SenseOfTumour:
Introversion, the Darwinia guys, they KNOW Darwinia and Uplink and the like got the hell pirated out of them, but they still sold, and once it hit steam, sold well, too. They've probably lost tens of thousands to piracy, but they prefer to look to the sales, not the imagined losses. They're not happy about piracy, who would be , about having your creation stolen from you, but they're still queueing up more to come and say the PC is their favourite platform. (Go buy Multiwinia!).

Exactly. It's the glass half empty (X people have pirated our game, we've lost X times whatever we get from a sale in money) we see from many developers and publishers, vs. the glass half full (Y people have bought our game, we've made a profit and can pay our shareholders, stay in business and make more games, it's all good) we see from what I believe to be a better class of companies.

Edit: see this blog post by the CEO of Stardock, a company very much in the second category.

Here's some logic reasoning why crytek pulled their number out of their ass: Crysis sold 3 million copies at that time. It was estimated that there were about 10 million computers able to run crysis at that time. Then they announced that the ratio for pirates/buyers was 20:1. Ergo, there would be 60 million pirates. Now, with 3 million legal buyers and alot of computers not used for games, that means that there's less then 6 million users who had the chance to pirate it. If crytek's numbers were true, that would mean that every pirate downloaded 10 copies of the game on average. Which is simply put, bullshit.

Even if everybody able to pirate the game did so, which i highly doubt, crytek would have inflated their statistics by 900%.

I think many of you believe that the game publishers aren't releasing games for PC out of spite - because some people pirate games, they won't release them at all, even though it would be profitable to do so.

I don't think that's the case at all. Game developers and publishers are in this to make money. If they could make money from releasing a game on a platform *they would*. If they aren't making PC versions, it's because they don't think it will be profitable to do so.

Epic and others clearly believe that the cost to bring their game to PC must be less than their expected revenue from PC.

That tells me something has gone wrong for PC gaming, because we have fewer PC games being made today than in the past, and PC has gone from the cutting-edge platform for AAA games to a secondary platform for many genres. Yet game-capable PCs are more widely available than ever, and PC games are easier to install than ever before (I remember having to make boot-disks for Tie Fighter, for god's sake).

The studios seem to think that it is piracy. If it's not piracy, what do you guys think it is?

o, so this isnt the first time ive argued with a game company about piacy, buti have a good reason this time...

piracy, as it was stated in someone elses interesting post, is worse on consoles than PC...
secondly, i no at least 3 people with all 100 people on thei xbox live frineds list who had gears 2 about a week before release, so, after that epic....tell me that piracy is just a PC problem...

I have a idea for him, what if epic would do a really god port for pc? Wouldn't pc gamers than buy more product from them (like unreal tournament 3 it was not a god pc game, it was very bad if I compare to unreal 2004). And second if he has a issue with resealing games, well look epic steam doesn't resale that much. So you just have to make game that has to be activated on steam.

A really don't get it what epic think they are first they don't do god games for pc, and then he complain about something that could be done easy for resales.

mike1921:

GTA1,2,3,Vice City, San Andreas all together, about £20.

That's how you deal with old games that you don't want to see end up in the second hand market.

Thank you!

Also, is steam legal?

Then they bitch, piss and moan about how people are trying to save a few bucks by buying used and that they DESERVE that money, too. "GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!", is the motto of these tools who resent retailers and gamers for wanting to make or save a buck.

The thing is that, when we save a buck, they get nothing. I don't know how much a game maker gets from a new sale of a 60$ game,but even if it's 10$, we're saving 5$ if we're buying from their primary retailer and they lose 10, is that fair?

It IS fair ; see here:
http://www.sivideo.com/9fstslea.htm

It is a right to resell what you use;
among industries that sells to the general public the video game companies are the only ones to question that right.
Just imagine a world where reselling anything is a mortal sin... ridiculous.

The consumer is always right , so if you don't think that a game is not worth 60$ , then it is not worth 60$ , period.
Either the prices are lowered , or you buy it used from someone else.
Then prices have to be lowered , that's how the market work ;
all this sounds like a short sighted scheme to keep game prices up as long as possible (I don't see how re-selling can be stopped).
This is serious , the right of first sell is in danger.

Greed...
getting in the way of our fun.

Khell_Sennet:
These fuckwits in the games industry honestly believe a family with three children should be required to buy three copies of each game if all the kids are to play it, and that my friends, is not a reasonable thing to do, and the law backs our side of that situation.

Based on the many conversations I've had with many different people in the industry, this statement is false. They do not feel that people should buy multiple copies for one household. To say otherwise is simply hyperbole. General usage rights allow use for multiple people within one household; devs and pubs know this - they are smart people.

What's not allowed and what is upsetting to developers and publishers is that someone plays the game without paying for it. That is pure and simple stealing. If you play something that is generally acquired by an exchange of funds, without exchanging those funds, you are stealing.

When you buy a used copy of the game, the people who created the game and brought it to the stores (the developer and the publisher) are not being paid. User agreements do not cover allowing others to play your game, watch your movies or listen to your music for a fee. That is essentially what is happening when a used game is sold and then bought again.

And the numbers generally come for server ping IDs v. copies of game sold. Some of the discrepancy can come from multiple people from the same household playing the same copy (fine) but this is offset considerably by the number of people who never play online.

Zrahni:
GIVE US FREAKING DEMO VERSIONS TO SEE THE FREAKING GAME YOU HYPED FOR 2 YEARS OR SO AND YOU WILL SEE PIRATING DECREASE.

Bullshit. Demos don't have anything to do with it. People pirate because either they think they are sending a message, because they don't want to pay money they don't have for a game they want, or because they don't want to pay money they DO have for a game they want.

And before people drop the 'I only download games and see if I will buy it, and then I delete it', that's also either complete bullshit or you are a rare minority.

Look, I think the President of EA (And EA in general) is a total tool (ESPECIALLY about the used games 'problem'...idiot) and is going about this piracy problem the completely wrong way. But look at it, if you dare, from the perspective of one of these companies (EA or otherwise):

They spend upwards of millions of dollars in time and money developing these games. Go figure they'd want to MAKE MONEY off these games. It's a freaking business, and that's the point of a business: To make money. But then, you got a bunch of people blatantly ripping your product off. Flat out stealing it. Yeah, that would get me annoyed and angry too.

Try and justify piracy all you want, because you're lying to yourself.
'It's a sub par product! I don't want to pay full price for that!' - Then wait for the inevitable price drop. Otherwise I guess you really DID want that game! Pay for the damn thing.

'I'm not going to support STOOPID EA because they suck!' - But yet you still want to play their games by downloading them? That's a ridiculous argument. You either boycott them or you buy them, otherwise you're just an EA closet case.

'I don't agree with their DRM/copy protection software!' - Well if people weren't pirating in the first place, they wouldn't be there. Besides that, since they ARE there, then don't get the bloody game. That's how they're releasing it, and if it pisses you off then don't get the game. There are plenty of other great games out there without the DRM and secuROM shit. Play those.

Sorry to rant, but I get sick of people with their heads up their ass spouting forum rhetoric on the virtues of piracy. It's bullshit.

I want to make it clear to the likes of Baby tea that I am not advocating piracy ;
I am advocating the right to resell (see my last post).

So what if they sunk millions in development? a crappy game will never be worth 60$ !

Them gutting consumer rights is a good reason not to buy anything from anyone that stupid.

I agree , some developper are smart , but sometime just not smart enough

mike1921:

Then they bitch, piss and moan about how people are trying to save a few bucks by buying used and that they DESERVE that money, too. "GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!", is the motto of these tools who resent retailers and gamers for wanting to make or save a buck.

The thing is that, when we save a buck, they get nothing. I don't know how much a game maker gets from a new sale of a 60$ game,but even if it's 10$, we're saving 5$ if we're buying from their primary retailer and they lose 10, is that fair?

They deserve nothing. They produced the initial product, SOMEONE PAID FOR IT, and then sold it on. If someone want to sell on an old game, they are fully within their rights. If someone wants to buy a used game, they are fully within their rights. The only people doing anything wrong are the idiots putting DRM into their games.

To be honest I won't cry about losing gears of war 2... If fallout 3 were to have come out on consoles only I would have been angry, if blizzard were to release SC2 on consoles I'd be pissed, losing gears of war 2 isn't gonna make me cry and it sure as hell ain't gonna make me buy a console. I felt epic was dried up after I played UT3, while it was nice, compared to UT2004 it felt weak. Also while Crytek may be annoying with their piracy statements, a game where you can pile up 3 trucks and make an explosion bigger than a nuke is something I'll leave Crytek in peace for.

IMO I think it's because geats was originally a 360 selling point and when the moved it to PC microsoft lost out (yes I know gears is only for windows but....who doesn't have computer) and so they probably asked for gears 2 not to be out on PC. (otherwise why would EPIC spend so long on the first for PC unless it is some clever scheme (get PC gamers hooked on gears so they buy 360s and gears 2?))

im sorry, but if they want to alienate an entire market.. feel free. its thier death bed.

Dont sell to PC gamers any more, because we dont want to buy your rubbish!

It IS fair ; see here:
http://www.sivideo.com/9fstslea.htm

It is a right to resell what you use;

I'm not challenging whether it should be legal. I'm challenging whether it's moral

The consumer is always right , so if you don't think that a game is not worth 60$ , then it is not worth 60$ , period.
Either the prices are lowered , or you buy it used from someone else.[/qutoe] No, the consumer is not always right. Also, I'm not challenging that it's moral to buy used games, I'm saying it's immoral to buy used games when they're only 8% cheaper than new games. Since you're making them lose 10$ so you can save 5.[quote]They deserve nothing. They produced the initial product, SOMEONE PAID FOR IT, and then sold it on. If someone want to sell on an old game, they are fully within their rights. If someone wants to buy a used game, they are fully within their rights. The only people doing anything wrong are the idiots putting DRM into their games.

I'm aware that you should have the right to resell and to buy used product. I'm just saying that it's not moral if they're losing much more money than you save on this. I'm a liberal, I don't think that everything immoral should be illegal.

mike1921:
I'm aware that you should have the right to resell and to buy used product. I'm just saying that it's not moral if they're losing much more money than you save on this. I'm a liberal, I don't think that everything immoral should be illegal.

Were the game €5 cheaper, or hell, €1 cheaper, I would buy it. The Devs already got paid for producing the game.

the way i see it, once we buy a game it belongs to us. saying "you cant sell that game to your friend" is basically saying that they still own the game. car companies arent asking for more money when a dealer sells a used car (i think). why hsould video games be any different?

Morality simply does not come in the equation.

If you bought the game at a lower price it was either from the company who was wise enough to lower it's price after a while , or from someone who thinks that this game is not worth keeping.

Assuming you are not very close to your money ; if you don't pay full price for a game you either couldn't aford it at that price , or thought it was not worth it.

If you think it is "moral" to buy any crap at any price you're told , you are a pigeon.

If you think it is "moral" to buy any crap at any mrice you're told , you are a pigeon.

Strawman. And if buying a game used saved us 20$ off a 60$ game than it would be moral to buy it used. But since the number one retailer in america (where most people buy there games, sadly) of games only save you 5$ it's the equivelant of burning down someone's house for a penny if burning someone's house was legal.

Assuming you are not very close to your money ; if you dodn't pay full price for a game you either couldn't aford it at that price , or thought it was not worth it.

I'm aware

If you bought the game at a lower price it was either from the company who was wise enough to lower it's price after a while , or from someone who thinks that this game is not worth keeping.

Also aware

so you agree it can't be amoral to buy games at lower prices :)

If that's a double negative, than yes. It can be moral to buy games at lower prices.

These companies just keep giving me more reasons not to care about them.

I really hope "piracy" destroys the gaming industry. I want games that are made by people who love to make them and value us as customers, not people who love our money and call us pirates when they don't get enough.

I would have bought Gears 2 if it came out on PC, but now I just feel sick.

Let him try. Then when gamers refuse to buy another Epic product, he'll change his tune.

Doesn't it come down to the fact that the consumer's rights regarding his legally purchased property are unquestioned in every field except (apparently) software? Or, is there another instance where the right to resell one's legally purchased property is not protected that I have overlooked? I cannot think of any good for which this right does not apply.

And I personally don't see a moral problem with reselling anything. The manufacturer/developer has presumably received their due.

mike1921:

If you think it is "moral" to buy any crap at any mrice you're told , you are a pigeon.

Strawman. And if buying a game used saved us 20$ off a 60$ game than it would be moral to buy it used. But since the number one retailer in america (where most people buy there games, sadly) of games only save you 5$ it's the equivelant of burning down someone's house for a penny if burning someone's house was legal.

Bull. You can't put a price on morality.

Doesn't it come down to the fact that the consumer's rights regarding his legally purchased property are unquestioned in every field except software?

Ofcourse

Or, is there another instance where the right to resell one's legally purchased property is not protected that I have overlooked? I cannot think of any good for which this right does not apply.

......I don't think so

And I personally don't see a moral problem with reselling anything. The manufacturer/developer has presumably received their due.

I know they recieved their due, and I actually love the gaming industry for the way that if a company releases a piece of shit game that a lot of people buy on the first day that there will be a lot of used and product and even uninformed customers who buy it without question will get it used so the company gets no money from them. But, that doesn't mean I don't want the developer getting another sale just because it'll save the customer 2 cents.

Bull. You can't put a price on morality.

Still a strawman. Because I wasn't argueing it's right to pay any price they want you to.

Ok, you know what. I quit, you guys win. You're right.

PC gamers
Pirates the lot of ya.

Don't be so biaised.
Used games saves you more than 2 cents ; unless you are being ripped off.

Also , if the game is shit , how can it be amoral to not want to pay full price , it's not like whoever commited it deserves the money then.

mike1921:
I know they recieved their due, and I actually love the gaming industry for the way that if a company releases a piece of shit game that a lot of people buy on the first day that there will be a lot of used and product and even uninformed customers who buy it without question will get it used so the company gets no money from them. But, that doesn't mean I don't want the developer getting another sale just because it'll save the customer 2 cents.

I still stay tough-luck, but I really can respect that viewpoint.

They save you 5 dollars from gamestop. And that's a rip off If you don't think so , look at ebay where used and new have a viable price difference.

Also , if the game is shit , how can it be amoral to not want to pay full price , it's not like whoever commited it deserves the money then.

It's amoral to not give the developers money just because of an insignifigant amount of money. And that's not the reason most people don't pay for price. Most people don't want to pay full price just because they're stingy.

Stingy people who don't find their games second hand will just download them .

It means that by stopping re-selling game publishers are A:not making more money , B: making other people loose money .
That kind of stupidity is criminal.

I honestly don't know where I stand on this. I can see the frustration people are feeling at having to pay for content that they think should come with the game. Although, I can also see that anyone buying the game at retail won't run into issues, because these bits of content will come with the retail copy. However, the chains that set their entire business model around flipping used games have been seen as a problem for a long time.

Even here on the Escapist, we've had MANY articles on this very subject. I'm almost positive that what most companies are considering as damage to themselves are the new games.

These are the games that you are buying from anywhere at $10 to a dollar under full retail price from stores like Gamestop. That people are buying used because it's still $5 cheaper then full retail. These almost full price games are the copies that people would be buying at full price from another store new if it wasn't just easier to get it for a bit cheaper.

Companies like Epic will be fine either way, even with the relatively low percentage of people buying full retail compared to used or pirated copies, Epic will do fine. They'll all still be driving their fancy cars and living the life they always dreamed as a game developer for a successful studio, and will have many more popular games. The people who are hurt by this are the smaller studios who don't have a nest egg of personal IP or a rabid fanbase to keep them afloat when their game performs at 20% under cost.

Yeah yeah, same arguments as anti-piracy stuff in general, but from a game company's perspective, used games are as bad if not worse then pirated games. These are the games that the company is expected to support and dedicate payed time to for people who aren't helping to pay for that very support. And unlike pirated games, they can't just brush off 'customers' who feel that they have purchased a game from the company.

I'm not saying Epic is doing this in the best way possible, or is doing it for altruistic reasons (who doesn't like getting hats of money for their work?). But they are big enough to pull it off and let the smaller companies follow in their footsteps without being forced to move to a completely locked down platform like Steam or Live Arcade.

I will personally say that I have no problem with this as long as I can access everything from my retail games. And having to pay a bit more for key pieces of content off of a used game... well I'll just wait until that used game is cheap enough to make the extra cost still fall under retail.

I'm resigned to epic being a sad excuse for a games developer these days. Mediocre game = mediocre sales. You're not what you used to be, over the hill baby.

Whenever I see the "Piracy's killing PC gaming" argument made by a big time developer, I have to resist the urge to point them towards CDProjekt or Stardock. These are 2 companies that have made games that are PC exclusive and in a more unpopular genre (RPG and RTS respectively) and sold more then a million units with no copy protection.

I agree that Piracy on the PC is easier then on consoles, but I feel companies are just using it as an excuse when their sales on the PC are bad. I think the main reason for this is a PC gamer is normally a more dedicated gamer and because of this they have higher standards due to long memories (most PC gamers seem to be able to remember classics from the 90s). I also know a number of PC gamers who own consoles and for a lot of games, they buy it for their console because its easier to play (multiplayer, awards etc)which would then negatively impact PC game sales.

Regarding second hand sales, I agree that it impacts the profits of the developers/publishers, but it is something they are going to have to learn to live with. At the moment the games industry is young and as such behaving very immaturely. The way they act regarding piracy and now this is a little scary, but hopefully they will grow up and look to the music and film industries, who have been dealing with these problems for far longer, and learn how best to do things.

fix-the-spade:
What he means is: The PC market oustside of Steam is impossible. We can't compete against their near non existent distribution costs, so we're not going to bother and blame piracy. Look, here's that figure Crytek plucked out of thin air to back me up.

Steam + Impulse + GamersGate = the FUTURE. Too bad that companies like Crytek and Epic and EA can't get this through their heads, but the elimination of retail overhead (or at least its reduction down to little more than server cost) is the single greatest advance in electronic distribution in the history of gaming. Funny how you don't hear Valve, Stardock, Paradox, or CD Projekt whining about their lost sales---they do quite well and have low piracy ratios because they make quality games and treat their customers like valued human beings and not convicted felons.

On the other hand, Stardock, Paradox, and CD Projekt also make games that casuals, kids, and teenagers tend to shy away from. So by all means, take your console-tarded shooter and keep it away from the PC.

I know I will never EVER pay for an incomplete game; or a game that cannot be re'sold complete.

If smaller companies don't make a profit ; I blame it on bad advertising or games being bad .

To give an example , where I live I can't find psychonauts anywhere (you know the story , not sold enough fast enough) ; I also can't find it used .
The reason is simple , most people who were lucky enough to actually buy it off the shelves are keeping it.