|
On December 01 2011 04:14 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:09 Nemireck wrote:On December 01 2011 04:03 plated.rawr wrote:On December 01 2011 03:56 Nemireck wrote:On December 01 2011 03:49 plated.rawr wrote:I see all the cries of lost profit, but where's the advocates of gained marketing? When I was 12 or so, I got WC2 burned from a friend of mine. Good ol' manual pirating. Played that to death. Few years later, WC3 is released. What do I do? Buy it. TFT released. Buy it. WoW released. Buy it. Subscribe for four years. Every expansion so far, bought 'em. Now imagine I didn't get that WC2 from my pal. What'd be the biggest money loss, that copy of WC2 or WC3 + expansion and WoW + subs for 4 years + 3 expansions? Same thing with Heroes of Might and Magic, really. Played it at a pal's when I was 10 or so. Got my own computer a couple years later, and bought HoMM3 plus expansion. HoMM4 releases, bought it. HoMM 5, bought it plus both expansions. HoMM 6 released, bought it (even my computer can't run it, kek). I will echo what another guy said a couple pages earlier - On December 01 2011 02:44 jtype wrote:On December 01 2011 02:43 Probe1 wrote:On December 01 2011 02:41 Neeh wrote:
So many people here with the most awful excuses for pirating. Keep at it, screw the industry over..
How hard is it to actually pay for something? Trust me the 'industry' will be just fine. In the last 15 years I've seen it do nothing but accelerate, regardless of piracy. Probably due, in part, to piracy. Indeed, the industry accelerates probably due, in part, to piracy. The ammount of free advertising pirating yields is mindbogging, really. Plus there's the entire fallacy that a download is a lost sale which you lot have gotten stuck in, but I won't touch that. It's great that one pirated game caused you to purchase later titles by the same developer, and I'm certain that you aren't alone. The problem arises that for every person that pirated WC2 and went on to purchase all of the sequels in the series, there are 5 people that pirated WC2, then pirated WC3, then played WoW on a free hacked server until they got bored/the server got shut down. I would imagine that for the most part, quality speaks for itself, and piracy doesn't ACTUALLY do a whole lot of harm to large developers. Where piracy does the most damage are the small indy camps by cutting into their profits, thus slowing down their growth, and thus their ability to get a strong foothold in the market and BECOME a large developer. Yes, but are those 5 people who kept pirating and used hacked servers people that'd otherwise actually buy the game? Chances are they're too young to have income to buy games or pay for subscription-based services, or they're simply not -that- interested. Plus, even if those five others keep playing pirated games, how many pals do they not spread the word to? How many future generations of high-income consumers do they not lay the foundation for? Sure, the company might miss out on sales now, but they're gaining a generation of strong, game-friendly buyers for the future. The problem lies in that every company wants short-term profits and ignores the long haul, but this is not a metaeconomy thread, so I'll stop there. To the question "how many of those 5 people would have bought the game?" I already raised that exact point in my larger, initial post. To your second point, I would submit that spreading the word can hurt just as much. Because their friends won't likely be saying "Wow, cool game, I'm going to get Mom to buy it next week." But rather would ask "Cool, you said you got it for free? How?!" Spreading the word is a double-edged sword. Again, for every person that's motivated to go purchase the game after playing a friend's illegal copy, there are probably many more (particularly kids) that will just ask their friend how to get it for free and do that instead. Mind linking that larger, initial post? I've read the thread, but I skip names. As for your comment to my second point - this is exactly what's free advertisement and growing for the future, though. Yes, they do probably lose some sales right now, but you spread the word about the franchise and the company, which results in brand recognition. In effect, the brand becomes vastly bigger through word-of-mouth, reacting in recognition and purchases from groups that would never have heard of the brand before at all.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=290371¤tpage=13#242
Is the link to my larger post. We essentially agreed on that point.
Again, you almost ignore the fact that word of mouth is a double-edged sword. Without preventative measures, piracy grows with the market. So WC2 was pirated X number of times, raising Blizzard's reputation and brand-recognition by factor Y, but also introducing Z people to the joys of pirating free games. When WC3 comes out. Without preventative measures put in place. The number of pirated copies is now X + Z + some % of Y + P (where P is the number of people introduced to piracy in THIS round).
If there's no prevention, then as the market grows, so does the piracy. It doesn't matter that Blizzard is now making more profit. If the game is amazing, the brand will grow with or without piracy, and the difference between the two is likely negligible. Piracy cuts into future profits by subtracting a percentage of the new pirates that would have otherwise purchased the game based on the word of mouth that WC2 generated on its own.
|
Ah, well. Only a little stealing is okay.
And, if you can't afford it, more than a little stealing is okay.
Reading this thread is like reading Lord of the Flies, except there's no pig.
|
On December 01 2011 03:45 Nemireck wrote:
To answer the question of "How do we cut down on piracy?" Well, one option would be to flood the popular means of acquiring those pirated copies with fake game files. I remember back when I was a young lad using Kazaa to download music, I couldn't download anything recent because every time I wanted the latest Godsmack single, or popular top 40 song on the radio, Kazaa had about 50 different unique files, and only one of them was the actual song. Some were 30 second intros followed by static, some were looped bridges, others were troll files. But I guarantee you it stopped me from illegally downloading a whole lot of music.
I understand this wouldn't work in the case of dedicated piracy websites making pirated copies available. But it would work for most P2P networks, and torrent-search websites, and would probably cut into a not-insignificant percentage of software piracy. It's important to note that one of the traits of piracy that makes it so attractive is its convenience. And if you make it inconvenient to download a game for free, or make it more convenient to purchase the game online, you can also cut down the number of pirated copies.
Most public torrent sites have comment / trusted user systems in place to try to stop fake versions. The use of fake versions only work on totally decentralised communities, the more centralisation and control there is in the system the less false copies show up.
Then as you mentioned you get into the private communities where a fake release is an instant ban from the site, good luck getting another account this quarter.
I last downloaded a pirated copy that didn't work 2 years ago, I then downloaded another crack and it worked two days later. It is simply hard to fake the popular releases as things currently are.
As for the main debate, I pirate more than I buy. Yet I would buy at most 1/10 more games if I couldn't pirate. I might even give up gaming totally since I have other hobbies I enjoy more than gaming and am more willing to dedicate money to. I am probably among the 50% highest legal consumers of games when considering the total gaming population. Yet I pirate more than I buy.
|
On December 01 2011 04:14 dementrio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:06 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 04:02 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 03:54 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:50 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 03:46 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:43 dementrio wrote:
Remember,
If you cook a pancake for yourself, you are stealing from the coffee house round the corner. They put effort into developing pancakes, but thanks to your theft, they are not getting any money for it. It's not even like you need pancakes. You should not steal something that was not meant to be free, there's no way to go about it. You still paid for the mix and/or ingredients. The coffee shop around the corner may go out of business if everyone cooks their own pancakes, but the stores that you buy ingredients from are profiting and flourishing. Who profits when you pirate? Just yourself. It's a selfish act that doesn't help anyone in the long run and hurts others in the process. The companies making hardware profit. If instead of a regular pancake we talk about a superspecial pan-aux-caque you have the EXACT SAME THING that is the video game industry, and everything based on intellectual property, copyright and patents. Spoiler alert: it seems ridiculous with a pancake, because it is ridiculous. The hardware industry has nothing to do with it. That's like saying "I know I stole a car, but the lockpick and tool industry made a profit because I needed to buy things to steal it with". You already have a PC. If you didn't, you wouldn't think about pirating in the first place. The developer has already made a game. When you buy a game, you profit enjoyment, the company profits money. When you pirate, you profit enjoyment, the company gets nothing at all. And it's not the same. If you went out and made your own game instead of buying theirs, then it would be the same thing, but you're not doing that. I already have flour and eggs. If i didnt, I wouldn't think about making pancakes. And it is the same thing. If I went out and made my own pancake recipe, then it would not. But I am shamelessly stealing their recipe. It is theft. They are losing money because I am stealing their idea. It is morally wrong, and moreover, I have a job and could afford tons of pancakes. I just enjoy to sabotage the very fabric of our society. You're being obtuse. You do not have all the parts for a game. You have the hardware to run it on. There is a distinct difference, and if you don't know that, you're completely uneducated when it comes to technology. Making your own pancake is the analogy for making your own game. Let's say SC2 just came out. You don't want to buy it. So you sit in front of your computer, and you make a RTS with three races that plays similarly to SC2. That's not piracy. Pirating SC2 is piracy. The former means nothing to Blizzard unless you infringe copyright by naming everything the same. The latter is punishable. If you really work for a software company, you should know that your product is an idea. That's why you don't sell a good, you sell a license. You sell the right to use your idea. A pancake is not sold this way. Not even recipe books are sold this way. Because it's ridiculous, a pancake recipe is such a simple idea that it's just so incredibly stupid to think of controlling it. The internet has made controlling software just as hard. It has made controllyng ANY idea unfeasible. But if you don't like this, and try to fix it by calling things theft, then acknowledge that using a recipe you didn't invent is stealing. You are not in the moral highground. You are just trying to defend your interests.
And you have the moral high ground? Cute.
Can someone make our software? Yeah, we have competitors who sell basically the same product. We sell customer support, a better interface, etc.
A game is not just an idea. It's the engine, the system, the VA, the music, the experience. You're not downloading an idea, you're downloading hours of time and energy, taking it for granted when you could not produce the same experience yourself. The pancake analogy doesn't even work in this regard. Could you build Skyrim on your computer without using any proprietary or open-source software? I'll wait.
...No? Well damn, you probably need the game. Your choices are buy it legally or download it illegally. There is no middle ground where you're still a good person but don't pay anything. You're performing an illegal act for one reason or another.
So yes, I do have the moral high ground. Until buying games from a distributor is punishable by law, you're not going to have moral high ground against people who buy games.
|
I have no problem with piracy if you cant' afford it, or can't have access to it otherwise.(If you live in some nation where literally your nearest gamestop is in it's capital I don't think anyones going to care if you pirated it or note) The problem is the people who can buy it who don't and people who feel they shouldn't have to pay.
Those are the problems. People who pirate because they don't want to pay(they do exist I know some) and folks who just rather spend money on anything else.
I don't pirate games. If I can't afford a game. I wait for it to go on sale. Or.. I don't buy it. *boggle* It's not like you need the game.
|
On December 01 2011 04:25 Parnage wrote:
I have no problem with piracy if you cant' afford it, or can't have access to it otherwise.(If you live in some nation where literally your nearest gamestop is in it's capital I don't think anyones going to care if you pirated it or note) The problem is the people who can buy it who don't and people who feel they shouldn't have to pay.
Those are the problems. People who pirate because they don't want to pay(they do exist I know some) and folks who just rather spend money on anything else.
I don't pirate games. If I can't afford a game. I wait for it to go on sale. Or.. I don't buy it. *boggle* It's not like you need the game.
But normally if people don't buy a product at the given price, the producer responds to that signal by lowering the price of the product. For some reason the video games industry hasn't really responded to those signals. Whenever a game doesn't do well, publishers scream "the pirates robbed us!" and never actually considered that they needed to be charging less for their game. While I don't think punishing them by pirating is the solution, it is pretty silly how "not buying the game" doesn't seem to send the signal that it does in other markets.
|
Any game by Valve or blizzard is worth buying. They can take my money. A lot of the time they don't even charge full price which is £40 in UK roundabout, £25-30 for a solid pc game. Sure take my money, great deal. Starcraft, warcraft, diablo, team fortress, half life, left 4 dead, portal, counter strike; all of these games are <3. I did pirate the sc2 beta vs AI thing before i got a key, sorry i just HAD to play. 
You want £45 for a console game or some terrible singleplayer game? forget it ill torrent it, and probably not even complete it cause it will be dog.
To make money you need to make people log in for the multiplayer experience. If by pirating a game you can only get the single player or be forced to play some shitty mode vs bots, people who want the game are gonna buy it.
|
On December 01 2011 04:24 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:45 Nemireck wrote:
To answer the question of "How do we cut down on piracy?" Well, one option would be to flood the popular means of acquiring those pirated copies with fake game files. I remember back when I was a young lad using Kazaa to download music, I couldn't download anything recent because every time I wanted the latest Godsmack single, or popular top 40 song on the radio, Kazaa had about 50 different unique files, and only one of them was the actual song. Some were 30 second intros followed by static, some were looped bridges, others were troll files. But I guarantee you it stopped me from illegally downloading a whole lot of music.
I understand this wouldn't work in the case of dedicated piracy websites making pirated copies available. But it would work for most P2P networks, and torrent-search websites, and would probably cut into a not-insignificant percentage of software piracy. It's important to note that one of the traits of piracy that makes it so attractive is its convenience. And if you make it inconvenient to download a game for free, or make it more convenient to purchase the game online, you can also cut down the number of pirated copies.
Most public torrent sites have comment / trusted user systems in place to try to stop fake versions. The use of fake versions only work on totally decentralised communities, the more centralisation and control there is in the system the less false copies show up.
Absolutely, and I'm aware of this.
Subsequently, the more centralized the system, the easier it is to prosecute the distributor of the illegal copy of the game. Or shut down the service. Notwithstanding the difficulties that come with trying to prosecute internationally.
|
Someone might prove me wrong on this but I think at least in my country piracy is neither a crime (a very strong legal term only fitting certain illegal behaviour) nor illegal (it's a legal grey area). Distributing (i.e. torrent upload) and cracking is punishable, though also not a crime I think. So even legally the case is not clear cut.
Now to those of you having a strong stance against piracy: You can either go in cicles, make up and defeat ridiculous analogies and throw your morality around (which nobody who is not on your side cares about) or you need to explain the following. Game companies (media companies in general) are pushing to severely limit our ability to use the internet and our computers (targeting only files that I already have on my harddrive or receive over consensual transfer), why should this be allowed?
To help you argue, because you seem to have problems with making a convincing case, some points:
Like I said, morality (because piracy is wrong / because piracy is theft) is not convincing to those not sharing your view.
"Because companies are losing money" is in itself also not convincing, you need to explain why this is bad. To refer to your opinion or common sense concerning this will not be enough since it's a very complex problem. For example you can easily argue that piracy is having a very selective effect on the quality of games that benefits gamers. And you can also argue the opposite, both not very effective in swaying anyones opinion.
So show us with anything tangible these bad effects, that are in fact so bad that we should leave the default position of "as much freedom for everyone as possible".
|
On December 01 2011 04:28 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:25 Parnage wrote:
I have no problem with piracy if you cant' afford it, or can't have access to it otherwise.(If you live in some nation where literally your nearest gamestop is in it's capital I don't think anyones going to care if you pirated it or note) The problem is the people who can buy it who don't and people who feel they shouldn't have to pay.
Those are the problems. People who pirate because they don't want to pay(they do exist I know some) and folks who just rather spend money on anything else.
I don't pirate games. If I can't afford a game. I wait for it to go on sale. Or.. I don't buy it. *boggle* It's not like you need the game. But normally if people don't buy a product at the given price, the producer responds to that signal by lowering the price of the product. For some reason the video games industry hasn't really responded to those signals. Whenever a game doesn't do well, publishers scream "the pirates robbed us!" and never actually considered that they needed to be charging less for their game. While I don't think punishing them by pirating is the solution, it is pretty silly how "not buying the game" doesn't seem to send the signal that it does in other markets.
The console industry does this. They can tell when a game is doing poorly, and drop it down in price.
With PC games, you have to look at a lot of factors. If a game is critically acclaimed and widely reviewed, but has low sales, it's probably pirated a lot.
|
On December 01 2011 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:06 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On December 01 2011 03:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 01 2011 03:44 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On December 01 2011 03:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
man, the comparison with "stealing physical items" is just.. stupid. if you steal a physical item from a store, or from a person, it means that the store lost an item which it thus couldn't sell and which it thus couldn't gain a profit from, or it means that a person lost an item which he paid money for (and thus would have to spend money on again to continue having).
in the event of piracy, there's no physical item disappearing, but rather, you create a new item without having paid for it. theft of physical item = someone lost something, always. but piracy only results in a loss of profit in the event that the person who pirated would have bought the item if piracy was not an option. The problem is that despite being "copied" it still follows the concept of supply and value. Making essentially infinite copies of something makes it valueless. Piracy destroys incentive to create what we perceive as valued games. 1: perhaps music and games have been overpriced. especially now that distribution can be done virtually for free, there's no reason why one single cd should cost $30. 2: the music, movie and games industries are not on the verge of breaking down. the game industry has continuously been growing for the past 20 years, and will continue to do so. this indicates that people do value the products they make, even if they exist in numberless amounts. 3: as shown by a recent post, at least with music and anime, people who pirate also purchase more. from my point of view, piracy is something that 1: acts as a way of balancing the market. if a sufficient amount of people pirate, it means a sufficient amount of people consider a product overpriced or a service bad/inefficient, and 2: allows more people to benefit from cultural products that enlighten us as humans and improve our lives (this is one of the best, if not the absolute best, aspect of globalization, and 3: allows some cheap bastards to not pay for products they could and should pay for. with the introduction of spotify, with the introduction of services like steam, with the introduction of services like hulu, it shows that my point in #1 is absolutely correct and something the industry has already taken into account; the old method of cultural distribution was archaic, inefficient, and expensive. but spotify, steam and hulu would not have been created if there wasn't an economic incentive to create them - piracy is the primary reason why digital distribution is becoming more and more competitive relating to physical stores selling physical objects. You aren't paying for a disc, you're paying for the experience on that disc. $30-$50 for hours upon hours of entertainment is not an expensive hobby. The issue is that people who wouldn't normally be able to afford now have the alternative of reaping the benefits without shelling out a single cent. Feeling entitled to make things fit one's price range at the expense of others is ethically wrong. I already wrote this in an earlier post actually. I don't think all piracy is defensible - and I personally have not pirated a game for several years, or any music since I got spotify almost 3 years ago. but that's because I am an adult living in a western country, and I can afford to pay for the games I want to play. and yes, to me, they're not expensive. what I'm defending is piracy for 1: people whose consumption of games/music is so enormous that they can't pay for everything they want to enjoy, but who still pay for quite a bit. this includes those reasonable pirates who pirate games and buy them if they like them, or people who download 120 cds per month and buy 2 cds per month. in this event, their consumption and thus contribution to the industry increases because of their piracy. I also defend piracy for 2: people who can't afford games or music period - and this includes most people younger than 18 who have been encouraged to go to school rather than work, and people who live in countries where games/music costs equally much but where average wage is 10-20% of what it is in norway. in none of these cases does the industry lose money, as the act of piracy either makes a person capable of enjoying something he couldn't afford otherwise, or makes a person capable of choosing with greater accuracy which artist/game producer he wishes to support.
I can see why some might agree with your points, but I still hate that companies are being essentially shoehorned into acting a particular way just to counteract piracy. Piracy is absolutely not the victimless crime that it's made out to be. It is undeniable fact that if more people started paying for games legitimately then the price of games would naturally decrease according to market demands.
My hope is that TeamLiquid.net becomes a paid, subscription-based website/community, because it's something I genuinely value and I would not hesitate for one even second to shell out $10/month.
|
On December 01 2011 04:30 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:28 Klondikebar wrote:On December 01 2011 04:25 Parnage wrote:
I have no problem with piracy if you cant' afford it, or can't have access to it otherwise.(If you live in some nation where literally your nearest gamestop is in it's capital I don't think anyones going to care if you pirated it or note) The problem is the people who can buy it who don't and people who feel they shouldn't have to pay.
Those are the problems. People who pirate because they don't want to pay(they do exist I know some) and folks who just rather spend money on anything else.
I don't pirate games. If I can't afford a game. I wait for it to go on sale. Or.. I don't buy it. *boggle* It's not like you need the game. But normally if people don't buy a product at the given price, the producer responds to that signal by lowering the price of the product. For some reason the video games industry hasn't really responded to those signals. Whenever a game doesn't do well, publishers scream "the pirates robbed us!" and never actually considered that they needed to be charging less for their game. While I don't think punishing them by pirating is the solution, it is pretty silly how "not buying the game" doesn't seem to send the signal that it does in other markets. The console industry does this. They can tell when a game is doing poorly, and drop it down in price. With PC games, you have to look at a lot of factors. If a game is critically acclaimed and widely reviewed, but has low sales, it's probably pirated a lot.
Or it just means people didn't listen to the reviewers since they often just talk out their asses. Especially if that publisher bought a truckload of advertising on their site.
|
On December 01 2011 04:29 carrion wrote:Any game by Valve or blizzard is worth buying. They can take my money. A lot of the time they don't even charge full price which is £40 in UK roundabout, £25-30 for a solid pc game. Sure take my money, great deal. Starcraft, warcraft, diablo, team fortress, half life, left 4 dead, portal, counter strike; all of these games are <3. I did pirate the sc2 beta vs AI thing before i got a key, sorry i just HAD to play. You want £45 for a console game or some terrible singleplayer game? forget it ill torrent it, and probably not even complete it cause it will be dog. To make money you need to make people log in for the multiplayer experience. If by pirating a game you can only get the single player or be forced to play some shitty mode vs bots, people who want the game are gonna buy it.
But that's terrible logic. What if you actually like a game you torrent? Do you just say "fuck it" and not buy it anyway?
And the other part is crap too. "This game is shit, but I want it anyway" is not justification for pirating. If you're going to play a game, get it. If you think it's going to be crap, don't play it. How is this a hard concept?
|
On December 01 2011 03:50 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 01 2011 03:40 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 01 2011 03:22 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:10 InterestingName wrote:
Piracy is more of an individual issue. Many of these supposed illegal downloads were made by low budget gamers who never would have been able to buy the $60 dollar titles. For me, it is often hard to find big titles in stores directly after release. Not only that but being a student i rarely have $60 to throw down at release time for a game that i genuinely want to play and pay for. I downloaded Skyrim, and only just bought it yesterday, more than two weeks after. Although i only pay for maybe 1/10th of the games i have illegally downloaded, most of them end up being utter shit that the developer should not be rewarded for. Any want to give me their outrage about how much "Big Rigs" was pirated? The idea of a "low-budget gamer" seems to be the problem here. If something is outside your budget, it shouldn't be your hobby. I want to have my own helicopter as a hobby. I can't afford one. I don't steal one. Simple. "I want this, so I'll steal it since I can't afford it" isn't justification. It's childish behavior. it's actually more like, "I have all the parts needed to build a helicopter in my back yard. but I don't know how to go about it. hm, here's what i'll do, I'll download some instructions on how to manifacture a helicopter so I can build it myself, rather than having to pay an inflated price for something that I already have all the necessary components to enjoy". many gamers are younger than 18, living with their parents, and thus not responsible for their own economic status. in norway, a 16 year old is discouraged from working. (apart from summer jobs.) further, many gamers live in development countries, where computer games happen to be one of the very few things not price-adjusted for the regular wage in said country. if every single pirate was a 20+ year old living in a western country and capable but too lazy to get a job, then absolutely, your blanket statements might have a semblance of truth to them, but when you look at your statements from like, a "reality" perspective, then they end up just being.. bitter and resentful. That's not even close, though. You don't have the parts for the game, you don't have a framework. You get all the software when you buy/pirate it. If anything, you have a helipad but no helicopter. The point is, getting a hobby illegally because you can't buy it legally is not a justifiable by any means. It's superfluous to your life, unnecessary, and only there for enjoyment. You won't die if you don't get a game, it's not like you're stealing food to stay alive another day. You're stealing entertainment because you can't afford it/don't want to buy it. You would survive just fine without games. my helicopter example is less stupid than your helicopter example, and more in line with what piracy is than what your methaphor seems to indicate that you think it is. Neither is perfect, but then again there is no corollary to piracy other than, like, music or movie piracy. You never argued the actual point, though. A hobby you can't afford is one you shouldn't have. As a kid, my parents were middle class. I wanted to play Warhammer 40k so badly, but I could never afford a full army and all the necessary books. So I chose a different hobby. It's a selfish, childish act to pick a hobby and ignore the fact that it's outside of your realm of cost, and just illegally acquire it instead.
We bought the army books. Then we bought one rule book.
Then we played with proxys.
So according to you we played WH illegally?
|
On December 01 2011 04:21 Nemireck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:14 plated.rawr wrote:On December 01 2011 04:09 Nemireck wrote:On December 01 2011 04:03 plated.rawr wrote:On December 01 2011 03:56 Nemireck wrote:On December 01 2011 03:49 plated.rawr wrote:I see all the cries of lost profit, but where's the advocates of gained marketing? When I was 12 or so, I got WC2 burned from a friend of mine. Good ol' manual pirating. Played that to death. Few years later, WC3 is released. What do I do? Buy it. TFT released. Buy it. WoW released. Buy it. Subscribe for four years. Every expansion so far, bought 'em. Now imagine I didn't get that WC2 from my pal. What'd be the biggest money loss, that copy of WC2 or WC3 + expansion and WoW + subs for 4 years + 3 expansions? Same thing with Heroes of Might and Magic, really. Played it at a pal's when I was 10 or so. Got my own computer a couple years later, and bought HoMM3 plus expansion. HoMM4 releases, bought it. HoMM 5, bought it plus both expansions. HoMM 6 released, bought it (even my computer can't run it, kek). I will echo what another guy said a couple pages earlier - On December 01 2011 02:44 jtype wrote:On December 01 2011 02:43 Probe1 wrote:On December 01 2011 02:41 Neeh wrote:
So many people here with the most awful excuses for pirating. Keep at it, screw the industry over..
How hard is it to actually pay for something? Trust me the 'industry' will be just fine. In the last 15 years I've seen it do nothing but accelerate, regardless of piracy. Probably due, in part, to piracy. Indeed, the industry accelerates probably due, in part, to piracy. The ammount of free advertising pirating yields is mindbogging, really. Plus there's the entire fallacy that a download is a lost sale which you lot have gotten stuck in, but I won't touch that. It's great that one pirated game caused you to purchase later titles by the same developer, and I'm certain that you aren't alone. The problem arises that for every person that pirated WC2 and went on to purchase all of the sequels in the series, there are 5 people that pirated WC2, then pirated WC3, then played WoW on a free hacked server until they got bored/the server got shut down. I would imagine that for the most part, quality speaks for itself, and piracy doesn't ACTUALLY do a whole lot of harm to large developers. Where piracy does the most damage are the small indy camps by cutting into their profits, thus slowing down their growth, and thus their ability to get a strong foothold in the market and BECOME a large developer. Yes, but are those 5 people who kept pirating and used hacked servers people that'd otherwise actually buy the game? Chances are they're too young to have income to buy games or pay for subscription-based services, or they're simply not -that- interested. Plus, even if those five others keep playing pirated games, how many pals do they not spread the word to? How many future generations of high-income consumers do they not lay the foundation for? Sure, the company might miss out on sales now, but they're gaining a generation of strong, game-friendly buyers for the future. The problem lies in that every company wants short-term profits and ignores the long haul, but this is not a metaeconomy thread, so I'll stop there. To the question "how many of those 5 people would have bought the game?" I already raised that exact point in my larger, initial post. To your second point, I would submit that spreading the word can hurt just as much. Because their friends won't likely be saying "Wow, cool game, I'm going to get Mom to buy it next week." But rather would ask "Cool, you said you got it for free? How?!" Spreading the word is a double-edged sword. Again, for every person that's motivated to go purchase the game after playing a friend's illegal copy, there are probably many more (particularly kids) that will just ask their friend how to get it for free and do that instead. Mind linking that larger, initial post? I've read the thread, but I skip names. As for your comment to my second point - this is exactly what's free advertisement and growing for the future, though. Yes, they do probably lose some sales right now, but you spread the word about the franchise and the company, which results in brand recognition. In effect, the brand becomes vastly bigger through word-of-mouth, reacting in recognition and purchases from groups that would never have heard of the brand before at all. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=290371¤tpage=13#242Is the link to my larger post. We essentially agreed on that point. Again, you almost ignore the fact that word of mouth is a double-edged sword. Without preventative measures, piracy grows with the market. So WC2 was pirated X number of times, raising Blizzard's reputation and brand-recognition by factor Y, but also introducing Z people to the joys of pirating free games. When WC3 comes out. Without preventative measures put in place. The number of pirated copies is now X + Z + some % of Y + P (where P is the number of people introduced to piracy in THIS round). If there's no prevention, then as the market grows, so does the piracy. It doesn't matter that Blizzard is now making more profit. If the game is amazing, the brand will grow with or without piracy, and the difference between the two is likely negligible. Piracy cuts into future profits by subtracting a percentage of the new pirates that would have otherwise purchased the game based on the word of mouth that WC2 generated on its own.
Thanks for the link.
Yes, piracy grows with the market, but the market would never grow to its size WITHOUT the piracy - or, at least, not as fast as it did. I agree with you that pirating would be an issue if the effect of pirating and market growth would equate to less sales than no pirating and original, non-grown market, but this is obviously not the case. Look at Blizzard's growth from the SNES titles of Blackthorn, Rock 'n Roll racing and Lost Vikings (fine, PC and amiga too, but yea) to Diablo to modern day SC2, WoW and imminent Diablo 3. A lot of it has grown out of quality games, surely, but a lot has grown simply because there's so much many more gamers in the pool of potential buyers nowadays than it were back then.
Is piracy the only catalyst? Of course not. But I'd dare say it's been quite significant in turning computer and console games into such a prominent media representation as it is these days.
Edit: clunky writing.
I agree with you that pirating would be an issue if the effect of pirating and market growth would equate to less sales than no pirating and original, non-grown market,
Original market without any pirating sells for 1.
Extended market with pirating pirates for 50, and sells for 5.
Extended market still yields 4 more than 1, and thus is a good.
On December 01 2011 04:33 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:50 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 01 2011 03:40 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 01 2011 03:22 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:10 InterestingName wrote:
Piracy is more of an individual issue. Many of these supposed illegal downloads were made by low budget gamers who never would have been able to buy the $60 dollar titles. For me, it is often hard to find big titles in stores directly after release. Not only that but being a student i rarely have $60 to throw down at release time for a game that i genuinely want to play and pay for. I downloaded Skyrim, and only just bought it yesterday, more than two weeks after. Although i only pay for maybe 1/10th of the games i have illegally downloaded, most of them end up being utter shit that the developer should not be rewarded for. Any want to give me their outrage about how much "Big Rigs" was pirated? The idea of a "low-budget gamer" seems to be the problem here. If something is outside your budget, it shouldn't be your hobby. I want to have my own helicopter as a hobby. I can't afford one. I don't steal one. Simple. "I want this, so I'll steal it since I can't afford it" isn't justification. It's childish behavior. it's actually more like, "I have all the parts needed to build a helicopter in my back yard. but I don't know how to go about it. hm, here's what i'll do, I'll download some instructions on how to manifacture a helicopter so I can build it myself, rather than having to pay an inflated price for something that I already have all the necessary components to enjoy". many gamers are younger than 18, living with their parents, and thus not responsible for their own economic status. in norway, a 16 year old is discouraged from working. (apart from summer jobs.) further, many gamers live in development countries, where computer games happen to be one of the very few things not price-adjusted for the regular wage in said country. if every single pirate was a 20+ year old living in a western country and capable but too lazy to get a job, then absolutely, your blanket statements might have a semblance of truth to them, but when you look at your statements from like, a "reality" perspective, then they end up just being.. bitter and resentful. That's not even close, though. You don't have the parts for the game, you don't have a framework. You get all the software when you buy/pirate it. If anything, you have a helipad but no helicopter. The point is, getting a hobby illegally because you can't buy it legally is not a justifiable by any means. It's superfluous to your life, unnecessary, and only there for enjoyment. You won't die if you don't get a game, it's not like you're stealing food to stay alive another day. You're stealing entertainment because you can't afford it/don't want to buy it. You would survive just fine without games. my helicopter example is less stupid than your helicopter example, and more in line with what piracy is than what your methaphor seems to indicate that you think it is. Neither is perfect, but then again there is no corollary to piracy other than, like, music or movie piracy. You never argued the actual point, though. A hobby you can't afford is one you shouldn't have. As a kid, my parents were middle class. I wanted to play Warhammer 40k so badly, but I could never afford a full army and all the necessary books. So I chose a different hobby. It's a selfish, childish act to pick a hobby and ignore the fact that it's outside of your realm of cost, and just illegally acquire it instead. We bought the army books. Then we bought one rule book. Then we played with proxys. So according to you we played WH illegally?
Haha, I remember playing Necromunda with LEGO buildings and LEGO figures. Borrowed the rulesbook from a friend of mine and copied the important bits. Guess I should be wary, or the legal arm of GW will get me ;_;
|
On December 01 2011 04:24 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:14 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 04:06 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 04:02 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 03:54 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:50 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 03:46 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:43 dementrio wrote:
Remember,
If you cook a pancake for yourself, you are stealing from the coffee house round the corner. They put effort into developing pancakes, but thanks to your theft, they are not getting any money for it. It's not even like you need pancakes. You should not steal something that was not meant to be free, there's no way to go about it. You still paid for the mix and/or ingredients. The coffee shop around the corner may go out of business if everyone cooks their own pancakes, but the stores that you buy ingredients from are profiting and flourishing. Who profits when you pirate? Just yourself. It's a selfish act that doesn't help anyone in the long run and hurts others in the process. The companies making hardware profit. If instead of a regular pancake we talk about a superspecial pan-aux-caque you have the EXACT SAME THING that is the video game industry, and everything based on intellectual property, copyright and patents. Spoiler alert: it seems ridiculous with a pancake, because it is ridiculous. The hardware industry has nothing to do with it. That's like saying "I know I stole a car, but the lockpick and tool industry made a profit because I needed to buy things to steal it with". You already have a PC. If you didn't, you wouldn't think about pirating in the first place. The developer has already made a game. When you buy a game, you profit enjoyment, the company profits money. When you pirate, you profit enjoyment, the company gets nothing at all. And it's not the same. If you went out and made your own game instead of buying theirs, then it would be the same thing, but you're not doing that. I already have flour and eggs. If i didnt, I wouldn't think about making pancakes. And it is the same thing. If I went out and made my own pancake recipe, then it would not. But I am shamelessly stealing their recipe. It is theft. They are losing money because I am stealing their idea. It is morally wrong, and moreover, I have a job and could afford tons of pancakes. I just enjoy to sabotage the very fabric of our society. You're being obtuse. You do not have all the parts for a game. You have the hardware to run it on. There is a distinct difference, and if you don't know that, you're completely uneducated when it comes to technology. Making your own pancake is the analogy for making your own game. Let's say SC2 just came out. You don't want to buy it. So you sit in front of your computer, and you make a RTS with three races that plays similarly to SC2. That's not piracy. Pirating SC2 is piracy. The former means nothing to Blizzard unless you infringe copyright by naming everything the same. The latter is punishable. If you really work for a software company, you should know that your product is an idea. That's why you don't sell a good, you sell a license. You sell the right to use your idea. A pancake is not sold this way. Not even recipe books are sold this way. Because it's ridiculous, a pancake recipe is such a simple idea that it's just so incredibly stupid to think of controlling it. The internet has made controlling software just as hard. It has made controllyng ANY idea unfeasible. But if you don't like this, and try to fix it by calling things theft, then acknowledge that using a recipe you didn't invent is stealing. You are not in the moral highground. You are just trying to defend your interests. And you have the moral high ground? Cute. Can someone make our software? Yeah, we have competitors who sell basically the same product. We sell customer support, a better interface, etc. A game is not just an idea. It's the engine, the system, the VA, the music, the experience. You're not downloading an idea, you're downloading hours of time and energy, taking it for granted when you could not produce the same experience yourself. The pancake analogy doesn't even work in this regard. Could you build Skyrim on your computer without using any proprietary or open-source software? I'll wait. ...No? Well damn, you probably need the game. Your choices are buy it legally or download it illegally. There is no middle ground where you're still a good person but don't pay anything. You're performing an illegal act for one reason or another. So yes, I do have the moral high ground. Until buying games from a distributor is punishable by law, you're not going to have moral high ground against people who buy games.
Could you come up on your own with a good recipe?
Some people can, they do that as a job. Guess: they need to put time and effort into it. There is no music but eating sure is an experience.
Yet no cook puts an EULA in front of their recipes. You know, "you are not allowed to add salt, perpetrators will be punished by law". It is accepted that recipes do not work this way. Does a cook have moral highground? who cares? they can make a living. They may have to actually cook and not just sell recipes, but they are not bitching about it, because they don't expect people to believe that copying a recipe is theft.
|
On December 01 2011 04:33 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:50 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 01 2011 03:40 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 01 2011 03:22 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:10 InterestingName wrote:
Piracy is more of an individual issue. Many of these supposed illegal downloads were made by low budget gamers who never would have been able to buy the $60 dollar titles. For me, it is often hard to find big titles in stores directly after release. Not only that but being a student i rarely have $60 to throw down at release time for a game that i genuinely want to play and pay for. I downloaded Skyrim, and only just bought it yesterday, more than two weeks after. Although i only pay for maybe 1/10th of the games i have illegally downloaded, most of them end up being utter shit that the developer should not be rewarded for. Any want to give me their outrage about how much "Big Rigs" was pirated? The idea of a "low-budget gamer" seems to be the problem here. If something is outside your budget, it shouldn't be your hobby. I want to have my own helicopter as a hobby. I can't afford one. I don't steal one. Simple. "I want this, so I'll steal it since I can't afford it" isn't justification. It's childish behavior. it's actually more like, "I have all the parts needed to build a helicopter in my back yard. but I don't know how to go about it. hm, here's what i'll do, I'll download some instructions on how to manifacture a helicopter so I can build it myself, rather than having to pay an inflated price for something that I already have all the necessary components to enjoy". many gamers are younger than 18, living with their parents, and thus not responsible for their own economic status. in norway, a 16 year old is discouraged from working. (apart from summer jobs.) further, many gamers live in development countries, where computer games happen to be one of the very few things not price-adjusted for the regular wage in said country. if every single pirate was a 20+ year old living in a western country and capable but too lazy to get a job, then absolutely, your blanket statements might have a semblance of truth to them, but when you look at your statements from like, a "reality" perspective, then they end up just being.. bitter and resentful. That's not even close, though. You don't have the parts for the game, you don't have a framework. You get all the software when you buy/pirate it. If anything, you have a helipad but no helicopter. The point is, getting a hobby illegally because you can't buy it legally is not a justifiable by any means. It's superfluous to your life, unnecessary, and only there for enjoyment. You won't die if you don't get a game, it's not like you're stealing food to stay alive another day. You're stealing entertainment because you can't afford it/don't want to buy it. You would survive just fine without games. my helicopter example is less stupid than your helicopter example, and more in line with what piracy is than what your methaphor seems to indicate that you think it is. Neither is perfect, but then again there is no corollary to piracy other than, like, music or movie piracy. You never argued the actual point, though. A hobby you can't afford is one you shouldn't have. As a kid, my parents were middle class. I wanted to play Warhammer 40k so badly, but I could never afford a full army and all the necessary books. So I chose a different hobby. It's a selfish, childish act to pick a hobby and ignore the fact that it's outside of your realm of cost, and just illegally acquire it instead. We bought the army books. Then we bought one rule book. Then we played with proxys. So according to you we played WH illegally?
Again, not a perfect analogy for video gaming.
But you're not using official pieces. It's not stealing, it's not even illegal. Pirating a game is analagous (analagous, not the same as) to stealing a full army and using the official pieces without paying for it.
They also knew that they weren't going to sell a full rule book to each player, and accounted for that. Same for DnD books. They expect you to buy your pieces for the full experience.
Again, gaming is an experience. You can watch someone play a game on a stream or something legally, but it's not the same as actually playing the game.
|
On December 01 2011 04:37 dementrio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:24 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 04:14 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 04:06 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 04:02 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 03:54 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:50 dementrio wrote:On December 01 2011 03:46 HereAndNow wrote:On December 01 2011 03:43 dementrio wrote:
Remember,
If you cook a pancake for yourself, you are stealing from the coffee house round the corner. They put effort into developing pancakes, but thanks to your theft, they are not getting any money for it. It's not even like you need pancakes. You should not steal something that was not meant to be free, there's no way to go about it. You still paid for the mix and/or ingredients. The coffee shop around the corner may go out of business if everyone cooks their own pancakes, but the stores that you buy ingredients from are profiting and flourishing. Who profits when you pirate? Just yourself. It's a selfish act that doesn't help anyone in the long run and hurts others in the process. The companies making hardware profit. If instead of a regular pancake we talk about a superspecial pan-aux-caque you have the EXACT SAME THING that is the video game industry, and everything based on intellectual property, copyright and patents. Spoiler alert: it seems ridiculous with a pancake, because it is ridiculous. The hardware industry has nothing to do with it. That's like saying "I know I stole a car, but the lockpick and tool industry made a profit because I needed to buy things to steal it with". You already have a PC. If you didn't, you wouldn't think about pirating in the first place. The developer has already made a game. When you buy a game, you profit enjoyment, the company profits money. When you pirate, you profit enjoyment, the company gets nothing at all. And it's not the same. If you went out and made your own game instead of buying theirs, then it would be the same thing, but you're not doing that. I already have flour and eggs. If i didnt, I wouldn't think about making pancakes. And it is the same thing. If I went out and made my own pancake recipe, then it would not. But I am shamelessly stealing their recipe. It is theft. They are losing money because I am stealing their idea. It is morally wrong, and moreover, I have a job and could afford tons of pancakes. I just enjoy to sabotage the very fabric of our society. You're being obtuse. You do not have all the parts for a game. You have the hardware to run it on. There is a distinct difference, and if you don't know that, you're completely uneducated when it comes to technology. Making your own pancake is the analogy for making your own game. Let's say SC2 just came out. You don't want to buy it. So you sit in front of your computer, and you make a RTS with three races that plays similarly to SC2. That's not piracy. Pirating SC2 is piracy. The former means nothing to Blizzard unless you infringe copyright by naming everything the same. The latter is punishable. If you really work for a software company, you should know that your product is an idea. That's why you don't sell a good, you sell a license. You sell the right to use your idea. A pancake is not sold this way. Not even recipe books are sold this way. Because it's ridiculous, a pancake recipe is such a simple idea that it's just so incredibly stupid to think of controlling it. The internet has made controlling software just as hard. It has made controllyng ANY idea unfeasible. But if you don't like this, and try to fix it by calling things theft, then acknowledge that using a recipe you didn't invent is stealing. You are not in the moral highground. You are just trying to defend your interests. And you have the moral high ground? Cute. Can someone make our software? Yeah, we have competitors who sell basically the same product. We sell customer support, a better interface, etc. A game is not just an idea. It's the engine, the system, the VA, the music, the experience. You're not downloading an idea, you're downloading hours of time and energy, taking it for granted when you could not produce the same experience yourself. The pancake analogy doesn't even work in this regard. Could you build Skyrim on your computer without using any proprietary or open-source software? I'll wait. ...No? Well damn, you probably need the game. Your choices are buy it legally or download it illegally. There is no middle ground where you're still a good person but don't pay anything. You're performing an illegal act for one reason or another. So yes, I do have the moral high ground. Until buying games from a distributor is punishable by law, you're not going to have moral high ground against people who buy games. Could you come up on your own with a good recipe? Some people can, they do that as a job. Guess: they need to put time and effort into it. There is no music but eating sure is an experience. Yet no cook puts an EULA in front of their recipes. You know, "you are not allowed to add salt, perpetrators will be punished by law". It is accepted that recipes do not work this way. Does a cook have moral highground? who cares? they can make a living. They may have to actually cook and not just sell recipes, but they are not bitching about it, because they don't expect people to believe that copying a recipe is theft.
That's still not the same thing, you're still being obtuse. Do you not know what that means? It means being difficult for the sake of being difficult. We call it trolling nowadays.
Giving out a recipe is the same as giving out source code, which a lot of companies do, like the Source and Unreal engines. If I gave you Source, could you make HL2:Episode 3? Probably not, which is why I'm going to pay Valve for it eventually.
You're not copying a recipe and making it yourself, you're copying a whole meal and walking out on the check.
|
On December 01 2011 04:33 plated.rawr wrote:
Yes, piracy grows with the market, but the market would never grow to its size WITHOUT the piracy - or, at least, not as fast as it did. I agree with you that pirating would be an issue if the effect of pirating and market growth would equate to less sales than no pirating and original, non-grown market, but this is obviously not the case. Look at Blizzard's growth from the SNES titles of Blackthorn, Rock 'n Roll racing and Lost Vikings (fine, PC and amiga too, but yea) to Diablo to modern day SC2, WoW and imminent Diablo 3. A lot of it has grown out of quality games, surely, but a lot has grown simply because there's so much many more gamers in the pool of potential buyers nowadays than it were back then.
Is piracy the only catalyst? Of course not. But I'd dare say it's been quite significant in turning computer and console games into such a prominent media representation as it is these days.
I think that you're greatly overestimating the positive effect that piracy has had on the market. Quality speaks for itself, and the industry would be doing just as well as it is today without piracy. The publicity generated by word of mouth would occur without illegal copies of the game being made available.
|
OK, lets get this straight. To those of you who think piracy is harming the industry. Actually, let me rephrase that. To those of you who think piracy in no way helps the industry - Do you really think that if it was as clear cut as you think it is and every developer 'knew' that piracy was only bad for the industry and was ruining it, that we'd be able to pirate games at all?
Just throwing this out there, as I think too many people think this issue is more clear-cut than it is. Developers aren't the good guys and pirates aren't the bad guys. The reverse is also not true. Don't imagine that DRM is what you're told to believe it is. Don't imagine that piracy is what you've been taught to believe it is.
Personally, I buy my games, but I don't think that piracy the evil that some of you think it is and I don't think developers are stupid enough to think that either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
