EPTI started writing this post as a reply to a forum thread I was replying to this morning, which ended up being closed. As I looked upon what I had wrote, I was far from finished. I continued writing throughout the day, and low and behold, by the end of the work day I had a Word document spanning 6 pages of my thoughts on piracy. It seemed much too long to post in any threads currently hanging around, certainly didn't deserve its own topic in my opinion, so hopefully this qualifies as a rant blog that happens to be on piracy. There's no TLDR summary, if someone wants to sum this up, be my guest, at least I'll know one person read the whole thing (and if you TLDR without reading the whole thing, good chance it'll be incorrect since I'm a little all over the place). For those of you who manage to get through the entire thing, you deserve a cookie, a hug, and a pat on the back. I don't expect rational responses, people are moronic on both sides of this argument. What I'm hoping is that this account is detailed and covers enough to give those who don't understand why people pirate some insight into those of us who do it for a cause, and for those that support piracy some potential points to reference should they need to present the case themselves.
Everyone I’ve talked to about piracy seems to break things down into two categories
1. Shit they wouldn't buy anyway - Most times, the media that’s pirated are things they wouldn't buy. I wouldn't even shell out the $5 or $13/month for a rental service. What I can do is download the material I'm looking for, play/listen/watch it, and generally speaking probably not even get through it before I delete it. A prime example would be The Witcher (the first one). Played about 3 hours and was completely uninterested (Wanted to get a bit into the story to see if it got any better). So I uninstalled it and deleted the files from my machine. I think if anything, I was exposed to a product I may not have normally been otherwise, I don't see how this is a bad thing.
2. The try before you buy - Anything that doesn't fall into category 1 falls into this category. Most of the experiences I’ve heard with this reasoning comes with music. Although, games and movies are certainly applicable to this concept as well. Sticking with the case of a CD, it's as easy as downloading it, listening to it once or twice through, and if it's worth it, buying it. The best example I can think of is the most recent Linkin Park album. Linkin Park was one of my favorite artists for a long time, however after purchasing Minutes to Midnight, I was extremely disappointed in their sound and the direction it seemed like they were heading as a band. When their latest CD 'A Thousand Suns' was to be released, I was genuinely excited, but extremely skeptical. Everything I heard about this album said they took their sound in a "new direction", so I was hesitant to purchase this. I checked it out, and was disappointed. Personally, I thought it was garbage, and am extremely glad I downloaded the CD before I purchased it. I’ve never listened to it again.
I'm not a big movie person, so I really can't speak for anything regarding this, especially because I enjoy going to theaters to watch movies, and I don't buy DVDs, although I will ask for them as gifts.
I understand both sides of the argument for piracy. It seems many people have backed off speaking in terms of the music industry which is a good thing. I laugh hearing people who make the argument that artists lose out on money because people pirate their music. This is taken from a presentation given in one of my philosophy classes where we were discussing the ethics of piracy. Granted this presentation was done by students but I would assume most of this (aside from the actual numbers, but conceptually should be relatable to actual figures) is verifiable.
A quote from Lars Ulrich of Metallica:
“Keep in mind that the primary source of income for most songwriters is from the sale of records... It is clear then that if music is free for downloading, the music industry is not viable… and the diverse voices of the artists will disappear. The argument I hear a lot, that music should be free, must then mean the musicians should work for free. Nobody else works for free, why should musicians?” – Lars Ulrich [taken from transcript of Lars’s testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee on Downloading Music on the Internet. July 11, 2000]
Let’s say average CD cost (adjusting for tax, retailers) is $16.83. VERY GENEROUS.
$14.83 goes to record labels
-$2.92 for distributor
-$1.25 for manufacture/packaging
-$1.17 for promotional materials
$9.49x 9.17% (let’s say 12% minus approximately 2.83% producer?)
Artists get 87 cents.
Surprise, surprise. The artist has their own team to pay: Producer, Manager, Attorney, Accountant…
The boys at Metallica are getting about 59 cents to split between each other.
If Metallica sold 10 MILLION albums, they get $1,225,000 each.
Let’s say Metallica sells out Wembley Stadium (holds approximately 90,000 people) for 65$ a ticket
They make approximately $1,462,500 each. Then you have some costs taken from the venue, lighting, etc.
But then PER SHOW, they make an approximation of $500,000 in Merchandise
With this in mind, examining music piracy, downloading albums is laughable despite what artists may lead the general public to believe. Not only do album sales generate the fan base to purchase these concerts tickets, but these sales are also made possible by the dastardly pirates who download this music. I've had friends who have asked me to go to concerts for bands I've never heard of, I take a listen to what they have (which is generally pirated), and decide if I want to go.
Moving onto movies, it seems that Box Office vs. DVD sales are relatively comparable, and this of course doesn't take into account the amount of sales lost due to piracy. Here is a link to an LA Times article that details movies are making less money from DVD sales then they were in the early 2000s. No doubt this is due to an increase in piracy, but I think there is also a larger issue at hand here. Which is also where I think a lot of the argument about pirating games come in.
It would be foolish to say this is the case of all developers and movie studios, but let's be honest: these companies are in the business of making money. As we've seen with the numerous movie sequels being produced, as well as the amount of franchised game series, it's the same shit over and over and over. To the ignorant masses, they'll keep buying these products, watching/playing them, and be content with the same garbage. To many of the people of pirate, I would group these people with many of here on TL speaking about the current state of many franchises. Here is a recent article Cracked.com did regarding some trends in the gaming industry. In one part of the article they outline the recent E3 convention and go over the announcements of many of the major companies. Trend number 3 is where I'll be focusing, and here's an excerpt from the article:
We already know what the best-selling game of 2011 will be: Modern Warfare 3, which was shown for the first time at E3.
Don't get me wrong, what they showed us was cool as shit. You're thrown right into the action, starting out under water ...
... emerging to see that, holy crap, New York is under attack!
Boats are burning in the harbor!
Look! There's Lady Liberty on the horizon, as if to remind us of what's at stake!
I can't wait to play it. But Modern Warfare 3 has some serious competition in the marketplace. Just earlier this year, maybe the best-looking console game ever made, Crysis 2, hit shelves. In the first level of that one, you're thrown right into the action, starting out under water ...
... emerging to see that, holy shit, New York is under attack!
Boats are burning in the harbor!
Look! There's Lady Liberty on the horizon, as if to remind us of what's at stake!
For instance, each of the Big Three game console makers took the stage at E3 to show off their biggest games of the upcoming year. Microsoft led off with the aforementioned Modern Warfare 3, which is really Call of Duty 8 (game makers like to switch up the sequel titles so the digits don't get ridiculous). Next was Tomb Raider 10 (rebooted as Tomb Raider). Then we had Mass Effect 3, and Ghost Recon 11 (titled Ghost Recon: Future Soldier). This was followed by Gears of War 3, Forza 4 and Fable 4 (called Fable: The Journey).
Next were two new games, both based on existing brands and both for toddlers (Disneyland Adventure -- a Kinect enabled game that will let your toddler tour Disneyland without you having to spring for a ticket -- and a Sesame Street game starring Elmo).
Then, finally, we reached the big announcement at the end (they always save cliffhanger "megaton" announcements for last, Steve Jobs-style) and they came out to announce that they were introducing "the beginning of a new trilogy." Yes! Something fucking new!
Then this came up on the screen:
Confused? So was the audience. By "new trilogy" they actually meant that there would be three more Halo games. Did I mention that Halo 4 is actually Halo 7? Which means they intend to put out at least nine Halo games before they're done? Oh, wait, they also announced they were doing a gritty reboot of the decade-old Halo to make it an even 10.
Sony came up next and announced a sequel, another sequel and then a reboot. After that it went sequel, sequel, special edition of a sequel, new FPS, sequel, new FPS, sequel, special edition of a sequel, new game based on an existing property (Star Trek), sequel, sequel and sequel. Then they introduced a new system (the PS Vita) and showed it off with four sequels.
Nintendo's list went: sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel and (hold on, let me double check here) a sequel. And you already know what those were, even if you haven't played a video game in 15 years: Mario Kart, Mario World, Luigi, Zelda, Kirby, etc. Then they showed off their new system (the Wii U) with a demo reel promising that some day it would allow us to play sequels like Arkham Asylum 2, Darksiders II and Ninja Gaiden 3.
Companies are looking to cash in on franchises people will eat up over and over, and for the pirates who don't buy into this, they still want to play the game, but want to show that gamers aren't as gullible and retarded as the developers would believe.
Obviously I can't speak for every pirate out there with these statements, but this is a conversation I've had with my friends more increasingly as we discuss new games coming out. All these companies are pushing out the same product with little changes, more micropayments, and putting nowhere near the time they should be. This isn't the developers fault, it's the people who set the deadlines for these developers. Until gamers grow a pair and say "I'm not gonna buy this repackaged garbage, give me something new", we won't see a change. So I see and talk to people who pirate not because they're too poor, but because it's about showing the gaming industry you can't feed us cow ass and call it filet mignon over and over.
Let’s take a look at cost as well. I’ll admit the music industry has done a pretty good job in making their products more consumer friendly since the Napster case. 10 years ago, I can remembers every new CD being over $20 on release, ridiculous. Now, we have places like iTunes that sell individual tracks for .99, some places that sell them for even less, hell look under a soda cap and you’ll get a code for a free download (though I’ve never done this so I don’t know how this works).
Movies have gotten worse over the years. I can remember going to a movie and paying $7 for a ticket. Now if I’m going to regular movie, I’m paying $10-12 for a movie on the same size screen, with a relatively comparable budget. I understand inflation, why things get more expensive and the like, but when I’m paying almost double what I was 10 years ago, I find this to be a bit exorbant. Like I mentioned earlier, I still frequent movie theaters, and I enjoy the IMAX and 3D movies here and there, despite the price. Unfortunately that just means I don’t buy refreshments, I’ll just bring them with me when I go.
Games on the other hand, are rather hard to distinguish when talking about price. I remember buying SNES games for $40, Playstation games for $50, and Xbox 360 games for $60. This progression seems fairly normal to me, and I really don’t mind spending money for games I’d want at these prices. What starts to bug me about games is the DLC and microtransaction stuff. This is obviously the wave of the future, and if you’d like to give me a free game with every other feature purchasable, fine. I’m even ok with what Borderlands did with their DLC- released individual DLC and eventually put them all on a retail disk for $20, pretty damn cool. But then you have things like Dragon Age, where buying an item ingame costs $2, and extra quest chain is $5, all of which were available ON RELEASE. Any developer willing simultaneously release DLC with their game is where I draw the line. On top of that, they release a half ass expansion some time later, which may have been worth it if all the original DLC was included.
So how does price relate to piracy? In the case of Bioware, I bought DA:O, hell, I even suckered myself into buying the DLC (thankfully didn’t fall into the trap of the expansion). After experiencing this, Bioware got knocked down more than a few pegs on my list of favorite developers, so much so that I refused to buy Mass Effect 2 (and even more so after hearing it was obliterating graphics cards on release). Bioware makes good games though, so what did I do? Why I downloaded it of course. And low and behold I was able to download it with ALL DLC FOR FREE. It appears as though the lovely folks at EA though ME2 should be released with DLC as well, this should be infuriating to most people, you’re getting skimped on a complete product because these companies want to nickel and dime you for a few extra bucks. Did I play the game? Yep. Did I play through the whole thing? Nope. Aside from that fact that I became uninterested pretty quickly in the game, I’m willing to support these games if they prove to be worth it, multiplayer or not.
Until game companies can see with their numbers that these tactics are hurting themselves, they’ll keep doing it, and why not: they make more money for every sequel that takes less time to make, and can nickel and dime us in the process. I don’t hate game companies as much as hate gamers who are willing to be complacent to this bullshit. It’s not ok to have no innovation, it’s not ok to beat a franchise into the ground, it’s not okay to charge for things on release that could be packaged with the game or held off until an expansion. And please, don’t think I’m referring to microtransactions like name changes in wow, riot points in LoL, and cash shops in MMORPGs. I have ZERO problems with these services.
One point I feel that I’ve skipped over that is worth mentioning, and will probably be something people would bring up if I don’t mention is demos. Game demos are fantastic. They’re a great way to give gamers a free preview of the game, what they can expect, and a good feel for how the game plays: sort of. Doing a quick search on Fileplanet, I discovered a ME2 demo, so I can expect to be flamed right away for that. To be completely honest, I didn’t get much further then what the demo promises before I quit anyway, so maybe it makes a better case for my argument of “try before you buy” but who knows. One thing you’ll notice though, is that less and less companies are putting out demos. Take a look at what happened with Dungeon Siege 3 for example. Many people such as myself adored the first installment of this game, and while the second was pretty solid, it left me wondering how the third would be when I discovered it was in development. Take a look at the thread here on TL about it. Everyone saying they played the demo seemed to blast it for how terrible it was, and that’s because for the most part it was. Imagine if Activision released a demo for Call of Duty: Black Ops, a multiplayer demo. Would it have sold well, most likely. Would it have sold as well as it did? I’m not so sure. Most people would have seen much of the same gameplay, little to no improvement, and I would go so far as to say some would have wondered why it took them a year to release the game with multiplayer like that. Here is a link for a screenshot of multiplayer from MW2 or Black Ops. And here is a link to a screenshot of the other (MW2 or Black Ops). Notice the difference? Neither can I. I own Black Ops and MW2 (MW2 was a gift, Black Ops was the first and last COD I’ll purchase), I’m definitely a casual player, and still couldn’t distinguish one from the other.
+ Show Spoiler +
Here’s a link to a SS of the 2nd game with the HUD displayed http://i1-games.softpedia-static.com/screenshots/Call-Of-Duty-Black-Ops-Multiplayer-Teaser-Trailer_2.jpg
+ Show Spoiler [which screen was which?] +
First screenshot was MW2, 2nd Black Ops
Either way, I think the argument could be made that developers are not releasing demos on purpose.
Perhaps I’m in the minority here, maybe I’m just a dreamer who will forever be reminiscing on what gaming used to be, or maybe I’m not alone. Do some people pirate because they just want shit for free? Absolutely. Is pirating illegal? Yeah. Is pirating necessary? You bet.
I’d like to think there’s a greater cause at stake here. Perhaps my ideas are too jaded, but the trends in gaming are extremely worrisome. We have CEOs going on record saying they won’t invest in an idea unless they can franchise it, saying they want to push out titles in those franchises yearly and milk them until they die; this is the future of gaming if something doesn’t change. It’s foolish to think teen gamers will wake up one day and say, “OMG, I get it”. They’re going to keep asking their parents to buy the newest title, and parents will keep buying it. An interesting trend in games, especially for PC, is that of web authentication. As we know with Battle.net, you must be logged into the internet in order to play the game, or access your single player saves at the least. This is the same for many PC games nowadays, some of which don’t even have a multiplayer function or any other reason to access the internet other than authentication of the product. More and more gamers are becoming frustrated by this it seems, and this is a direct result of pirating. With the way things are headed, one can only hope pirates push the game companies to make technology so off the wall that gamers eventually just give up. I think this is where we need to get to in order to actually make an impact on the industry, and somewhere I think we will eventually get to.
To answer some of the anti-pirate sentiments I’ve seen both here and other places:
-I’m not saying you shouldn’t be supporting developers. If you pirate anything and you like it, you should buy it. My argument for pirating lies more with franchised games being beaten to the ground more than anything else. If MW3 get pirated 2 million times because nobody wants to pay for the same recycled shit a third time, then maybe someone will get the hint you can only fool gamers for so long.
-In regards to software, I don’t see any reason to pirate this. Most software you can purchase has some sort of free equivalent, and frankly if you’re paying for something on a yearly basis like an antivirus, that’s on you.
- http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2136/piratek.png I think this chart does a pretty good job in summing up a lot of potential rebuttals to this argument
-I saw a post from a software developer saying “stop stealing my stuff”. This goes along with what many people have said about not purchasing a product in the first place. This seems to be a difficult concept for people to grasp, so I’ll try my best to explain it here if I haven’t already. Let’s say you come across some software like TLAF’s Tagalicious. You check out the description, pretty cool program, but there is plenty of free software that can do the same things, albeit maybe with a little more hassle. It would be worth noting that you have ZERO intention of purchasing the software. While browsing your favorite torrent site one day, you come across a torrent for this very program, and decide to check it out. You try and tagging a few albums, you discover “wow, this software makes this task much easier then what I currently have”. Because there was no trial version available, you would not have been exposed to this software in any way, shape, or form otherwise. Thanks to pirating, you decide you like the software so much you’re willing to purchase it, and you do.
The thing with pirating is the “white knight” examples I’m giving don’t seem to be the norm, which is sad. The question I would pose however, is would you rather have someone pirate your software and buy it after, or never give it a second thought. Those of you who choose the latter are being incredibly unrealistic. Who wouldn’t want their software to reach another customer, regardless of how they discovered it, it was still purchased.
As a recent CS graduate, I understand the time it takes to produce quality software, the amount of time it takes to iron out all those subtle bugs, memory leaks, etc., but to assert that people who pirate and then purchase your software stole from you, despite holding some validity, would be foolish.
-To those of you who pirate just to get stuff for free, you’re doing it wrong. Pirating can be amazing tool for those of us who wish to have voice that otherwise couldn’t.
-Finally, to those of you who would contest that a pirate is a pirate and illegal is illegal: If you owned a store, and I forgot to pay for something, would you rather me return after the fact to say “I’m sorry, I realized I didn’t compensate you for your goods, I’d like to pay”, or just leave to never return. I think the answer is pretty obvious here, but would you still call the police? If your answer is yes, then I don’t have anything else to say to you, there’s no way any of this will change your mind.
