Thread: When Will It End?

You don't have the Half-Life games? :0

btw, why do you need to download an entire game to decide if it's good enough to buy? Surely using metacritic and possibly a demo is enough to make a sound judgement?

It's kind of like if some guy were selling a single apple and you told him you wanted to try one before you decided to buy any more.

Originally Posted by Alric

Of course no one downloads 99% of all the games out there, that isn't what I meant. I meant any one is pirating a lot of games, obviously cares a lot about games. If you buy two games, and you only buy 5% of the games you try, that means you have played 40 games. Any one who has played 40 games, was obviously going to buy a lot of games no matter what happened. So the idea that a person could go from playing 40 games, to quitting gaming all together because they refuse to pay money, is silly. They might not want to pay(which is why they steal it), but they probably would have. If they didn't steal it, and since they stole it they wont by anything.

So how many games have you downloaded and played, then decided to buy after wards? Not counting any games where you got extra content because you payed for it.

If you don't count added content, then it is a bit silly. BUT, what it is more likely to do is to familiarize yourself with a type of game or series of games that you wouldn't have previously considered. So, after playing the original Mario Galaxy game and liking it, I went out and bought the second Mario Galaxy game, because I was familiar with the series and knew that the original was fun. When I said 5%, I was assuming games, music, movies, etc. and in instances where I have been unable to find a decent quality version of an artist on the internet, I have bought songs. For less than a buck, it really is easier than hunting all over the internet trying to find one obscure track from an almost unknown artist.

Now in the games aspect, I can safely say that without TPB, I would have never looked twice at games like Prototype. Piracy has expanded my interests. So, in the future when I have a bit more disposable income and I actually have something to lose by getting sued, I will go out and buy the damn games, many more of which now have a far greater appeal than they used to.

Originally Posted by Xei

You don't have the Half-Life games? :0

Shocking, isn't it?

btw, why do you need to download an entire game to decide if it's good enough to buy? Surely using metacritic and possibly a demo is enough to make a sound judgement?

It's kind of like if some guy were selling a single apple and you told him you wanted to try one before you decided to buy any more.

Critics are a good source, but not the authoritative word on everything. Perhaps a better reason for piracy is that unless games were lower priced, you wouldn't buy a certain game. Perhaps it looks good, just not 50 dollars good. Playing the game is the only real way to find out if you'll like it or not. If you decide you do like it, then you'll know the critics aren't full of crap and that you'll probably enjoy similar games. Perhaps a better comparison would be a guy with an ice cream shop. He has dozens of different flavors, and you ask to sample each one. Some you like, some you don't, but you'll likely buy more a bit later when you aren't full of ice cream samples than just sticking with safe old mint chocolate chip.

Shocking, isn't it?

Seriously get HL2, it's the best game I've ever played.

On a related note: what are your thoughts on Steam? I really don't see what all the fuss is about. It's user friendly and it stops piracy pretty much dead.

Critics are a good source, but not the authoritative word on everything. Perhaps a better reason for piracy is that unless games were lower priced, you wouldn't buy a certain game. Perhaps it looks good, just not 50 dollars good. Playing the game is the only real way to find out if you'll like it or not. If you decide you do like it, then you'll know the critics aren't full of crap and that you'll probably enjoy similar games. Perhaps a better comparison would be a guy with an ice cream shop. He has dozens of different flavors, and you ask to sample each one. Some you like, some you don't, but you'll likely buy more a bit later when you aren't full of ice cream samples than just sticking with safe old mint chocolate chip.

I don't really get this.

The people who invest a lot of money, hard work, and passion into a product, want you to contribute. They don't want you to speculate about paying a totally different company for a similar item somewhere down the line. 'Thanks, you're right, that apple was great dude, but I really can't be bothered to pay you right now... seeing as you don't have any more, maybe in future I'll buy some similar looking apples from some other guys, how's that?'.

The whole thing about games is that by the time you've played it to find out if you want to buy it, you don't need to buy it any more. I really don't think that this is a tenable position.

Using reviews and playing demos is totally sufficient for finding out if it's a quality game you'd like to play the rest of. You don't need to play the entire game to work out if you want it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

If you don't count added content, then it is a bit silly.

That was my point, of course it is silly. No one plays a full game they downloaded, then buys it after. It just doesn't happen. If someone says they are just 'trying' the game, we know their lying.

You even said it yourself. You played the game you liked and what did you do? You bought a different game, one you hadn't played yet. So the game that was so good and interesting still doesn't make any money from you.

Originally Posted by Xei

Seriously get HL2, it's the best game I've ever played.

On a related note: what are your thoughts on Steam? I really don't see what all the fuss is about. It's user friendly and it stops piracy pretty much dead.

It actually doesn't stop piracy all so well. L4D2, Portal, HL2, TF2, all have working cracks available. And besides that, I hate having to log on to it every time I want to play a game. Gone are the days of "insert disk, play." It's now "insert disk/purchase game, create steam account, confirm steam account, log in to steam account, navigate menus and advertisements, locate game, then play." Plus it requires an internet connection. Seeing as how games can still be cracked quite nicely, and without the mandatory steam requirement, it's just more bloat that hurts the consumer.

I don't really get this.

The people who invest a lot of money, hard work, and passion into a product, want you to contribute. They don't want you to speculate about paying a totally different company for a similar item somewhere down the line. 'Thanks, you're right, that apple was great dude, but I really can't be bothered to pay you right now... seeing as you don't have any more, maybe in future I'll buy some similar looking apples from some other guys, how's that?'.

The whole thing about games is that by the time you've played it to find out if you want to buy it, you don't need to buy it any more. I really don't think that this is a tenable position.

Using reviews and playing demos is totally sufficient for finding out if it's a quality game you'd like to play the rest of. You don't need to play the entire game to work out if you want it.

My point was that if I passed any number of the games in the store, I wouldn't have considered them twice. When made free, I do look at them, and discover that I like them. In the store, I would have never purchased them, even if piracy did not exist, and even if the reviews were good. I would have stuck to Mario or some other game I KNOW I like, which I purchase anyway. That's the point. The companies aren't losing a dime on me because of piracy. But, with piracy, I'm able to try out games that I wouldn't have previously tried out, come to find I enjoy the style or genre, and use that knowledge to consider purchasing future games along the same line. Those games may be from the same company, or they could be from different companies. Either way, the companies have nothing to lose and everything to gain from me.

Originally Posted by Alric

That was my point, of course it is silly. No one plays a full game they downloaded, then buys it after. It just doesn't happen. If someone says they are just 'trying' the game, we know their lying.

You even said it yourself. You played the game you liked and what did you do? You bought a different game, one you hadn't played yet. So the game that was so good and interesting still doesn't make any money from you.

You are mistaken. I bought a different game similar in some way to the original game. Until playing the original game, however, I didn't know that I liked the style of the original game. I would have passed it up in stores without a thought. When allowed to play it on my own, however, I found I rather enjoyed the genre, and that purchasing games in the future along the lines of the original would likely not be a mistake. They do make money...they converted a potential customer into an actual customer.

Correction, they turned a potential customer, into an actual customer for someone else. The ones that created the game lose out however, since you already played the game.

Just because you buy another game in the same genre doesn't mean they gained from it. Even games directly connection could potentially have different developers. Since the rights of games can be sold, and companies occasionally change or split apart.

Better yet, they impress you so much with their game that you illegally download, that you go out and buy from their competitor, instead of them, because you already have their game.

Originally Posted by Alric

Correction, they turned a potential customer, into an actual customer for someone else. The ones that created the game lose out however, since you already played the game.

Just because you buy another game in the same genre doesn't mean they gained from it. Even games directly connection could potentially have different developers. Since the rights of games can be sold, and companies occasionally change or split apart.

Better yet, they impress you so much with their game that you illegally download, that you go out and buy from their competitor, instead of them, because you already have their game.

Bro, since when is every game developed by its own unique company? There are a handful of "major" gaming companies out there responsible for most of development. Ubisoft and Valve are two of the bigger ones, and hold a sizable number of games. Now, I grant that I may find a game by one developer, like it, and buy similar games from other developers, but in the long run, I'm likely to buy from the same developer again at some point. And if other developers piss me off with their games, I may very well become brand loyal. Alternately, I may pirate another game from the competitor at some point, then go back to the original developer. Or, (and you said it yourself), I could go for a game that was developed by a competitor and recently sold to the original. And what happens in the event of a sequel? My experience with sequel games to date has been nearly 100% positive. It retreads familiar ground, sure, but if I found the original fun, a souped-up version is also going to be fun. And seeing as how sequel games don't usually like to travel outside the original company, they still make money off of me.

In brief: Keep at it long enough, and it all comes full circle. Profit is profit, regardless of when that profit may occur. If it takes another few months, it is still money in their pocket at the end of the day. It's one extra sale they otherwise wouldn't have had.

Still doesn't seem fair to me; this philosophy isn't applied anywhere else in the real world. Should I steal cars from the manafacturers, use them for 10 years or so until they're bust, and then decide whether or not to buy another car from the same company?

Paying to find out if something is good it is just a part of life.

It's hard to unlearn or, worse, resist learned temptations for a higher standard of moral code, but maybe that's just me... FSF all the way.

All these laws and regulations and copy protection measures say to me that companies are not innovative enough to figure out how to get people to pay for content anymore. They are stuck in an old way of doing things that is easily ripped off and don't want to step up and change the way they do business. Instead of trying to retrofit all sorts of inneffective protections, just develop a new system for distributing content.

Like what?

Originally Posted by Xei

Still doesn't seem fair to me; this philosophy isn't applied anywhere else in the real world. Should I steal cars from the manafacturers, use them for 10 years or so until they're bust, and then decide whether or not to buy another car from the same company?

Paying to find out if something is good it is just a part of life.

And to some extent that is true. In examples like the apple or the car, the business loses something. In piracy, they don't lose a cent on me. I've already stated that I would not have ever bought the game in real life, plain and simple. Seeing it on a store shelf, I would not have even considered it. It wasn't worth my fifty bucks. By pirating the game, the company hasn't lost one penny on me. I was never a potential sale. But, after pirating the game, I've come to discover I actually enjoy that particular genre, contrary to my initial beliefs. Thus my tastes are broadened, and when I see similar games in the store, either from the same publisher or a different one, I'm much more likely to seriously consider purchasing one. Given enough time, they will ultimately profit on me, whereas they wouldn't have before.

Originally Posted by Mario92

In examples like the apple or the car, the business loses something. In piracy, they don't lose a cent on me.

How do you figure that? I can grant you the semantic point that piracy is not synonymous with theft, but it all looks like same when you get to the bottom line. One of the most basic principles of normative (as opposed to descriptive) economics is that a foregone gain is the same as a loss. As a potential consumer, you either (a) buy a product, and the company makes a profit, (b) steal a product, and the company doesn't make a profit, or (c) "pirate" a product, and the company doesn't make a profit. So from the company's perspective, what's the difference?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Thus my tastes are broadened, and when I see similar games in the store, either from the same publisher or a different one, I'm much more likely to seriously consider purchasing one. Given enough time, they will ultimately profit on me, whereas they wouldn't have before.

I thought we had reached an agreement that this is an exceptional case? Certainly I'm not convinced that it holds on any meaningful scale which might economically justify the practice of piracy.

I agree with DuB.

That old 'it's not like stealing you made your own copy lol' argument really is very silly, because the value of media is not in its physical worth anyway. The value is in all the money it took to create the media.

If you invested money in sound equipment and a band and remade an album, then you can say you have effectively copied it.

Just copying the disc and saying 'I went to the trouble of paying 2p for the creation of the disc; that's all the creators did too so it's mine, right?' is obviously not logical.

Your assertion that you were never a potential customer is patently not true. Saying 'now I've taken their product for free and discovered I liked it I might buy another from some vague other person in future' is just like saying 'now I've taken your apple for free I discovered I like it etc.'.

You're basing your arguments on the axiom that you have the right to experience an entire product before you buy it; you don't.

The subtle difference between theft and piracy is that theft is always a lost sale, which isn't automatically the case with piracy.

For example, if I steal a car, the owner obviously can't sell that because they don't have it. It deprives them of a sale.

Piracy does allow you to obtain stuff you wouldn't have paid for. A good example would be Photoshop; the retail price is insane, and as a result it's one of the most pirated products out there. But if a person pirates it because they're not going to pay hundreds for it, that's not a lost sale. And it is possible that because of the usage of the pirated product that that person then goes on to buy it, when the price drops, or in their professional career or whatever.

Really doesn't apply at all to conventional media though.

Originally Posted by Xei

Like what?

Well, netflix is doing extremely well. They offer a way to get all the movies you want to see for a very reasonable price in a way that is much easier than trying to find pirated copies, and you have the option of watching some of them online as opposed to waiting for the DVD's to come in the mail. I'm sure there are a lot of other similar options that industries could come up with. I'll put some thought into it and see if I can come up with at least one innovative idea as an example.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Piracy does allow you to obtain stuff you wouldn't have paid for.

Perhaps sometimes, but more importantly, it also allows you to obtain stuff you would have paid for, which I would argue is the rule rather than the exception. That means financial loss.

Originally Posted by DuB

How do you figure that? I can grant you the semantic point that piracy is not synonymous with theft, but it all looks like same when you get to the bottom line. One of the most basic principles of normative (as opposed to descriptive) economics is that a foregone gain is the same as a loss. As a potential consumer, you either (a) buy a product, and the company makes a profit, (b) steal a product, and the company doesn't make a profit, or (c) "pirate" a product, and the company doesn't make a profit. So from the company's perspective, what's the difference?

Option (d), where I don't buy the product at all, and the company doesn't make a profit. I may show interest in something at some level, but not enough to justify a loss of my money. In one situation, you have a lose-lose, with neither party benefiting.

I agree piracy is not overall a good thing, but at the same time, trying to stop it entirely will get you nowhere, especially in the way people are going about it now. Xaq has a good point...the entire method of distribution needs to be reformed if any progress is to be made (though I'd like to point out that in the case of netflix, a one-month subscription allows for copying of DVD's and streaming media of untold proportions). Piracy isn't something people go "zomg, this is illegal!! I should stop now." It's an act carried out for multiple reasons, and the price tag being just one. Xei, if your study is accurate in saying that people wouldn't pay a cent for a game simply to spite gaming companies, that isn't the fault of piracy...that is an issue on a different level. No rational person would rather use electricity, burn a double-layer DVD, and go through the risks of pirating (which add up to far more than a penny) without another motive...or unless they're incredibly dense. If piracy is at least partially attributable to rebellion against the company, companies have to change their public images. They have to stop shackling legal consumers.

Originally Posted by Xei

That old 'it's not like stealing you made your own copy lol' argument really is very silly, because the value of media is not in its physical worth anyway. The value is in all the money it took to create the media.

Derrrr

Your assertion that you were never a potential customer is patently not true. Saying 'now I've taken their product for free and discovered I liked it I might buy another from some vague other person in future' is just like saying 'now I've taken your apple for free I discovered I like it etc.'.

Who are you to tell me what games I will and will not buy? I can tell you with 100% honesty that if I passed Prototype on the shelves, I would not have bought it. The company is not profiting off of me, no matter how you slice it. They may not like me pirating their game, but at the end of the day, it is fantastic advertising that didn't cost them a nickel. The apple argument is still flawed. The apple vendor has still lost the opportunity to sell that apple to another person. The gaming company has lost no such opportunity. They haven't even lost a customer.

You're basing your arguments on the axiom that you have the right to experience an entire product before you buy it; you don't.

I'm basing my arguments on the fact that I won't buy certain games in the stores no matter what, and that piracy in my case hasn't hurt the developers one cent. I liked pirated Halo, I bought Halo 2. Without the former, I wouldn't have purchased the latter.

Originally Posted by DuB

Perhaps sometimes, but more importantly, it also allows you to obtain stuff you would have paid for, which I would argue is the rule rather than the exception. That means financial loss.

The bit with the would have is the problem, but I'm not among that problem. But, in the case of the music industry, it isn't a problem at all. It's a benefit. Studies show that pirates buy more albums than non-pirates. There may be some loss, but in the end, it's net gain. I don't see why something like this can't be taken advantage of. I'm not sure quite how one would go about turning piracy to an advantage, but if the music industry has managed to without even trying, why can't other industries with similar media?

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...=1#post1488882

Originally Posted by Mario92

The bit with the would have is the problem, but I'm not among that problem.

Indeed it is the problem, and as I mentioned above, my informal observation leads me to believe that it is the rule rather than the exception--your own testimony notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Mario92

But, in the case of the music industry, it isn't a problem at all. It's a benefit. Studies show that pirates buy more albums than non-pirates. There may be some loss, but in the end, it's net gain. I don't see why something like this can't be taken advantage of.

Here's why: you're assuming that the link between buying and pirating is a direct causal one. It seems entirely plausible to me that the people who illegally download more also buy more, as you suggested, but this is easily explained by the fact that these are the people who really love music--there is no evidence that increased pirating causes increased buying or vice versa. Let's say Joe Music-Lover consumes X volume of music in some fashion or other. He's going to consume X regardless, but with the option of pirating, he can now do so at a reduced cost. That's a net loss for the would-be seller.

In other words, there is no evidence of a "net gain" for the recording industry unless we assume that the primary causal driver of buying music is having previously pirated music (i.e., if Joe Music-Lover pirates half of his music and buys the other half, the bought half is because of the pirated half), which I think is an untenable assumption.

Originally Posted by DuB

Here's why: you're assuming that the link between buying and pirating is a direct causal one. It seems entirely plausible to me that the people who illegally download more also buy more, as you suggested, but this is easily explained by the fact that these are the people who really love music--there is no evidence that increased pirating causes increased buying or vice versa. Let's say Joe Music-Lover consumes X volume of music in some fashion or other. He's going to consume X regardless, but with the option of pirating, he can now do so at a reduced cost. That's a net loss for the would-be seller.

In other words, there is no evidence of a "net gain" for the recording industry unless we assume that the primary causal driver of buying music is having previously pirated music (i.e., if Joe Music-Lover pirates half of his music and buys the other half, the bought half is because of the pirated half), which I think is an untenable assumption.

If all music lovers, or indeed, if only some were to engage in piracy, then the music industry should have witnessed a significant fall in sales. The only explanation other than piracy increases sales is that the music industry has gotten very efficient at spawning many new hardcore music lovers in recent years. And if Joe the Music Lover spends so much on music but already practices piracy, unless he is like me, (the exception to the rule), why is he not simply pirating all his music?

btw, why do you need to download an entire game to decide if it's good enough to buy? Surely using metacritic and possibly a demo is enough to make a sound judgement?

Not so. I have played games I have enjoyed that got poor reviews, and games I have disliked greatly with positive reviews. Maybe my tastes are a bit odd, but I find critics to be a somewhat helpful aid, not the defining word on whether or not I'll like a game. This was a game I greatly enjoyed. 5.5 is hardly what I would call a "buy this now" score. I did buy it, btw. The critics are not god...they are seasoned gamers. I am a casual gamer, and my tastes and skill level reflect that. When a critic says "this game is quite challenging," I've learned to take that with mountainous piles of salt, as for me it means "damn near impossible." It can be very difficult to find quality reviews from casual gamers. Demos are something I'm mostly unfamiliar with, but I recall reading that you have to pay for them, which I find ridiculous. You're basically paying for advertising. If they were free and openly available, that would be a perfectly viable option.

Piracy is not perfect. It's not good. It is what it is. I want to see it die as much as the next person. I use it, but I don't like it. I can safely say that recent tactics and legislation is the wrong way to go about ending it. Layering DRM and making products even more hostile to legal consumers will only increase piracy. Prosecuting individuals is hardly realistic...you can't get them all, and that will only piss off the general public. So, DV, I present a challenge: come up with a solution. Something that is fair to consumers and companies alike.

Originally Posted by Mario92

If all music lovers, or indeed, if only some were to engage in piracy, then the music industry should have witnessed a significant fall in sales.

Uh... correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but are you now arguing that nobody illegally downloads music?

Originally Posted by Mario92

The only explanation other than piracy increases sales is that the music industry has gotten very efficient at spawning many new hardcore music lovers in recent years.

I've seen lots of conflicting data on record industry sales figures, so by this point I've just accepted that the issue has become too politicized to put too much stock in any one source. The music industry insists that sales are tanking while blogging music pirates insist that the industry is doing better than ever. So I'm skeptical to the data presented by either side. But I'll point out that even if sales figures really are higher than ever, there would be many other potential reasons for this than "piracy increases sales" (which, again, assumes an implausible causal link that I'll discuss below). As a couple quick examples, the world population (i.e., music consumer base) does continue to grow and grow, and the Internet has brought one-click music purchasing capabilities to nearly everyone's cell phones, which are themselves becoming increasingly ubiquitous across the globe.

Originally Posted by Mario92

And if Joe the Music Lover spends so much on music but already practices piracy, unless he is like me, (the exception to the rule), why is he not simply pirating all his music?

The reasons are irrelevant. People like Joe Music-Lover exist for whatever reasons (my Dad's spending patterns are more or less like Joe Music-Lover), and they contribute to a net financial loss. More importantly, if the direct causal link between piracy and buying is negligible (which I have suggested is the case and you have implied is not), then even someone who buys 99% of their music and downloads 1% represents a net financial loss.

As I said earlier, it is completely implausible that piracy "causes" buying, in the manner you've suggested, to any financially appreciable agree. In order for this situation to result in a net gain for the industry, it would require that for the average music consumer*, every single album that they download would have to directly cause them to run out to the music store and spend an amount of money that exceeded the cost of the album they just downloaded. Anything other than this ridiculously idealistic scenario would end in net financial loss for the industry. Now, just to be clear, are you suggesting that this scenario is in fact what happens?

*Assuming any symmetrical distribution of music consumption patterns.

That is like saying, its okay to steal two apples, if you buy two later. If a company sells an apple for two dollars and makes a dollar profit. Then buying two apples makes them a two dollar profit. You stole two apples but it only cost a dollar to produce each one. So in actuality the two dollars they made from you buying the apples, evens out with the cost of the two stolen apples.

In other words, its okay to steal two apples, since their not actually losing money in the long run. In fact you are now an apple lover, and you will buy apples all the time, increasing their profit. So if everyone stole a few apples, apples companies would make more money in the long run. I think most people can see the flaw in this argument. Most would probably object and say it is wrong to steal, even if the math did say the company actually benefits from it.

Any way I think its kind of silly. If a person who pirates musics or games, didn't pirate music or games they would buy them. You really expect me to believe that a person who downloads 100 songs a year, wouldn't buy even a single CD, if he couldn't download them? A person who downloads 30 games a year, wouldn't buy even a single game if he couldn't download them? Bullshit, of course they would buy cds and games.

Also if you upload a game, then its a moot point. If you upload it, you have no control over who downloads it, which means very well the person who downloads it, would have bought it but instead stole it because it was cheaper.