Developers across the pond in the UK agree that while piracy is a problem - and one that is worsening - it isn't one that threatens their very survival just yet.
Regardless of our gaming platform of choice, I'd hope that we can all agree this: Developers have bills to pay and families to feed, and piracy is a problem that the industry is going to have to deal with one way or another. This isn't to say that the efforts to tackle the problem so far have been the best way to go about it, but piracy is the elephant in the room for game development (only in this case, it's the elephant that has to be addressed at some point or another).
According to GI.biz, developers in the UK are acutely aware of this, judging by the most recent survey of TIGA (The Independent Games Developers Association) members. 60 percent of the developers surveyed agreed that piracy was a problem - a surprisingly low statistic, actually - but even the respondents who didn't think it was a "problem" yet believed the situation was going downhill, with 90 percent of those surveyed saying that piracy was getting worse.
Piracy might be getting worse, but the majority of those surveyed weren't too concerned: 60 percent of the TIGA members felt that piracy was "a low threat to the viability of their company," and only 10 percent called it a significant threat. When asked if they felt that the government should step in to address piracy directly by cutting or slowing broadband access to the internet, the respondents were split down the middle 50/50, which is also a bit surprising.
To be honest, I'm a bit flabbergasted that 50 percent of the developers surveyed would be for the throttling of broadband, considering its increasing importance as online gaming and digital distribution become more popular. That reads to me very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face, and would hurt developers in the long run as much as it might help to curtail piracy. Given how surprisingly resourceful those dastardly bastards are, though, I don't think a cap on broadband would deter them for long.
I think that the UK governments (thankfully defeated) plan to force ISP's to throw pirates off the net were the wrong way to do it. I think what you need to do is get rid of DRM and make the games much more attractive when bought.
If this keeps going, something tells me gaming aren't looking at that long of a life time. Games don't have theaters or concerts, to make the entertainment physical, it's all digital, and as such, it will be the first to go.
Pfft. You force companies to throttle our net speeds and I for one would just pirate every single game that came out, even if it took a week. And I would do it just out of spite. That or I would move to a decent country like Norway where 10MB BB is considered a basic human right.
50/50 on slowing down access to the internet, really? Seems like just another case of everyone going mad as soon as the word "piracy" gets thrown into a conversation. Sad thing is, I recently read a news article right here, whose author was foaming at the mouth too. His name escapes me, but good job on covering the topic sensibly, John.
Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
This will destroy both the computer, and the mind of the pirate. For financial reasons, and out of fear, they will never pirate again.
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
I think piracy is all too often used as a scape goat for why shitty games don't sell well.
While there is huge amount of piracy it isn't money lost as those people wouldn't ever pay anyway.
In fact you get a lot of people who use piracy to rate a games worth then pay for a full version if its deemed good quality.
All the people who I know pirate work on this model and if Stardock can have a best selling game like SoaSE be completely DRM free, then whats the problem?
Even then its the progress of technology at odds with old world capitalism. How can you put value on something that can be infinitely copied at zero cost?
The best piracy protection is the type they used in Batman: Arkham Asylum, where they take away key gameplay elements so you can't proceed past a certain point.
This DRM thing (whilst not a problem for me) really gets on people's tits - and it only gets in the way of people that buy the thing legally.
Piracy has been a problem since the only thing people did online was talk on bulletin board services, and it will always be a problem. The idea of fighting a problem is staying one step ahead, and kneejerk reactions like 'let's throttle broadband' is not staying ahead. You only piss off Everyone and kill most if not all support for the product that you create. It's the same with DRM. You only punish everybody for the sins of a few, and kill your marketbase. You want to fight piracy? Hire the pirates and hackers who most likely can use a good job anyway, and use their tools to deal with the problem. Stop being so uppity and think that pirates are lowlife scum. And asking the government for help will only make things worse, when the government decides that in order to help, they should also regulate more of what you put out. God helps those who help themselves, the government helps those who are too lazy to help themselves.
Ya, bright idea there, skippy. Never mind that such an act would get you sued two steps from Sunday by the very pirates who would be acting in the right by suing you. Not to mention there's no guarantee that such a viral code wouldn't end up on legitimately purchased versions. So far the best and legal idea has been from Rocksteady and Eidos with what they did with Batman Arkham Asylum, by leaving a gimped game available to the pirates. Nothing viral, nothing illegal. It did no harm to their system, just to their egos as they only got to play with a Batman who didn't train himself to superior ability to fight crime.
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
This will destroy both the computer, and the mind of the pirate. For financial reasons, and out of fear, they will never pirate again.
That or they make a whole lot of enemies. To quote myself from another thread:
Asehujiko: Destroying several days - correction - months in work hours along with tons of personal data because they couldn't live with me trying the game before buying is a good way to end up with a molotov through a window at their their office and find me waiting with a baseball bat on their way home. If they think they can be utterly unthinkingly destructive out of spite over what may or may not be a lost sale of which about $0.05 was going to get past their publisher then i reserve the right to react with similar force.
Besides that, pirates are smarter then your average gamer and unexplained uploads not by any scene group are met with utmost scrutiny and trying to pose as a scene group will result in being denounced as fake by said scene group within hours or even minutes. You'd be more successful in getting people to buy viruses/porn by putting it on an x360 disk, dumping it in various stores and hosting a bunch of fake reviews giving it a 9/10.
As much as I don't want to have them go crazy in futile attempts to stop DRM (that 99.999% of the time ONLY harm the loyal consumer and have ZERO affect on piracy) I can't tell you how much it pisses me off hearing from people I meet so often say shit like:
"Well I pirate all my games, fuck the developers they have enough money"
...As if they are all little children who don't know that meat comes from animals. I mean when I press them on how they expect these expensive games to be paid for they just say "I dunno, some chumps will always pay... like you"
I wonder how big the publishers that didn't consider it a threat were... because the bigger devs probably have less of a problem. They can rely on their mega-hits to rake in the dough from parents buying their kids games, and from people too honest to pirate.
Furburt: I think that the UK governments (thankfully defeated) plan to force ISP's to throw pirates off the net were the wrong way to do it. I think what you need to do is get rid of DRM and make the games much more attractive when bought.
Definitely. That is the best solution to the piracy problem. They can't force them as slowing/capping broadband is a ridiculous idea to begin with. Grrr... This just makes me lose faith in governments
Throttle broadband? I can just see the headlines: "U.K. to Become Internet 'Black Hole'" "English Suffer YouTube Deprivation" "Welshman Sentenced for Parallel Internet Connections"
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.
How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.
How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?
Anything they can do to identify a user, without their prior consent, and using that to punish them is in essence entrapment, and thus cannot be used in a court of law. It's why police can't, for example, run a fake child porn site and prosecute everyone who subscribes.
It's even more difficult, criminally they cannot even use evidence collected without authorisation, as at that point it's here say and can't be proven either way, and thus is only used in civil courts, which is why most caught infringing copyright are sued.
Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.
How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?
Stole? The act of torrenting something is not illegal, it's merely a method of data transfer. The Devs uploaded the game onto the internet themselves. Are you so sure it's still 'stealing' if the creators themselves are giving it away?
the indutry would focus on getting stuff to consumers better made and at lower prices(set world price of new games to around 40$ and stop with the gouging already) and focus on people and sites that sell software without a license(you can not touch hardware mods,don't even try it fools) you will practically cripple piracy.
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.
How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?
Anything they can do to identify a user, without their prior consent, and using that to punish them is in essence entrapment, and thus cannot be used in a court of law. It's why police can't, for example, run a fake child porn site and prosecute everyone who subscribes.
It's even more difficult, criminally they cannot even use evidence collected without authorisation, as at that point it's here say and can't be proven either way, and thus is only used in civil courts, which is why most caught infringing copyright are sued.
So what if instead of the devs uploading it themselves they release the game and pull a Batman on the pirates that does the exact thing xscoot is saying? Just one nasty little line of code hidden somewhere in there that if you are using a cracked version it fries your PC/console or puts a box in the middle of your screen that plays porn or a message or something? No entrapment. And you got what you paid for. WIN/WIN.
squid5580: So what if instead of the devs uploading it themselves they release the game and pull a Batman on the pirates that does the exact thing xscoot is saying? Just one nasty little line of code hidden somewhere in there that if you are using a cracked version it fries your PC/console or puts a box in the middle of your screen that plays porn or a message or something? No entrapment. And you got what you paid for. WIN/WIN.
Except that anything they do which causes damage to the PC or the files contained therein will get them sued -- since after all they are intentionally releasing it knowing that people will install it; whether people pay to receive it or not is immaterial.
They can get away with uploading an impaired-functionality version of the game (except that if someone can then patch it to be a not-impaired-functionality version [without using files from the full version] then the entire thing is perfectly legal all the way through; no piracy occurs). They can't get away with having that version break the PC, or show illegal images, or show pornographic images without verifying that there aren't minors present.
Getting worse? We have our first un-hackable and hard-to-hack consoles (PlayStation 3, XBOX360 that regulary bans modded consoles) since a few years ago, digital distribution is on the rise (murdering not only "piracy", but second-hand/pre-owned markets as well) and more people are aware and against "piracy" than ever, thanks mostly to overstatements and outright lies in anti-piracy propaganda. ISPs are fighting every day to avoid being forced to spy on their users and/or to disconnect people without trial at the behest of anyone who tells them their work has been "stolen". Yet it's "getting worse"? Give me a break, we're closer to stamping out piracy than we ever were.
And numbers don't mean a thing without context, the same Internet boom that gave rise to wide-spread file sharing also gave developers and publishers markets they couldn't have dreamed of before. If a while ago 1000 people bought your game and 100 copied it without permission, is that really better than 100`000 buying it and 100`000 "pirating"? How can you have "lost" revenue when you have no way of knowing if you ever had any chance of actually getting it in the first place?
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.
How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?
Anything they can do to identify a user, without their prior consent, and using that to punish them is in essence entrapment, and thus cannot be used in a court of law. It's why police can't, for example, run a fake child porn site and prosecute everyone who subscribes.
It's even more difficult, criminally they cannot even use evidence collected without authorisation, as at that point it's here say and can't be proven either way, and thus is only used in civil courts, which is why most caught infringing copyright are sued.
So what if instead of the devs uploading it themselves they release the game and pull a Batman on the pirates that does the exact thing xscoot is saying? Just one nasty little line of code hidden somewhere in there that if you are using a cracked version it fries your PC/console or puts a box in the middle of your screen that plays porn or a message or something? No entrapment. And you got what you paid for. WIN/WIN.
Criminal Damage, and Computer Misuse Act Crimes. That is a virus.
Jail time.
They would then be sued by every person afflicted by it, and they WOULD win without doubt. Bearing in mind, some peoples PC's are required for work and house important data you shouldn't doubt that each case would be hefty payouts, and lets face it.
But ignoring the fact that the company clever enough to come up with this entirely idiotic idea wouldn't also be clever enough to accidentally release the game with it in to all customers.
And lets face it... release groups decompile the game to defeat copy protection. Code that 'could' destroy a PC by running it, would be obvious... and somehow people here seem to think it's one line of code? What shutdown -t 1 -explode 1? Ridicolous. Best way would be destroying BIOSes, but you'd need to much code to identify and access it doesn't even bare thinking about, same for Graphics Cards. So many variations. All so obvious to the release groups, and would be trimmed. Ironically, the pirated version would be safer to use.
It's a stupid idea on so many levels.
So many here spout about the evils of piracy anyway without having the faintest clue about how pirates go about their business.
Escapist Policy:
Pirate: Arrrrr, hahaha. I be playing for free Jim Lad. Bring Wenches and Rum! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Yes
Actual Pirate Policy:
#1 Pirate: This game rocks, i think i'm going to buy it! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? Pirate bought the game anyway.
#2 Pirate: This game sucks, i think i'm not going to buy it! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? Because they wouldn't have bought it without downloading it.
#3 Pirate: Meh, it's alright/good. I'll buy it when it's cheaper Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? It was bought when a price that the Pirate thought it was worth.
#4 Pirate: I'm a cheapskate, i know it Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Maybe ---- Why Maybe? It's unlikely they would have bought it anyway.
The assumption by Developers is that the person who pirated it, would have bought it if they hadn't got it for free. It implies they CAN afford it. The way people value media is different, and largely that's piracy that has done that. I personally don't think any game without a solid multiplayer element is worth any more than £20.
However, people are also alot less patient and you can't expect a hyped game to be waited for when it's available. If it's a hyped game that's shitty, you can also expect it will have large downloads, but few sales.
There are many in the freeloader camp, but what is not generally understood is that they won't buy it anyway, if they can't get it for free. They might be people who can't afford it, they might just not care enough.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not advocating piracy, but it seems many on this forum do just not understand really the symantics of it, and as such make blanket statements like the Escapist Pirate Policy above.
Veylon: Throttle broadband? I can just see the headlines: "U.K. to Become Internet 'Black Hole'" "English Suffer YouTube Deprivation" "Welshman Sentenced for Parallel Internet Connections"
Too late for the English! the French already completely cut your internet of when you download using a P2P system (not that that would really help as a vast amount of piracy is done just by copying cd's and selling them or giving them out)
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.
How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?
Anything they can do to identify a user, without their prior consent, and using that to punish them is in essence entrapment, and thus cannot be used in a court of law. It's why police can't, for example, run a fake child porn site and prosecute everyone who subscribes.
It's even more difficult, criminally they cannot even use evidence collected without authorisation, as at that point it's here say and can't be proven either way, and thus is only used in civil courts, which is why most caught infringing copyright are sued.
So what if instead of the devs uploading it themselves they release the game and pull a Batman on the pirates that does the exact thing xscoot is saying? Just one nasty little line of code hidden somewhere in there that if you are using a cracked version it fries your PC/console or puts a box in the middle of your screen that plays porn or a message or something? No entrapment. And you got what you paid for. WIN/WIN.
Criminal Damage, and Computer Misuse Act Crimes. That is a virus.
Jail time.
They would then be sued by every person afflicted by it, and they WOULD win without doubt. Bearing in mind, some peoples PC's are required for work and house important data you shouldn't doubt that each case would be hefty payouts, and lets face it.
But ignoring the fact that the company clever enough to come up with this entirely idiotic idea wouldn't also be clever enough to accidentally release the game with it in to all customers.
And lets face it... release groups decompile the game to defeat copy protection. Code that 'could' destroy a PC by running it, would be obvious... and somehow people here seem to think it's one line of code? What shutdown -t 1 -explode 1? Ridicolous. Best way would be destroying BIOSes, but you'd need to much code to identify and access it doesn't even bare thinking about, same for Graphics Cards. So many variations. All so obvious to the release groups, and would be trimmed. Ironically, the pirated version would be safer to use.
It's a stupid idea on so many levels.
So many here spout about the evils of piracy anyway without having the faintest clue about how pirates go about their business.
Escapist Policy:
Pirate: Arrrrr, hahaha. I be playing for free Jim Lad. Bring Wenches and Rum! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Yes
Actual Pirate Policy:
#1 Pirate: This game rocks, i think i'm going to buy it! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? Pirate bought the game anyway.
#2 Pirate: This game sucks, i think i'm not going to buy it! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? Because they wouldn't have bought it without downloading it.
#3 Pirate: Meh, it's alright/good. I'll buy it when it's cheaper Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? It was bought when a price that the Pirate thought it was worth.
#4 Pirate: I'm a cheapskate, i know it Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Maybe ---- Why Maybe? It's unlikely they would have bought it anyway.
The assumption by Developers is that the person who pirated it, would have bought it if they hadn't got it for free. It implies they CAN afford it. The way people value media is different, and largely that's piracy that has done that. I personally don't think any game without a solid multiplayer element is worth any more than £20.
However, people are also alot less patient and you can't expect a hyped game to be waited for when it's available. If it's a hyped game that's shitty, you can also expect it will have large downloads, but few sales.
There are many in the freeloader camp, but what is not generally understood is that they won't buy it anyway, if they can't get it for free. They might be people who can't afford it, they might just not care enough.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not advocating piracy, but it seems many on this forum do just not understand really the symantics of it, and as such make blanket statements like the Escapist Pirate Policy above.
I do understand the excuses. I just don't believe them. Loss of a real sale? See it shouldn't matter if they would or could have bought it or not. This should be treated like any other product on the market. If you can't or won't buy it you don't get the priviledge of enjoying it. Instead of making them choose between working for it or stealing it we call it piracy and everything is ok as listed above because it wasn't a "real sale". There is another thread created in OT I think (I wish I could remember the title). Anyways to make a long story short some kid got a DS with R9 (or something like that) and was having a moral dilema. On one hand he didn't feel comfortable pirating the games. On the other the easy accessibility and a lack of funds were also a big factor. And that is the bottom line. Pirated games are to easy to access. And for some reason that makes it excusable. Some even call it right. And since the law hasn't caught up with the times people can make excuses like that without having to worry about things like having to save up or get extra work to be able to enjoy them.
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Uh, Amnestic...Already happened. The original pirate of LSL had a copy of the Jerusalem virus that nearly decimated the business community due to disc swapping, back in 1990.
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Uh, Amnestic...Already happened. The original pirate of LSL had a copy of the Jerusalem virus that nearly decimated the business community due to disc swapping, back in 1990.
I was born in 1990. Such things were, sadly, before my time. Interesting to know though.
xscoot: Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.
On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?
Hint: Quite a lot.
Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.
Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.
How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?
Anything they can do to identify a user, without their prior consent, and using that to punish them is in essence entrapment, and thus cannot be used in a court of law. It's why police can't, for example, run a fake child porn site and prosecute everyone who subscribes.
It's even more difficult, criminally they cannot even use evidence collected without authorisation, as at that point it's here say and can't be proven either way, and thus is only used in civil courts, which is why most caught infringing copyright are sued.
So what if instead of the devs uploading it themselves they release the game and pull a Batman on the pirates that does the exact thing xscoot is saying? Just one nasty little line of code hidden somewhere in there that if you are using a cracked version it fries your PC/console or puts a box in the middle of your screen that plays porn or a message or something? No entrapment. And you got what you paid for. WIN/WIN.
Criminal Damage, and Computer Misuse Act Crimes. That is a virus.
Jail time.
They would then be sued by every person afflicted by it, and they WOULD win without doubt. Bearing in mind, some peoples PC's are required for work and house important data you shouldn't doubt that each case would be hefty payouts, and lets face it.
But ignoring the fact that the company clever enough to come up with this entirely idiotic idea wouldn't also be clever enough to accidentally release the game with it in to all customers.
And lets face it... release groups decompile the game to defeat copy protection. Code that 'could' destroy a PC by running it, would be obvious... and somehow people here seem to think it's one line of code? What shutdown -t 1 -explode 1? Ridicolous. Best way would be destroying BIOSes, but you'd need to much code to identify and access it doesn't even bare thinking about, same for Graphics Cards. So many variations. All so obvious to the release groups, and would be trimmed. Ironically, the pirated version would be safer to use.
It's a stupid idea on so many levels.
So many here spout about the evils of piracy anyway without having the faintest clue about how pirates go about their business.
Escapist Policy:
Pirate: Arrrrr, hahaha. I be playing for free Jim Lad. Bring Wenches and Rum! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Yes
Actual Pirate Policy:
#1 Pirate: This game rocks, i think i'm going to buy it! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? Pirate bought the game anyway.
#2 Pirate: This game sucks, i think i'm not going to buy it! Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? Because they wouldn't have bought it without downloading it.
#3 Pirate: Meh, it's alright/good. I'll buy it when it's cheaper Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No ---- Why No? It was bought when a price that the Pirate thought it was worth.
#4 Pirate: I'm a cheapskate, i know it Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes ---- Why Yes? It was downloaded! Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Maybe ---- Why Maybe? It's unlikely they would have bought it anyway.
The assumption by Developers is that the person who pirated it, would have bought it if they hadn't got it for free. It implies they CAN afford it. The way people value media is different, and largely that's piracy that has done that. I personally don't think any game without a solid multiplayer element is worth any more than £20.
However, people are also alot less patient and you can't expect a hyped game to be waited for when it's available. If it's a hyped game that's shitty, you can also expect it will have large downloads, but few sales.
There are many in the freeloader camp, but what is not generally understood is that they won't buy it anyway, if they can't get it for free. They might be people who can't afford it, they might just not care enough.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not advocating piracy, but it seems many on this forum do just not understand really the symantics of it, and as such make blanket statements like the Escapist Pirate Policy above.
I do understand the excuses. I just don't believe them. Loss of a real sale? See it shouldn't matter if they would or could have bought it or not. This should be treated like any other product on the market. If you can't or won't buy it you don't get the priviledge of enjoying it. Instead of making them choose between working for it or stealing it we call it piracy and everything is ok as listed above because it wasn't a "real sale". There is another thread created in OT I think (I wish I could remember the title). Anyways to make a long story short some kid got a DS with R9 (or something like that) and was having a moral dilema. On one hand he didn't feel comfortable pirating the games. On the other the easy accessibility and a lack of funds were also a big factor. And that is the bottom line. Pirated games are to easy to access. And for some reason that makes it excusable. Some even call it right. And since the law hasn't caught up with the times people can make excuses like that without having to worry about things like having to save up or get extra work to be able to enjoy them.
You've completely missed the point that the scale of piracy is grossly exaggerated.
squid5580: This should be treated like any other product on the market.
And yet it's not. When you buy a chair, nobody forbids you to make your own copies of it, and even give/sell/rent them to your friends. It's your chair, you are allowed to do pretty much anything you want with it. When you pay for a game, you only get a very limited permission to play that game. You don't even own the copy, all you own is the fragile plastic disc and a permission to read data from it, and even that on one single set of hardware. That's the exact same thing as "selling" you a bike, while actually only allowing you to keep it in your house and use it, but absolutely forbidding you to sell, rent or even repair it (if/when it breaks, you have to buy a new one). Also, before buying you are rarely allowed to even test ride it before paying full price, and when you are (demos), it's a special model with 1 speed instead of the 18, only one brake (the front one), you cannot turn left and it stops working after the first 100 meters.
squid5580: See it shouldn't matter if they would or could have bought it or not. [..] If you can't or won't buy it you don't get the priviledge of enjoying it.
Yes, but if you can't buy it but enjoy it anyway, how exactly does that create a loss for the seller and "destroy the industry"? Of course it's wrong to infringe on someone's rights to tell you how to use their work, and it pisses of authors that consumers of their work don't do what they want, but the problem is that nobody talks about it the way it is - copyright infringement, instead it's all "losses", "stealing", "destruction", "piracy", "doomsday and death for the entire industry". I never stop being amazed at how the loudest crybabies are the ones in the most successful industries in the world - videogames, music and movies. The only three industries that barely even feel the economic problems are same ones that keep crying impending death of their business while making more money each year.
squid5580: This should be treated like any other product on the market.
And yet it's not. When you buy a chair, nobody forbids you to make your own copies of it, and even give/sell/rent them to your friends. It's your chair, you are allowed to do pretty much anything you want with it. When you pay for a game, you only get a very limited permission to play that game. You don't even own the copy, all you own is the fragile plastic disc and a permission to read data from it, and even that on one single set of hardware. That's the exact same thing as "selling" you a bike, while actually only allowing you to keep it in your house and use it, but absolutely forbidding you to sell, rent or even repair it (if/when it breaks, you have to buy a new one). Also, before buying you are rarely allowed to even test ride it before paying full price, and when you are (demos), it's a special model with 1 speed instead of the 18, only one brake (the front one), you cannot turn left and it stops working after the first 100 meters.
squid5580: See it shouldn't matter if they would or could have bought it or not. [..] If you can't or won't buy it you don't get the priviledge of enjoying it.
Yes, but if you can't buy it but enjoy it anyway, how exactly does that create a loss for the seller and "destroy the industry"? Of course it's wrong to infringe on someone's rights to tell you how to use their work, and it pisses of authors that consumers of their work don't do what they want, but the problem is that nobody talks about it the way it is - copyright infringement, instead it's all "losses", "stealing", "destruction", "piracy", "doomsday and death for the entire industry". I never stop being amazed at how the loudest crybabies are the ones in the most successful industries in the world - videogames, music and movies. The only three industries that barely even feel the economic problems are same ones that keep crying impending death of their business while making more money each year.
Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game (aside from a few DRMs that don't allow multiple installations which was attempted for a few games). If you lend your friend the chair do you still have the chair in your home? I don't think so.
And so what if they are making money hand over fist? Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it. It never ceases to amaze me how pirates justify it.
Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game
Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game
Can you lend people Steam games?
Do you not have the option to buy a physical copy if sharing it with your friend is so important?
Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game
Can you lend people Steam games?
Do you not have the option to buy a physical copy if sharing it with your friend is so important?
That's not the question at hand: I've purchased a game - legally, I wish to share it with my friend - singular, but I can't.
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Special Attack
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
UK Devs: Piracy Is a Problem, Doesn't Threaten Survival
Developers across the pond in the UK agree that while piracy is a problem - and one that is worsening - it isn't one that threatens their very survival just yet.
Regardless of our gaming platform of choice, I'd hope that we can all agree this: Developers have bills to pay and families to feed, and piracy is a problem that the industry is going to have to deal with one way or another. This isn't to say that the efforts to tackle the problem so far have been the best way to go about it, but piracy is the elephant in the room for game development (only in this case, it's the elephant that has to be addressed at some point or another).
According to GI.biz, developers in the UK are acutely aware of this, judging by the most recent survey of TIGA (The Independent Games Developers Association) members. 60 percent of the developers surveyed agreed that piracy was a problem - a surprisingly low statistic, actually - but even the respondents who didn't think it was a "problem" yet believed the situation was going downhill, with 90 percent of those surveyed saying that piracy was getting worse.
Piracy might be getting worse, but the majority of those surveyed weren't too concerned: 60 percent of the TIGA members felt that piracy was "a low threat to the viability of their company," and only 10 percent called it a significant threat. When asked if they felt that the government should step in to address piracy directly by cutting or slowing broadband access to the internet, the respondents were split down the middle 50/50, which is also a bit surprising.
To be honest, I'm a bit flabbergasted that 50 percent of the developers surveyed would be for the throttling of broadband, considering its increasing importance as online gaming and digital distribution become more popular. That reads to me very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face, and would hurt developers in the long run as much as it might help to curtail piracy. Given how surprisingly resourceful those dastardly bastards are, though, I don't think a cap on broadband would deter them for long.
Permalink