I used to pirate games a couple of years ago (although I didn't really end up playing them much), but came around when I found out about the crazyness that is Steam sales. I mean... I can spend 5,- on a game anytime, if it's worth playing it's probably worth my 5,-. So now I play all sorts of old games and new games that are cheap, withouth having to pirate (= ruin peoples job) for it.
My stopping with pirating might also have something to do with threads like this one turning up on Polycount every now and then hehe .
My favorite recent buy was Torchlight. They did it exactly right. You paid $20 for the game, and bought (downloaded) it directly from them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't an argument on my part for piracy. I definitely recognize there's a problem here. But pirates ain't it. It's the way we're running our ship.
Then why on earth are you trying to marginalize the influence of piracy, or advocate it in any way? The retail establishment isn't doing modern game development any favors. We've got that. But that in now way makes it okay to either pirate or leech software. (It is better to call it leeching, less romanticism) With the retail business already being phased out by digital distribution options, it isn't actually appropriate to lay all of the blame at their feet.
You even provided an example where things went right. Although you neglected to mention that Torchlight did in fact get a retail boxed release. And they did actually charge the same amount for the boxed copy that you paid for the download copy. So the game you are so favorable towards was actually treated in the same way, just at a lower initial price point.
The fact that there are issues with retail distribution being outdated is in no way a justification of leeching. And if you try to treat it as if it isn't an issue, it just encourages those people who are leeching. It gives them an excuse to continue their behavior. After all, it isn't actually having any measurable effect, right?
Wrong. It is having an effect. Its making the proposition of game development in general, and PC development in particular, a much riskier financial proposition. Its resulting in game studios closing, and game developers getting laid off.
I'm guessing you posted this to also have an interesting debate on the topic? In that case, I'm going to go ahead and respectfully disagree with you on one point. Where you said he should have bought the game instead of "stealing people's work". You're right about everything else, but I just disagree that copying things is somehow theft.
There is no sane definition of theft that I can think of that would apply to "pirating" software. Stealing is when you take something that belongs to someone else without their permission. If I go to the store and take an orange without permission and without paying, that's stealing. The reason is because the store is now down one orange, I gained an orange, and they have to suffer the losses.
When I download an MP3 from the internet, the person who gave me the file shared it of his own volition. And in addition, he still has his copy. So that person didn't suffer any loss, and we now both have a copy of that song. Everybody wins. It's only when you introduce a completely fictional theoretical scenario, where a person "would have" bought the song through other means if he couldn't have downloaded it, that it looks like potential lost profit. But that's pure speculation, as that person could have also just not bought the song/software. In either case, the artist wouldn't have made a profit.
So unless you can prove that an individual would have otherwise paid for it, it's not theft. And even if you could prove it, it would still be on shaky ground. That's because when you digitally copy something, you don't do it from the original author, you copy it from someone who already has it. And if that person gave consent (which they did by file-sharing), then again it's not theft.
It would be as if I bought that same orange from before at a store, but instead of eating it I gave it to the homeless person outside the store. That homeless person didn't pay for the orange, and yet gets to enjoy it, but he's not a thief.
The only difference is that, unlike an MP3/software, you cannot infinitely replicate an orange. Well, maybe one day, when we're in a Star-Trek post scarcity world
Good luck distributing (even for free) photo copied versions of copyrighted material like books or works of art. Normally you have the right to make personal, educational or "fair use" copies, but you don't have the right to distribute them, especially for profit.
Distributing copies or allowing others to copy your material when they would normally have to go out and purchase it, is exactly like stealing a new sale from the artist/author/developer. If they wouldn't of bought it anyway then they have no right to hold onto it or to use it.
But I downloaded a lot but I never played any of it, so no harm no foul...right?
The way most P2P software works, if you don't remove your downloaded material its going to seed it. Even if you do remove it, it was probably broken up into chunks, as you finished downloading one chunk it was served up to others while the other chunks finished. This means you're now aiding in the distribution of illegal content. Sweet... Way to go you're guilty of a crime and you didn't even get to enjoy the game.
Then why on earth are you trying to marginalize the influence of piracy, or advocate it in any way? The retail establishment isn't doing modern game development any favors. We've got that. But that in now way makes it okay to either pirate or leech software.
I'm marginalizing it because it's turning draconian from the other side.
We've already established there are ways in which this can go right. Small download-only release followed by a boxed release, Steam, Gamefly (if they eventually let you download), etc etc.
So it CAN be right. It just isn't, because it's more profitable to do it the wrong way, then sue your fans and ruin their lives. And I just cannot advocate that.
Bottom line, the way I see it, it can be better, but the people up top are choosing to keep things as is, while at the same time spending tons of money ruining people's lives through draconian court rulings, EULAs, lawsuits and what have you.
Plus, not to mention that you can't even prove a person is a criminal in this case. I said it before, you can't prove that someone who downloads something would have otherwise paid for it. So what now? We're turning into a Guilty Until Proven Innocent society? for what? So that we can keep running an inefficient business model because it makes a few extra dollars to some people.
So now I play all sorts of old games and new games that are cheap, withouth having to pirate (= ruin peoples job) for it.
I'm not sure your 5 (minus the cut Valve gets) is helping multi-million dollar companies much, Japhir.
That said, it's what I do too - it's not a matter of finances, as far as I'm concerned, but of respect. Transactions have to be agreed upon by both parties. The thing about that is that if I were a game developer, I'd rather have someone buy my game dirt cheap at a Steam sale, than have someone pirate my game first and then buy it for full price.
@skankerzero: As far as I know, you can NOT return opened software, of any kind, to any store. It has to be opened in order for you to read the EULA, so after that you're shit out of luck whether you agree to the EULA or not.
That's true, I always forget about that since I've never really had a reason to return open software.
So it CAN be right. It just isn't, because it's more profitable to do it the wrong way, then sue your fans and ruin their lives. And I just cannot advocate that.
It can be quite easily argued that anyone who leeches a copy of a game is not a legitimate "fan" of the game. After all, a genuine fan would want to support the company that produces the game they enjoy.
Bottom line, the way I see it, it can be better, but the people up top are choosing to keep things as is, while at the same time spending tons of money ruining people's lives through draconian court rulings, EULAs, lawsuits and what have you.
As I've pointed out already, leeching games has little effect on the people "up top." They aren't going to be hurt by such practices. And honestly, the vast majority of leeches out there never get sued by publishers or developers. If any of them do get taken task in a court of law, it is just to make an example. Most of the people who have had the courts used against them are active hackers and distributers.
I said it before, you can't prove that someone who downloads something would have otherwise paid for it. So what now? We're turning into a Guilty Until Proven Innocent society? for what? So that we can keep running an inefficient business model because it makes a few extra dollars to some people.
Why would you need to prove that? Is it okay for me to take physical goods, as long as I can prove that I didn't have the money to pay for them? If you are caught leeching software, your hand is in the cookie jar. Nothing else needs to be proven, your guilt in the matter is obvious. And yes, it is actually entirely legal and fair to continue operating an inefficient business model just to make extra money. In fact, a corporation would be acting responsibly to do exactly that, since this would make more money for their stockholders. (which is the point of any major enterprise)
You really don't have a leg to stand on here. Consumers' rights aren't being violated. Games aren't too expensive. The retail establishment is not overstepping its bounds. And gamers have plenty of other alternatives available to them besides piracy, and more legal, legitimate methods are on the way. (such as OnLive, Gakai, and whatever Google is cooking up)
Consumers' rights aren't being violated. Games aren't too expensive. The retail establishment is not overstepping its bounds. And gamers have plenty of other alternatives available to them besides piracy, and more legal, legitimate methods are on the way. (such as OnLive, Gakai, and whatever Google is cooking up)
Well, then, I guess we reached the point where it's agree to disagree. In this case, I suppose what you think is right and wrong isn't the same as what I think.
I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned but this is my take on piracy.
Companies claim they lose X amount of dollars on piracy but it's a mythical number that can't be proved because just because you pirated software doesn't mean if you could NOT you would have bought it.
I pirated a lot of crap when I was kid. I'm talking back when we had BBSes and the internet wasn't this huge thing it is now. As a kid, I had no money, so if I couldn't pirate that game there's no way I would be able to buy it so dev didn't lose any dollars from me.
Does that make pirating okay? Hell no.
Also lowering the price of games won't fix the issue because the low low price of FREE is always better than $1. I know a ton of people who pirate appStore games that cost $1. Why? Because free is better than $1. I think it's silly, but whatever.
Also, I know Activision tags torrents and calls people ISPs threatening to sue if they don't call their customer and tell them to stop downloading said torrent. This doesn't stop all people because some people know how to hide their IP better than others when torrenting.
I was thinking of taking up sailing as a hobby but I have no way to pay for it, so I figured I would slip on down to the marina and nick me a boat.
I also like fast cars, but can't afford them. Good thing there are plenty of those in the marina parking lot also.
If you can't afford it, guess what... you find a way to pay for it or you just don't do it. OR you do it, feel guilty but drown your guilt in a good game and or beer. It's white collar crime, you're not murdering people you're just helping to put people out on the street. Honest, hard working, people that make things you like and want to continue playing in the future.
If you enjoy games and you wish to see people continue making games, then you'll find a way to pay them for their effort. If not I ask that you kindly step aside and stop helping other people steal games.
When you pirate a game, or help other people pirate a game. Then you're potentially taking food out of my babies mouth. You're telling me I should forgo a raise, or I shouldn't buy new car, or I shouldn't look to buy a house. I should take a hit, keep on making stuff you love and just be happy all so you don't have to pay me for my effort... Nice... really nice.
One way or another I'm getting my money out of you. If that happens after the last dev studio shuts down and I mug your fugly ass on a street corner then I guess its all the same. It's up to you really. You can pay me now, or I can stick a shiv between your ribs and stake your shoes too.
So true. I get it, people are cheap and will download things they want but don't want to pay for, it's inevitable. But for them to then try to justify it with the "I wasn't going to buy it anyways so it's not really stealing" argument is just plain stupid. You're not Robin Hood, you're taking someone's hard work because you do not want to pay for it, just admit it.
So much of this thread consists of people saying "It's illegal so it's wrong" but what a lawmaker says about piracy does not necessarily reflect the morality of the situation. It's a massive grey area; and while I do not agree with most forms of piracy, I can understand why so many people do it.
There are many instances where piracy isn't so much about the money, and more about being a more convenient way of acquiring something. This mostly applies to regional releases of film, tv and games, where piracy is sometimes the only real option. Alot of distributors really have some catching up to do if they want people to buy their products.
What bothers me the most about piracy, is the penalties imposed on individuals for being caught. When people are fined millions of dollars for owning illegal copies of music, that individual is royally screwed for life. That also impacts their immediate family who are presumed innocent in the situation. How can a loss of profit from a publisher constitute ruining at least one persons life? Murder can get you a lesser sentence than that.
I thought that article notch (minecraft dev) wrote about piracy a while back was a good read.
Probably barking up the wrong tree at this point, because it was already said before.
But the "lost revenue" argument comes from the anti-piracy people, not from me.
Again, when you take something from someone it's immoral and a crime because that person is then down whatever it is you took from them. You wanna do sailing and go nick a boat? someone just lost a boat.
You download a piece of software from the web, nobody lost anything. Still as many copies of it available as there were before.
This is when the anti-piracy people (99% of the crowd here it seems) chime in with "yeah, but it's a loss of potential revenue". The notion being that the person would have bought the game, but didn't.
Then I say, well, you can't prove that, and last time I checked a person was innocent until proven guilty. So people chime back with "we don't need to prove it. it's just like nicking a boat from the marina". And I say "that person is then down whatever it is you took from them"...
Next thing I know I'm Bill Murray and it's groundhog day. This whole argument seems to be circular.
I thought that article notch (minecraft dev) wrote about piracy a while back was a good read.
This was the best way for him to handle it PR-wise, note that he still never said it was okay for people to do it, and also that his particular game is very online centric and is structured around a verification system.
This pretty much made up my mind on how the majority of pirates think, no motive, no honor, no gray zones, just free games:
And I've also started to accept the situation where it cannot be fought anymore, and that most developers are better off moving to more connected experiences where you give customers a service rather than an untangable piece of binary code.
You download a piece of software from the web, nobody lost anything. Still as many copies of it available as there were before.
So you sneak into the movies, and watch movies for free. No one lost anything right? They can just keep replaying those movies over and over. You weren't gonna pay anyways.
So you sneak into the movies, and watch movies for free. No one lost anything right? They can just keep replaying those movies over and over. You weren't gonna pay anyways.
Sneak into a theme park, same thing.
Sneak into a concert or any kind of performance.
Are these examples moral actions too?
No, they're not moral because you're talking about trespassing. It's private property that you're not supposed to physically be on.
Yet another strawman that people insist on constructing in this case.
This was the best way for him to handle it PR-wise, note that he still never said it was okay for people to do it, and also that his particular game is very online centric and is structured around a verification system.
Yeah, but that's why it was a good read. He acknowledged piracy exists, gave his views as to why it exists and said how he planned to fight it. Obviously it won't work for everything, but it was interesting regardless.
Yeah, but that's why it was a good read. He acknowledged piracy exists, gave his views as to why it exists and said how he planned to fight it. Obviously it won't work for everything, but it was interesting regardless.
He had been extremely anti-pirates earlier, but it managed to piss off alot of people, including his customers, so he wrote a good bunch of text to repair it, it was a good move.
Most publishers and devlopers will try to stay away from that issue publicly and handle it more silently, DRM and fighting piracy openly is quite bad PR.
You download a piece of software from the web, nobody lost anything. Still as many copies of it available as there were before.
Someone distributed that copy outside of the traditional legal channels which pay people for their efforts. They didn't have the right to give you that game and you didn't have the right to take it. Just because its free and no physical copy was actually stolen, doesn't mean it wasn't given to you illegally.
You don't have the right to distribute copies. Bottom line. That's it.
This is when the anti-piracy people (99% of the crowd here it seems) chime in with "yeah, but it's a loss of potential revenue". The notion being that the person would have bought the game, but didn't.
YOU do not have the right to distribute copies of software you did not make. Point blank, making a copy and giving to someone else is not a right you posses. Whatever the logic is behind those laws, you don't have that right. If you disagree with the laws then fight to get them changed. But as it stands, if you make copies and pass them around you're participating in illegal distribution.
By distributing copies of things you did not make you are potentially robbing the people that distribute the game of a new sale. How much of that actually hurts people is up for debate, but it still hurts. So in your book its ok as long as it only hurts people a little.
Nice... way to be a dick. How about you pay people for the monumental effort they put into creating something you enjoy playing?
YOU do not have the right to distribute copies of software you did not make. Point blank, making a copy and giving to someone else is not a right you posses.
And what I'm asking you, is why is software the only thing on this earth that this "logic" applies to?
Nobody had a problem with me buying an orange and giving it to the homeless guy outside the store. I can buy a pair of jeans and give it to my girlfriend, no problems there. How come you guys don't chime in then with "YOU do not have the right to distribute pairs of jeans you did not make"? What about if I buy a video-game, play it, enjoy it, then sell it to my neighbor? Still, I don't hear anyone saying that I cannot distribute things I bought without permission.
It's only software, and only that little thing that for some reason the rules don't apply. Anything else in this world, when you buy it, you own it to do whatever you want with it.
Not software. They can sell it, then have further rights on the item after it's sold.
Nice... way to be a dick. How about you pay people for the monumental effort they put into creating something you enjoy playing?
I buy games on a regular basis. Dunno what you're talking about.
Again, when you take something from someone it's immoral and a crime because that person is then down whatever it is you took from them. You wanna do sailing and go nick a boat? someone just lost a boat.
You are actively arguing that intangible products can only have an intangible value. If that is the case, then it is acceptable to "acquire" the intangible product in question without compensation? After all, the money that would be made from it is purely theoretical? It's all just ones and zeros, so no one is hurt, yes?
How do you think people feel when money is electronically taken from their bank accounts? The money wasn't real, so they shouldn't miss it?
But you are discounting the time, effort, and expertise that was invested into the intangible product. People are usually compensated for providing such services. There is no such thing as commissioned titles, or government subsidies for game development. It is a commercial venture. If game developers are not compensated for the intangible items they produce, they can no longer afford to produce them.
The money that goes into game development is not theoretical. When that investment cannot earn a positive return, people get fired, and studios close down. No investor is going to front the cash for game development without a return on investment. Take away the money necessary for development, and no one will be able to afford to make games.
I'm arguing that, just like any product, the maker has the right to set the price as they see fit, and sell that product for that price. And just like any product, once they sell it, it's not theirs anymore and their customers can do whatever they want with that product. I'm arguing that intangible things are no different than any other product as far as selling them.
You guys are arguing that they are different in that with software it's possible to somehow sell something, and yet not sell it too. To have the cake and eat it too.
To not only make a profit off of the initial sale, but off of any use of that product forever and ever.
You can sell a video-game. I never argued against that, or that games should be free. You cannot add a caveat to it that says the person cannot then resell it (like Autodesk), or to earn an income on it forever and ever.
Nobody had a problem with me buying an orange and giving it to the homeless guy outside the store. I can buy a pair of jeans and give it to my girlfriend, no problems there. How come you guys don't chime in then with "YOU do not have the right to distribute pairs of jeans you did not make"? What about if I buy a video-game, play it, enjoy it, then sell it to my neighbor? Still, I don't hear anyone saying that I cannot distribute things I bought without permission.
When you give an orange to a hobo, do you then have an orange? If you give a pair of jeans to your girlfriend, do you still have a pair of jeans?
When you distribute an instance of software over a peer-to-peer network, do you then delete the copy that is on your computer? No, you CAN'T delete the copy on your computer. The P2P software requires that the copy remain on your computer as long as you are distributing it. Are you just distributing one copy of the software, and then you delete it once that's finished? No, the P2P software can distribute that one copy to hundreds, even thousands of other users simultaneously.
This isn't a matter of exchange. You are virally reproducing the software en-mass. You are serving as a digital factory, cranking out numerous copies of the software in question without the knowledge, consent, or control of those people who created it.
Kids these days... Pirating is a real problem, and it bothers me to no end to think about how each year the new generation of gamers are developing this attitude of entitlement towards free software. It's a bad habit that gets reinforced with every free download. But no amount of idealism is going to change the world, stop people from downloading. The business model needs to change if profits are going to be gauranteed, Dinosaurs will die as it were. Here's a couple articles I read today that apply very well to this thread:
From the creator of minecraft:
Translation from Swedish, originally by Google, I just fixed most strangeness:
Markus Persson has been a name in the video game world with his game Mine Craft. half a million copies sold.
Its success has made him a multimillionaire and he is now building his own computer game company called Mojang (GADGET in english).
But despite his new businesses stand or fall on that people actually pay for the games, he is the law against illegal downloading. And he voted for the Pirate Party in the election.
I do not think you can call the illegal downloading of theft. As far as my game there would in that case be me who have been robbed but I have not lost something, "said Mark Pearson to E24.
Possibly it is copyright violation.
He says that he himself, when he was young, downloaded games illegally, but it was mostly that it was the easiest way to get the game.
I still have a sense that people pay for games because they think it's right. Then, I also personally think it's more fun to play a game that I have paid for, then I am prepared to spend a little more work to get into it.
He doesn't believe in prohibition of illegal downloading.
Sooner or later the system to see software as a property will collapse. As a game maker, it is possible to put things in the game that prevents copying, but it often affects those who bought the game" he says.
These barriers are often temporary, the players soon learn to overcome them.
It is better to instead create services that encourage players to rather buy the game than downloading it illegally.
Instead of watching those who copied the game like thieves, I see them as potential customers. You have to lure them with the help of additional services, "he says.
For example, says Markus Persson, a matter of logging on to a platform that is tied to the game. The platform may in turn require a code that you get when you buy the game.
He does not, however, believe in total freedom.
It's not good if a company, for example, could steal a movie and sell it on.
How many of those who have downloaded Mine Craft believe you paid for it?
I think that the majority of those who have the game paid for it. But maybe that's naive, "says Markus Persson.
Long story short, games need to change their model by providing an online service that transcends a free download. But we've known this for almost a decade now.
"I'm not a pirate, I'm just a preemptive nautical salvage expert!"
Seriously though, the whole orange simile and the whole "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" argument is complete and utter bull.
First of all, games arent an essential foodstuff we would all benefit from having the ability to clone indefinitely. Secondly, while its not stealing in an 12th century sense of the word, its spit-in-my-face insulting. Lets say you took your magical orange cloning device to a ferrari dealership, tuned it in on an enzo, and started giving all the pedestrians passing by the shop a free car. Now, while its blindingly obvious that not everyone passing the shop would have bought a car, the guy still goes out of business.
I'd love to live in a world where everyones needs are met, so I wont have to charge for the work I do, but until then I will still say that you spit in my face if you use my services without paying for it.
Theft may not be the word, so lets try "rape" on for size, shall we? :P
I seem to be getting the impression that its a popular thought that theres a big correlation between studios not selling games and people pirating them.
I would disagree, that piracy is entirely (or significantly) to blame/the cause.
Rather I would suggest that piracy is the symptom of a much bigger problem. And that is that they just don't make games the way they used to. so they're not selling. ...
I don't mean to get really personal, but when I was kid we didn't play games for a few hours. We played games until we beat them, or until your stomach hurt from not eating for 30 hours because you couldn't pry yourself away from an amazing game.
That's not how I play most games now. I play for 2 hours and never play again.
While I can't speak for everyone I know a lot of people that feel/act the same way. (in the same respect they're others that don't)
I don't pirate them. but I DON'T BUY THEM. not buying games = unsuccessful game.
I'm not trying to condone, support, or encourage piracy, or even the opposite. People should be paid for what they do, and the work they put, and it is great work.
but
I just want to put it out there that the assumption that studios and developers are losing a lot of money (and jobs etc) isn't solely based on piracy. But rather piracy is a symptom of much bigger issue.
So then you hate piracy out of spite? It's because that with the orange, I lose an orange that you want me to lose my copy of the game?
I thought this was all about what benefits the developers. How does a person losing his copy of the game benefit anyone?
If you could magically reproduce your oranges, and then handed thousands of them out for free to everyone around the grocery store you just bought it from, how many people are going to be hungry for oranges? Oh, I'm sure there will be some exceptions. Maybe someone liked the orange so much that they decided to go buy another. But the grocery store's sales of oranges will probably drop precipitously because of what you did.
If you had to lose your copy of a game in order for someone to acquire a copy of the game, then you would be less inclined to just hand it out, wouldn't you? Oh sure, maybe in some instances you would be more than willing to just let go of it. Maybe it wasn't a great game and you don't really mind losing it to a friend that you give it to. Or maybe your friend promises to give it back when he's done. But it is just a single commodity that you have to acquire in order to enjoy.
With most software, that is not the case. Any computer that can run software can likely also crank out numerous copies of that software. This makes software development a risky venture. The grocery scenario could happen to anything and everything a company produces. Sometimes legal sanctions are the only way that they can slap people's hands away from their virtual printing presses.
You can't say that an action is justified just because it is easy, or because so many other people are doing it. It remains a fact that widespread software leeching is damaging to the video game industry, and those people who produce games in particular.
Going in circles. My reply to that is stuff that I already typed a few pages back, so not going to repeat.
The only addition I wanna make is, that the guys from Southpark said it best in their RIAA episode. A kid downloading a Britney Spears (or whoever kids listen to nowadays) CD in MP3, and that kid somehow buying that CD, isn't a choice between Britney Spears starving, or her making a living. It's a choice between her being a multi-millionaire, or her being just REAL wealthy.
To sit here and pretend that we would all be super rich awesome rockstars if only that damn piracy thing didn't exist, is a bit on the ridiculous side of things.
To sit here and pretend that we would all be super rich awesome rockstars if only that damn piracy thing didn't exist, is a bit on the ridiculous side of things.
No one said that from what I've read. The point in the first post was that piracy is the difference between keeping your job and working on a sequel and the IP being discontinued and the studio closed or having layoffs.
To sit here and pretend that we would all be super rich awesome rockstars if only that damn piracy thing didn't exist, is a bit on the ridiculous side of things.
You want to try pitching that theory to the hundreds of people who work on triple-A games? Or perhaps to the indie developers who have trouble making ends meet? Do you honestly think that the hard-working men and women who are actually responsible for game development are eating off of gold flatware and wiping their asses with hundred dollar bills?
Game developers are not rock stars, and the vast majority of them would never be considered wealthy. A lot of them are being laid off at the moment. A lot of development is being outsourced to other countries, leaving skilled developers out on the street. A lot of those developers are leaving the industry for professions where there isn't as much risk.
And in no way does wholesale leeching help any of these problems. It cannot possibly be argued that leeching is in any way good for the game industry. You aren't taking a few cents from Britney Spears. You're convincing a major corporation to lay off Joe Developer in favor of cheaper labor in Bangladesh.
No one said that from what I've read. The point in the first post was that piracy is the difference between keeping your job and working on a sequel and the IP being discontinued and the studio closed or having layoffs.
No one said that from what I've read. The point in the first post was that piracy is the difference between keeping your job and working on a sequel and the IP being discontinued and the studio closed or having layoffs.
Actually the original thread starter implied it with being the reason him being out of work without any other acknowledgment of other causes.
No one said that from what I've read. The point in the first post was that piracy is the difference between keeping your job and working on a sequel and the IP being discontinued and the studio closed or having layoffs.
This, being a celebrity is a pretty stable job, the game industry isnt, people loose jobs all the time and have to move around the country looking for another.
Pirating from the RIAA isn't the same as pirating from an indy label.
You want to try pitching that theory to the hundreds of people who work on triple-A games? Or perhaps to the indie developers who have trouble making ends meet? Do you honestly think that the hard-working men and women who are actually responsible for game development are eating off of gold flatware and wiping their asses with hundred dollar bills?
Game developers are not rock stars, and the vast majority of them would never be considered wealthy. A lot of them are being laid off at the moment. A lot of development is being outsourced to other countries, leaving skilled developers out on the street. A lot of those developers are leaving the industry for professions where there isn't as much risk.
And in no way does wholesale leeching help any of these problems. It cannot possibly be argued that leeching is in any way good for the game industry. You aren't taking a few cents from Britney Spears. You're convincing a major corporation to lay off Joe Developer in favor of cheaper labor in Bangladesh.
I never claimed we were rockstars. I'm well aware that I'm not one, inspite of being a game developer. And if piracy were to be completely abolished tomorrow, guess what? I still wouldn't be a rock star. So what is there to complain about? This whole thing seems ridiculous to me.
No it isn't actually. Celebrities constantly have to redefine themselves to keep in the limelight and get more work. Its not like they have steady paychecks as actors. Yes they get huge amounts. But if they aren't working on getting the next job what they already have in the bank will last until work comes again.
They are much like us with constant portfolio reworking.
I was thinking of taking up sailing as a hobby but I have no way to pay for it, so I figured I would slip on down to the marina and nick me a boat.
I also like fast cars, but can't afford them. Good thing there are plenty of those in the marina parking lot also.
If you can't afford it, guess what... you find a way to pay for it or you just don't do it. OR you do it, feel guilty but drown your guilt in a good game and or beer. It's white collar crime, you're not murdering people you're just helping to put people out on the street. Honest, hard working, people that make things you like and want to continue playing in the future.
If you enjoy games and you wish to see people continue making games, then you'll find a way to pay them for their effort. If not I ask that you kindly step aside and stop helping other people steal games.
When you pirate a game, or help other people pirate a game. Then you're potentially taking food out of my babies mouth. You're telling me I should forgo a raise, or I shouldn't buy new car, or I shouldn't look to buy a house. I should take a hit, keep on making stuff you love and just be happy all so you don't have to pay me for my effort... Nice... really nice.
One way or another I'm getting my money out of you. If that happens after the last dev studio shuts down and I mug your fugly ass on a street corner then I guess its all the same. It's up to you really. You can pay me now, or I can stick a shiv between your ribs and stake your shoes too.
...I do believe I owe you a beer. Pick a place and time.
To sit here and pretend that we would all be super rich awesome rockstars if only that damn piracy thing didn't exist, is a bit on the ridiculous side of things.
I've read every post in this thread, and I've seen no claim to anyone wanting to be a wealthy rockstar. What I have seen, however, is people talking about still being able to make a living doing what they love.
I understand your reasoning, and logic, for playing Devil's Advocate here. Much like the 'leechers' themselves, I doubt anyone will sway you in your beliefs.
You can throw all the "technically", "at the root of the word", etc. into your debate, but I still believe it to be an immoral act that directly impacts myself, my industry, the work I love, and the people I care about in a negative way. I couldn't care less what the definition of theft is and how it can be twisted to make this 'ok'. Words are redefined every day, and I think this is just a case of tacking on a little something extra to this one. New world, New rules.
I've read every post in this thread, and I've seen no claim to anyone wanting to be a wealthy rockstar. What I have seen, however, is people talking about still being able to make a living doing what they love.
I understand your reasoning, and logic, for playing Devil's Advocate here. Much like the 'leechers' themselves, I doubt anyone will sway you in your beliefs.
You can throw all the "technically", "at the root of the word", etc. into your debate, but I still believe it to be an immoral act that directly impacts myself, my industry, the work I love, and the people I care about in a negative way. I couldn't care less what the definition of theft is and how it can be twisted to make this 'ok'. Words are redefined every day, and I think this is just a case of tacking on a little something extra to this one. New world, New rules.
You're making it sound as if I'm arguing just to be a jerk. I'm not. I actually believe what I'm saying, and I believe it's the anti-piracy people who are doing the wrong thing by supporting, maybe without realizing it, a corrupt corporate culture.
This is more than semantics. It's about the false belief that "pirates" are the cause of all our trouble. And I don't believe there are people out there unemployed just because of piracy. Bigger economic issues are responsible.
That, plus sick corporate culture that goes on at the top of the food chain. Only instead of discussing that, they just go "Look! Pirates!", and everyone ignores the problems that exist in our own industry.
I'm saying this from my own personal point of view, and of course I'm not speaking on the behalf of my employer.
I've seen my games pop up on torrent sites, and we've had mails go around the office pointing these things out. It doesn't make me sad, really, and I've never heard anyone get upset over it. There's enough people buying the games for things to work out just well in the end, providing the marketing is there and the product is good and appeals to the right people.
I think some of you guys need to take a breath and chill. Sure, we'd all be better off if piracy didn't exist, but it's here and it won't go away. Like it or not, it's part of our culture now, and we're just fooling ourselves if we think getting pissed off at this will lead to anything other than the good feeling we get from letting off some steam. Doing that is fine, but please try to understand that laws won't change people. You can't legislate away a culture that's taken hold like this.
What we need to do is accept a certain loss, and focus on making the fucking best product we possibly can. If we lose our jobs because of poor sales of a product, trust me when I say it wouldn't have made any difference if zero people had pirated the game, and that it's more than likely that the problem was chiefly elsewhere.
(You'd be surprised (or would you?) how you can make a business work by managing your expectations and keeping a good balance between being realistic and having your head in the clouds.)
Now, let's calm the fuck down and go make awesome games (or just awesome artwork).
Replies
You made me do it.
My stopping with pirating might also have something to do with threads like this one turning up on Polycount every now and then hehe
Then why on earth are you trying to marginalize the influence of piracy, or advocate it in any way? The retail establishment isn't doing modern game development any favors. We've got that. But that in now way makes it okay to either pirate or leech software. (It is better to call it leeching, less romanticism) With the retail business already being phased out by digital distribution options, it isn't actually appropriate to lay all of the blame at their feet.
You even provided an example where things went right. Although you neglected to mention that Torchlight did in fact get a retail boxed release. And they did actually charge the same amount for the boxed copy that you paid for the download copy. So the game you are so favorable towards was actually treated in the same way, just at a lower initial price point.
The fact that there are issues with retail distribution being outdated is in no way a justification of leeching. And if you try to treat it as if it isn't an issue, it just encourages those people who are leeching. It gives them an excuse to continue their behavior. After all, it isn't actually having any measurable effect, right?
Wrong. It is having an effect. Its making the proposition of game development in general, and PC development in particular, a much riskier financial proposition. Its resulting in game studios closing, and game developers getting laid off.
Distributing copies or allowing others to copy your material when they would normally have to go out and purchase it, is exactly like stealing a new sale from the artist/author/developer. If they wouldn't of bought it anyway then they have no right to hold onto it or to use it.
But I downloaded a lot but I never played any of it, so no harm no foul...right?
The way most P2P software works, if you don't remove your downloaded material its going to seed it. Even if you do remove it, it was probably broken up into chunks, as you finished downloading one chunk it was served up to others while the other chunks finished. This means you're now aiding in the distribution of illegal content. Sweet... Way to go you're guilty of a crime and you didn't even get to enjoy the game.
I'm marginalizing it because it's turning draconian from the other side.
We've already established there are ways in which this can go right. Small download-only release followed by a boxed release, Steam, Gamefly (if they eventually let you download), etc etc.
So it CAN be right. It just isn't, because it's more profitable to do it the wrong way, then sue your fans and ruin their lives. And I just cannot advocate that.
Bottom line, the way I see it, it can be better, but the people up top are choosing to keep things as is, while at the same time spending tons of money ruining people's lives through draconian court rulings, EULAs, lawsuits and what have you.
Plus, not to mention that you can't even prove a person is a criminal in this case. I said it before, you can't prove that someone who downloads something would have otherwise paid for it. So what now? We're turning into a Guilty Until Proven Innocent society? for what? So that we can keep running an inefficient business model because it makes a few extra dollars to some people.
Actually, I mostly posted it to vent amongst others who understood the topic, but I never begrudge anybody some good debate and discourse.
I will say, though, I didn't think I'd wake up today to a 5-page thread. :poly115:
Happy Halloween then!
That said, it's what I do too - it's not a matter of finances, as far as I'm concerned, but of respect. Transactions have to be agreed upon by both parties. The thing about that is that if I were a game developer, I'd rather have someone buy my game dirt cheap at a Steam sale, than have someone pirate my game first and then buy it for full price.
You may accept all these are a factor. However, you only acknowledged that in your reply as the cause. Which is somewhat dishonest.
That's true, I always forget about that since I've never really had a reason to return open software.
It can be quite easily argued that anyone who leeches a copy of a game is not a legitimate "fan" of the game. After all, a genuine fan would want to support the company that produces the game they enjoy.
As I've pointed out already, leeching games has little effect on the people "up top." They aren't going to be hurt by such practices. And honestly, the vast majority of leeches out there never get sued by publishers or developers. If any of them do get taken task in a court of law, it is just to make an example. Most of the people who have had the courts used against them are active hackers and distributers.
Why would you need to prove that? Is it okay for me to take physical goods, as long as I can prove that I didn't have the money to pay for them? If you are caught leeching software, your hand is in the cookie jar. Nothing else needs to be proven, your guilt in the matter is obvious. And yes, it is actually entirely legal and fair to continue operating an inefficient business model just to make extra money. In fact, a corporation would be acting responsibly to do exactly that, since this would make more money for their stockholders. (which is the point of any major enterprise)
You really don't have a leg to stand on here. Consumers' rights aren't being violated. Games aren't too expensive. The retail establishment is not overstepping its bounds. And gamers have plenty of other alternatives available to them besides piracy, and more legal, legitimate methods are on the way. (such as OnLive, Gakai, and whatever Google is cooking up)
Well, then, I guess we reached the point where it's agree to disagree. In this case, I suppose what you think is right and wrong isn't the same as what I think.
Companies claim they lose X amount of dollars on piracy but it's a mythical number that can't be proved because just because you pirated software doesn't mean if you could NOT you would have bought it.
I pirated a lot of crap when I was kid. I'm talking back when we had BBSes and the internet wasn't this huge thing it is now. As a kid, I had no money, so if I couldn't pirate that game there's no way I would be able to buy it so dev didn't lose any dollars from me.
Does that make pirating okay? Hell no.
Also lowering the price of games won't fix the issue because the low low price of FREE is always better than $1. I know a ton of people who pirate appStore games that cost $1. Why? Because free is better than $1. I think it's silly, but whatever.
Also, I know Activision tags torrents and calls people ISPs threatening to sue if they don't call their customer and tell them to stop downloading said torrent. This doesn't stop all people because some people know how to hide their IP better than others when torrenting.
I also like fast cars, but can't afford them. Good thing there are plenty of those in the marina parking lot also.
If you can't afford it, guess what... you find a way to pay for it or you just don't do it. OR you do it, feel guilty but drown your guilt in a good game and or beer. It's white collar crime, you're not murdering people you're just helping to put people out on the street. Honest, hard working, people that make things you like and want to continue playing in the future.
If you enjoy games and you wish to see people continue making games, then you'll find a way to pay them for their effort. If not I ask that you kindly step aside and stop helping other people steal games.
When you pirate a game, or help other people pirate a game. Then you're potentially taking food out of my babies mouth. You're telling me I should forgo a raise, or I shouldn't buy new car, or I shouldn't look to buy a house. I should take a hit, keep on making stuff you love and just be happy all so you don't have to pay me for my effort... Nice... really nice.
One way or another I'm getting my money out of you. If that happens after the last dev studio shuts down and I mug your fugly ass on a street corner then I guess its all the same. It's up to you really. You can pay me now, or I can stick a shiv between your ribs and stake your shoes too.
There are many instances where piracy isn't so much about the money, and more about being a more convenient way of acquiring something. This mostly applies to regional releases of film, tv and games, where piracy is sometimes the only real option. Alot of distributors really have some catching up to do if they want people to buy their products.
What bothers me the most about piracy, is the penalties imposed on individuals for being caught. When people are fined millions of dollars for owning illegal copies of music, that individual is royally screwed for life. That also impacts their immediate family who are presumed innocent in the situation. How can a loss of profit from a publisher constitute ruining at least one persons life? Murder can get you a lesser sentence than that.
I thought that article notch (minecraft dev) wrote about piracy a while back was a good read.
But the "lost revenue" argument comes from the anti-piracy people, not from me.
Again, when you take something from someone it's immoral and a crime because that person is then down whatever it is you took from them. You wanna do sailing and go nick a boat? someone just lost a boat.
You download a piece of software from the web, nobody lost anything. Still as many copies of it available as there were before.
This is when the anti-piracy people (99% of the crowd here it seems) chime in with "yeah, but it's a loss of potential revenue". The notion being that the person would have bought the game, but didn't.
Then I say, well, you can't prove that, and last time I checked a person was innocent until proven guilty. So people chime back with "we don't need to prove it. it's just like nicking a boat from the marina". And I say "that person is then down whatever it is you took from them"...
Next thing I know I'm Bill Murray and it's groundhog day. This whole argument seems to be circular.
This was the best way for him to handle it PR-wise, note that he still never said it was okay for people to do it, and also that his particular game is very online centric and is structured around a verification system.
This pretty much made up my mind on how the majority of pirates think, no motive, no honor, no gray zones, just free games:
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle
And I've also started to accept the situation where it cannot be fought anymore, and that most developers are better off moving to more connected experiences where you give customers a service rather than an untangable piece of binary code.
or donationware.
So you sneak into the movies, and watch movies for free. No one lost anything right? They can just keep replaying those movies over and over. You weren't gonna pay anyways.
Sneak into a theme park, same thing.
Sneak into a concert or any kind of performance.
Are these examples moral actions too?
No, they're not moral because you're talking about trespassing. It's private property that you're not supposed to physically be on.
Yet another strawman that people insist on constructing in this case.
With piracy there is no trespassing.
Yeah, but that's why it was a good read. He acknowledged piracy exists, gave his views as to why it exists and said how he planned to fight it. Obviously it won't work for everything, but it was interesting regardless.
He had been extremely anti-pirates earlier, but it managed to piss off alot of people, including his customers, so he wrote a good bunch of text to repair it, it was a good move.
Most publishers and devlopers will try to stay away from that issue publicly and handle it more silently, DRM and fighting piracy openly is quite bad PR.
You don't have the right to distribute copies. Bottom line. That's it.
YOU do not have the right to distribute copies of software you did not make. Point blank, making a copy and giving to someone else is not a right you posses. Whatever the logic is behind those laws, you don't have that right. If you disagree with the laws then fight to get them changed. But as it stands, if you make copies and pass them around you're participating in illegal distribution.
By distributing copies of things you did not make you are potentially robbing the people that distribute the game of a new sale. How much of that actually hurts people is up for debate, but it still hurts. So in your book its ok as long as it only hurts people a little.
Nice... way to be a dick. How about you pay people for the monumental effort they put into creating something you enjoy playing?
That breaks down with online games. As you are trespassing on private master servers. In other words private networks.
And what I'm asking you, is why is software the only thing on this earth that this "logic" applies to?
Nobody had a problem with me buying an orange and giving it to the homeless guy outside the store. I can buy a pair of jeans and give it to my girlfriend, no problems there. How come you guys don't chime in then with "YOU do not have the right to distribute pairs of jeans you did not make"? What about if I buy a video-game, play it, enjoy it, then sell it to my neighbor? Still, I don't hear anyone saying that I cannot distribute things I bought without permission.
It's only software, and only that little thing that for some reason the rules don't apply. Anything else in this world, when you buy it, you own it to do whatever you want with it.
Not software. They can sell it, then have further rights on the item after it's sold.
I buy games on a regular basis. Dunno what you're talking about.
And piracy isn't a problem with WoW. It's also quite easy to secure the connections.
You can also say that there is one less seat in the theater since you buy the ticket not just for the movie, but for the seating as well.
You are actively arguing that intangible products can only have an intangible value. If that is the case, then it is acceptable to "acquire" the intangible product in question without compensation? After all, the money that would be made from it is purely theoretical? It's all just ones and zeros, so no one is hurt, yes?
How do you think people feel when money is electronically taken from their bank accounts? The money wasn't real, so they shouldn't miss it?
But you are discounting the time, effort, and expertise that was invested into the intangible product. People are usually compensated for providing such services. There is no such thing as commissioned titles, or government subsidies for game development. It is a commercial venture. If game developers are not compensated for the intangible items they produce, they can no longer afford to produce them.
The money that goes into game development is not theoretical. When that investment cannot earn a positive return, people get fired, and studios close down. No investor is going to front the cash for game development without a return on investment. Take away the money necessary for development, and no one will be able to afford to make games.
I'm arguing that, just like any product, the maker has the right to set the price as they see fit, and sell that product for that price. And just like any product, once they sell it, it's not theirs anymore and their customers can do whatever they want with that product. I'm arguing that intangible things are no different than any other product as far as selling them.
You guys are arguing that they are different in that with software it's possible to somehow sell something, and yet not sell it too. To have the cake and eat it too.
To not only make a profit off of the initial sale, but off of any use of that product forever and ever.
You can sell a video-game. I never argued against that, or that games should be free. You cannot add a caveat to it that says the person cannot then resell it (like Autodesk), or to earn an income on it forever and ever.
When you give an orange to a hobo, do you then have an orange? If you give a pair of jeans to your girlfriend, do you still have a pair of jeans?
When you distribute an instance of software over a peer-to-peer network, do you then delete the copy that is on your computer? No, you CAN'T delete the copy on your computer. The P2P software requires that the copy remain on your computer as long as you are distributing it. Are you just distributing one copy of the software, and then you delete it once that's finished? No, the P2P software can distribute that one copy to hundreds, even thousands of other users simultaneously.
This isn't a matter of exchange. You are virally reproducing the software en-mass. You are serving as a digital factory, cranking out numerous copies of the software in question without the knowledge, consent, or control of those people who created it.
So then you hate piracy out of spite? It's because that with the orange, I lose an orange that you want me to lose my copy of the game?
I thought this was all about what benefits the developers. How does a person losing his copy of the game benefit anyone?
:C
From the creator of minecraft:
Translation from Swedish, originally by Google, I just fixed most strangeness:
Markus Persson has been a name in the video game world with his game Mine Craft. half a million copies sold.
Its success has made him a multimillionaire and he is now building his own computer game company called Mojang (GADGET in english).
But despite his new businesses stand or fall on that people actually pay for the games, he is the law against illegal downloading. And he voted for the Pirate Party in the election.
- I do not think you can call the illegal downloading of theft. As far as my game there would in that case be me who have been robbed but I have not lost something, "said Mark Pearson to E24.
- Possibly it is copyright violation.
He says that he himself, when he was young, downloaded games illegally, but it was mostly that it was the easiest way to get the game.- I still have a sense that people pay for games because they think it's right. Then, I also personally think it's more fun to play a game that I have paid for, then I am prepared to spend a little more work to get into it.
He doesn't believe in prohibition of illegal downloading.- Sooner or later the system to see software as a property will collapse. As a game maker, it is possible to put things in the game that prevents copying, but it often affects those who bought the game" he says.
- These barriers are often temporary, the players soon learn to overcome them.
It is better to instead create services that encourage players to rather buy the game than downloading it illegally.- Instead of watching those who copied the game like thieves, I see them as potential customers. You have to lure them with the help of additional services, "he says.
For example, says Markus Persson, a matter of logging on to a platform that is tied to the game. The platform may in turn require a code that you get when you buy the game.He does not, however, believe in total freedom.
- It's not good if a company, for example, could steal a movie and sell it on.
How many of those who have downloaded Mine Craft believe you paid for it?And from the creator of League of Legends:
http://kotaku.com/5676793/the-future-of-pc-gaming-according-to-the-lead-creator-of-league-of-legends
Long story short, games need to change their model by providing an online service that transcends a free download. But we've known this for almost a decade now.
Seriously though, the whole orange simile and the whole "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" argument is complete and utter bull.
First of all, games arent an essential foodstuff we would all benefit from having the ability to clone indefinitely. Secondly, while its not stealing in an 12th century sense of the word, its spit-in-my-face insulting. Lets say you took your magical orange cloning device to a ferrari dealership, tuned it in on an enzo, and started giving all the pedestrians passing by the shop a free car. Now, while its blindingly obvious that not everyone passing the shop would have bought a car, the guy still goes out of business.
I'd love to live in a world where everyones needs are met, so I wont have to charge for the work I do, but until then I will still say that you spit in my face if you use my services without paying for it.
Theft may not be the word, so lets try "rape" on for size, shall we? :P
I would disagree, that piracy is entirely (or significantly) to blame/the cause.
Rather I would suggest that piracy is the symptom of a much bigger problem. And that is that they just don't make games the way they used to. so they're not selling. ...
I don't mean to get really personal, but when I was kid we didn't play games for a few hours. We played games until we beat them, or until your stomach hurt from not eating for 30 hours because you couldn't pry yourself away from an amazing game.
That's not how I play most games now. I play for 2 hours and never play again.
While I can't speak for everyone I know a lot of people that feel/act the same way. (in the same respect they're others that don't)
I don't pirate them. but I DON'T BUY THEM. not buying games = unsuccessful game.
I'm not trying to condone, support, or encourage piracy, or even the opposite. People should be paid for what they do, and the work they put, and it is great work.
but
I just want to put it out there that the assumption that studios and developers are losing a lot of money (and jobs etc) isn't solely based on piracy. But rather piracy is a symptom of much bigger issue.
If you could magically reproduce your oranges, and then handed thousands of them out for free to everyone around the grocery store you just bought it from, how many people are going to be hungry for oranges? Oh, I'm sure there will be some exceptions. Maybe someone liked the orange so much that they decided to go buy another. But the grocery store's sales of oranges will probably drop precipitously because of what you did.
If you had to lose your copy of a game in order for someone to acquire a copy of the game, then you would be less inclined to just hand it out, wouldn't you? Oh sure, maybe in some instances you would be more than willing to just let go of it. Maybe it wasn't a great game and you don't really mind losing it to a friend that you give it to. Or maybe your friend promises to give it back when he's done. But it is just a single commodity that you have to acquire in order to enjoy.
With most software, that is not the case. Any computer that can run software can likely also crank out numerous copies of that software. This makes software development a risky venture. The grocery scenario could happen to anything and everything a company produces. Sometimes legal sanctions are the only way that they can slap people's hands away from their virtual printing presses.
You can't say that an action is justified just because it is easy, or because so many other people are doing it. It remains a fact that widespread software leeching is damaging to the video game industry, and those people who produce games in particular.
The only addition I wanna make is, that the guys from Southpark said it best in their RIAA episode. A kid downloading a Britney Spears (or whoever kids listen to nowadays) CD in MP3, and that kid somehow buying that CD, isn't a choice between Britney Spears starving, or her making a living. It's a choice between her being a multi-millionaire, or her being just REAL wealthy.
To sit here and pretend that we would all be super rich awesome rockstars if only that damn piracy thing didn't exist, is a bit on the ridiculous side of things.
No one said that from what I've read. The point in the first post was that piracy is the difference between keeping your job and working on a sequel and the IP being discontinued and the studio closed or having layoffs.
You want to try pitching that theory to the hundreds of people who work on triple-A games? Or perhaps to the indie developers who have trouble making ends meet? Do you honestly think that the hard-working men and women who are actually responsible for game development are eating off of gold flatware and wiping their asses with hundred dollar bills?
Game developers are not rock stars, and the vast majority of them would never be considered wealthy. A lot of them are being laid off at the moment. A lot of development is being outsourced to other countries, leaving skilled developers out on the street. A lot of those developers are leaving the industry for professions where there isn't as much risk.
And in no way does wholesale leeching help any of these problems. It cannot possibly be argued that leeching is in any way good for the game industry. You aren't taking a few cents from Britney Spears. You're convincing a major corporation to lay off Joe Developer in favor of cheaper labor in Bangladesh.
Even that is a GROSS exaggeration.
Actually the original thread starter implied it with being the reason him being out of work without any other acknowledgment of other causes.
This, being a celebrity is a pretty stable job, the game industry isnt, people loose jobs all the time and have to move around the country looking for another.
Pirating from the RIAA isn't the same as pirating from an indy label.
I never claimed we were rockstars. I'm well aware that I'm not one, inspite of being a game developer. And if piracy were to be completely abolished tomorrow, guess what? I still wouldn't be a rock star. So what is there to complain about? This whole thing seems ridiculous to me.
No it isn't actually. Celebrities constantly have to redefine themselves to keep in the limelight and get more work. Its not like they have steady paychecks as actors. Yes they get huge amounts. But if they aren't working on getting the next job what they already have in the bank will last until work comes again.
They are much like us with constant portfolio reworking.
If you don't believe me ask an actor.
...I do believe I owe you a beer. Pick a place and time.
I've read every post in this thread, and I've seen no claim to anyone wanting to be a wealthy rockstar. What I have seen, however, is people talking about still being able to make a living doing what they love.
I understand your reasoning, and logic, for playing Devil's Advocate here. Much like the 'leechers' themselves, I doubt anyone will sway you in your beliefs.
You can throw all the "technically", "at the root of the word", etc. into your debate, but I still believe it to be an immoral act that directly impacts myself, my industry, the work I love, and the people I care about in a negative way. I couldn't care less what the definition of theft is and how it can be twisted to make this 'ok'. Words are redefined every day, and I think this is just a case of tacking on a little something extra to this one. New world, New rules.
You're making it sound as if I'm arguing just to be a jerk. I'm not. I actually believe what I'm saying, and I believe it's the anti-piracy people who are doing the wrong thing by supporting, maybe without realizing it, a corrupt corporate culture.
This is more than semantics. It's about the false belief that "pirates" are the cause of all our trouble. And I don't believe there are people out there unemployed just because of piracy. Bigger economic issues are responsible.
That, plus sick corporate culture that goes on at the top of the food chain. Only instead of discussing that, they just go "Look! Pirates!", and everyone ignores the problems that exist in our own industry.
I've seen my games pop up on torrent sites, and we've had mails go around the office pointing these things out. It doesn't make me sad, really, and I've never heard anyone get upset over it. There's enough people buying the games for things to work out just well in the end, providing the marketing is there and the product is good and appeals to the right people.
I think some of you guys need to take a breath and chill. Sure, we'd all be better off if piracy didn't exist, but it's here and it won't go away. Like it or not, it's part of our culture now, and we're just fooling ourselves if we think getting pissed off at this will lead to anything other than the good feeling we get from letting off some steam. Doing that is fine, but please try to understand that laws won't change people. You can't legislate away a culture that's taken hold like this.
What we need to do is accept a certain loss, and focus on making the fucking best product we possibly can. If we lose our jobs because of poor sales of a product, trust me when I say it wouldn't have made any difference if zero people had pirated the game, and that it's more than likely that the problem was chiefly elsewhere.
(You'd be surprised (or would you?) how you can make a business work by managing your expectations and keeping a good balance between being realistic and having your head in the clouds.)
Now, let's calm the fuck down and go make awesome games (or just awesome artwork).