Read your license agreements fully

Letter of the law, eh? I'll ask you this question, Kilt. Have you ever borrowed a game from somebody, or lent them one of your own?

ErinHoffman:

The thing about piracy is that it's so abstracted from the perceptions of its consequences that it's easy to think of as "harmless" or "a victimless crime". It isn't. Those who glorify piracy or say that it's harmless need to be ready to accept an industry with fewer games being made as a result. But that consequence is so abstract and separated from the actual actions involved in downloading a game that people have to actually think about the ramifications of their actions in order to make an ethical judgment about it. For a lot of people it's easier just to download the game and duck behind a lot of rhetoric when challenged on it.

Exactly, the only way to put any significant dent in piracy is going to be education. However, simple "Don't Copy That Floppy" messages won't work, the rhetoric behind piracy is too thick for that. The only thing that will deter piracy would be to see concrete evidence of the consequences. Even then that won't stop it entirely, at best it would curtail some of the casual torrenters like myself from doing it in the future and may even cause some of the commercial ones to slow down a bit just to give the industry enough room to breath. I don't know whether or not the piracy problem will reach critical mass at which point game creation becomes unprofitable, primarily because I think the signs that the games industry is slowing down to an intolerable crawl would be pretty obvious to even the most committed pirate.

Borrowing a game from a friend is not piracy. The number of copies in the world do not change, it is merely a change of temporary ownership. That being said, no. I have never borrowed or lent a game to a friend that requires a illegal transfer of information. The only ones I have borrowed/lent are console and that is comfortable in the law to the same degree as letting my friend borrow my T.V. or CD player. If I gave it to him and he were to burn his own copy then return it to me, then we would be crossing some lines.

Kiltman

P.S. I love how instead of defending piracy, you have resorted to trying to convince me I am one. Mature.

I never said you were a pirate. I'm saying that, since you mentioned license agreements (More in relation to "making the contents of your CD into an ISO to save on wear and tear" than anything else), I'm going to mention them back.

I have here the manual from "Guilty Gear X" for the PS2. The little blurb at the bottom of the inside front cover states, and I quote:

"Unauthorised copying, adaptation, rental, lending, distribution, extraction, re-sale, arcade use, charging for use, broadcast, public performance and internet, cable or any telecommunications transmission, access or use of this product or any trademark or copyright work that forms part of this product are prohibited."

I'd like you to clarify something for me. Namely, the distinction between authorised lending and unauthorised lending. Seriously. I'm a bit confused. Does it mean (Basically) "lending to somebody who you know is going to copy the game"? Because that's the only way I can see it fitting.

And would it count as "unauthorised lending" on your part if you didn't know they'd copy it and they went ahead and did just that? Hmm. To be honest, that point's had me a bit puzzled for years (Ever since I first noticed it in Mega Drive game manuals).

Either way, this whole "when you buy a copy of a piece of software, you're actually buying a license to use said software" thing... That means *you're* the one who bought the license. Your friends Joe and Bob can't legally use it if they borrowed it (If we're going by the letter of the law), if they didn't purchase any user license.

Just like piracy, someone's using that software without paying for the license to use it. It might not *be* piracy according to the spirit of the law, but as for the *letter* of the law...

On your end of things it looks identical, but you are using a modified or changed version of said software, thereby breaking the license agreement. If the programmer designed the game to have to run with the CD but you pull the data from the CD to your hard drive, you are changing the software merely by switching where it is accessed from.

Then again, this whole debate is moot because the letter of the law conflicts with practicality. Sure, I could keep my Planescape: Torment CDs in the drive at all times when playing, but they're just going to die faster and then I'd have to pay good money for replacement CDs that are more than likely going to be scratched - at least partially - because it's such a great game, people know they can charge through the nose for it... and they're more than likely going to have played it to death themselves.

Or I could rip the CDs onto a hard drive, burn a replacement DVD for if I actually do need the disc in the drive and keep the files on my computer as another fail-safe. Which do you think I'm going to pick? I bought this game - well, the *license* to play it - and I'm going to keep these CDs in good condition so that I can play the game when I want, hopefully for many years into the future.

And if that means pissing all over the letter of the law in the process, then so much the better.

P.S. I love how instead of defending piracy, you have resorted to trying to convince me I am one. Mature.

And I love how you immediately not only make a verbal assault against my maturity, but also decide that I'm a defender of piracy simply because I asked you a question that a yes-man would have no reason to.

That last comment was not merely direct at you, but at the other posters "knowing for a fact that I have broken at least one law."

But your idea of backing up does have some gray area. If you have merely back it up, I can't see anybody having a problem with it b/c it falls within the area of maintenance. That could be technically illegal depending on interpretation and individual laws. That then falls into the category of problematic like trying to fight about the 2nd amendment.

You need to remember that this is not a conversation merely between the 2 of us but everybody on this board. So when I said "you" that was directed at everybody taking up that position of defending the pirates.

Kiltman

P.S. I was also calling you a pirate defender, just to be clear.

kiltmanfortywo:
That last comment was not merely direct at you, but at the other posters "knowing for a fact that I have broken at least one law."

But your idea of backing up does have some gray area. If you have merely back it up, I can't see anybody having a problem with it b/c it falls within the area of maintenance. That could be technically illegal depending on interpretation and individual laws. That then falls into the category of problematic like trying to fight about the 2nd amendment.

You need to remember that this is not a conversation merely between the 2 of us but everybody on this board. So when I said "you" that was directed at everybody taking up that position of defending the pirates.

Kiltman

P.S. I was also calling you a pirate defender, just to be clear.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're allowed as part of your statutory rights to make a single copy of a game for back-up purposes.

kiltmanfortywo:
so because you cannot rent the games it gives you the right to steal them?

Kiltman

I don't steal them. I buy them. If they are good. There is no alternative available to me. I can't buy a game, try it for a day or even five minutes and return it if I don't like it. On the other hand, I am allowed to return pretty much everything else in the entire honking store.

panfist:

I don't steal them. I buy them. If they are good. There is no alternative available to me. I can't buy a game, try it for a day or even five minutes and return it if I don't like it. On the other hand, I am allowed to return pretty much everything else in the entire honking store.

The return policy of stores does seem to hinder the try it out idea but that is still no reason to steal the game. You should research the games before you buy them, thus greatly eliminating the possibility of buying a game you won't enjoy. That does mean that you will need to man up and take responsibility, recognizing that you bought the game and are stuck with it no matter how bad the game is.

I have been very happy with most of the games I have purchased because I do the research, I avoid buying on release dates to hear what others think of it, and I know what I like. I have had to take those steps because I know that I am about to shell out $50-100 on something and there is no chance to rectify a mistake I have made. Granted, I have made a few but I accept that, I don't try to escape responsibility and resort to piracy to make myself feel better about losing some cash; It is just not mature.

As far as back up, it would make sense to me that you would be allowed to make a single, personal copy. Then again, very little of the talk here is of people making a copy of the game they bought for their private use. They are discussing try it/ buy it or once you find out your disk is fubar you torrent it, which is not legal. I have no problem with the guy who buys a form of electronic media protecting his investment through back ups, I am just not sure on the laws there. You would have to check the laws specific to your country, state/province or even town and district.

Kiltman

SirCannonFodder:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're allowed as part of your statutory rights to make a single copy of a game for back-up purposes.

This was true in the US until the DMCA was passed under Clinton in around 1998. The thing you're referencing is called the 'Fair Use Doctrine' and indeed said something like that. The problem is that the DMCA makes the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms a crime. Since damn near everything has some sort of DRM on it, making backup copies is now illegal. Specifically its copyright infringement, thus software piracy, thus 'outright theft'.

This 'article' was a literate, carefully worded rant; a browbeating, myopic, hypocritical piece of flame-bait. I'm honestly surprised the Escapist published this.

Whether Mr. Sands realizes it or not, you can't stop the hackers. Its literally impossible. The most you can ever do is delay the availability of the program by a week or two. Given that, dicking over your paying customers in order to inconvenience the 'thieves' is an absolutely bizarre response. He also has obviously not remembered his Art of War, as not speaking to your adversary is a sure way to make the problem worse. Why are personal backups piracy, again? Because the industry bribed lawmakers to make it so. Same with lending and renting software: its a copyright violation and thus piracy.

Sure, pro-piracy arguments are disingenuous and driven by self interest, the anti-piracy ones are too. Some pro-piracy arguments are downright stupid. Some of them are perfectly accurate.

That last comment was not merely direct at you, but at the other posters "knowing for a fact that I have broken at least one law."

Everyone's broken at least one law. There's bound to be enough stupid old laws out there. That aside, if I'd wanted to accuse you of breaking a law, my first post on the subject would have been a lot more direct (And would have contained more content related to said topic). I was merely bringing up the point of how the letter of the law is far too restrictive. It's the *spirit* of the law that I try to adhere to.

P.S. I was also calling you a pirate defender, just to be clear.

Thought so. Why, pray tell, am I a defender of pirates? I'd like to know how the backing up of games I own in order to prolong their lifespan and allow me to play them without access to the CDs is in any way supporting piracy.

I have a VCR and a DVD recorder/player, and yet nobody would care if I recorded TV shows or movies onto VHS/DVD for my own use. If I were to record said shows or movies and distribute them, then yes, people would take notice (And rightfully so).

This was true in the US until the DMCA was passed under Clinton in around 1998.

I didn't know about this. Hmm. I wonder if it's happened here in England. Ah well, it's a piece of shit and I'll continue to ignore it because it's not practical - or fair.

Edit:

I can't buy a game, try it for a day or even five minutes and return it if I don't like it.

I can. It's called Metaboli.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Geoffrey42:

You've just mixed console piracy with PC piracy, and while there are parallels, I think it best if we keep discussions of the two separate.

Acquaintance of mine had Mariokart on the Wii a few days before it was released.

I'm not sure there is a difference.

If console piracy and PC piracy have reached equivalence, what reason do developers have for flocking to the consoles? All just an illusion? I have no numbers to back up my point, and I lack the familiarity with the Console Piracy environment that I have with the PC Piracy environment. All I have to go on in this case is a general understanding that console piracy is not nearly as widespread: yes, for the dedicated, they can do what they want (the homebrew channel looks kind of awesome, btw), but it has not reached the level of Joe Schmoe. Will it get there? Very well could. Just don't think it is right now.

Asehujiko:
A huge fallacy i see in each and every anti piracy argument is that they consider piracy stealing instead of copying.

To demonstrate it, using your car analogy:
If you have a car and it breaks it's still wrong to steal somebody elses car because that way the other person ends up with no car, which he still paid for just like you.

I wouldn't call this a fallacy as much as a place where the two examples are not exactly parallel. It's worth clarification: when I steal a physical object from its rightful owner, I am causing at least one bad thing, and potentially two. The "at least" is the taking of something from someone else; if they are uninsured, they have just lost that car; if it is insured, I have taken from their insurance company, AND them, because their rates will go up. The "potentially" is the loss of an additional sale to the owner/maker of the car; but, only if I were someone who would've bought a car if it weren't for the theft.

Now, in the internet world, the first half of the analogy doesn't quite fit; I have not denied access to the original purchaser, though, like insurance, if my theft results in increased costs for the manufacturer (paying creeps like SecuROM for snakeoil), the legal purchaser suffers due to increased cost of purchase of future goods. The "potentially" part is that one that we should really care about: if I, the thief, would've made a purchase without easy access to the stolen variety, the manufacturer has lost a sale.

To bring this back round to the current argument, from the "companies are stupid" perspective, the end consumer SHOULD NOT have to pay for the increased cost of integrating things like SecuROM, because A. We know that they don't work, and B. We know that they actually worsen the experience for paying customers, the people the producer/manufacturer should actually care about (as opposed to appeasing their ignorant shareholders, which I know, is their job, but there is more than one way to pander to ignorance).

Finally, to the real point: as John Galt and ErinHoffman have been discussing, the thing that matters is the lost sales for the industry, and whatever impact that has. This is extremely difficult to quantify, and the Cevat position that "every copy made is a sale lost" is stupefyingly ignorant. On the other hand, the pro-piracy position that "the current environment doesn't cost the developers any sales at all" is similarly dumb. The real world exists somewhere in between, and that's the debate worth having.

Unknower:

Oh yeah, about Crytek, let's defend them a bit. Or actually, let's not be ridiculous.

Stating Crysis works only on 1% of computers is stupid. Maybe this is the same as the "10 means perfect" -argument: I'll never understand how people can think that way. I mean, damnit, what about putting graphics settings to high, medium or even low? For crying out loud guys, you loved Portal and Crysis probably has better graphics on medium. Think about the gameplay, damnit, gameplay!

Though no 1.3 patch sucks, I agree with that.

I don't feel that I'm being ridiculous. I may be being somewhat hyperbolic, but when estimating (with no real numbers to go off of), it is difficult not to seem so. What you may be ignoring is just how many PCs there are in the world. Gartner says >1 Billion. Given that, I think my 1% figure is actually overly generous. Crysis is still well known for NOT being optimized to run on lower end hardware (as opposed to the Source engine, which is known for being very good at scaling down), and that's fine. Crysis was designed to be the most awesomest thing at the time that it came out. Why would I pay 60 bucks at launch for a game that I know will only run at a 1/4 of its intended glory on my sad little X800 Pro? I did not pirate it. I simply didn't buy it. Because while I am a member of the PC FPS Consumer segment, I am outside the segment that Crytek chose to target. I'm not even a lost sale! They never wanted me!

Clearly, the largest problem here is the entire concept of intellectual property.
The thought that thoughts can be owned is frankly ridiculous, and the idea that the owner of said thought is the person who first filed it as a patent is even more absurd.This idea stems from a philosophy that seems to think that all things can be (and should be) owned, which I at least find repugnant. What we end up with is a system where the "original" creator most often have little rights to her own ideas, while large companies which had little to do with the actual idea somehow own the right to it....

The world needs entirely new ideas when it comes to intellectual property, the patent and trademark system is not only unfair, but outmoded.

As for the problem of right and wrong, I am more of an utilitarian. Who are harmed by PC piracy? Not that many. Who are harmed by current intellectual property laws? Millions in developing nations without access to easily produced medicines.

For all you who say that thievery/piracy is wrong regardless of circumstances, what if a "pirated" drug could save thousands of tuberuclosis or HIV victims that can not afford the legitimate product? Is it still wrong to try to manufacture such a product, and the IP "owners" be damned?

Skyweir:
For all you who say that thievery/piracy is wrong regardless of circumstances, what if a "pirated" drug could save thousands of tuberuclosis or HIV victims that can not afford the legitimate product? Is it still wrong to try to manufacture such a product, and the IP "owners" be damned?

I'd say that they will start bitching that by "denying" income to the pharma company you are slowing the developmet of new medicines.

Another thing i'd like to know is why all anti-pirates seem to think that the law is a flawless divider between inherent and unconditional good and inherent and unconditional evil. The very existance of the usa as independant nation proves that the point is moot.

Your idea of the pirated drugs has no bearing in this situation or argument. In you case, pirates are helping the world as a whole while in real life nobody except pirates benefits. This is like justifying murder by pulling out a hypothetical army of zombies.

Kiltman

while in real life nobody except pirates benefits.

No.

I'm not a pirate, and they have provided me with benefits. What sort of benefits, I hear you ask? No-CD cracks, for one. The programs that *let* me create the ISOs that allow me to keep my game CDs in good condition for longer, for another.

By illegally transferring between mediums, you are a pirate. It is illegal and you are a pirate. Yo Ho.

Kiltman

Asehujiko:

Skyweir:
For all you who say that thievery/piracy is wrong regardless of circumstances, what if a "pirated" drug could save thousands of tuberuclosis or HIV victims that can not afford the legitimate product? Is it still wrong to try to manufacture such a product, and the IP "owners" be damned?

I'd say that they will start bitching that by "denying" income to the pharma company you are slowing the developmet of new medicines.

Another thing i'd like to know is why all anti-pirates seem to think that the law is a flawless divider between inherent and unconditional good and inherent and unconditional evil. The very existance of the usa as independant nation proves that the point is moot.

I had a very long bit "bitching" about my point of view on pharmaceuticals, good and bad, and decided it was too off topic, so who cares. Let's actually take this example from left-field and bring it back around to relevance.

Question: When Merck found a cure for Onchocerciasis (colloquially known as "river blindness"; take a wild guess as to why) they did not produce it for a high price and prevent 3rd world countries from getting access. They gave it away. Why would they do something so selfless and nice? They're a giant evil corporation, right? Why aren't the companies with AIDS and TB treatments as nice as Merck? (Why isn't Merck as nice as Merck when it comes to HIV antiretrovirals?)

Answer: There was never a market for Onchocerciasis treatments in 1st world countries, where people can pay the elevated prices that make drug research worthwhile, but live in conditions that don't result in river blindness. By giving it away to poor countries where the disease is endemic, Merck lost no sales to people that would've bought it otherwise (because there was no such population), and gained goodwill to shore up all the "evil" things they are perceived to do. The goodwill was apparently worth more than any marginal return on selling the drug near cost, so they gave it away.

When it comes to drugs that actually have a market in the US, no drug company is nearly as nice. If they don't sell the drug in the markets that will buy it for the price that it will bear, they cannot make back the money they invested in R&D/M&A, and subsequently can't research more drugs. If they give the drug to poor countries that wouldn't buy it anyway, they create a secondary market where people "able" to pay (through insurance, sometimes through the nose, but "able" nonetheless) obtain the generic equivalent from 3rd world countries. This, to them, represents lost revenue, so they just hold onto their precious patents and sell it for as much as they can, for as long as they can, until it becomes generic worldwide. The argument of the "pirates" of pharmaceuticals is similar to that of the software pirates: I'm providing this drug to people that have use for it, but who wouldn't've bought it otherwise, thus the pharmas aren't "losing" anything. The crux lands in the same place: how MANY sales would pharmaceuticals lose by releasing their TB and HIV drugs as generics in 3rd world countries?

All of this to demonstrate that similar forces are at work for videogames. How much money do developers/publishers actually "lose" in terms of revenue not realized by the current piracy environment? Is it really enough to justify all the hoopla?

To your other comment about law as the flawless divider: I agree with you, except that you're generalizing "all anti-pirates", when some anti-piracy advocates have perfectly reasonable perspectives. I think a fairer characterization is that "all poorly thought out anti-piracy arguments" seem to stem from, or at least use as one of their supports, the infallibility of the law.

kiltmanfortywo:
By illegally transferring between mediums, you are a pirate. It is illegal and you are a pirate. Yo Ho.

Kiltman

Congratulations on blurring the definition of "piracy" to the point of sheer uselessness. So, any violation of law in regards to Intellectual Property immediately qualifies as "piracy"?

Just tip-top, I say. Tip. Top.

Geoffrey42:

kiltmanfortywo:
By illegally transferring between mediums, you are a pirate. It is illegal and you are a pirate. Yo Ho.

Kiltman

Congratulations on blurring the definition of "piracy" to the point of sheer uselessness. So, any violation of law in regards to Intellectual Property immediately qualifies as "piracy"?

Just tip-top, I say. Tip. Top.

Yeah, pretty much. Copyright infringement includes violations of the eula, which is illegal. If your argument against piracy stems totally from legality (which it has to in order to be all encompassing, as loss of sale arguments won't work in cases where no sale was possible to begin with) you might as well throw people who use ISOs, no CD patches, personal use backups and anything else you can think of in with the pirates.

Law is government enforced morality. What is it saying here? Either 'I take bribes' or 'I'm a raving lunatic'.

I have stated pretty much anything I got to say here. Now it is just getting repetitive and petty. Apparently nothing I say can penetrate to you the fact that piracy is wrong and it will be impossible for you to convince me otherwise.

If you are a pirate, try to think about things a little beyond your personal sphere and consider the overall consequences of thousands, if not millions of people with the mentality "one person/sale/theft can't make a difference." It adds up.

For those of us attacking piracy, realize it is going to be a fruitless labor. They are so deeply rooted in their false justifications and have lied to everybody, themselves including, so much that it will be impossible to get them to see logic/right from wrong/the truth. It is like trying to interrogate a crazy man; it ain't gonna work.

Kiltman

P.S. I ain't gonna reply to what ever flak this takes.

P.S. I ain't gonna reply to what ever flak this takes.

Cutting and running so you can ignore that the grey area exists? Cute. (Not that it's much of a grey area...)

They are so deeply rooted in their false justifications and have lied to everybody, themselves including,

Care to explain how I'm lying to myself? Care to explain how I'm using false justifications? Care to explain how, in your words earlier, I'm defending piracy? How I'm a pirate?

Didn't think so.

so much that it will be impossible to get them to see logic/right from wrong/the truth. It is like trying to interrogate a crazy man; it ain't gonna work.

Logic? Backing up my gaming collection so that it lasts longer is proof of logical thought. This is the situation (Playing games with the CD in the drive) > This is what will happen if it continues (CDs wear out faster) > This is the solution. (No-CD cracks/ISOs) Logical.

Right from wrong? Hah. Am I stealing? No. Am I hurting the industry? No. Am I harming people? No.

The truth? You call everybody who uses backups, everybody who does the practical thing to keep their CDs in good shape - and to remove the restriction of "must be near gaming collection in order to game", everybody who doesn't share your opinion... You call all of us pirates. Your views are inflexible.

I'd say I see the truth pretty well.

kiltmanfortywo:
I have stated pretty much anything I got to say here. Now it is just getting repetitive and petty. Apparently nothing I say can penetrate to you the fact that piracy is wrong and it will be impossible for you to convince me otherwise.

We are not trying to convince you that piracy is right. We are trying to show you that your arguments are even more retarded then the pirate ones.

I didn't like the article at all, quite frankly. It was overly smug and completely ignorant for the most part, insisting that modern commercial practise is the carbon copy of an ideal system of social contracts, to which there are no exceptions and variance.
Ryan Sumos take on the subject of piracy was a much more inclusive view that didn't opt for a fingers-in-ears approach, but rather an inclusive perspective that most people would like to ignore becuase it threatens their arguments in the sense that they are found not to be all-encompassing and utterly justified.
First of all, there is allways middle ground to be found in misguided right vs. wrong debates and painting the subject black and white never does anybody any favours.
To pretend that piracy is a case unto itself that doesn't imply personal socio-economic perspective, the availability of products, profit margins, national taxes, varying policies by different governments all over the world which are never the most ideal example of the free market economy in which all members of society are fairly rewarded for their efforts and charged for various services relatively based on their fiscal capacities.
Believe me, piracy would be much less of a problem in a society in which all social contracts would be followed to the letter. In other words most "victimless" crimes occur for various reasons, but not becuase of a few malicious bastards with a messiah complex, which the author seems to think is all that software pirates are. Let me give you an example: in my country (a south-eastern european developing democracy) most smaller software stores offer pirated titles under the counter because they simply can't sell enough retail products to keep in bussiness. The average (legal) game here costs about 100$ (1/11 of the average monthly wage here) because of rediculous VAT taxes and customs taxes. That's a lot more than people can dish out for a single game which they may or may not like (since there are no rental sevices here).
I can certainly understand the frustration of the industry, but the kind of near-sightedness and a childish refusal to take in other opinions demonstrated in this article can only hurt a debate that could eventually help to create a solution to this problem.

As I understand the basic fabric of the social contracts that struggle to keep most of humanity from bashing each other's heads in with the bleached femurs of our enemies, there are some basic concepts about right and wrong that we all agree to by living within a society.

this is the root problem right here... i dont mean the violation of the social contract though, im refering specifically to "bashing each other's heads in with the bleached femurs of our enemies"...

a social contract can only be maintained when there exists a suitable punishment for breaches, and a suitable authority capable of appling said punishment.

i feel fairly certain that were i (and my legion of anti-piracy minions) granted the authority to brain any pirate i could get my hands on with a bleached human femur (or other suitable blunt instrument) until their heads popped like an overripe melon, youd see a fairly dramatic decrease in the rate of piracy.

silly sophistry stops counting for much when you know there is a very good chance youll get your grey matter spilled on the pavement for pirating.

incidentally, i think this is actually the primary root cause for the MAJORITY of what ills "civilized" humanity in this day and age: the simple fact that you can walk around being an insufferable cockknocker all the time fairly free from the fear of someone knocking your goddamn block off like it so richly deserves. sure, itll probably happen eventually, but not EFFIN RIGHT AWAY as probably would have happened in a more "primitive" time.

Sean, you are very wrong. No matter how many flaming anti-piracy posts you, or anyone else make, piracy is here to stay. If the industry can't deal with the problem and change the game distribution model and pricing, it's more likely the said industry will sink.

I think the people who say piracy is here to stay are right, but I don't think they'll like the consequences.

Because most good-budget computer games are trying to be sold to tech-savvy teenagers, piracy is going to be a fact of life. This is a demographic that knows how to pirate and for a number of reasons won't spend money on games, and you're trying to sell to them. They are the biggest market for non-casual games and once you stop selling to them,