On June 23 2011 07:56 worldsnap wrote: You keep saying this over and over but it's still not true. While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale (For example, i'm not going to actually rent all the movies i watch if i couldn't download them), but i sure as hell downloaded a lot of games until Steam made it even easier than pirating to get a game on release. And i'm by far not the only person in this position.
lol, I said it twice for the sake of reiteration because they selectively read my post and argued on pretty much no basis.
Pirates were not consumers in the first place = "While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale."
Enough said.
edit: quotations
You're wrong. Pirates make many real consumers feel like suckers. This leads some of them to start pirating as well.
Personal insecurities have no value. I can claim that I feel good when I buy games as opposed to "feeling like a sucker" because I see to it that money goes to where money is well-deserved. I can coerce my friends and people within my network to purchase software too to make them also "feel good".
^ You realize your argument is a personal sentiment of yours and holds no bearing as neither does my hypothetical situation
Your statements that pirates aren't real customers has no bearing either, then. That statement has no value and no truth to it no matter how many times you repeat it. Your original argument is a personal statement of yours, too. Don't try to twist it around.
I'm not gonna respond to your feeble points from now because there is nothing of value in our little debate and I hope you can see to it as well.
Why does my statement that pirates = aren't customers has no bearing? No value? No truth? My original argument "is a personal statement too" "don't try to twist it around?"
First and foremost I'm not trying twist anything around and of course all my statements are personal or else whose statements are they lol? Now that that's cleared up, I've stated it 3 times now because of people who can't read.
Let's logically break this down:
1) Pirates = individuals who get involved in unauthorized copying of computer software. Copyright infringement of this kind is extremely common
2) They do this for several reason, one of them predominantly is because they don't wish to purchase the software
3) Buy not choosing not purchase the software and to pirate it, that indicates they didn't have the intentions of purchasing in the first place, nor did they end up as a customer (they could have been, but unlikely)
I don't have any data on this as I did not conduct a study on this but since you feel so strongly about the issue and feel I am wrong in my logic, maybe you should
Your 3) is wrong. Noone wishes to buy things if they can get it for free, so 2 applies, but it applies to every single thing.
They choose not to buy things when they can do so. But a big part of them, and this is where there is an actual discussion, wether this part is huge or not that big, but undeniably big, will still buy the games if they have no way to obtain them for free.
So while not all pirates are customers, some definatelly are. And those represent lost sales.
Anyone that says piracy doesn't represent lost sales makes no sense. What you can argue is wether the "cons overcome the pros".
On June 23 2011 08:10 theOnslaught wrote: These guys just dont get it... pirating is not killing any industries, most of the people who pirate wont even buy the game anyways, if pirating wasnt possible, you would see people lending their games, as they do with DVD's, or books, to friends after they finish reading them.
If anything, pirating is good for all industries, as people will not likely buy something that they havent tested, and liked... there is a bigger chance of someone pirating SC2, liking it and then, buying the game, than anything else, since lets get serious here, the real deal in RTS games is not the missions, not even lan (playing with your friends), the real deal is online play, and great online playing systems should alone be a reason to have to buy the game, rather than them forcing you through silly tactics that are only holding e-sports back (because of how common issues like disconnections and lag are in local tournaments).
There is a great video arround youtube about a book writer, that at first hated pirating, because he though of it as people stealing him money, but when he noticed the places where he was beign pirated had a GREAT increase in sales (like russia), he understood that pirating was a way for new people to get to know his work, and then, if they liked it, buy it.
How many people have you met that said they didn't buy SC2 because they couldn't test it first? And not just as a "protest" because of the lack of LAN, but because they didn't actually knew if the game was good.
Now think about how many people wouldn't have bought the game if they could play online without paying.
It's not that simple, for both sides. You will never bring a argument and everyone will just say. OMG I had never though about that! It makes sense now! This kind of discussion will go on forever.
People keed saying "It's fine to pirate it if you don't have the money to buy it, even if you like it", but seriously, who has a PC capable of running recent games and has actually no money to buy a single game? Just because you spent all your money in other things, doesn't mean you wouldn't have spent it on the game instead of something else if you couldn't pirate it.
I know several people that only buy games that can't be pirated, and not because they are the only good games.
We bought sc2 because its blizzard, one of the Best game companies, and they still screw up... Just look at Duke Nukem, hyped as shit, alot of people bought it because they though it was going to be awesome, like the first one... what did it turn out to be? a piece of garbage... people pirate for that reason, just as companies might feel ripped off if someone pirates their game, customers feel as ripped off if they pay $50+ usd for a game, and its crap.
To the people who say pirates would not buy games anyway - so there is no sale lost; Of course there are sales lost. Certainly not ALL pirates would buy the game anyway (I myself have pirated tons of games I would never buy, but also some I would in fact buy, if I couldnt get them for free.) but a fair percentage definitely would.
And then there is the fact that if you weren't intending on buying the game anyway, then you in no way have a right to play that game. While it's not completely comparable to stealing a chocolate bar from the store (the store would in that case have one less chocolate bar to sell) it's certainly comparable to sneaking into a concert and then trying to convince the bouncer kicking you out that "hey, I couldn't afford the ticket anyway, so you didn't lose any money on me sneaking in! Therfore I should be allowed to stay." Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Also, let's be real here, the vast, vast majority of people who pirated a game will NOT go and buy it if they like it. C'mon. People just like to be vocal about doing that on forums, because they like to appear all honorable and glorious. I've certainly never gone out and bought a game I initially downloaded for free, but liked a lot, and I don't know a single person that has either. (And I do know quite a few gamers )
The logical argument that X > Y is sounder. So they won't risk huge amounts of money because "scientific rigor says they have to prove X isnt ~ to Y" They don't have to prove anything. They have to make the decisions that will most likely give the best amount of profit to the company.
Almost no business decision is proven as correct. If they were that simple, it would be easy.
No, it's not a scientific paper. But, a statement that X > Y (which is the statement they are making and basing their entire strategies off of) is a numerical statement about two numbers - which is a scientific, verifiable (or rejectable) statement. Which brings me to my original point - he has no proof for what he says.
The statement that "the logical argument that X > Y is sounder" is highly subjective, and I disagree with it. Primarily because no data supports a model that would predict this statement. Other reasons too, but these are mostly just logical counter-arguments of equal soundness. (And equal lack of supporting data).
Also, I was by no means implying that they don't have the right to make those business decisions the way they make them. They have every right, and that is essentially what you stated. But this in no way contradicts what I said, which was that there is no data supporting the predictions he made on which the business decisions rely.
And while true, most business decisions don't rely purely on hard science with a wide array of supporting data, they generally do rely on much, much better evidence than this guy's words. Essentially, he is using pure logic WITHOUT supporting data and WITH counter-arguments to his words (which may actually be wrong, but it's not known) to reject the null hypothesis and make business decisions based on it. Most businesses are not nearly this reckless. (And seeing how generally stupid the publishers' decisions constantly are - it's not that surprising).
It blows my mind how many people try to defend pirating every time these threads come up. You're seriously kidding yourself if you think you're justified in pirating software that you "wouldn't have bought anyways."
Arguments like "Blizzard makes enough money, they could get away with sharing SC2 for free" or "many people would still pay for a copy even were they able to pirate it" are some of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Stop trying to make a case for why you think the game should be in a position where you can pirate it, it just sounds ridiculous.
It's too bad that we can't have LAN but I'm pretty sure just about every reasonable person understands that there's no simple solution, and that yes, pirates are largely responsible for the situation.
On June 23 2011 08:32 VirGin wrote: To the people who say pirates would not buy games anyway - so there is no sale lost; Of course there are sales lost. Certainly not ALL pirates would buy the game anyway (I myself have pirated tons of games I would never buy, but also some I would in fact buy, if I couldnt get them for free.) but a fair percentage probably would.
People that pirate and wont buy, are only affecting rentals if anything, because they're basically the same thing (except one is legal), you dont want to buy the full game, but you want to test it first, so you either rent it or pirate it, if you like it you buy it.
I dont know you but i have a subscription to grooveshark, and i barely ever buy a music disc... just because a disk has 1 or 2 good songs, that doesnt mean its worth $10+ usd. Pricing is just as wrong as pirating.
On June 23 2011 08:10 andeh wrote: 1.6 has lan and you have to be logged into steam to play !
this guy has seemed to only look has hon and sc2 as examples of games using/not using lan
Oh Really ? i have cs, i didn't pay for it.. (i did 7 years ago when i used to play) and i can still play online... You don't have to be on steam to play ofc.
We bought sc2 because its blizzard, one of the Best game companies, and they still screw up... Just look at Duke Nukem, hyped as shit, alot of people bought it because they though it was going to be awesome, like the first one... what did it turn out to be? a piece of garbage... people pirate for that reason, just as companies might feel ripped off if someone pirates their game, customers feel as ripped off if they pay $50+ usd for a game, and its crap.
Doesn't change the fact that it's theft. If you use someone's product without making an expected payment for said product, it's theft.
On June 23 2011 08:10 theOnslaught wrote: These guys just dont get it... pirating is not killing any industries, most of the people who pirate wont even buy the game anyways, if pirating wasnt possible, you would see people lending their games, as they do with DVD's, or books, to friends after they finish reading them.
If anything, pirating is good for all industries, as people will not likely buy something that they havent tested, and liked... there is a bigger chance of someone pirating SC2, liking it and then, buying the game, than anything else, since lets get serious here, the real deal in RTS games is not the missions, not even lan (playing with your friends), the real deal is online play, and great online playing systems should alone be a reason to have to buy the game, rather than them forcing you through silly tactics that are only holding e-sports back (because of how common issues like disconnections and lag are in local tournaments).
There is a great video arround youtube about a book writer, that at first hated pirating, because he though of it as people stealing him money, but when he noticed the places where he was beign pirated had a GREAT increase in sales (like russia), he understood that pirating was a way for new people to get to know his work, and then, if they liked it, buy it.
How many people have you met that said they didn't buy SC2 because they couldn't test it first? And not just as a "protest" because of the lack of LAN, but because they didn't actually knew if the game was good.
Now think about how many people wouldn't have bought the game if they could play online without paying.
It's not that simple, for both sides. You will never bring a argument and everyone will just say. OMG I had never though about that! It makes sense now! This kind of discussion will go on forever.
People keed saying "It's fine to pirate it if you don't have the money to buy it, even if you like it", but seriously, who has a PC capable of running recent games and has actually no money to buy a single game? Just because you spent all your money in other things, doesn't mean you wouldn't have spent it on the game instead of something else if you couldn't pirate it.
I know several people that only buy games that can't be pirated, and not because they are the only good games.
We bought sc2 because its blizzard, one of the Best game companies, and they still screw up... Just look at Duke Nukem, hyped as shit, alot of people bought it because they though it was going to be awesome, like the first one... what did it turn out to be? a piece of garbage... people pirate for that reason, just as companies might feel ripped off if someone pirates their game, customers feel as ripped off if they pay $50+ usd for a game, and its crap.
Anyone that believe Duke Nukem would be that great seriously wasn't following the reviews. And a lot of people still like it. The fact that something is bad doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it. You don't ask for a refund for a bad movie at the theathers.
Let's look at a company that doesn't have a huge following then, HoN, the game that started this thread. If it could be pirated, it would definatelly have sold A LOT less. People would be still playing pirated versions, with even more people than in the original game, just like they do with Dota. There is no reason to believe this wouldn't happen, because the game that actually made it all possible was only that huge because of piracy.
This guy is so right. I would much rather have preferred downloading a pirated copy of Starcraft 2 and only playing it with the 1 person I know in real life that plays sc2 irl.
We bought sc2 because its blizzard, one of the Best game companies, and they still screw up... Just look at Duke Nukem, hyped as shit, alot of people bought it because they though it was going to be awesome, like the first one... what did it turn out to be? a piece of garbage... people pirate for that reason, just as companies might feel ripped off if someone pirates their game, customers feel as ripped off if they pay $50+ usd for a game, and its crap.
Making decisions with your money is a part of life. Making one that you regret (ie buying a videogame) does not excuse you from stealing one next time you want to play.
Somewhat unrelated, people who couldn't tell Duke Nukem Forever was going to be awful long before it ever came out are precious. I wish I could have that kind of optimism.
On June 23 2011 08:35 theOnslaught wrote: People that pirate and wont buy, are only affecting rentals if anything, because they're basically the same thing (except one is legal), you dont want to buy the full game, but you want to test it first, so you either rent it or pirate it, if you like it you buy it.
I dont know you but i have a subscription to grooveshark, and i barely ever buy a music disc... just because a disk has 1 or 2 good songs, that doesnt mean its worth $10+ usd. Pricing is just as wrong as pirating.
Don't be ridiculous. The price is set and the customer has the option to either buy it or not. The market will dictate whether the price is "wrong." It still does not excuse stealing.
On June 23 2011 07:56 worldsnap wrote: You keep saying this over and over but it's still not true. While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale (For example, i'm not going to actually rent all the movies i watch if i couldn't download them), but i sure as hell downloaded a lot of games until Steam made it even easier than pirating to get a game on release. And i'm by far not the only person in this position.
lol, I said it twice for the sake of reiteration because they selectively read my post and argued on pretty much no basis.
Pirates were not consumers in the first place = "While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale."
Enough said.
edit: quotations
You're wrong. Pirates make many real consumers feel like suckers. This leads some of them to start pirating as well.
Personal insecurities have no value. I can claim that I feel good when I buy games as opposed to "feeling like a sucker" because I see to it that money goes to where money is well-deserved. I can coerce my friends and people within my network to purchase software too to make them also "feel good".
^ You realize your argument is a personal sentiment of yours and holds no bearing as neither does my hypothetical situation
Your statements that pirates aren't real customers has no bearing either, then. That statement has no value and no truth to it no matter how many times you repeat it. Your original argument is a personal statement of yours, too. Don't try to twist it around.
I'm not gonna respond to your feeble points from now because there is nothing of value in our little debate and I hope you can see to it as well.
Why does my statement that pirates = aren't customers has no bearing? No value? No truth? My original argument "is a personal statement too" "don't try to twist it around?"
First and foremost I'm not trying twist anything around and of course all my statements are personal or else whose statements are they lol? Now that that's cleared up, I've stated it 3 times now because of people who can't read.
Let's logically break this down:
1) Pirates = individuals who get involved in unauthorized copying of computer software. Copyright infringement of this kind is extremely common
2) They do this for several reason, one of them predominantly is because they don't wish to purchase the software
3) Buy not choosing not purchase the software and to pirate it, that indicates they didn't have the intentions of purchasing in the first place, nor did they end up as a customer (they could have been, but unlikely)
I don't have any data on this as I did not conduct a study on this but since you feel so strongly about the issue and feel I am wrong in my logic, maybe you should
Your 3) is wrong. Noone wishes to buy things if they can get it for free, so 2 applies, but it applies to every single thing.
They choose not to buy things when they can do so. But a big part of them, and this is where there is an actual discussion, wether this part is huge or not that big, but undeniably big, will still buy the games if they have no way to obtain them for free.
So while not all pirates are customers, some definatelly are. And those represent lost sales.
Anyone that says piracy doesn't represent lost sales makes no sense. What you can argue is wether the "cons overcome the pros".
Saying that no one buys things they can get for free doesn't make sense when Team Fortress 2 hats sell by the truckload, League of Legends follows a similar trend, and Brood War is one of the biggest selling PC games of all time.
And Valve has the highest revenue per head in the entire world. :D
Keep in mind that as it is, SC2 is essentially "non-important" to Blizzard's bottom line.
Yes, they made good money off of it. No, it doesn't even come close to the amount of money that WoW pulls in.
Anything Blizzard can do to raise the profits of SC2 and thus raise the chances of support for SC2 to continue is good. Obviously.
There's nothing wrong with companies wanting to make profit off their games, even if it seems like everyone here is mad that the companies aren't doing it JUST FOR THE LOVE. Like seriously, there are hundreds of people behind these games working as their full-time job. They want their jobs to continue. This isn't too hard to comprehend.
Yes, no LAN sucks. It sucks a lot, mostly for tournaments (I don't really care about no LAN for casual play). But while piracy in the United States might not offset costs entirely, imagine the amount of piracy that'll happen in say, China, which is hugely notorious for its piracy of software.
This is an imperfect solution (not including LAN) but it seems to be the most obvious solution. Kinda sucks that it is.
EDIT: Also, I personally dislike microtransactions, and that model doesn't work too well for SC2 anyway.
But I think on games that are designed to be ESPORTS - SC2 - Blizzard can afford to develop a "LAN-version" of the game that can be configured to connect to a local server rather than the public servers. Then this could be provided to big LAN tournaments that are willing to work directly with Blizzard.
Imagine: - MLG/Dreamhack/GSL pays Blizzard some fee - Blizzard shows up and installs SC2 "LAN-version" on the computers - Blizzard shows up with a dedicated server - Tournament runs - Blizzard uninstalls all the "LAN-versions"
Also: - The LAN-version doesn't need to be anything huge, but instead a patch on top of an existing SC2 instance. - Not all computers need to be 'patched', only the MAIN stage ones.
I doubt the fees will make up for the extra development cost, but the difference will probably be orders of magnitude less than the sales loss that the OP was talking about.
Saying that no one buys things they can get for free doesn't make sense when Team Fortress 2 hats sell by the truckload, League of Legends follows a similar trend, and Brood War is one of the biggest selling PC games of all time.
And Valve has the highest revenue per head in the entire world. :D
I don't get your argument. League of Legends aesthetics for the most part are only available through purchase, correct? How are they free?
And something selling well is not proof that there aren't a lot of people out there stealing it.
I think under these circumstances, its actually the consumer with the burden of proof unfortunately. Companies likely have done internal projections on the effects of piracy and determined it was unfeasible. Whether their projections are correct or not, that's the evidence they hold and it is will not sway unless consumers give insight on how they could be wrong.
If there is actually proprietary data on this type of stuff, and data-supported models that do predict X > Y (LAN support significantly hurting sales) - well, then my statement is wrong, and his statements are proven, and then everything he said makes 100% sense. But: 1). No such data has ever been released. 2). He did not in any way indicate that there was more to his prediction than data-unsupported logic. 3). Considering how atrociously wrong game publishers often are at predicting what's good business... I honestly doubt that there was serious data gathering and analysis that went into these predictions. I think they are, mostly, based on logic. But I could be wrong, no way to know what's being hidden of course.
I think it would benefit a company like Blizzard (or more like Activision, I suppose) significantly if they did actually demonstrate this type of data and how it proves that X > Y. Yes, it may be viewed as proprietary information - but at the same time, I think it would help establish a better relationship with the community, and I don't see what they would lose by releasing these sorts of numbers.
On June 23 2011 07:56 worldsnap wrote: You keep saying this over and over but it's still not true. While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale (For example, i'm not going to actually rent all the movies i watch if i couldn't download them), but i sure as hell downloaded a lot of games until Steam made it even easier than pirating to get a game on release. And i'm by far not the only person in this position.
lol, I said it twice for the sake of reiteration because they selectively read my post and argued on pretty much no basis.
Pirates were not consumers in the first place = "While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale."
Enough said.
edit: quotations
You're wrong. Pirates make many real consumers feel like suckers. This leads some of them to start pirating as well.
Personal insecurities have no value. I can claim that I feel good when I buy games as opposed to "feeling like a sucker" because I see to it that money goes to where money is well-deserved. I can coerce my friends and people within my network to purchase software too to make them also "feel good".
^ You realize your argument is a personal sentiment of yours and holds no bearing as neither does my hypothetical situation
Your statements that pirates aren't real customers has no bearing either, then. That statement has no value and no truth to it no matter how many times you repeat it. Your original argument is a personal statement of yours, too. Don't try to twist it around.
I'm not gonna respond to your feeble points from now because there is nothing of value in our little debate and I hope you can see to it as well.
Why does my statement that pirates = aren't customers has no bearing? No value? No truth? My original argument "is a personal statement too" "don't try to twist it around?"
First and foremost I'm not trying twist anything around and of course all my statements are personal or else whose statements are they lol? Now that that's cleared up, I've stated it 3 times now because of people who can't read.
Let's logically break this down:
1) Pirates = individuals who get involved in unauthorized copying of computer software. Copyright infringement of this kind is extremely common
2) They do this for several reason, one of them predominantly is because they don't wish to purchase the software
3) Buy not choosing not purchase the software and to pirate it, that indicates they didn't have the intentions of purchasing in the first place, nor did they end up as a customer (they could have been, but unlikely)
I don't have any data on this as I did not conduct a study on this but since you feel so strongly about the issue and feel I am wrong in my logic, maybe you should
Your 3) is wrong. Noone wishes to buy things if they can get it for free, so 2 applies, but it applies to every single thing.
They choose not to buy things when they can do so. But a big part of them, and this is where there is an actual discussion, wether this part is huge or not that big, but undeniably big, will still buy the games if they have no way to obtain them for free.
So while not all pirates are customers, some definatelly are. And those represent lost sales.
Anyone that says piracy doesn't represent lost sales makes no sense. What you can argue is wether the "cons overcome the pros".
Saying that no one buys things they can get for free doesn't make sense when Team Fortress 2 hats sell by the truckload, League of Legends follows a similar trend, and Brood War is one of the biggest selling PC games of all time.
And Valve has the highest revenue per head in the entire world. :D
TF2 hats are an entirely different thing. They're basically a decision of whether your money or your time is worth more to you. Hoping to get that certain hat from a random drop is like hoping to win the lottery, which is why they sell so well.
On June 23 2011 07:41 Strayline wrote: The thing I'm wondering about is how long will it be before someone just sets up an alternate battle.net server in China. People set up fake WoW servers and such so it's not like it's impossible to set up pirate servers without LAN support already in the game--LAN just makes it much easier. After this happens will Blizzard then release LAN support to the rest of the community?
Fake WoW servers are terrible. They're created by reverse engineering the code and so like 50% of the game is broken.
Having no LAN really does make it much harder if not impossible to set up a pirate server.
On June 23 2011 07:56 worldsnap wrote: You keep saying this over and over but it's still not true. While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale (For example, i'm not going to actually rent all the movies i watch if i couldn't download them), but i sure as hell downloaded a lot of games until Steam made it even easier than pirating to get a game on release. And i'm by far not the only person in this position.
lol, I said it twice for the sake of reiteration because they selectively read my post and argued on pretty much no basis.
Pirates were not consumers in the first place = "While a pirated copy of something is definitely not always a lost sale."
Enough said.
edit: quotations
You're wrong. Pirates make many real consumers feel like suckers. This leads some of them to start pirating as well.
Personal insecurities have no value. I can claim that I feel good when I buy games as opposed to "feeling like a sucker" because I see to it that money goes to where money is well-deserved. I can coerce my friends and people within my network to purchase software too to make them also "feel good".
^ You realize your argument is a personal sentiment of yours and holds no bearing as neither does my hypothetical situation
Your statements that pirates aren't real customers has no bearing either, then. That statement has no value and no truth to it no matter how many times you repeat it. Your original argument is a personal statement of yours, too. Don't try to twist it around.
I'm not gonna respond to your feeble points from now because there is nothing of value in our little debate and I hope you can see to it as well.
Why does my statement that pirates = aren't customers has no bearing? No value? No truth? My original argument "is a personal statement too" "don't try to twist it around?"
First and foremost I'm not trying twist anything around and of course all my statements are personal or else whose statements are they lol? Now that that's cleared up, I've stated it 3 times now because of people who can't read.
Let's logically break this down:
1) Pirates = individuals who get involved in unauthorized copying of computer software. Copyright infringement of this kind is extremely common
2) They do this for several reason, one of them predominantly is because they don't wish to purchase the software
3) Buy not choosing not purchase the software and to pirate it, that indicates they didn't have the intentions of purchasing in the first place, nor did they end up as a customer (they could have been, but unlikely)
I don't have any data on this as I did not conduct a study on this but since you feel so strongly about the issue and feel I am wrong in my logic, maybe you should
Your 3) is wrong. Noone wishes to buy things if they can get it for free, so 2 applies, but it applies to every single thing.
They choose not to buy things when they can do so. But a big part of them, and this is where there is an actual discussion, wether this part is huge or not that big, but undeniably big, will still buy the games if they have no way to obtain them for free.
So while not all pirates are customers, some definatelly are. And those represent lost sales.
Anyone that says piracy doesn't represent lost sales makes no sense. What you can argue is wether the "cons overcome the pros".
Saying that no one buys things they can get for free doesn't make sense when Team Fortress 2 hats sell by the truckload, League of Legends follows a similar trend, and Brood War is one of the biggest selling PC games of all time.
And Valve has the highest revenue per head in the entire world. :D
I'm sorry, but can they get the hats for free without huge time investments? Can you just download the hats from another site? It is impossible to get those items, in both LoL and in TF, just by playing cassually. I'm sure that they would get pirated to death and wouldn't sell at all if you could dowload them for free. When you pirate a game, you get the exact same thing you would have paid for.
People will pay for things they can't obtain otherwise, exactly my point in the previous post. I'm not sure what your point is.
EPT
) 
