Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 21 NEXT
 

hatseflats:
No matter what one thinks of piracy, the notion that the notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is erroneous is erroneous. I might download hundreds of games, none of which I would ever play (let alone buy). Yet they argue that these hundreds of downloads would equal hundreds of lost sales. Almost certainly there are some sales lost due to piracy, but how many has not been investigated, and there are positive effects of piracy as well. I doubt they're big enough to compensate for sales lost but there is no way anyone can be sure of that without doing proper research. Both sides should stop pretending to know for certainwhat the effects of piracy are.

I wouldn't have eaten that candy bar if I couldn't have stolen it and had to buy it.

Herp derp.

hatseflats:
No matter what one thinks of piracy, the notion that the notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is erroneous is erroneous. I might download hundreds of games, none of which I would ever play (let alone buy). Yet they argue that these hundreds of downloads would equal hundreds of lost sales. Almost certainly there are some sales lost due to piracy, but how many has not been investigated, and there are positive effects of piracy as well. I doubt they're big enough to compensate for sales lost but there is no way anyone can be sure of that without doing proper research. Both sides should stop pretending to know for certainwhat the effects of piracy are.

Ok, help me out. What's *a* positive effect of piracy?

ph0b0s123:

Greg Tito:

Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP address, and even if some did, that's hardly a reason to stop going after pirates. "There's no empirical evidence so far to support how often IP spoofing is done," he said. "In reality, I suspect fairly few pirates actually go to the trouble of disguising themselves. Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?"

No, but it does mean that companies need more evidence than just an IP address to take people to court.

Greg Tito:

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous.

No, it's not. Someone who pirates a game was not definitely going to buy it if they could not pirate it. So if you stop all piracy, it does not mean that all those pirated copies would turn into sales on a 1:1 ratio. This is hardly rocket science, but some people try very hard to ignore common sense.

How is this article titled 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy', when he does not even discuss any pro piracy arguments. The only things he is talks about are evidential short comings of enforcement and the industries wrong assumptions about how much piracy is costing them.

Greg Tito:

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And as I predicted in my comment to the top pirated games article, the figures now are being reported as fact even though they are ESTIMATES based on bad data collection methodology. And the two ESTIMATES don't even tally as if the Witcher 2 Piracy ESTIMATE was right, then the game would have appeared in the top 10 Torrentfreak article.

I don't like games being pirated and buy all of mine, but the reporting / journalism here on this issue, leaves a lot to be desired. All these badly sourced ESTIMATES do is convince developers to add more intrusive DRM schemes which only affect legitimate buyers, like myself.

I'm sorry, you think this is about journalism? This is about propaganda, just like most things. You "borrow" the authority and respect of someone else to legitimize your opinion in the eyes of the audience, and you do this repeatedly and aggressively until it's becoming harder and harder to reject. You coat it all in very powerful and explicit words and attack a faceless opponent who can't defend himself, if he even exists at all. You describe this "foe" with negative attributes and make it clear than these bad things apply to yourself as well if you even slightly share the thoughts of that faceless "bad guy". You put words and arguments in the mouth of this "bad guy", and phrase them in such a way that they become easy and straightforward to debunk and dismantle. You never go deeper into the subject and look into it in a meaningful way, because that's not what you're after. You're not looking to educate anyone, you're looking to persuade them.

I learned this after studying rhetoric at the university. I read a chapter in "Mein Kampf" that describes Hitler's own thoughts and theories of propaganda and how to best conduct it. It was almost shocking to read such advanced understand of human psychology from a man who couldn't even get into arts school. But it made perfect sense, and once you learn about it you'll become what my classmates and I call "rhetoric-damaged", because suddenly you see it everywhere. I see it here, just like I've seen it many times before in similar articles. There's a fine line between rhetoric and propaganda, but it's visible. In this case, as many have pointed out in earlier posts, there are several arguments one could make as to why this article does not hold up. Like you say yourself, taking groundless estimates and passing them as facts, or angling them or interpreting them so it fits the agenda at hand.

*EDIT*
Don't mind the typos, it's 3 hours past midnight and I need to go to bed. Good night.

Sonic Doctor:

ph0b0s123:

Greg Tito:

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous.

No, it's not. Someone who pirates a game was not definitely going to buy it if they could not pirate it. So if you stop all piracy, it does not mean that all those pirated copies would turn into sales on a 1:1 ratio. This is hardly rocket science, but some people try very hard to ignore common sense.

How is this article titled 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy', when he does not even discuss any pro piracy arguments. The only things he is talks about are evidential short comings of enforcement and the industries wrong assumptions about how much piracy is costing them.

Why does he have to talk about the pro piracy arguments when there shouldn't be any pro piracy arguments in the first place.

It is like talking about convenience store robberies and then somebody telling people that their discussions on how to stop such robberies are invalid because they didn't look at the pros of convenience store robberies.

It doesn't matter if what is being stolen is physical or digital or that there is an infinite supply.

Theft isn't just depriving somebody of something, it is also people taking things that don't belong to them.

In no way is there an argument for that. Even if the people can't get the game in their country, that is just too bad, that is life and it can be unfair. They don't have to play the game, they don't have a right to play the game.

There is no counter point to an argument against piracy, because piracy is illegal. There never will be until somehow people stealing a product that doesn't belong to them isn't illegal. Stealing will always be illegal.

Burst that little bubble of yours and you'll realize that most of us are fortunate to live in a democracy. Laws are made by the people, through their representatives. Many things become legal and illegal over time. Your post seems to imply that you believe laws are static and never change. If that was true, I'd have a black woman or man cleaning my house and making me tea right now, for example. Or drugs of all kind would be either legal or completely illegal, everywhere. No middle ground. Same with prostitution. The "law" is an extent of societal consciousness and consensus. What is written to law is what is already unwritten in the social contract well all abide to. Whenever the social conventions change, which they do every day, they are a valid point of discussion. Should California legalize marijuana or not? To some it's unthinkable, to others it's rational.

If you devalue the importance of democratic legitimacy in lawmaking, you're effectively creating a society like Iran or China. So when you say, paraphrased, that this subject shouldn't even be discussed, you're dead wrong.

Laws are written by people. People are not perfect. They make mistakes, they have prejudice. They feel stress and pressure. They are a product of their time. Times change.

Acrisius:

ph0b0s123:

Greg Tito:

Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP address, and even if some did, that's hardly a reason to stop going after pirates. "There's no empirical evidence so far to support how often IP spoofing is done," he said. "In reality, I suspect fairly few pirates actually go to the trouble of disguising themselves. Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?"

No, but it does mean that companies need more evidence than just an IP address to take people to court.

Greg Tito:

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous.

No, it's not. Someone who pirates a game was not definitely going to buy it if they could not pirate it. So if you stop all piracy, it does not mean that all those pirated copies would turn into sales on a 1:1 ratio. This is hardly rocket science, but some people try very hard to ignore common sense.

How is this article titled 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy', when he does not even discuss any pro piracy arguments. The only things he is talks about are evidential short comings of enforcement and the industries wrong assumptions about how much piracy is costing them.

Greg Tito:

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And as I predicted in my comment to the top pirated games article, the figures now are being reported as fact even though they are ESTIMATES based on bad data collection methodology. And the two ESTIMATES don't even tally as if the Witcher 2 Piracy ESTIMATE was right, then the game would have appeared in the top 10 Torrentfreak article.

I don't like games being pirated and buy all of mine, but the reporting / journalism here on this issue, leaves a lot to be desired. All these badly sourced ESTIMATES do is convince developers to add more intrusive DRM schemes which only affect legitimate buyers, like myself.

I'm sorry, you think this is about journalism? This is about propaganda, just like most things. You "borrow" the authority and respect of someone else to legitimize your opinion in the eyes of the audience, and you do this repeatedly and aggressively until it's becoming harder and harder to reject. You coat it all in very powerful and explicit words and attack a faceless opponent who can't defend himself, if he even exists at all. You describe this "foe" with negative attributes and make it clear than these bad things apply to yourself as well if you even slightly share the thoughts of that faceless "bad guy". You put words and arguments in the mouth of this "bad guy", and phrase them in such a way that they become easy and straightforward to debunk and dismantle. You never go deeper into the subject and look into it in a meaningful way, because that's not what you're after. You're not looking to educate anyone, you're looking to persuade them.

And thus, 'opinion'. I work for News Corporation, what you've essentially described, with your own hilarious rhetoric, is ANY OPINION PIECE IN THE WORLD. Well done on deconstructing the genre.

To those who claim that piracy is not "theft", I understand your disconnect. You think that the time, efforts, and ideas of others should be free. You feel entitled to the time of other people for free. It is assumed that since there is not a tangible "good" or "product" that it is simply not a real theft, it is merely some form of "right".

By this same definition, therapy is a useless service because people are charging you for something that is, by the previous definition, completely free.

However, time is money. Nothing is free. Why? Because if you're not going to pay people, then they will not do anything for you. If you want a therapist to help you get over a phobia, you have to pay them. If you want a game, you have to pay for it. The only way a pirate leaves for game developers to make money is in-game advertisements, and I'm pretty sure that we're all against those.

If you want games that are only created out of the goodness of the hearts of others, then go play chess. Problem is, you're going to have to buy a chess set to do that. Just because it's harder to steal a chess set doesn't make it any less illegal than stealing games.

While not a pirate myself, I find that its this lawyer's arguments that don't hold up to any logical scrutiny.

1. Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP address, and even if some did, that's hardly a reason to stop going after pirates. "There's no empirical evidence so far to support how often IP spoofing is done," he said. "In reality, I suspect fairly few pirates actually go to the trouble of disguising themselves. Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?"

Yes. Yes, an imperfect method of establishing the identity of a suspected criminal specifically does mean you should not be making allegations of criminal activity based solely on it. That's part of the whole "who do we charge" deal in law enforcement, it's a fundamental process and it cannot be put aside for the convenience of the plaintiff. If the method cannot generate sufficient evidence to support the allegation, you need other methods to get the requisite evidence.

2. The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous. "Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said. "Sadly developers are not gamer banks, willing to effectively loan gamers money until we decide we like them enough to pay them."

The idea that every pirated copy is pure speculation on Mr. Purewal's part. There have been plenty of improved anti-piracy measures taken after software has been made available for piracy, so the owning companies have data on changes in sales due to improved protections. If this data indicates that new anti-piracy measures boost sales by reducing piracy, let's see it please, because that's the only thing that can transform Mr. Purewal's speculation into a factual statement.

It's my personal belief that software piracy is a direct response to and result of the bought-and-paid-for-in-Congress abrogation of consumer protection laws in favor of "license agreements" that have allowed software companies to lie to, cheat and steal from consumers for over a decade now. The irony is that said release from the consumer protection laws was done to protect companies from (drum roll please) - piracy via disk copy. Bring back consumer protection laws for software sales, clean up the lying, cheating and stealing on the part of software companies, and I'll wager that software piracy shows a massive decline in popularity. All of the people who are currently using it as a "try before you buy" system won't have any reason to do so if they can trust what they're reading on the advertisements and have the right to return the product if it doesn't work for them.

And yes, we can completely do this using our current digital distribution platforms, like Steam. Those systems can already tell how many hours we have spent playing a game, so it's not much of a stretch for them to determine how much of the game has been played, so that a standard for whether a return is a reasonable solution to a reported problem can be set and understood by all sides.

ResonanceSD:

Acrisius:

ph0b0s123:

No, but it does mean that companies need more evidence than just an IP address to take people to court.

No, it's not. Someone who pirates a game was not definitely going to buy it if they could not pirate it. So if you stop all piracy, it does not mean that all those pirated copies would turn into sales on a 1:1 ratio. This is hardly rocket science, but some people try very hard to ignore common sense.

How is this article titled 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy', when he does not even discuss any pro piracy arguments. The only things he is talks about are evidential short comings of enforcement and the industries wrong assumptions about how much piracy is costing them.

And as I predicted in my comment to the top pirated games article, the figures now are being reported as fact even though they are ESTIMATES based on bad data collection methodology. And the two ESTIMATES don't even tally as if the Witcher 2 Piracy ESTIMATE was right, then the game would have appeared in the top 10 Torrentfreak article.

I don't like games being pirated and buy all of mine, but the reporting / journalism here on this issue, leaves a lot to be desired. All these badly sourced ESTIMATES do is convince developers to add more intrusive DRM schemes which only affect legitimate buyers, like myself.

I'm sorry, you think this is about journalism? This is about propaganda, just like most things. You "borrow" the authority and respect of someone else to legitimize your opinion in the eyes of the audience, and you do this repeatedly and aggressively until it's becoming harder and harder to reject. You coat it all in very powerful and explicit words and attack a faceless opponent who can't defend himself, if he even exists at all. You describe this "foe" with negative attributes and make it clear than these bad things apply to yourself as well if you even slightly share the thoughts of that faceless "bad guy". You put words and arguments in the mouth of this "bad guy", and phrase them in such a way that they become easy and straightforward to debunk and dismantle. You never go deeper into the subject and look into it in a meaningful way, because that's not what you're after. You're not looking to educate anyone, you're looking to persuade them.

And thus, 'opinion'. I work for News Corporation, what you've essentially described, with your own hilarious rhetoric, is ANY OPINION PIECE IN THE WORLD. Well done on deconstructing the genre.

Did I? I'm gonna avoid the first thought I had when you said your work for "News Corporation". And that was that I was reminded of a study I read about how media these days is losing its journalistic integrity in favor of faster and more sensational stories, and why this is a product of the times (internet, globalization, competition, profit-fixation, etc etc.). I'm gonna void that, because it takes more time and energy than is reasonable for this case.

Instead, I'm gonna say that you're wrong. I'm not deconstructing anything. Propaganda is based on opinions, opinions are spread by propaganda. Which is exactly what I'm saying. I, however, make a difference between journalism and opinions. Sure, a journalist can write articles about opinions, and he should. There's nothing wrong with that. But you can make it wrong if your goal is not to educate people about a certain opinion or thought, etc. You can make it wrong by making it wrong by employing the tools and tricks of propaganda that I mentioned earlier, in a way that makes it take a step further. Another thing I have to point out about propaganda is that there are arguably three kinds of propaganda: "White" propaganda, "black" propaganda and "sub" propaganda. I'm not gonna delve deeper into them and what they mean, you can probably figure it out just by looking at their names. I'm not interested into making this into an essay. When I said then that I think this is propaganda, I actually meant "black" propaganda, because I believe the highest goal is indoctrination and persuasion, not education. Obviously I'm not perfect myself, so what I say is also highly debatable. I'm not gonna deny that.

So I'll meet you halfway. If this isn't "black" propaganda, it's at the VERY LEAST "white" propaganda. Because whether you agree or not, this article definitely has some of the attributes associated with propaganda. Which is very common in general, and that's why you say "And thus, 'opinion'. I work for News Corporation, what you've essentially described, with your own hilarious rhetoric, is ANY OPINION PIECE IN THE WORLD. Well done on deconstructing the genre."

Sonic Doctor:

ph0b0s123:

Greg Tito:

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous.

No, it's not. Someone who pirates a game was not definitely going to buy it if they could not pirate it. So if you stop all piracy, it does not mean that all those pirated copies would turn into sales on a 1:1 ratio. This is hardly rocket science, but some people try very hard to ignore common sense.

How is this article titled 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy', when he does not even discuss any pro piracy arguments. The only things he is talks about are evidential short comings of enforcement and the industries wrong assumptions about how much piracy is costing them.

Why does he have to talk about the pro piracy arguments when there shouldn't be any pro piracy arguments in the first place.

Because that's what the title of the story said he talked about, i.e 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy'.

This was a comment about the sensational and actually inaccurate title of the story. Not specifically a critique of what he actually said.

Sonic Doctor:

It is like talking about convenience store robberies and then somebody telling people that their discussions on how to stop such robberies are invalid because they didn't look at the pros of convenience store robberies.

It doesn't matter if what is being stolen is physical or digital or that there is an infinite supply.

Theft isn't just depriving somebody of something, it is also people taking things that don't belong to them.

In no way is there an argument for that. Even if the people can't get the game in their country, that is just too bad, that is life and it can be unfair. They don't have to play the game, they don't have a right to play the game.

There is no counter point to an argument against piracy, because piracy is illegal. There never will be until somehow people stealing a product that doesn't belong to them isn't illegal. Stealing will always be illegal.

The whole is piracy the same as theft is easily answered by looking at how the two crimes are treated differently in the justice system. The fact is law makers have classed the act as piracy rather than theft and kept it as a civil crime requiring companies to sue, rather than a criminal act which would mean you get arrested and send to criminal court and then prison. That seems like an end of that argument if even law makers are not convinced that they are the same thing and should be treated the same in the justice system.

ph0b0s123:

The whole is piracy the same as theft is easily answered by looking at how the two crimes are treated differently in the justice system. The fact is law makers have classed the act as piracy rather than theft and kept it as a civil crime requiring companies to sue, rather than a criminal act which would mean you get arrested and send to criminal court and then prison. That seems like an end of that argument if even law makers are not convinced that they are the same thing and should be treated the same in the justice system.

Just because there are substantial differences in the way the products are marketed and distributed to the point where their illegal obtaining cannot be prosecuted in the same way does not mean that philosophically or ethically they are any different.

I think killing an animal is morally the same as killing a human but I understand that there are qualitative differences in the act as to warrant different legal responses. There are millions of different situations where legal nuances lead to different approaching in litigation. That doesn't mean that the acts can't be morally considered equally.

peruvianskys:

ph0b0s123:

The whole is piracy the same as theft is easily answered by looking at how the two crimes are treated differently in the justice system. The fact is law makers have classed the act as piracy rather than theft and kept it as a civil crime requiring companies to sue, rather than a criminal act which would mean you get arrested and send to criminal court and then prison. That seems like an end of that argument if even law makers are not convinced that they are the same thing and should be treated the same in the justice system.

Just because there are substantial differences in the way the products are marketed and distributed to the point where their illegal obtaining cannot be prosecuted in the same way does not mean that philosophically or ethically they are any different.

That is exactly what is means. There is no reason that piracy could not be prosecuted in the same way as theft if that was what law makers wanted.

It would be interesting of they did prosecute it the same as theft, as a criminal conviction requires a higher burden of proof. So companies would not be able to use the same extortion tactics they do at the moment, just off the back of an IP address. Just an IP address would never stand up in a criminal case.

It would also send a stronger anti-piracy message. The message they are sending at the moment is that piracy is not as bad as theft and I for one am hearing it.

ph0b0s123:

peruvianskys:

ph0b0s123:

The whole is piracy the same as theft is easily answered by looking at how the two crimes are treated differently in the justice system. The fact is law makers have classed the act as piracy rather than theft and kept it as a civil crime requiring companies to sue, rather than a criminal act which would mean you get arrested and send to criminal court and then prison. That seems like an end of that argument if even law makers are not convinced that they are the same thing and should be treated the same in the justice system.

Just because there are substantial differences in the way the products are marketed and distributed to the point where their illegal obtaining cannot be prosecuted in the same way does not mean that philosophically or ethically they are any different.

That is exactly what is means. There is no reason that piracy could not be prosecuted in the same way as theft if that was what law makers wanted.

It would be interesting of they did prosecute it the same as theft, as a criminal conviction requires a higher burden of proof. So companies would not be able to use the same extortion tactics they do at the moment, just off the back of an IP address. Just an IP address would never stand up in a criminal case.

It would also send a stronger anti-piracy message. The message they are sending at the moment is that piracy is not as bad as theft and I for one am hearing it.

However there is still a flaw in that, the burden of proof.

An IP Address at times isn't even enough to get the problem looked into. It is almost similiar to how we use bait traps to catch online predators. And I think the current message is just as bad because people almost always have to live their life from then on barely legal wages. The problem is not enough people are scared enough of the consequences because not enough people get caught. Let's face it if at least 50% of all people who pirate things were caught, we would see the amount of people who pirate drop quicker then a dive bomber.

I kinda see this as a cause and effect. If people keep living like they are entitled to the sweat of those who work the internet will be a lot more totalitarian society.

Acrisius:
snip

Dude, if you want news, go to Kotaku, Ars Technica, Engadget, Eurogamer or a million other sites which built themselves up around "gaming news" rather than "gaming discussion". You know, the sites from which THIS site gets the news from.

EDIT: especially when the title is "Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy"

Titles wrong. Lawyer doesn't destroy arguments for game piracy. A pirated game is NOT a lost sale. If it's digital, than there's no financial loss.

Any money loss can be attributed to them making shitty games. Publishers/developers lose more money from straight up boycotts than they do people playing their games without paying for them.

I rarely buy new games anymore because I've wasted so much money on shitty games. If gamers could actually trust that their money is going to something worthwhile, they would be willing to spend more.

Good games sell more and make more. There's a reason why the whole issue of piracy has taken a 180* turn, specifically on this site. Most people finally realize the truth. It's the developer/publishers fault, not ours. They've fucked themselves over by punishing their customers and making shitty games. There's always going to be some that pirate regardless of whether they like the game or not. But now honest people don't even care about piracy. These days you'll be lucky to even get a warning for admitting to it.

Pirates are doing us a favour. Assuming SOPA doesn't pass, developers will have to one day realize their errors and actually start making decent games or continue to "lose" money.

F4LL3N:
People finally realize the truth. It's the developer/publishers fault, not ours. They've fucked themselves over by punishing their customers and making shitty games.

So people still want to consume content, and not pay for it. If the content is so bad, why would people still want to play it?

And you're seriously blaming the industry? You, yes, you there, are the reason that SOPA is even being considered.

ResonanceSD:

All your example proves is that some people are beyond any sort of respect. Pirating a free game? Pirating, of all things, THE HUMBLE INDIE BUNDLE? They can't even make the excuse of "it was a big corporation naaaah". Indie developers this time. You know, the ones we like.

That's not a coherent argument. Might want to try again.

JCBFGD:

Gindil:

JCBFGD:
-snip

How can downloading a game that has the option of being given away for free be theft? If the Humble Indie Bundle shows anything, piracy gives a chance to make money even if some people don't buy the game.

I'm not sure what you mean...if a game is given away for free by the devs/publishers, with the option of donating to support it, that's clearly not piracy; you're paying the set price of $0.00. Now, if you pay $0.00 for a game (by pirating, or other less-than-legal methods), when the set price is $49.99, you've just stolen. You've acquired a service/product by not paying for it. That's called theft, at least in most countries I know of.

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

Gindil:
snip

People will pirate anything, including something that has the potential to cost one cent, if it means they don't have to pay for it.

Edit, and the fact that you're equating illegal activity to a market mechanism illustrates the problem the industry has with pirates. Pirates don't know how money works.

ResonanceSD:

TheBear17:
Snip

Sovvolf:
Snip^2

Here's a link to what I was talking about. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/how-the-us-convinced-spain-to-adopt-internet-censorship.ars

From Ars Technica.

An interesting read thank you, please accept my greatest apologies for the late reply, seems I got distracted with another thread. Seems all does not bare well though, with other countries adopting similar systems, your probably accurate in saying that Briton won't be far off doing it themselves :(.

I sincerely hope not. Though even if it didn't and only did legally affect the US, it would still heavily affect the rest of the world. Just, video game and movie review sites are also extremely important to the gaming industry. Having these sites at the mercy of video game companies might not be such a good idea. They could easily abuse such power, making it extremely risky to give a deserved game a bad review.

Lovely Mixture:
Ignoring that saved games aren't the issue. Steam doesn't save your games online, that's an optional backup system. I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, I was mostly just taking a poke at Steam, with which I have a love-hate relationship.

But what I'm talking about is that my PC's networking functions are on the fritz. And when I try to "Continue Game" or load a save while in offline mode, I get a loading screen at first, then it dumps me back to the main menu, with a message that says "Disconnected: Steam validation rejected." I had similar issues with Steam games a couple years back, during a period when my cable internet service was spotty. People sing the praises of the Steam model, but it seems to cause me more pain than anything else.

Whether Steam is storing my saves or not, they're preventing me from getting to them while offline, which amounts to the same thing. If there's a work-around that you know of for this, I'd be sincerely grateful. I'm halfway through Portal 2 and would like to be able to finish! :)

ThatDarnCoyote:

Lovely Mixture:
Ignoring that saved games aren't the issue. Steam doesn't save your games online, that's an optional backup system. I don't know what you're talking about.

Well, I was mostly just taking a poke at Steam, with which I have a love-hate relationship.

But what I'm talking about is that my PC's networking functions are on the fritz. And when I try to "Continue Game" or load a save while in offline mode, I get a loading screen at first, then it dumps me back to the main menu, with a message that says "Disconnected: Steam validation rejected." I had similar issues with Steam games a couple years back, during a period when my cable internet service was spotty. People sing the praises of the Steam model, but it seems to cause me more pain than anything else.

Whether Steam is storing my saves or not, they're preventing me from getting to them while offline, which amounts to the same thing. If there's a work-around that you know of for this, I'd be sincerely grateful. I'm halfway through Portal 2 and would like to be able to finish! :)

If steam stores your savegames in the steam cloud, they're located online. Your inability to access them is entirely your computer's problem.

ResonanceSD:
If steam stores your savegames in the steam cloud, they're located online. Your inability to access them is entirely your computer's problem.

Thanks, I was afraid of that, but figured it to be the case. I don't remember asking to store my saves in the cloud, I'd rather have them locally, for the reasons LovelyMixture mentioned. Looks like I'll have to get the thing fixed.

But that was kind of my point: Steam is great if you have a reliable internet connection. If your internet is temporarily down for any reason (cables, hardware issues, whatever), not so great. This is a single-player game I bought a physical copy of, with a disk and a box and everything. I should be able to play it on an offline computer on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean if I want.

ThatDarnCoyote:

ResonanceSD:
If steam stores your savegames in the steam cloud, they're located online. Your inability to access them is entirely your computer's problem.

Thanks, I was afraid of that, but figured it to be the case. I don't remember asking to store my saves in the cloud, I'd rather have them locally, for the reasons LovelyMixture mentioned. Looks like I'll have to get the thing fixed.

But that was kind of my point: Steam is great if you have a reliable internet connection. If your internet is temporarily down for any reason (cables, hardware issues, whatever), not so great. This is a single-player game I bought a physical copy of, with a disk and a box and everything. I should be able to play it on an offline computer on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean if I want.

I played the entirety of Driver: San Fransisco and Assassins Creed Revelations without an online connection. Yeah, without needing to launch steam or ubisoft DRM. How? By navigating to the game you've already downloaded and booting it up.

damn thing double posted wtf

easy way to fix pirating the publishers should reduce the price for games because as of now you get charged more for a game because they make you buy like 20 things of dlc before the game is released. Also they should make better quality games i mean i cant blame a guy that pirates a game when A 90% of the games have huge bugs that should have been addressed before release example saintrows the third how the fuck does the game freeze than have storyline quest issues and game engine issues IE car gets stuck in the ground or random death by nothing.

I would be pissed if i purchased a product that didnt work or didnt work as advertised so can you blame the pirates for these types of games. the solution is better game production and better quality assurance testing cause its unacceptable to have bugs like explianed above which is alot of games these days, hell half games are incomplete having you to download updates or fucking dlc to add to the game such as resident evil 5 wtf is multiplayer something i have to buy and not something that should have been core part of the game at the time of release.

Also all these game developers need to promote DEMOS this would drasticly reduce piracy if the gamers anticipating the game can get A FUCKING TASTE of it before they buy.

DELTA440:
easy way to fix pirating the publishers should reduce the price for games because as of now you get charged more for a game because they make you buy like 20 things of dlc before the game is released. Also they should make better quality games i mean i cant blame a guy that pirates a game when A 90% of the games have huge bugs that should have been addressed before release example saintrows the third how the fuck does the game freeze than have storyline quest issues and game engine issues IE car gets stuck in the ground or random death by nothing.

I would be pissed if i purchased a product that didnt work or didnt work as advertised so can you blame the pirates for these types of games. the solution is better game production and better quality assurance testing cause its unacceptable to have bugs like explianed above which is alot of games these days, hell half games are incomplete having you to download updates or fucking dlc to add to the game such as resident evil 5 wtf is multiplayer something i have to buy and not something that should have been core part of the game at the time of release.

Also all these game developers need to promote DEMOS this would drasticly reduce piracy if the gamers anticipating the game can get A FUCKING TASTE of it before they buy.

As I said earlier, if there's anything the "price yourself" humble indie bundle proved, it's that people will pirate if the price is one dollar. Reducing prices will not do anything other than reduce revenue for the industry. With less revenue, you can bet that the quality of releases will drop.

Even as a PC gamer to the bone, I really don't get the argument of "a pirated game isn't a lost sale." It's someone who *could* have bought the game and given the developer and publisher some well deserved money and it's someone who is *consuming* the product the publishers are selling.

I also don't get why some people don't like the 5 install limits; I don't know about them, but at the absolute most I'll install them on three (on my desktop, my laptop, and maybe my friend's or cousin's computer to show them what the game's like). What the hell are those people doing that they're complaining about the limit? Do they have a compulsive urge to go house to house installing it on everyone else's computers? ("Hello sir/madame. Do not be alarmed, I'm not here to rob you, I just have an overwhelming desire to install The Witcher 2 on your computer")

But by and large I actually kind of agree with this guy. Some DRM is okay (Steam, generous install limits, activation before installation), but there is a limit (Ubi's always on). Also provide paying customers a better service can help curb it; Starcraft, Company of Heroes, and Battlefield might have been pirated like it was going out of style, but the pirates got a massively gimped product (the first Starcraft I admittedly pirated like 11 years ago, but I wanted to try out the multiplayer, so I eventually bought the Battle Chest).

Also establish good relations with customers and reach out to them. For example, people like Hideo Kojima and companies like Relic can put it out to the community just how much their heart and souls went into making their games. By no stretch of the imagination will it erase piracy, but at the very least it could go a long way to stigmatize it.

At the same time, developers and publishers have to realize that factors like the world market (where piracy is the only way people can play a certain game), the proliferation of file-sharing, and the ingenuity of razor1911 or something or other will ensure that piracy will survive even the most absolute of reversals. But like how retailers and grocery stores cannot completely stop shoplifting, the games industry has to learn to accept some piracy and figure out better ways of mitigating it without pissing in the eyes of legitimate customers.

Agiel7:
By no stretch of the imagination will it erase piracy, but at the very least it could go a long way to stigmatize it.

You mean it's not looked upon as bad, at all? Really?

And for someone to be ok with 5 install limits, but not always-online? Incongruous much?

For the record i'm the complete opposite. Anyone complaining about requiring always online in 2012 needs to PM me and tell me what it's like in the nineties. But the limitation of installs on a product you've purchased is just mental.

ResonanceSD:

Agiel7:
By no stretch of the imagination will it erase piracy, but at the very least it could go a long way to stigmatize it.

You mean it's not looked upon as bad, at all? Really?

And for someone to be ok with 5 install limits, but not always-online? Incongruous much?

For the record i'm the complete opposite. Anyone complaining about requiring always online in 2012 needs to PM me and tell me what it's like in the nineties. But the limitation of installs on a product you've purchased is just mental.

We haven't quite gotten to that point where internet connections both on the ISP and the owner's router side are as reliable as cable TV and hardline phones are now. Don't believe me? Try living in the San Raf dorm at UCSB where your connection is at the mercy of your fellow dorm-mates and university residential services.

And perhaps you can enlighten me as to why install limits are such a big deal. You haven't been breaking into random peoples' homes to ninja-install the Witcher 2 on their computers, have you?

ResonanceSD:

Gindil:
snip

People will pirate anything, including something that has the potential to cost one cent, if it means they don't have to pay for it.

Edit, and the fact that you're equating illegal activity to a market mechanism illustrates the problem the industry has with pirates. Pirates don't know how money works.

On the contrary, they do. They understand that they're underserved customers that the industry is ignoring to try to extrapolate massive amounts of money from them for inferior service.

But you don't have to take my word for it. If you can sit here and argue against Gabe Newell and explain how he's made Russia his second largest market in Europe with copyright, then I'm all ears.

DVS BSTrD:

I only really take issue with dismissing "not a lost sale" and "If they made better games". I'm not going to say that fixing these will bring an end to piracy, but all this I keep hearing about the absurd overpricing some escapist member have to deal with. This coupled with the fact that there ARE a lot of games that, while fun, are NOT worth $60 ("wait until the price drops, then give it a try") certainly contribute. That coupled with postponed regional release dates and outright limited releasing. I had some friends in my last college who pirated and shared a game simply because there was no way to get in America, it was only released in Japan and one of them had a connection.

You know videogames are cheaper than they were in the 1990's right?

Gindil:

ResonanceSD:

Gindil:
snip

People will pirate anything, including something that has the potential to cost one cent, if it means they don't have to pay for it.

Edit, and the fact that you're equating illegal activity to a market mechanism illustrates the problem the industry has with pirates. Pirates don't know how money works.

On the contrary, they do. They understand that they're underserved customers that the industry is ignoring to try to extrapolate massive amounts of money from them for inferior service.

But you don't have to take my word for it. If you can sit here and argue against Gabe Newell and explain how he's made Russia his second largest market in Europe with copyright, then I'm all ears.

Hah, none of what you've said actually excuses piracy.

ResonanceSD:

F4LL3N:
People finally realize the truth. It's the developer/publishers fault, not ours. They've fucked themselves over by punishing their customers and making shitty games.

So people still want to consume content, and not pay for it. If the content is so bad, why would people still want to play it?

They probably don't want to play it once they've realized how worthless it is. Or maybe they want to play it, but don't think it's worth $50-100.

F4LL3N:

ResonanceSD:

F4LL3N:
People finally realize the truth. It's the developer/publishers fault, not ours. They've fucked themselves over by punishing their customers and making shitty games.

So people still want to consume content, and not pay for it. If the content is so bad, why would people still want to play it?

They probably don't want to play it once they've realized how worthless it is. Or maybe they want to play it, but don't think it's worth $50-100.

Uh huh. That's not a defence. For anything.

What about people like me who have no less than 4 copies of baldurs gate 2, and yet I use the ISO these days to make life easier? Is this illegal?

What happens if I own a game like Dungeon Keeper 2 which doesn't work on windows 7 but I download a modified version that does? (or a GOG installer that works on windows 7?) I have a licence for the game (infact 2 as my first disk wore out) and isn't that what we're buying these days so is that legitimate?

Maybe I want to play space marine on my non-internet enabled computer, so although I own a physical copy of the game (and it's installed on my PC) maybe I need to get a cracked version for my other computer?

bombadilillo:

brainslurper:

LilithSlave:

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

Yes it does. They worked hard on something, and what would be a paying customer got it without paying for it, depriving the developer or their profit.

The problem is you assume they WOULD be a paying customer. With or without piracy existing,there is no money that would go to the developer.

It is wrong to call it a lost sale. The sale doesn't exists, would not exist if piracy wasn't a thing.

I bet you if no one could pirate games anymore, game sales would go higher.

Stop trying to defend illegal activity, no amount of arguing will make the Courts think stealing is right.

just going to say it, both sides of the argument are idiots.
piracy doesn't directly harm the publishers/developers (check their profits), but it can if people dont feel a want/need to have the paid product (this is why DRM will never work, why pay $110 for a game with horrible DRM when you can just play the DRM-free pirated version. DRM is one of the biggest things that can really hurt...and 2nd hand)

I guess all anyone can say is that steam is acceptable
steam has:
-has the library to sort your games
-manages any keys to ensure you never loose the manual
-regular sales (at massive savings)
-ensures you will always have access to your games
-does the DRM stuff separately and efficiently
-chat
-gifting
-a community
-other stuff

steam is pretty much the only example i can think of where its DRM done right.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 21 NEXT

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