The Big P

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

theultimateend:

And still to say Piracy causes a negative effect "no doubt about it" is no different than saying Drugs are evil "no doubt about it".

I think it'd be fair to say that Drugs cause a negative effect "no doubt about it" though. There might be some degree of difference, but I've gotta side with Daystar on that point.

The thing is that Piracy (or its brothers Resale, Captive Audience and Monopoly) are part of Capitalism that grows as Retail does. If you've set a price on a product that someone wants, and they can't get it - there will be thefts. Whether material (stealing) or immaterial(copying).

Some of these thefts may lead to increased sales afterwards, some may lead to lost sales - but it's never been a one-one ratio. Especially when there's no chance of refund for a broken/sub-standard product.

The_root_of_all_evil:

theultimateend:

And still to say Piracy causes a negative effect "no doubt about it" is no different than saying Drugs are evil "no doubt about it".

I think it'd be fair to say that Drugs cause a negative effect "no doubt about it" though. There might be some degree of difference, but I've gotta side with Daystar on that point.

They also have positive effects, like Alice in Wonderland, The Doors of Perception, Fear and Loathing and around 90% of the albums worth listening to from the past three decades. So the analogy is either bad, or extremely accurate, depending on your stance on piracy.

The_root_of_all_evil:

theultimateend:

And still to say Piracy causes a negative effect "no doubt about it" is no different than saying Drugs are evil "no doubt about it".

I think it'd be fair to say that Drugs cause a negative effect "no doubt about it" though. There might be some degree of difference, but I've gotta side with Daystar on that point.

The thing is that Piracy (or its brothers Resale, Captive Audience and Monopoly) are part of Capitalism that grows as Retail does. If you've set a price on a product that someone wants, and they can't get it - there will be thefts. Whether material (stealing) or immaterial(copying).

Some of these thefts may lead to increased sales afterwards, some may lead to lost sales - but it's never been a one-one ratio. Especially when there's no chance of refund for a broken/sub-standard product.

That line "set something people want at a price they can't afford" is basically the point I fall on.

There is a fallacy that a loss equates to the binary opposite of a sale.

1 Million pirated copies is not 1 Million lost sales.

Likewise there is no data to suggest that the advertising power of piracy doesn't work out to close the same as the actual people who would buy if piracy was negated (if such a group exists).

As a child I had no income so I pirated, if I made the mistake of listening to advertising or something else and used the little allowance I had I could be stuck with a terrible game for months. However if I pirated it first and saw if it was worth buying I netted a 1:1 ratio of good games to purchases.

Does everyone do this? I >highly< doubt it, but I similarly doubt that people would buy games if they couldn't pirate them. The nature of no-returns has made games a gamble that is not worth the price of admittance. Steam has circumvented this problem by making the price discounted enough to match the gamble.

As someone else said, it is a multifaceted problem that has no certainties in it. The only concerete observations are the ones that are made obviously. Piracy is not purchasing, or red is not blue, or anything like that. Otherwise the rest is circumstantial at best and rarely backed up with data.

Games are not food, people do not need them, as such making it impossible to steal them doesn't mean you'll bring in actual customers. I'm willing to accept the argument that if people can't afford a luxury item they should just not do it, albeit this ignore social injustices and the nature of class societies but taking a nice arbitrary hardcore stance on things is fun sometimes.

The only thing standing between developers and publishers and actual profits is themselves. The passing of blame is only done because it is easy and feels good.

As for drugs, I don't do them (not a moral thing, just not interested, I've got other hobbies that keep me busy), but most of the negative side effects are societal. The actual physical detriment is not much different than other everyday experiences. Fast food, car exhaust, pollution from coal plants or other sources. Drinking hot drinks from plastics, plastics, radiation. We are surrounded by a world that is doing some pretty negative stuff to us constantly, most of the worst examples of drug problems are caused almost in their entirety by society.

I'm not pro-piracy or pro-drug use, I just don't think either gets legitimately discussed in just about any place they are brought up. That sort of thing bothers me, which is why I pop up :P.

Piracy is a fancy scape goat, but its not much more than that. (as far as I've been shown thus far)

well... the comic IS funny... but to my opinion I actually enjoy that game... it's better than the first BY FAR! I hated Crysis for many reasons, but this installment is every way Superior than the first!

But...but...Crysis 2 was good :'(

Grey Carter:

The_root_of_all_evil:

theultimateend:

And still to say Piracy causes a negative effect "no doubt about it" is no different than saying Drugs are evil "no doubt about it".

I think it'd be fair to say that Drugs cause a negative effect "no doubt about it" though. There might be some degree of difference, but I've gotta side with Daystar on that point.

They also have positive effects, like Alice in Wonderland, The Doors of Perception, Fear and Loathing and around 90% of the albums worth listening to from the past three decades. So the analogy is either bad, or extremely accurate, depending on your stance on piracy.

There's also a point that nobody seems to bring up.
A pirated copy equals a fraction of a lost sale, sure ... but it might also equal a larger fraction of a gained sale for the game's sequel.

You can't be a fan of something you never experienced.

ElPatron:
maths are maths, it's an exact science - if yo are cooking up an estimated number, you can't prove it' "right"

Yay pedantry?

Another 4 million pirates without nobody noticing them - somewhat far fetched

Said the opposite, dude.

mike1921:

How so?

Seriously? You're asking how they could see it as appealing even though it doesn't lead to any money? Have you looked at a single argument on their behalf?

The logic that because you're willing to take something free you're willing to spend money on it is ridiculous. Like I haven no idea how anyone could honestly defend that

And yet, people do. Not just the corporations you think are lying, but casual folks, even people who post here.

You assume everyone is as "reasonable" as you. That's a flawed assumption.

Yes in a sense. They vote on the influence of the game and how much they are interested in it. I'm saying it's impossible to get enough people aware that say...It's made by a company that wants to censor the internet or their DRM is ridiculous. It's impossible to get an effective boycott going where enough people who would otherwise buy the game don't that it actually significantly hurts the publisher.

Another flawed assumption, that people don't do what you want because they don't care, or that they would do different if they were aware.

Look at all the people on here who have complained about Origin, and followed it up, effectively with "But I need MASS EFFECT 3!!!!"

And the same was true of Mass Effect 2. "Screw project ten dollar...MASS EFFECT!"

Look, I get that the world would be abetter place if everyone was "just like me." It's assumptive and highly idealistic to think people would act different if "only they knew."

Ofcourse it is. That's why you need to get the negative side high enough.

There is no negative side to piracy when the publishers see every pirated copy as a lost sale. I know, I know, you don't see it that way and don't understand how they do, but denying THAT they do is just silly.

If they're intelligent they'd be aware that piracy could mean a variety of things,

Again with the loaded diction and reasoning.

Are you challenging that people have pirated games because they don't like the developer or because there's one interesting aspect about the game but it's bad? Or even BECAUSE it's bad?

No! Have you even been reading my posts? Or do you just think "this poster disagrees with me; ergo this poster disagrees with me on every imaginable facet?"

My stance from the beginning has been that piracy does not count as a negative to the games industry. Rather, it tells them X number of people want the game. Further, to them is says that those X people would have paid if only they had no other choice.

I am not condoning the idea. I am saying the probable message of the piracy you are advocating is such.

And do they really think 4 million people pirated the second one because it really had that much more interest on it than other games?

Yes! That's the whole point here!

Like even beating COD?

Something like 90% of the industry wants to think they have a COD killer. Why do you think this would be any different?

Zachary Amaranth:
Yay pedantry?

Yeah, I'm sure we should all give some slack to everything.

Traffic control towers are slacking off and planes are crashing? Too bad.

Zachary Amaranth:

Another 4 million pirates without nobody noticing them - somewhat far fetched

Said the opposite, dude.

Then we agree that the 4 million is excessive.

People thinking Crysis 2 has bad AI should Youtube search for Crysis 1 AI. You can get some pretty good videos of stupid AI in that game as well.

Personally I liked Crysis 2 more because the suit was more fun to use. You actually felt like you had a Nano suit now unlike in the first game. Armor mode? More like, 24/7 mode for the entire game. Even then you could be dropped pretty quick on harder settings. From almost any firearm as well.

Zachary Amaranth:

mike1921:

How so?

Seriously? You're asking how they could see it as appealing even though it doesn't lead to any money? Have you looked at a single argument on their behalf?

Yes, a corporation's job is to make money. Anything that doesn't lead to making money directly or indirectly or maintaining income they already have is a waste of their time. Especially when you're a publicly traded corporation and have share holders to answer to.

The logic that because you're willing to take something free you're willing to spend money on it is ridiculous. Like I haven no idea how anyone could honestly defend that

And yet, people do. Not just the corporations you think are lying, but casual folks, even people who post here.

You assume everyone its as "reasonable" as you. That's a flawed assumption.

See, I see no reason to try to work around people who are honestly that stupid where they want money but don't understand they're not the only ones who value it.

Yes in a sense. They vote on the influence of the game and how much they are interested in it. I'm saying it's impossible to get enough people aware that say...It's made by a company that wants to censor the internet or their DRM is ridiculous. It's impossible to get an effective boycott going where enough people who would otherwise buy the game don't that it actually significantly hurts the publisher.

Another flawed assumption, that people don't do what you want because they don't care, or that they would do different if they were aware.

Look at all the people on here who have complained about Origin, and followed it up, effectively with "But I need MASS EFFECT 3!!!!"

And the same was true of Mass Effect 2. "Screw project ten dollar...MASS EFFECT!"

Look, I get that the world would be abetter place if everyone was "just like me." It's assumptive and highly idealistic to think people would act different if "only they knew."

Ofcourse the world would be a better place if we as a whole punished publishers and developers for trying to pull things like that. A customer base that can accurately and actively respond to problematic changes with boycotts that lose large amounts of sales could be an incredible force for good in the industry. Also, if they only knew than at least the biggest obstacle would be to convince them that they shouldn't give their money to those corporations. Sure, there's pretty high odds most people wouldn't but do you honestly doubt that there isn't a single person who bought mass effect 2 but wouldn't if they were aware of project 10 dollar? Or that if everyone was informed about sopa that certain companies would lose some sales? At least in that ideal world awareness wouldn't be the biggest issue and you could try to convince everyone.

Ofcourse it is. That's why you need to get the negative side high enough.

There is no negative side to piracy when the publishers see every pirated copy as a lost sale. I know, I know, you don't see it that way and don't understand how they do, but denying THAT they do is just silly.

Lost sales are equal to real sales? Yes lost sales seem like a negative side. Like even if I do think they're not fucking liars , a lost sale is a lost sale. If you get enough people (an extremely daunting, maybe even absolutely impossible task) to pirate instead of buy they'll stop turning a profit

Are you challenging that people have pirated games because they don't like the developer or because there's one interesting aspect about the game but it's bad? Or even BECAUSE it's bad?

No! Have you even been reading my posts? Or do you just think "this poster disagrees with me; ergo this poster disagrees with me on every imaginable facet?"

No I don't think that. But you are challenging pretty much everything I say

My stance from the beginning has been that piracy does not count as a negative to the games industry. Rather, it tells them X number of people want the game. Further, to them is says that those X people would have paid if only they had no other choice.

I am not condoning the idea. I am saying the probable message of the piracy you are advocating is such.

Well here's the thing, if you could get it easily alone why can't multi-million dollar corporations do it?

Like even beating COD?

Something like 90% of the industry wants to think they have a COD killer. Why do you think this would be any different?

[/quote] Yea I guess that's a reasonable delusion to have.

ElPatron:

Yeah, I'm sure we should all give some slack to everything.

Oooh, strawman and false equivalence fallacy in close proximity.

Using commonly accepted terminology=air traffic control. Gotcha.

You also screwed up the quotes initially, which was just funny after trying to bust my chops.

But you fought really hard to miss that point, and I guess congrats.

Zachary Amaranth:
Using commonly accepted terminology=air traffic control. Gotcha.

It is not "commonly accepted terminology": if you are working with numbers, it's not called "pedantry", it is called "doing your job like you should".

Point missed?

More like "not believing in the 4 million pirated copies because I have seen no evidence that can show that the numbers they acquired are correct".

mike1921:

Yes, a corporation's job is to make money. Anything that doesn't lead to making money directly or indirectly or maintaining income they already have is a waste of their time. Especially when you're a publicly traded corporation and have share holders to answer to.

You mean the shareholders whose big concerns are piracy and the perceived loss?

Gee, why would those shareholders find DRM and other attempts to fight piracy to be a good thing?

The problem here is that you're again operating from the point of view that they don't see it as a profit maintaining gesture. They do. The shareholders do. I'm sorry, I just don't see why you don't seem to get that.

See, I see no reason to try to work around people who are honestly that stupid where they want money but don't understand they're not the only ones who value it.

Again, setting everyone up who has a different philosophy as stupid.

The problem is, they don't have to think any different than they do to understand people value money. They're just not looking at it exactly as you. I doubt calling the people who actually oppose you stupid is likely to change things, either.

Ofcourse the world would be a better place if we as a whole punished publishers and developers for trying to pull things like that. A customer base that can accurately and actively respond to problematic changes with boycotts that lose large amounts of sales could be an incredible force for good in the industry. Also, if they only knew than at least the biggest obstacle would be to convince them that they shouldn't give their money to those corporations. Sure, there's pretty high odds most people wouldn't but do you honestly doubt that there isn't a single person who bought mass effect 2 but wouldn't if they were aware of project 10 dollar? Or that if everyone was informed about sopa that certain companies would lose some sales? At least in that ideal world awareness wouldn't be the biggest issue and you could try to convince everyone.

You don't need a single person. You need thousands at the very least. And you need to overcome the momentum of the buyers who did know, were outraged, and purchased anyway. Time and time again, the people calling for boycotts even wind up purchasing anyway. "Boycott" is a worthless word in gaming, because people will buy anyway. People who are furious will buy. People who don't know will buy, and probably would buy anyway.

Lost sales are equal to real sales? Yes lost sales seem like a negative side. Like even if I do think they're not fucking liars , a lost sale is a lost sale. If you get enough people (an extremely daunting, maybe even absolutely impossible task) to pirate instead of buy they'll stop turning a profit

Which is still lost if the companies and the industry as a whole thinks the only reason you won't buy the game is that you can get it for free.

No I don't think that. But you are challenging pretty much everything I say

Because you're being illogical at best and disingenuous at worst.

Well here's the thing, if you could get it easily alone why can't multi-million dollar corporations do it?

Well here's the thing, if millions of people can agree that piracy is stealing, why can't you do it?

Again, loaded language. What you mean is, "If you happen to agree with me, why don't they?" That's a lot easier to answer.

Zachary Amaranth:

mike1921:

Yes, a corporation's job is to make money. Anything that doesn't lead to making money directly or indirectly or maintaining income they already have is a waste of their time. Especially when you're a publicly traded corporation and have share holders to answer to.

You mean the shareholders whose big concerns are piracy and the perceived loss?

Gee, why would those shareholders find DRM and other attempts to fight piracy to be a good thing?

The problem here is that you're again operating from the point of view that they don't see it as a profit maintaining gesture. They do. The shareholders do. I'm sorry, I just don't see why you don't seem to get that.

No I totally understand that it's an attempt to maintain profit. I'm not even against reasonable DRM measures against it. I'm saying that when they report a lost sales number as identical to their pirated copies number they are lying through their fucking teeth and I have no sympathy for them for the lost sales that actually are the result of piracy if they make statements like that

See, I see no reason to try to work around people who are honestly that stupid where they want money but don't understand they're not the only ones who value it.

Again, setting everyone up who has a different philosophy as stupid.
The problem is, they don't have to think any different than they do to understand people value money. They're just not looking at it exactly as you. I doubt calling the people who actually oppose you stupid is likely to change things, either.

Yes, having certain beliefs could make you stupid, easily. And yes, the philosophy that if you'll take it for free you'll take it for $60 is monumentally stupid. Like, am I really arguing this? That lower prices raises transactions? Am I supposed to take that philosophy seriously? Than what is stupidity? Tell me something that can be stupid in the world where I'm supposed to take that seriously.

Quite frankly I'd use different wordings if you were one of them, but you're not, and you seem fairly intelligent and I don't need to convince you that every pirated copy isn't a lost sale. Even trying to explain it to them would just be covering bases though, still thoroughly convinced they're complete liars

Ofcourse the world would be a better place if we as a whole punished publishers and developers for trying to pull things like that. A customer base that can accurately and actively respond to problematic changes with boycotts that lose large amounts of sales could be an incredible force for good in the industry. Also, if they only knew than at least the biggest obstacle would be to convince them that they shouldn't give their money to those corporations. Sure, there's pretty high odds most people wouldn't but do you honestly doubt that there isn't a single person who bought mass effect 2 but wouldn't if they were aware of project 10 dollar? Or that if everyone was informed about sopa that certain companies would lose some sales? At least in that ideal world awareness wouldn't be the biggest issue and you could try to convince everyone.

You don't need a single person. You need thousands at the very least. And you need to overcome the momentum of the buyers who did know, were outraged, and purchased anyway. Time and time again, the people calling for boycotts even wind up purchasing anyway. "Boycott" is a worthless word in gaming, because people will buy anyway. People who are furious will buy. People who don't know will buy, and probably would buy anyway.

Yes I'm aware you need thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands.

Yes, I know people signing up for boycotts for franchises won't help and no one does and gamers really do need to work at that,

Lost sales are equal to real sales? Yes lost sales seem like a negative side. Like even if I do think they're not fucking liars , a lost sale is a lost sale. If you get enough people (an extremely daunting, maybe even absolutely impossible task) to pirate instead of buy they'll stop turning a profit

Which is still lost if the companies and the industry as a whole thinks the only reason you won't buy the game is that you can get it for free.

If piracy were to shown to correlate to how much intrusive DRM was put in they'd probably recognize it...

No I don't think that. But you are challenging pretty much everything I say

Because you're being illogical at best and disingenuous at worst.

Odd how convinced you are that corporations are being genuine while I'm not.

Well here's the thing, if you could get it easily alone why can't multi-million dollar corporations do it?

Well here's the thing, if millions of people can agree that piracy is stealing, why can't you do it?

Again, loaded language. What you mean is, "If you happen to agree with me, why don't they?" That's a lot easier to answer.[/quote]

I agree. If I pirate a game I would probably have no qualms taking it from a physical store because my one desire in me acquiring the game is that the dev/pub loses money. If I pirate I have malicious intents , I'm not doing it because I'm being restricted by the amount of money I have or because the game is too pricy for my blood, I'm doing it because I hate the pub....or I already own it and lost the cd key.

No, that is not what I mean . I'm asking for a justification for a statement where pirated copies could just be assumed to be lost sales in a 1:1 ratio that the average 13 year old wouldn't realize the absurdity of

ElPatron:

It is not "commonly accepted terminology": if you are working with numbers, it's not called "pedantry", it is called "doing your job like you should".

It is commonly accepted terminology, it is used everywhere. That is extreme pedantry, I'm sorry.

Point missed?

I think you did miss the point. Oh well, apology accepted.

More like "not believing in the 4 million pirated copies because I have seen no evidence that can show that the numbers they acquired are correct".

"And arguing it with someone who has said the same thing, even after they said the same thing."

Yes, I get it. You are trying to tell me how much you believe in same details I mentioned, all while arguing against extremely petty minutia. You done now?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here