EPTMillions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year.
How did you watch MLG? - Page 57
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:18 Talin wrote: No, it's an argument that is supposed to convince people to go against their common sense and pay for something they do not value as much. He didn't say that the only alternative to pirating is buying. In fact the following paragraph is an argument for turning to free events instead of pirating. Not sure why you are misrepresenting his argument so much lol. It's pretty simple to understand. What you wrote there also contradicts your first post in response to him, since you're now admitting that he presented an argument meant to convince people of something. | ||
|
Splunge
Germany925 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:52 karpo wrote: That's where the problem starts though. If that's what they wanted to know from this tournament they should have done a better job securing the PPV. The internet is the internet and people will try and circumvent stuff like the popup, especially if it's really easy, and no amount of arguing about ethics or what's right and wrong will change that. You're right that there will always be people who pirate, but we're arguing with the specific people in this thread who have admitted to pirating the Winter Arena (including you). You again sound like you're bringing up a generic excuse to justify your own pirating. "It's inevitable that other people will do it, so I might as well do it also. Two wrongs make a right after all." You should just admit that you knew it was wrong but did it anyway rather than blurt out more logical fallacies. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 05:50 hunts wrote: Yes I agree with that. The act of not paying AND NOT WATCHING gives the message that the price tag is unacceptable. The act of not paying and watching anyway via a work around, doesn't send that message. It sends the message of "it is worth watching but I refuse to pay." In some cases yes, but not uniformly. It can also send the message "it's worth watching but it is still not worth the amount you're charging for it". It can send the message "it's worth watching but I cannot afford to pay for it". And a large number of other messages. Whichever message it sends though, it doesn't really matter. Piracy is a statistical fact (which is why the poll in this thread is very useful and educative). You cannot prevent it, nor wish it away, nor guilt trip people away from it, so in the end the only choice is to accept and work with or around it to get the most out of every person who wants to see your content and make your offers enticing enough for as many people possible. There's really nothing more to it than that. On February 29 2012 06:05 Doodsmack wrote: He didn't say that the only alternative to pirating is buying. In fact the following paragraph is an argument for turning to free events instead of pirating. Not sure why you are misrepresenting his argument so much lol. It's pretty simple to understand. What you wrote there also contradicts your first post in response to him, since you're now admitting that he presented an argument meant to convince people of something. I think it's best you leave his arguments to him, since I have no way of figuring out your interpretations of his posts. -_- His first paragraph was about the content provider getting paid for the content they provide, so in the context of that argument, paying is the only alternative that matters. His second paragraph was about watching free stuff instead of PPV stuff, which is flawed because you can simply watch both at the same time, and, more importantly, the difference in quality does not necessarily reflect the difference in price. Or in other words, having an interest in something and wanting to watch it does not automatically justify paying any given price for it. Neither was an argument against piracy that would entice people who do it to stop doing it. | ||
|
battyone
United States180 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote: Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. Not every video game developer/publisher makes it though. Yes there are your Vavles and Blizzard Entertainments who have products so big they won't fall to piracy. We have things like the Sega Dreamcast where a huge part of its downfall/lack of 3rd party support/etc was the fact that it's anti piracy was easily bypassed. (An unmodded dreamcast will play copied games on CD-R as long as they were prepared in a specific manner.) The publishers standing tall right now have either abosorbed a ton of other publishers/studios (iD/EA/Activision/etc), are using insane DRM (Ubisoft, who sells a lot of games in Russia just saying), etc. 10 years ago there were so many more companies developing and publishing software and games, games back then were (to me) more innovative and creative. Now we have bland brown shooters, bland clone of duties, your annual sports title, and a few good games from the uber-developers between. Even then some of the uber developers have let me down, iD software in 1995 versus iD software today. Rage was horrible to me, and I am holding out a thread of hope for Doom 4. Blizzard is doing okay with Diablo 3 (in beta since patch 6, still play it, not a fan of the direction the UI slots are going but hey...), Starcraft 2 and somewhat okay with WoW (they have tons of subs, but I am not a fan of the game anymore.) Valve may one day release HL2:EP3 but until then i'm kinda sad at them. Portal 2 was good. For every Valve, iD, Blizzard, there are ten Eidos Interactives, Midways, Ataris, or Sierria Onlines. We have some sequils due out soon (Bioshock:Infinate for example) that are going to be good, but are not anything new. It isn't really fair to point at one extreme and say that it completely eleminates anything standing against it, go for midlines. How much effort goes into PC games today versus 10 years ago when piracy was a bit less easy (lower bandwidth, non-prevalance of CD and DVD copiers, etc). How many games do we say are console ports now, when that strategy minimizes piracy on the target platforms? | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:17 battyone wrote: The publishers standing tall right now have either abosorbed a ton of other publishers/studios (iD/EA/Activision/etc), are using insane DRM (Ubisoft, who sells a lot of games in Russia just saying), etc. 10 years ago there were so many more companies developing and publishing software and games, games back then were (to me) more innovative and creative. Now we have bland brown shooters, bland clone of duties, your annual sports title, and a few good games from the uber-developers between. Really? Ten years ago (2000-2003ish) was possibly the worst period in game development history when it comes to bland, repetitive games. The fact that the internet is so powerful now and has allowed indie developers to bypass the publisher barrier pushes the actual innovation and freedom in design we have today and most certainly did not have 10 years ago. No game studio fell to piracy, they fell due to their (or their publishers') lack of vision and inability to adapt and embrace the new possibilities as well as the threats. You make it sound like invasive DRM is this great wall that successfully withstood the impact of piracy and that this allowed these companies to survive where they otherwise would not - which couldn't be further from the truth. That specific concept of DRM has long been proven to be almost completely ineffectual. On February 29 2012 06:17 battyone wrote: It isn't really fair to point at one extreme and say that it completely eleminates anything standing against it, go for midlines. How much effort goes into PC games today versus 10 years ago when piracy was a bit less easy (lower bandwidth, non-prevalance of CD and DVD copiers, etc). How many games do we say are console ports now, when that strategy minimizes piracy on the target platforms? The thing is you're only looking at a very limited subset of the game industry. There is a PC game development industry outside of Ubisoft and Activision that does not live in constant denial. There are more games being made for PC now than ever, considering that PC game development is now very accessible, distribution is much easier, there is a ton of possibilities that did not exist 10 years ago. Steam has turned (at least partially) a ton of ex-pirates because it's simply a better and more convenient service with affordable prices and discounts all the time. | ||
|
ilikeredheads
Canada1995 Posts
You can't stop piracy in the today's age of the internet. The only way to encourage people to purchase things legitimately is to ensure the customer is getting full value from the product you are selling. I am just going to cite an example: itunes. Yeah, people pirating music but more people buy albums from itunes. Why? because it's easy, inexpensive, convenient, and it doesn't feel like you are being ripped off. Which brings me to the MLG Arena. When people were able to watch the stream for free not by their own doing, how does that make the paying customer feel? There was an easily exploited loophole and yet MLG didn't address it promptly. Maybe they couldn't do anything about it. I don't know. It just tells me that MLG is not taking every precaution necessary to protect their product's value. This is not the first time an incident like this has happen. Remember the hotpockets disaster? I don't mind PPV model, but you are not giving any incentive to actually pay for it when it is so easy to get it for free. | ||
|
hyperdemented
Austria372 Posts
| ||
|
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
| ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote: Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now. Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote: if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise I'm not sure if the rest of your post is addressing me or not but I didn't argue the ethics of piracy or say that it can't hurt sales. Also to note I'm fairly confident in your CD sales example, most bands didn't make much money off of direct CD sales, well, ever. The record companies profit off of the sales, while the bands make the majority of their money on merch and touring. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that. Anyway, I digress.. Piracy is part of the consumer climate and companies will work with it, deal with it and offer products at the correct pricing, of the right quality and value or they won't make it. There is nothing special in esports regarding piracy except for a few delusional folks who seem to think frequent teamliquid forum viewers can carry esports on it's shoulders by paying ridiculous prices to 'support the scene'. Internet and the flow of information, copyrighted or not is just the way it is in the world today. Innovative companies will continue to be successful, and companies with shitty products or those that offer good products but make bad decisions (invasive DRM, ridiculous prices, etc. etc.) will continue to fade away. There is nothing scary about this. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:11 Talin wrote: I think it's best you leave his arguments to him, since I have no way of figuring out your interpretations of his posts. -_- His first paragraph was about the content provider getting paid for the content they provide, so in the context of that argument, paying is the only alternative that matters. His second paragraph was about watching free stuff instead of PPV stuff, which is flawed because you can simply watch both at the same time, and, more importantly, the difference in quality does not necessarily reflect the difference in price. Or in other words, having an interest in something and wanting to watch it does not automatically justify paying any given price for it. Neither was an argument against piracy that would entice people who do it to stop doing it. So you admit that battyone was presenting an argument to convince people to follow his way (even if, as you contend, his argument was flawed or weak)? Good, then that settles our argument. All I'm saying is that you weren't fair in characterizing battyone's argument as simply "I think you're bad people." | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote: if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs. The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment with a ton of different, small predators that will bleed them to death if they stick to their ways. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:36 Talin wrote: But this simply isn't true. It's the big companies that end up tanking the most damage and being the most outspoken about the "issues". Many smaller companies actually fare comparatively better than the big ones because of better priced products, a more loyal audience and (often) consistent support and updates for the game, with lower costs. The companies that get hurt the most by piracy - in any part of the entertainment industry - are the old mammoth corporations with monopolistic attitudes that drove the prices of entertainment products extremely high just because they could, and are now facing the great equalizer that is the internet which gives smaller and more agile companies a way to garner enough attention and compete with lower production and distribution costs (thus prices). It is not the piracy itself that bothers them as much as the fact that they're no longer dictating the rules and have found themselves in a new, hostile environment. every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup good drm. Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences How many books did you think I've torrented instead of buying for my school? For every book that I couldn't find a viable torrent, I spend money to buy. I can't imagine how many people are on the same boat as me, perhaps not books but for other just as applicable intellectual properties. People would always look for the cheaper alternative, and nothing is cheaper than free. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:39 iky43210 wrote: every software industry gets hurt by piracy, especially smaller companies that can't afford the money or time to setup drm. You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional. Offering competitive price is meaningless when most people would rather take FREE stuff if there are no consequences That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:53 Talin wrote: You're beating around the bush a lot. Everyone gets hurt by it, sure, but not all wounds hurt the same. Big companies that run on outdated business models certainly feel the pain a lot more. Obviously, it's not so much the size that matters, it's the model, but big companies are slower and harder to adapt. DRM is irrelevant for the most part, I don't know why people are mentioning it all the time. Multiplayer games are about the only thing where it actually matters, and in that case the solutions are fairly straightforward and functional. That line is plainly absurd in its entirety, but more importantly, how on earth is that an argument for NOT offering competitive prices and quality of service? I'm sure that $60 for a game or $20 for a weekend of Starcraft do alienate a very significant number of people that would actually pay a fair price for a good service rather than get it for free, if the option was there. how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality My dad used to run old software model relying on selling backup solutions as software. It is practically impossible to sell in the Chinese market due to piracy issues and only somewhat profitable in the US because it is one of the few places where people still respects intellectual properties. He had to change his solutions to SaaS model to combat piracy. Saying that piracy doesn't affect sales is naive and ignorant | ||
|
rEiGN~
369 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote: how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. Everything Steam offers is available online for free. Yet it's successful. Why? Accessibility. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On February 29 2012 08:01 rEiGN~ wrote: Everything Steam offers is available online for free. Yet it's successful. Why? Accessibility. Yet what you said does not credit or discredit that "piracy does not affect sales". | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 29 2012 07:57 iky43210 wrote: how is it beating around the bush? how is DRM irrelevant? do you not know what DRM is? If the option of free is there, people will always get it for free. how is this absurd? People in the US would buy stuff from walmart to save themselves a couple of dollars instead of buying made in USA. Its not absurd, its human nature. We like cheap stuff if it ensures similar (in case of piracy, identical) quality What you're saying makes no sense at all. EVERY piece of media / entertainment content is available for free, unless it's a really obscure one with a very niche following. So following your logic, nobody would EVER pay for anything - yet back here in the real world, that is obviously not the case. Which I'm pretty sure you're well aware of, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. | ||
| ||
