me beyond denying me their services. Just because the modification has the potential to enable me to use software that I haven't paid for, doesn't make it wrong to have it if it also has legally protected uses.
So, if you can live with not being able to access the services that are a part that console in order to have the power to exercise your fair use rights, I say go for it. If you want to be able to make and use your own software for the device or use software others have made for it that require such a modification, I say go ahead with that as well. I know what you're thinking, "Well what about XNA?". That's great and all, but what if your console doesn't have such a nice hobbyist SDK?
Yes, but everyone thinks they're right. Everyone believes they're on the common sense side. Nobody believes they're wrong, and argue that point anyway. Wouldn't you agree?
To your point, there was a post by someone who used to pirate games, but then found Steam and stopped. He said something like "Steam taught me that I'm not cheap, just lazy". Which ties to my original point that if we're trying to get pirates to pay, and the problem is that they're lazy, then threatening them with a lawsuit isn't very helpful. If it's too much of a hassle to whip out a credit card each time, then maybe we need to start providing 1-click shopping (ala Steam) for consoles too.
If pirates say that they want digital downloads, then maybe we should provide that. Instead of insisting they buy a boxed game every time a new 360/ps3 game comes out.
But either way, ignoring all of that, and just saying that those reasons are excuses for piracy, and are thereby invalid, seems a bit foolish to me. That's all I'm saying. Not that piracy is right.
The problem though with pirates is, their demands are entirely one-sided.
The problem though with pirates is, their demands are entirely one-sided.
Well, of course they are. Despite all that has occurred, they are still potential customers and because of that, they get to demand what they want and you have the option to fulfill that demand. They aren't beholden to satisfy your designs on what you are willing to provide. If you don't provide what they want, then they won't do business with you. They'll just go elsewhere, which just so happens to be the torrents. It doesn't matter that it's not legal, it only matters that there is another source that is willing to provide. When all is said and done, the consumers have the money. It's your job to offer them something that they are willing to buy, not the other way around.
People speak about those that share files of commercial content as having "entitlement" issues. I can say the exact thing about the other side of the argument. Publishers also have "entitlement" issues. They think that consumers are required to pay them for each and every copy that's in circulation, which is completely not true. As I've said in the past, you have the right to chose to whom you give your works, but no law promises that you will be paid for that copy. If you decide that in return for giving someone a copy of your work, they must give compensation, that's fine, though that doesn't mean you're entitled to it. So there are misconceptions of entitlement on both sides of the debate and neither are right.
Hehe yeah of course everybody claims that they are right
I am just saying that since we are not in court or in a sensitive place where being politically correct would be necessary in order to not gather childish hate comments, its more important to go straight to the facts and have an honest discussion, problem-solving discussion like EQ pointed out, instead of showing "respect" to the BS side...
I can't believe we are still discussing "is it stealing or not stealing" semantics tho.
Well, of course they are. Despite all that has occurred, they are still potential customers and because of that, they get to demand what they want and you have the option to fulfill that demand. They aren't beholden to satisfy your designs on what you are willing to provide. If you don't provide what they want, then they won't do business with you. They'll just go elsewhere, which just so happens to be the torrents. It doesn't matter that it's not legal, it only matters that there is another source that is willing to provide. When all is said and done, the consumers have the money. It's your job to offer them something that they are willing to buy, not the other way around.
You can't compete with your own product set at a lower price, it'll be the exact same product, only cheaper.
They're no longer a customer if they never intended to buy it in the first place.
You can't compete with your own product set at a lower price, it'll be the exact same product, only cheaper.
They're no longer a customer if they never intended to buy it in the first place.
No, you can't really compete with the same product at a better price. So what can you do? Sue? That has proven to go off like a fart in a space suit. Make more stringent laws? They have been doing that for decades and it hasn't prevented anything. I think we can agree that fighting them isn't going to succeed and it isn't good for your image.
I said potential customer. That's entirely different. No matter what changes you make, there are those that get off on doing this stuff and they're the type of people you can't do anything with because they're not after what you make, but the thrill and satisfaction of taking it is what they're after. So it would be logical to focus on those that can be convinced to buy, if given the right offer. Legal or not what they are doing implies that you're not meeting their demands. There might be a middle ground there for them, but I don't know what that is.
No, you can't really compete with the same product at a better price. So what can you do? Sue? That has proven to go off like a fart in a space suit. Make more stringent laws? They have been doing that for decades and it hasn't prevented anything. I think we can agree that fighting them isn't going to succeed and it isn't good for your image.
Best you can do is just ignore them, you have no power to do anything about them except wait for the day they grow up and see the problem, that day they'll eventually pay for products.
Your paying customers are a much higher priority and deserves all attention, the pirates really aren't worth any efforts of trying to win them over.
Hehe yeah of course everybody claims that they are right
I am just saying that since we are not in court or in a sensitive place where being politically correct would be necessary in order to not gather childish hate comments, its more important to go straight to the facts and have an honest discussion, problem-solving discussion like EQ pointed out, instead of showing "respect" to the BS side...
I can't believe we are still discussing "is it stealing or not stealing" semantics tho.
You're not helping the situation by taking that attitude. I can tell you right now, that I have no intention of taking you seriously after that remark. See how that works? When you come in with an attitude like that, the people you're trying to persuade stop listening.
Best you can do is just ignore them, you have no power to do anything about them except wait for the day they grow up and see the problem, that day they'll eventually pay for products.
Your paying customers are a much higher priority and deserves all attention, the pirates really aren't worth any efforts of trying to win them over.
A reasonable answer. Ignore them. If anything, I would look at the infringement as free advertising.
Piracy. Hmm.
I pirate music - but if I like it I will then go and buy it. I just don't want to buy something and find out I can only listen to it once before wanting to kill myself. In that industry, it is certainly advertisement. I now own almost every CD I have ever downloaded - so no real harm done; and I do my fair share of advertising - I tell everyone about my favorite bands and such - through Tumblr, or facebook, or in person - many a friend of mine has bought music by my suggestion.
With games, sometimes I will pirate it, if I already have it on a console - Like Oblivion. I bought it as soon as it came out on Xbox - but my brother took the Xbox to college and I was left Oblivionless. So I downloaded it.
That isn't quite piracy, though - I already payed for the product and had it in my possession, but I couldn't play it.
All in all, I don't condone piracy, unless you make up for it at a later date(Save for, perhaps, software - when learning it or using it for a hobby).
Pirating software is very different from pirating games tho. Softwares with a huge pricetag (im talking, multiple Ks) are not even targeted at the hobbyist. There is absolutely no arm in obtaining it to learn it (since, if the artist becomes good enough to be hired, then thats a guaranteed license purchase in a pro studio environment)
I dont really get your Oblivion justification tho. If you want to keep it, then dont give it to your brother.
As for music, I pay around 15$ a month for unlimited Spotify access. No need to buy albums anymore, since I have a license to listen anything I want at great quality.I hope it ll be available to US customers soon, it really is a game changer.
Piracy. Hmm.
I pirate music - but if I like it I will then go and buy it. I just don't want to buy something and find out I can only listen to it once before wanting to kill myself. In that industry, it is certainly advertisement. I now own almost every CD I have ever downloaded - so no real harm done; and I do my fair share of advertising - I tell everyone about my favorite bands and such - through Tumblr, or facebook, or in person - many a friend of mine has bought music by my suggestion.
With games, sometimes I will pirate it, if I already have it on a console - Like Oblivion. I bought it as soon as it came out on Xbox - but my brother took the Xbox to college and I was left Oblivionless. So I downloaded it.
That isn't quite piracy, though - I already payed for the product and had it in my possession, but I couldn't play it.
All in all, I don't condone piracy, unless you make up for it at a later date(Save for, perhaps, software - when learning it or using it for a hobby).
Almost every song I ever wanted is freely available (with ads) on Youtube/Vevo. I explore new music with Pandora. When I find something I like I buy it on Amazon for 99 cents. Piracy is unnecessary - especially of music.
edit: I spend about $3 to $5 a month on new music.
Ah, I didn't give it to my brother; the system was his - the game was mine.
Quite an issue.
As for there being no need to pirate music, I must say that I have tried to listen to music on Youtube before, but my internet connection takes 5 minutes to load even the simplest song on there. It gets to be not worth it very quickly. Also, I listen to very obscure bands, and often their songs aren't even on youtube; let alone a whole album of their songs.
Ah, I didn't give it to my brother; the system was his - the game was mine.
Quite an issue.
As for there being no need to pirate music, I must say that I have tried to listen to music on Youtube before, but my internet connection takes 5 minutes to load even the simplest song on there. It gets to be not worth it very quickly. Also, I listen to very obscure bands, and often their songs aren't even on youtube; let alone a whole album of their songs.
Way more valid, but you're not a part of the problem piracy, you're a tiny minority.
for example, I had my disk of systemshock2 explode on me in the drive, I've seen no problem with downloading that one.
I'm also semi-hypocrite too I guess, because I condone piracy of titles where the license owners haven't made any attempt to sell it, and there's no way to get the title, it got way better with gog.com though.
But I guess most of the damage is done with fresh on the market titles, since that's often the time-period that makes or breaks a company, that's where your support can be utilized the most, that's why new-used games have the same effect as piracy.
I think its a pretty silly statement to make that because some very small indy developers, that have extremely small upfront costs, can get away with giving thier products away for free and making money off donations/letting customers choice the pricing. This works for a very very small fraction of the market with very specific conditions.
You look at any project that requires a full team of leads, artists, programers, QA, HR, etc. You'll see that these sort of methods are never going to be an option. I've yet to really see a reasonable argument or any solutions brought up here for larger projects, just a few "oh so and so's tiny game, they gave it away for free, this negates piracy!" its very short sighted.
I haven't the time no inclination to read the entire thread up to this point, especially because I read the last one and I can't imagine it being too different. Honestly, I think whether or not piracy is wrong/illegal is completely a moot point at this day and age. The fact is piracy happens, and cannot really be curtailed without alienating the legitimate user base. With a digital medium, there's no way to prevent people from copy and pasting data on their hard drives, especially if they've legitimately purchased it (piracy must have some sort of legitimate source). There's also no way of regulating what people are allowed to share over the internet without fundamentally changing the nature of the internet, which has so far proven to be a bastion of free information. I think that fighting piracy (especially the way the MPAA goes about it with greater and greater legislative restrictions) is going to be a losing battle no matter what because you are fighting human nature (in this case laziness in acquisition and positive feedback also in acquisition and play).
Companies need to come up with better way of handling this issue than punishing customers. So far, the best example I've seen is Steam. It's incredibly easy to purchase from a HUGE catalog of games at very little cost (their sales can be extremely cheap). In addition, WoW has probably made more money than any other game ever (I think they make about 1bn/year and 250mn/year in net profit).
What I see the distinction as being, and what I think is the fundamental takeaway from all this hooplah, is that in the digital age and in the digital medium, there are no longer such things as products, and what is left, and what needs to be cultivated are services. Both Steam and WoW are services. To this I would add probably the rest of the major dotcoms; Facebook, Ebay, Amazon, Netflix, Twitter are all services.
I think we are clinging to an outmoded concept of ownership that is difficult to apply to the hypothetical and highly abstract realm of the digital. Whether it's right or not is irrelevant.
I think that fighting piracy (especially the way the MPAA goes about it with greater and greater legislative restrictions) is going to be a losing battle no matter what because you are fighting human nature (in this case laziness in acquisition and positive feedback also in acquisition and play).
What I see the distinction as being, and what I think is the fundamental takeaway from all this hooplah, is that in the digital age and in the digital medium, there are no longer such things as products, and what is left, and what needs to be cultivated are services. Both Steam and WoW are services. To this I would add probably the rest of the major dotcoms; Facebook, Ebay, Amazon, Netflix, Twitter are all services.
I think we are clinging to an outmoded concept of ownership that is difficult to apply to the hypothetical and highly abstract realm of the digital. Whether it's right or not is irrelevant.
Those are all very good points and I've been saying myself that game makers need to shift from a product-based model to a service one (not so much here as elsewhere). So the question remains as to what type of service can be implemented that keeps the industry funded, but doesn't clash with the inevitable file-sharing culture that becoming so pervasive. I mean, what's going to keep the profit-hungry corporate publishers and those that want to download happy?
As I can see it, the file-sharing community offers a very effective and cheap alternative to centralized distribution methods. The customers use each others' own bandwidth to transport the developers' games to their hard drive. That's a far cry better than buying up tons of high capacity dedicated servers. It's tricky though, as not everyone has the same QoS from their ISP. Nevertheless, how could you monetize that? Perhaps a private tracker where you pay a monthly fee force access and the more you seed, the more credit goes to your account? Then you can download all the games you want and if you keep a high seed ratio, your monthly fees go down because you're saving the distributors money on operational costs. You know, give a little, get a little. Something like $1 a month off your bill for every GB you seed beyond a 1:1 share ratio. So if you download 10 GB and upload 20 GB (not easy to do with asynchronous connections) , you'd get a $10 credit that month. Then the point of this model would be to keep bringing in new customers that aren't yet seeders.
Ok, I need to stop there before this gets any longer.
Also for your stupid little piracy picture that doesn't address the fact that piracy is still a crime. Yes piracy you are making a "copy" of the original and that original is still there but you are still STEALING it. You did not pay for what you are pirating, nor did you get consent to take it.
The problem with the comic is that it's comparing a bird singing (which is a naturally occuring creature that no one had to create) to a videogame or song that very many high-skilled people had to create.
To make it equivalent it would have to be a person sneaking into a concert hall to listen to an opera for free.
A bird is going to sing whether people listen, pay for tickets, or not. Videogames and music is not going to get made (at the same frequency, quality, and complexity) without some form of financial support enabling people to pursue it full time, therefore being able to master that craft to a level a part time person who has to support themselves with another paying job would.
The problem with the comic is that it's comparing a bird singing (which is a naturally occuring creature that no one had to create) to a videogame or song that very many high-skilled people had to create.
To make it equivalent it would have to be a person sneaking into a concert hall to listen to an opera for free.
A bird is going to sing whether people listen, pay for tickets, or not. Videogames and music is not going to get made (at the same frequency, quality, and complexity) without some form of financial support enabling people to pursue it full time, therefore being able to master that craft to a level a part time person who has to support themselves with another paying job would.
I disagree. Free open source software tends to be every bit as good as their commercial counterparts and many games do as well. I think too many developers focus on the eye candy to attract people to buy their games and often neglect the qualities behind what makes the game fun (I know, gameplay is hard to convey on a box with a handful of bullet points). Just as 3D is really not integral to the core features of a good movie, High-end shaders, cool effects and hyper-realism is not really integral to the quality of game play. Take Morrowind for example. That game was, visually, not that great. Its strengths lie in a great story and an immense world to explore. The game was, in a word, deep.
If they cut back on the whiz-bang graphics that they spend so much money on and look into really nailing down a great game experience, they'd have much better games for less money than they spend today. I think that's why so many indie titles are receiving such huge acclaim. They focus on making a great game overall instead of making it pretty to attract the lowest common denominator. Not to mention the extremely iterative franchises that the biggest companies push out year after year (Madden, CoD, NBA, etc.). If anything, I think the world of big budget games has diluted the quality of games due to the pressure from publishers and shareholders to make developers produce retail hits in spite of creating truly enviable works. As extra credits said, there is typically only one truly top quality game released on a given month.
Take Morrowind for example. That game was, visually, not that great. Its strengths lie in a great story and an immense world to explore. The game was, in a word, deep..
Yet, morrowind was made by a games studio with several games behind them, in the games industry, it wasn't indie in any way, we wouldn't have skyrim coming soon if it weren't for the production budgets of high end titles.
There is an abundance of great games we would never have if it weren't for high budgets.
High budgets for art-teams is awesome, it's what gives us jobs here, it's the very reason this community exists.
I want to play every obscure indie title as much as I want to fill my need for high-end polished highbudget titles.
Going to a bar , having some drinks and going home without paying is piracy
No that's theft. Piracy would be you pulling over a boat loaded with goods, killing the crew, and taking everything for yourself. Real piracy is a violent act that does more harm than mere theft. That's why the industry tries to apply such a term to infringement. It invokes an emotional response to the act, that is intended to put public opinion against those that infringe on copyrights. Stealing, theft, and piracy are very emotionally loaded words that are misused to make a bad thing look worse. Would you think it so terrible as a lay man reading about the issue if they referred to it as infringement rather than "piracy"?
Replies
This is a hurdle that Cloud-based and streaming services are going to have to deal with. And its certainly one that I can sympathize with. I collect video games, and even though I occasionally use download services such as Steam, I never consider games purchased that way to be part of my collection. And even if a developer leans on digital distribution for the bulk of their profit, I always appreciate it if they release a physical copy.
But I think that in this day and age, that attitude is shrinking quite rapidly. This is especially true for more casual individuals who don't have as much invested in this hobby. Such people don't really care to have physical copies, and are only concerned with the experience. They think nothing of throwing a few dollars to access a game, whether or not they have access to it several years down the line is immaterial. I would once again shake my fist at GameStop for fostering this disposable "rental" attitude towards games. People who are used to treating games as temporary commodities won't have any issues making the transition to digital distribution and streaming.
On a different note, I'm still entertaining the idea of merchandising-supported development. This approach has worked for films and television. And in some instances it has even been leveraged with games. A lot of on-line comic artists make a goodly portion of their income in this fashion. I can't think of any reason why smaller indie developers might not be able to take advantage of such an approach.
You could release your game for free, and use the game as a platform for advertising and promoting merchandising related to the IP used in the game. This would maintain your ownership of your IP, it could potentially recoup your development expenses, and piracy is not an issue when the intangible portion of the product is free from the beginning. Thanks to CafePress and other inexpensive product services, such an approach is even open to smaller developers.
Well I am, and I live in a country where both western and eastern games are available, so we're blessed.
Now, taking a look at strictly MMOs, East and West generally do this differently.
(there are exceptions on both sides, so I don't mean this in the strictest sense)
The Western method - Buy the MMO, install it, register an account, pay monthly subscriptions to play.
The Eastern method - Download the game, install it, register an account, start playing for free. But you have access to very little and basic content. You want more? Well buy our in game *coins/credits/gold/gamepoints/etc* so that you can go to the shop and buy that shit.
EA tried to do this with BF Heroes, because micro-transactions are the "future". And who am I to say that this doesnt work out? This model works in earning cash, but you end up with clones of clones and entirely boring games that are slapped together to look pretty and make a quick buck.
Would you support this type of trend? Where would your "indie and innovative" games be?
And a reminder, this *only* works for MMOs. DLCs and additional content are something I don't necessarily support because sometimes I just want to play a well made RPG.
And here I thought expansion packs were bad enough.
At the end of the day, the people who are left arguing this are:
A. The people who want to justify piracy because it is convenient, and they enjoy doing it. These are the people who will come up with the most complex explanations for why they are in the right, and always blame "the system" for being broken, never wanting to take any responsibility for their actions.
B. People who have/do pirate software/games/etc, but when able, support products that they enjoy. These people tend to at-least recognize how their actions effect others, but are of course inherently hypocrites.
I myself find that I the less free time I have, the less I spend downloading stupid warez shit, and in the free time that I do have, I will pay to support the games that I enjoy, the movies that I like and the bands that I listen to. I think this is all just part of growing up.
I dont think anyone is really "innocent" in these arguments, if they are, I have yet to meet them!
Are you not doing that same thing?
You blame people for justifying their actions, because you refuse to accept their logic as a reason. So you label it an excuse, thereby trivializing their opinion. But isn't that merely an excuse for trivializing other people's point of view?
The real victims here are the developers and the fans. The publishers cheat them both. They do it by using the developers' skills to create and sell an imaginary product to people whom they treat like criminals, imposing unfair restrictions on work they paid good money for. They take what developers create and call it their IP. They milk hard-working people for franchises that sell in the millions and when the cash cow dries up, they drop them like a one night stand. The difference between the publishers and the file-sharing community is that those that share only screw the publishers directly and the developers indirectly. I'd say the publishers are worse than the so-called "pirates". At least the majority of them aren't out to screw everybody invloved and make a quick buck doing it.
As much as I usually hate on publishers, especially activision, I will always recognize their important part in the play as the people who will eventually fund your project, and who will handle the distribution of it.
And the same here, piracy doesn't automagically target publishers, it targets everyone, down to the lone self-publishing indie-dev, his games will be up on the torrents too.
Most pirates don't have an agenda, those that truly do are in the tiny minority.
Having a montly subscription feels like such a greedy way of thanking someone for buying the game. "Thanks for buying the game! If you want to continue playing the game you will however need to pay a little token of gratitude on a monthly basis, this amount is dynamic and well let you know when we want more.."
I'm not going to get in to this discussion since I'm a hypocrite at heart when it comes to pirating.. Hard to not be since the last movie I watched in a Cinema was Iron Man 2... And my friend was constantly mocking the other observers as well as throwing smelly cheese doodles in my face in the rhythm of the soundtrack.. Intense to say the least...
But I still think it's important to support the few original ideas created in this world. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and TES as well as some movies and series here and there..
"down to the lone self-publishing indie-dev, his games will be up on the torrents too."
This is true, and the examples of this that I've seen actually helped their game sell really well. World of Goo, I'm looking at you. (rhyme not intended)
I'm sorry, but I don't think the sharing is hurting everybody. The big companies use DRM and other anti-copying measures to thwart sharers which they know full-well will get cracked in days, if not hours. So they're only punishing the innocent, but that's not the sharers' fault. It's the publisher's choice and they chose to respond by giving hackers an irresistible challenge.
Well, that's just insisting on minor points though.
There are so many games now that don't even charge you a box fee. You download the entire game for free, play it for free, and pay them if you feel like it (and want to experience their locked content). I mean, this isn't anything new. I've had Shareware literally shared to me before the internet was around. The idea is to play the numbers game. Get your game out there to as many people as possible, and reach the largest audience.
So the point about subscriptions of course doesn't work for every game. But for some it does. DLC is the same thing.
Sure, the point could be argued that if a the base of a game was given away for free, you'd be losing money on the box-sales. But that's not taking into account the customers you lose who are not willing to pay $60 to try your game.
Just to throw an example out there. I got Darksiders over the Christmas break, played it, loved it, and actually finished it. It's done now, and I have to wait for DS2. That's just the way it's always been. But think of the larger audience they could get if the base of the game (just the intro and that little area with the demon that sends you on missions) was completely free. I'm not talking about a demo. I'm talking about the actual game with gated content. Then sell the missions as DLC in chunks for a certain sum, totaling $60. Same thing, different pricing option. I don't know, I think it could work. And then why stop? If I could be paying more money right now to play another area in DS, I would.
Blizzard is already doing that with SC2.
There are ways to do this, that's all I'm saying.
This is patently false. World of Goo's sales didn't increase due to piracy. They increased after the developer reported to the general press how much their game had been pirated. The attention that their story got in the media was what helped them to boost sales. They were able to get free publicity and marketing because their product was the victim of piracy.
No, it isn't hurting everybody. But its hurting ENOUGH people, and its hurting the people that any responsible game enthusiast shouldn't want to see hurt.
Yes, the large publishers have not responded well or intelligently to this situation. They could definitely be handling this more effectively, and hopefully in the future they will. But they are responding to a real competitive threat. File sharing has been consistently growing over the past decade, and is now easier, faster, and more efficient than ever. The problem is going to get a lot worse before it ever gets better, and the companies in question are being forced to react in SOME way.
Piracy and file sharing aren't the greatest threats to the industry. (shakes fist at GameStop yet again) But they are real issues that are doing real damage. They are getting worse. And addressing this topic in a permissive or dismissive fashion only encourages people to continue taking advantage of the situation instead of supporting the game industry. Its adding insult to injury.
If you want to rebel against the man, build your own indie studio and compete against them directly. This is a far more constructive way of dealing with the issue than queuing up the latest blockbusters in your torrent client.
100% agreed.
Now, I know this wasn't targeted at me, but I feel like it applies to me too. And I hope that this is not how what I'm saying is coming across. Piracy is definitely a big problem, and I don't mean to be dismissive of it.
But, I'd hate to see us going all Metallica on people's asses, or worse yet, RIAA. Suing fans, threatening their ISP with lawsuits, shutting down people's internet connection, etc. That's all BS, and there are much better and more civil ways of dealing with it.
its harder on consoles
the console has to be modded (warranty is gone)
risk damaging/shortening its life span the console by modding it
still need a pc to burn/download/load games on the device
firmware/update issues
not that any of that actually stop some
but i do know some that rather not mod their stuff for one or more of those reasons
the best drm would always be risk/self made inconvenience is what i believe
You're right about it having little point to try to fight them, but there's always some constant pressure needed, since the computer illiterate gamer crowd will actually think they are in danger of getting caught, and actually thinks twice.
Most developers will often just look the other way and give special treat to their customers instead, hunting pirates is bad PR these days, since it gives off the image of the MAN going after the small guy.
Again, complex excuses etc, you can't actually argue what i've said, but instead argue the way i've said it.
These discussions are always the same, they end in arguing semantics, "oh its not "stealing"!!!!" you say, but that is just a way to trivialize the real impact it has on the industry.
At the end of the day, piracy hurts sales, less sales causes publishers to close studios, studio closings cause your friends on polycount to lose their jobs, and create an ever more volatile working environment for everyone in the industry. - This is an undeniable truth, and only the extent to which it affects us can be argued.
Certainly piracy is not the only factor in the equation, but to sit back and feign ignorance to what you're doing to your peers, well, its simply insulting to anyone working in the industry.
The whole "publishers are bad, piracy is good!" arguement is the perfect "issue" for lazy people to get behind, because all they have to do is sit on thier ass and leech with their internet connections, and post some tripe on internet forums. If you guys really had any interest in benifiting the community, you would go to work developing more sustainable ways of producing income off of games/art. Not sit on your asses stealing shit, complaing that everyone has it wrong.
If the system is so broken, DO something about it. Talk is cheap, develop the systems you think will "work" and write about them, publicize them, raise awareness. Think in a constructive manner, not in the destructive "fuck the man" way, as all this does is hurt your peers, the little guys, not the big guys who you have the problem with.
Lead by example, show that you can create positive and constructive solutions, vitriol and hate is never going to change anything.
I have been kind of reading this thread and shaking my head-- I totally agree with EQ, but I was also thinking about it from the other perspective.
All these people trot out this tired arguments, usually to justify doing this thing they have been doing that doesn't work. Notch is a shitty artist compared to all of us here, but his art is in a million-selling game. It's because instead of sitting on his ass saying "oh noes, what am I going to do?" he said "how can I make some money with the skills I have?"
My problem with habitual pirates isn't their arguments, but that they are often worthless assholes-- I have no reason to interact with them, ever. They can smoke their weed, and pirate a billion games and spend all day playing them. I don't give a fuck about those people, and they may as well not exist as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to be in control of your future don't leave it up to some corporate douchebag at a publisher, or up to a bunch of basement dwelling stoners who complain on the internet all day. Take an active roll in your own life.
But here are two things that are bugging me:
1. The argument "It is a crime, so it's wrong."
2. The "I'm not taking anything away from anybody" thing.
The first one is a circular argument and follows the logic of "because I said so". Something being a crime doesn't necessarily make it morally objectable. I think we can all agree there are some pretty stupid laws, no matter which country you live in. That doesn't mean I think piracy is good. My point is, saying it is a crime doesn't really do the discussion any good, because no one has doubted that.
The second is just as bad a case of flawed logic.
Yes you are taking away something. Let's - for the sake of the argument - go with that caveman similee. But with a slight alteration. It's not like taking away the idea of making fire, it's more like taking the finished fire.
Granted, fire can multiply so both have fire now. But the person making the fire had to spend time making it. The poor guy wasn't able to go on the hunt and now has nothing to feed his family with.
Now the other people say "well, you give us some of your fire, and we'll, in return, give you some meat". But then someone comes along and says "Why? he still has the fire, if I give away my meat, I won't have it any more. That's not fair!"
Enough rambling for me. If you have good counter arguments, I would love to hear them.
I wasn't trying to argue what you said, because... I agree with you! I don't know how many times I have to repeat it.
And also, what is this "you guys" business? As if I'm the king of the pirates, the online Jack Sparrow or something. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right to treat pirates who, after all, are still our fans, as if they were complete criminals. You have people likening it to murder or physical theft. I just don't think that's right. But that's not to say then that I somehow support the activity, or think it's fine.
Which I've said numerous times, over and over again, that I do not. And yet you choose to ignore it.
But no. My problem with what you're saying isn't even all of that. It's that there are people out there who put out actual arguments about the role and impact of piracy in our industry. And you don't like those arguments. So instead of adopting the Agree to Disagree attitude, you're being completely dismissive of the other side, trivializing their message as mere excuses, instead of respectfully disagreeing with an opinion. Which is fine of course, everyone is entitled to do whatever they want. But! They then do the same. You're basically giving pirates the middle finger and cover your ears. Well, they then give you (us really) the middle finger, and cover their ears.
At the end, we're the ones who get hurt by it.
And because I know what I said at the beginning will get ignored, I'll say it again: I think piracy is bad, and I don't support it, and wish it would go away.
Those are some good points. I think the biggest problem is that both sides are being undiplomatic in the argument at large. The number one rule that one must never violate if they want to successfully persuade others to their point of view is: Don't be a dick. As soon as you enter the debate with insults or a completely dismissive attitude, you've just lost all hope of persuading that person because now they've tuned you out. Ask yourselves this: Would you take anything someone says seriously if they called you an idiot, thief, or worse? It's also hard to persuade people that not only take the polar opposite stance, but are completely irrational about it. It's difficult to convince a person that they are not thinking rationally when they aren't thinking rationally. Many people often take this extreme stance on issues that they consider part of who they are. When you question someone's religion, they don't feel you're arguing the validity of their choice, but questioning who they are as a person. This goes for all deeply held beliefs that people use to define who they are.
Many behavioral economists see this type of cognitive dissonance when dealing with money. Since this is an issue tied to money (it's peoples' source of income after all), they get very emotional and irrational. They've chosen a particular business model for their goods and see the other choices as inferior in order to rationalize their choice. The human mind doesn't like unresolved conflicts of interest, so it finds ways to resolve them, even if the reason is completely irrational. When someone else employs another method that conflicts with and even outlines the flaws in their irrational choice, a conflict occurs that the mind needs to defend against, resulting in the whole, "You're stealing", "you're a thief", or "You not entitled to it" mantra. Whether these are rational statements or not is immaterial, because the reason for making those claims tend to be fueled by irrational thinking.
Just to be fair, the other side of the argument behaves in a similar manner. They believe that their choice doesn't do harm and is superior to the traditional methods of acquiring content. They see this as the better way to do things and see the pay model as inferior resulting in a conflict of interest when others decry their choice. So you can see that it's very important that you give their point of view as much credence as yours because they believe their point is as valid as you believe yours is. Not respecting that will result in everybody just tuning out and the argument goes nowhere, as it has for the past ten years.
Of course! If you're on the common sense side, then it's absolutely correct to call the other side BS and disrespect it! Where is all that weird politically correct thing coming from ? Why not being honest for a minute and call a lazy person lazy? (I think "lazy" is the strongest insult EQ actually used hehe)
It's not so much what he said, but how it sounds in your head when you read it. It comes off as snide and uncompromising. That just puts people off from taking you seriously.
Well according to my business class, software firms and companies analyze the proximity of pirating their product after it is in the market so they tag the price accordingly so they make sure they wont get hurt by piracy.
So I'll assume the same case with games and them being a bit expensive then usual. Big branded games though, not the startup studio games or middle studios.
Yes, but everyone thinks they're right. Everyone believes they're on the common sense side. Nobody believes they're wrong, and argue that point anyway. Wouldn't you agree?
To your point, there was a post by someone who used to pirate games, but then found Steam and stopped. He said something like "Steam taught me that I'm not cheap, just lazy". Which ties to my original point that if we're trying to get pirates to pay, and the problem is that they're lazy, then threatening them with a lawsuit isn't very helpful. If it's too much of a hassle to whip out a credit card each time, then maybe we need to start providing 1-click shopping (ala Steam) for consoles too.
If pirates say that they want digital downloads, then maybe we should provide that. Instead of insisting they buy a boxed game every time a new 360/ps3 game comes out.
But either way, ignoring all of that, and just saying that those reasons are excuses for piracy, and are thereby invalid, seems a bit foolish to me. That's all I'm saying. Not that piracy is right.
I really have an issue with the restrictive nature of consoles. I understand their apprehension with those that infringe on their rights, but in their zeal to stop those people, they step all over the rights of their paying customers. Copyright grants the consumer certain rights of use. Rights such as personal archival backups of your purchased works, transferring that content to different devices, or, indirectly, using homebrew software. The problem lies in the DMCA, they have circumvented your fair use rights to use archival backups of your legal purchased software and blocked your ability to use homebrew software. They impose DRM locks that incur criminal penalties if you break the restrictions and share the tool.
Copyright doesn't deal with the homebrew portion, but they have no legal right to restrict your ability to do so. The EULA and the ToS agreements are barely even considered enforceable and have been struck down in several cases. They can deny you access to their services, not because you agreed to the terms, but because that's their right regardless. They can't, however, dictate to you how you can use your console outside of those services. If I want to modify the hardware I paid for to do things they don't want it to do, they have no right to stop me beyond denying me their services. Just because the modification has the potential to enable me to use software that I haven't paid for, doesn't make it wrong to have it if it also has legally protected uses.
So, if you can live with not being able to access the services that are a part that console in order to have the power to exercise your fair use rights, I say go for it. If you want to be able to make and use your own software for the device or use software others have made for it that require such a modification, I say go ahead with that as well. I know what you're thinking, "Well what about XNA?". That's great and all, but what if your console doesn't have such a nice hobbyist SDK?
The problem though with pirates is, their demands are entirely one-sided.
People speak about those that share files of commercial content as having "entitlement" issues. I can say the exact thing about the other side of the argument. Publishers also have "entitlement" issues. They think that consumers are required to pay them for each and every copy that's in circulation, which is completely not true. As I've said in the past, you have the right to chose to whom you give your works, but no law promises that you will be paid for that copy. If you decide that in return for giving someone a copy of your work, they must give compensation, that's fine, though that doesn't mean you're entitled to it. So there are misconceptions of entitlement on both sides of the debate and neither are right.
I am just saying that since we are not in court or in a sensitive place where being politically correct would be necessary in order to not gather childish hate comments, its more important to go straight to the facts and have an honest discussion, problem-solving discussion like EQ pointed out, instead of showing "respect" to the BS side...
I can't believe we are still discussing "is it stealing or not stealing" semantics tho.
You can't compete with your own product set at a lower price, it'll be the exact same product, only cheaper.
They're no longer a customer if they never intended to buy it in the first place.
No, you can't really compete with the same product at a better price. So what can you do? Sue? That has proven to go off like a fart in a space suit. Make more stringent laws? They have been doing that for decades and it hasn't prevented anything. I think we can agree that fighting them isn't going to succeed and it isn't good for your image.
I said potential customer. That's entirely different. No matter what changes you make, there are those that get off on doing this stuff and they're the type of people you can't do anything with because they're not after what you make, but the thrill and satisfaction of taking it is what they're after. So it would be logical to focus on those that can be convinced to buy, if given the right offer. Legal or not what they are doing implies that you're not meeting their demands. There might be a middle ground there for them, but I don't know what that is.
Best you can do is just ignore them, you have no power to do anything about them except wait for the day they grow up and see the problem, that day they'll eventually pay for products.
Your paying customers are a much higher priority and deserves all attention, the pirates really aren't worth any efforts of trying to win them over.
You're not helping the situation by taking that attitude. I can tell you right now, that I have no intention of taking you seriously after that remark. See how that works? When you come in with an attitude like that, the people you're trying to persuade stop listening.
A reasonable answer. Ignore them. If anything, I would look at the infringement as free advertising.
I pirate music - but if I like it I will then go and buy it. I just don't want to buy something and find out I can only listen to it once before wanting to kill myself. In that industry, it is certainly advertisement. I now own almost every CD I have ever downloaded - so no real harm done; and I do my fair share of advertising - I tell everyone about my favorite bands and such - through Tumblr, or facebook, or in person - many a friend of mine has bought music by my suggestion.
With games, sometimes I will pirate it, if I already have it on a console - Like Oblivion. I bought it as soon as it came out on Xbox - but my brother took the Xbox to college and I was left Oblivionless. So I downloaded it.
That isn't quite piracy, though - I already payed for the product and had it in my possession, but I couldn't play it.
All in all, I don't condone piracy, unless you make up for it at a later date(Save for, perhaps, software - when learning it or using it for a hobby).
I dont really get your Oblivion justification tho. If you want to keep it, then dont give it to your brother.
As for music, I pay around 15$ a month for unlimited Spotify access. No need to buy albums anymore, since I have a license to listen anything I want at great quality.I hope it ll be available to US customers soon, it really is a game changer.
Almost every song I ever wanted is freely available (with ads) on Youtube/Vevo. I explore new music with Pandora. When I find something I like I buy it on Amazon for 99 cents. Piracy is unnecessary - especially of music.
edit: I spend about $3 to $5 a month on new music.
Quite an issue.
As for there being no need to pirate music, I must say that I have tried to listen to music on Youtube before, but my internet connection takes 5 minutes to load even the simplest song on there. It gets to be not worth it very quickly. Also, I listen to very obscure bands, and often their songs aren't even on youtube; let alone a whole album of their songs.
Way more valid, but you're not a part of the problem piracy, you're a tiny minority.
for example, I had my disk of systemshock2 explode on me in the drive, I've seen no problem with downloading that one.
I'm also semi-hypocrite too I guess, because I condone piracy of titles where the license owners haven't made any attempt to sell it, and there's no way to get the title, it got way better with gog.com though.
But I guess most of the damage is done with fresh on the market titles, since that's often the time-period that makes or breaks a company, that's where your support can be utilized the most, that's why new-used games have the same effect as piracy.
You look at any project that requires a full team of leads, artists, programers, QA, HR, etc. You'll see that these sort of methods are never going to be an option. I've yet to really see a reasonable argument or any solutions brought up here for larger projects, just a few "oh so and so's tiny game, they gave it away for free, this negates piracy!" its very short sighted.
Companies need to come up with better way of handling this issue than punishing customers. So far, the best example I've seen is Steam. It's incredibly easy to purchase from a HUGE catalog of games at very little cost (their sales can be extremely cheap). In addition, WoW has probably made more money than any other game ever (I think they make about 1bn/year and 250mn/year in net profit).
What I see the distinction as being, and what I think is the fundamental takeaway from all this hooplah, is that in the digital age and in the digital medium, there are no longer such things as products, and what is left, and what needs to be cultivated are services. Both Steam and WoW are services. To this I would add probably the rest of the major dotcoms; Facebook, Ebay, Amazon, Netflix, Twitter are all services.
I think we are clinging to an outmoded concept of ownership that is difficult to apply to the hypothetical and highly abstract realm of the digital. Whether it's right or not is irrelevant.
Often not, it's usually and often straight from the factory in the form of a leak, which is why pirate releases are often out early.
a DRM layer, even though I think steam is the best working drm out there.
Those are all very good points and I've been saying myself that game makers need to shift from a product-based model to a service one (not so much here as elsewhere). So the question remains as to what type of service can be implemented that keeps the industry funded, but doesn't clash with the inevitable file-sharing culture that becoming so pervasive. I mean, what's going to keep the profit-hungry corporate publishers and those that want to download happy?
As I can see it, the file-sharing community offers a very effective and cheap alternative to centralized distribution methods. The customers use each others' own bandwidth to transport the developers' games to their hard drive. That's a far cry better than buying up tons of high capacity dedicated servers. It's tricky though, as not everyone has the same QoS from their ISP. Nevertheless, how could you monetize that? Perhaps a private tracker where you pay a monthly fee force access and the more you seed, the more credit goes to your account? Then you can download all the games you want and if you keep a high seed ratio, your monthly fees go down because you're saving the distributors money on operational costs. You know, give a little, get a little. Something like $1 a month off your bill for every GB you seed beyond a 1:1 share ratio. So if you download 10 GB and upload 20 GB (not easy to do with asynchronous connections) , you'd get a $10 credit that month. Then the point of this model would be to keep bringing in new customers that aren't yet seeders.
Ok, I need to stop there before this gets any longer.
The problem with the comic is that it's comparing a bird singing (which is a naturally occuring creature that no one had to create) to a videogame or song that very many high-skilled people had to create.
To make it equivalent it would have to be a person sneaking into a concert hall to listen to an opera for free.
A bird is going to sing whether people listen, pay for tickets, or not. Videogames and music is not going to get made (at the same frequency, quality, and complexity) without some form of financial support enabling people to pursue it full time, therefore being able to master that craft to a level a part time person who has to support themselves with another paying job would.
I disagree. Free open source software tends to be every bit as good as their commercial counterparts and many games do as well. I think too many developers focus on the eye candy to attract people to buy their games and often neglect the qualities behind what makes the game fun (I know, gameplay is hard to convey on a box with a handful of bullet points). Just as 3D is really not integral to the core features of a good movie, High-end shaders, cool effects and hyper-realism is not really integral to the quality of game play. Take Morrowind for example. That game was, visually, not that great. Its strengths lie in a great story and an immense world to explore. The game was, in a word, deep.
If they cut back on the whiz-bang graphics that they spend so much money on and look into really nailing down a great game experience, they'd have much better games for less money than they spend today. I think that's why so many indie titles are receiving such huge acclaim. They focus on making a great game overall instead of making it pretty to attract the lowest common denominator. Not to mention the extremely iterative franchises that the biggest companies push out year after year (Madden, CoD, NBA, etc.). If anything, I think the world of big budget games has diluted the quality of games due to the pressure from publishers and shareholders to make developers produce retail hits in spite of creating truly enviable works. As extra credits said, there is typically only one truly top quality game released on a given month.
Yet, morrowind was made by a games studio with several games behind them, in the games industry, it wasn't indie in any way, we wouldn't have skyrim coming soon if it weren't for the production budgets of high end titles.
There is an abundance of great games we would never have if it weren't for high budgets.
High budgets for art-teams is awesome, it's what gives us jobs here, it's the very reason this community exists.
I want to play every obscure indie title as much as I want to fill my need for high-end polished highbudget titles.
No that's theft. Piracy would be you pulling over a boat loaded with goods, killing the crew, and taking everything for yourself. Real piracy is a violent act that does more harm than mere theft. That's why the industry tries to apply such a term to infringement. It invokes an emotional response to the act, that is intended to put public opinion against those that infringe on copyrights. Stealing, theft, and piracy are very emotionally loaded words that are misused to make a bad thing look worse. Would you think it so terrible as a lay man reading about the issue if they referred to it as infringement rather than "piracy"?