Originally Posted By Mark (29 JUN 2011 6:05am)

Originally Posted By dwwa (28 JUN 2011 11:30am)

Originally Posted By Mark (28 JUN 2011 3:02am)

Originally Posted By Fnord (1 JUN 2011 3:37pm)
Is piracy always a sin?

Yes, and if you do it, you gonna go straight to hell.

Yes. Now you should make another thread. "Is Hell really so band?"

Well, from what I've heard, hell is hot, and the devil and his helpers keep poking you in the butt with a trident.

I suppose you meant "bad", not "band". There's a special place reserved for naughty bands. They have to keep playing "Louie, Louie" - over and over and over and over, ad nauseam, forever and ever.

Imagine. Three chords. C, F, and G. Over and over and over. So please don't pirate or play in a lousy band.

Originally Posted By dwwa (1 AUG 2011 6:09pm)
Yeah, sinister is left and Dexter is right. Thus, the left hand path (evil) and right hand path (it must me good I guess, seeing as how the other one is evil, if not, poor us).

Originally Posted By placeholder (6 OCT 2011 7:51pm)
Before sites like GOG and similar sites came into being, I did sometimes pirate old games that I just couldn't get hold of in any other way, but that excuse has become slim.

Originally Posted By Traveller
Well, thank heavens for certain hacks/cracks

Same

Not for the same reason, although I sympathise with your concerns.

Game developers (not so much the adventure game ones) are trying to kill off the second-hand market, which I rely on to be able to afford new games. Non-transferable downloads, limited installs, one-time only activation codes etc. So I buy a physical copy, install it and get a crack file. Put the game back in its box in mint condition. When I'm done, I sell it to help fund the next purchase. Probably technically illegal, but I've paid my fee, so tough. I don't know where that puts me on the moral compass.

I'd like to see more rental schemes for new games. A couple of quid (or dollars) a week. Send it back when you're finished. Or buy it at any point. The better and longer the game, the more money they get. 

@ Rousseau. I agree with you - without a doubt downloading has had a big impact on the second hand and re-sale market, which is not a bad thing, except for collectors and dealers who may have seen values fall.

But downloading has had a big impact on the whole pricing structure of PC games *period*. Again, this is not neccessarily a bad thing, unless you think the market must only be a low volume/high price proposition. But now finally, downloading may be dragging the sale of digital media, by hook hook or by crook, into the more realistic high volume/low price world.

I am convinced that a very large portion of people who download would never consider buying even if the download stream went dry - or they if they did they'd just nibble at the edges. If an effective DRM is invented, this would be the situation and I would predict there'd be almost no change in game sales. Woopie, great victory for the marketers.

But what downloading demonstrates, whether you consider it a sin or not, is there is a *huge* untapped price-concious market out there ready to start buying when the price for a game [or album, movie or whatever] falls enough - and it could if the published numbers of downloadlers reflect real demand.  The point is not how much $ is lost due to downloading but how much $ is lost by selling too dear. 

Pirating (the file-downloading kind) is not morally wrong. Even killing is not morally wrong (e.g. a cop shooting a suspect to save innocent lives). I wouldn't even venture to say that pirating is ethically (i.e. a general rule) wrong, since it has no definite victims (developers only lose in special cases...see markornikov's great chart) but has one definite benefactor (the player getting to play the game). I would compare piracy to something like crossing a roadway at a red light - it's oftentimes just smart as long as you're not careless about it.

I for one can admit with good conscience that I pirate most games I'm interested in to help me make an educated purchase decision. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with finding out what you are being offered before paying for it. When misleading hype is used to sell boring and soulless games, I for one am glad when I can avoid being tricked into financing and encouraging the creation of more such titles - even more so because I currently have very limited income which I want to reserve for games I actually appreciate.

What I think is more of a moral grey area is when I play a pirated copy of a game and enjoy it to some degree, but not quite enough to justify paying full price for it. Sometimes I find the game on sale later on and send a few deserved coins the developers' way, but sometimes I admittedly do just forget about the game and never pay the devs a dime for making it. But I do think it is largerly the publisher's fault if their monetization option doesn't allow for "donations" of acceptable portions and they never lower the game's price. 

Even if a game has a demo I prefer to test with a pirated copy to know I will be getting the best possible experience, and because I don't want to ruin the game by experiencing portions of it out of the intended order. Also I like that I will be able to resume playing from my existing save games if I should choose to purchase a legitimate copy (with demos sometimes all progress is lost). And I don't want to watch gameplay videos or read in-depth reviews either because I detest spoilers.

What would render pirating largerly unnecessary for me would be games being released in episodic format with the first episode being free; Fable II Game Episodes is a perfect example. With open world games that can't comfortably fit the episodic mold I would like to see full game trials which allow one to experience the full game for a limited but sufficient amount of time. Playstation 3 has reasonably long 60 minute full game trials for a couple of games - I would love to see something like that become a standard.

I think that in an ideal world almost all games should be play-before-you-pay and/or donationware. I love the notion that it would encourage the creation of games that are actually worthwhile and loved.

@ Naster - I don't think downloading games that are currently available is an upright thing to do. I'm suggesting the principal of unintended consquences is at play here - that paradoxically, downloading is giving developers more confidence to lower prices in exchange for greater volume since they have a pretty good idea now just how large their market potentially is. 

In a similar way popular games on abandonware sites give rights holders a good idea if a commercial re-release makes any sense if they choose to - the abandonware community in effect serving as a market research test bed. Then, through uutlets like GOG these good games can be re-release in nice streamlined easy to dl forms for quite little. Mainstream gaming could follow a similar path successfully, not a cheaply as GOG, but for far less than their current model demands.

The problem for digital media makers is that the media flows like water, or the air, sound or ideas - elements outside the realm of the marketplace since the beginning of civilization because of their ubiquity. The current revolution started with radio and televation - media services where it was virtually imposible to charge the end user since the waves were just flying around for anyone to pick up. But it was soon discovered that selling advertising space over these "free" waves nullified the "free" objection. This time around the puzzle is more complex since unlike the broadcast media which only went in one direction, digital goes both ways and there is no central hub comparable to the broadcast station  - though outfits like Steam are testing the idea. It'll be interesting to see what model emerges as a viable system.. 

I read an article recently, that had a good idea concerning the battle against piracing.

Nowadays publishers seem to punish buying costumers by implementing complex DRM systems that can sometimes lead to malfunctioning software or inaccessible content because there's no internet connection.

Those DRM's are cracked in no time and let the non-paying customers play a better accessible game. What the developers should do instead is reward their customers, by giving them discounts on other games if they've bought a game or give extra content to paying customers

I read an article recently, that had a good idea concerning the battle against piracing.

Nowadays publishers seem to punish buying costumers by implementing complex DRM systems that can sometimes lead to malfunctioning software or inaccessible content because there's no internet connection.

Those DRM's are cracked in no time and let the non-paying customers play a better accessible game. What the developers should do instead is reward their customers, by giving them discounts on other games if they've bought a game or give extra content to paying customers

Originally Posted By markornikov

I read an article recently, that had a good idea concerning the battle against piracing.

Nowadays publishers seem to punish buying costumers by implementing complex DRM systems that can sometimes lead to malfunctioning software or inaccessible content because there's no internet connection.

Those DRM's are cracked in no time and let the non-paying customers play a better accessible game. What the developers should do instead is reward their customers, by giving them discounts on other games if they've bought a game or give extra content to paying customers

That's a good idea, but wouldn't they have to give non-electronic rewards? Otherwise there's no reason not to pirate the bonus content too. I know some people who still buy old vinyls do it for the art, so maybe game posters or something? I would like to see a return of documents that come with the game - the old Infocom games used to come with a pile of maps, amusing game-related leaflets and other trinkets.

Originally Posted By tincup2

@ Naster - I don't think downloading games that are currently available is an upright thing to do. I'm suggesting the principal of unintended consquences is at play here - that paradoxically, downloading is giving developers more confidence to lower prices in exchange for greater volume since they have a pretty good idea now just how large their market potentially is. 

 

In a similar way popular games on abandonware sites give rights holders a good idea if a commercial re-release makes any sense if they choose to - the abandonware community in effect serving as a market research test bed. Then, through uutlets like GOG these good games can be re-release in nice streamlined easy to dl forms for quite little. Mainstream gaming could follow a similar path successfully, not a cheaply as GOG, but for far less than their current model demands.

There could be a slight risk of high piracy numbers driving price drops, but I don't think they're usually much of a factor; I think it's the actual sales numbers and retailer demand that largerly drive decisions about pricing changes.

Maybe in some rare cases developers could be driven to experiment with their pricing because of piracy levels, but still even in these cases those experiments could end up being beneficial to them, actually increasing their total sales income. Devs will always want to find the sweet spot for pricing regardless of piracy levels.

Not to mention file-sharing can actually have other positive unintended consequences too, like increase in word of mouth from larger player base and additional sales from people who end up buying the game only because their pirated version convinced them to. I'm not convinced the possible negative effects clearly outweight the possible positive effects.

Just to be clear I'm still NOT saying that I think file-sharing is good for the industry overall (though I don't know how badly it's hurting it either...probably not as badly as the used games market). My claim is just that pirating of games, both old and new, can be morally justifiable.

Originally Posted By tincup2

It'll be interesting to see what model emerges as a viable system..

Spotify for games would awesome (as long as the monthly subscription would be bearable).

Originally Posted By Naster

 

 

There could be a slight risk of high piracy numbers driving price drops, but I don't think they're usually much of a factor; I think it's the actual sales numbers and retailer demand that largerly drive decisions about pricing changes.

Maybe in some rare cases developers could be driven to experiment with their pricing because of piracy levels, but still even in these cases those experiments could end up being beneficial to them, actually increasing their total sales income. Devs will always want to find the sweet spot for pricing regardless of piracy levels.

 

Not to mention file-sharing can actually have other positive unintended consequences too, like increase in word of mouth from larger player base and additional sales from people who end up buying the game only because their pirated version convinced them to. I'm not convinced the possible negative effects clearly outweight the possible positive effects.

 

Just to be clear I'm still NOT saying that I think file-sharing is good for the industry overall (though I don't know how badly it's hurting it either...probably not as badly as the used games market). My claim is just that pirating of games, both old and new, can be morally justifiable. 

Originally Posted By walsh

Originally Posted By markornikov

I read an article recently, that had a good idea concerning the battle against piracing.

Nowadays publishers seem to punish buying costumers by implementing complex DRM systems that can sometimes lead to malfunctioning software or inaccessible content because there's no internet connection.

Those DRM's are cracked in no time and let the non-paying customers play a better accessible game. What the developers should do instead is reward their customers, by giving them discounts on other games if they've bought a game or give extra content to paying customers

 

 

That's a good idea, but wouldn't they have to give non-electronic rewards? Otherwise there's no reason not to pirate the bonus content too. I know some people who still buy old vinyls do it for the art, so maybe game posters or something? I would like to see a return of documents that come with the game - the old Infocom games used to come with a pile of maps, amusing game-related leaflets and other trinkets.

Feelies with a physical product is certainly one way to go - downloading indeed feels the same wether you paid for the product or not. 

However, i also say that lowering prices will help.  For instance, people pay what they can afford for the Humble Bundle. and get more if they pay more. It seems to be a system that is working quite well.

Not to mention file-sharing can actually have other positive unintended consequences too, like increase in word of mouth from larger player base and additional sales from people who end up buying the game only because their pirated version convinced them to. I'm not convinced the possible negative effects clearly outweight the possible positive effects.

 

I think it was the team behind Super Meat Boy (a game that was heavily pirated, by the way) that said something along the line of 

"We don't like piracy, but hopefully the piracy will raise the public awareness of our company so that our future games will sell better" (not at all an exact quote).

While it probably did increase the public awareness a bit, I don't think it will have made a huge impact on the sales of their latest game (The binding of Isaac). Indie games do also have the added disadvantage of being quite small (usually), which makes them easy to pirate.

However, i also say that lowering prices will help.  For instance, people pay what they can afford for the Humble Bundle. and get more if they pay more. It seems to be a system that is working quite well.

I think this mainly works for slightly older games, who are a few months (at least) past their sales peak. It is a way to generate some extra money out of a game that has stopped generating any income. Much like sales on steam/gamer's gate/imuplse (or any other digital download site). 

Originally Posted By Fnord

Indie games do also have the added disadvantage of being quite small (usually), which makes them easy to pirate.

That is true, and it does seem to me that games that are effortless to pirate tend to suffer more from piracy in terms of lost sales; although this is just based on a gut feeling, it's hard to really study these things scientifically. I think mobile phone games are an interesting subject to look at, because many of them cost practically nothing, less than a dollar, but piracy numbers are still really high. Perhaps many just don't think it's such a big deal when the game is a simple bite-sized game? Like stealing a candybar doesn't seem as big of a crime as stealing a television set (even if the stealing of a physical object might not be a perfect analogy, but psychologically speaking it could be helpful).

Originally Posted By Lucien21

Nice argumentation there. It's easier to stick your head in the sand than have a thoughtful conversation about the subject. Whatever, I can already see you believe in deontology and refuse to even consider my reasoning which is based on consequentialism.

Originally Posted By Naster

Originally Posted By Lucien21

 

 

Nice argumentation there. It's easier to stick your head in the sand than have a thoughtful conversation about the subject. Whatever, I can already see you believe in deontology and refuse to even consider my reasoning which is based on consequentialism.

Nothing to do with sticking my head in the sand.

Just had too many arguments with people who mistakenly think that access to video games is a right rather a luxury item that requires to be purchased.

The make up bull justifications that they are "Demo-ing" the game for free, that they are doing it only to make an educated purchase Yadda, Yadda, Tadda.It's nearly as bad as the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse.

I think i'll boost a Porsche tommorrow and take it for a test drive, see if it's worth the money. If I like it I may even send them a couple of bucks.

Originally Posted By Lucien21

Nothing to do with sticking my head in the sand.

 

Just had too many arguments with people who mistakenly think that access to video games is a right rather a luxury item that requires to be purchased.

 

The make up bull justifications that they are "Demo-ing" the game for free, that they are doing it only to make an educated purchase Yadda, Yadda, Tadda.It's nearly as bad as the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse.

Thanks for elaborating with a more constructive comment. I can see this is a touchy subject for you.

I'm trying to see this from your perpective. I get it you see the act of pirating as something that means breaking an absolute moral code. In your view the developers have this right, a right to not have anyone play their game unless they first give the developers money according to the sum they demand. And this right in your view seems to be absolute, trumping everything else.

But I don't see that invisible barrier between me and a game, I don't see a rationalization for that unquestionable right. Practically speaking in today's world one can easily get a copy of game and play it without paying for it. That is an undeniable fact. And I personally don't see anything morally wrong in this act in itself - I only recognize consequences for determining the morality of actions.

When I think about whether I should give money to a developer, I think about the consequences of that action, not whether it's my duty, or because some juridical law tells me I should. Basically I imagine two parallel universes inside my head, one where I haven't given them any money, and one where I have. The universe that I imagine to be better in the future is the one which I choose to make reality.

For me paying for games is kind of like voting for a political candidate; I think of the candidates that I think best deserve my monetary vote. And I like to do good research before casting my vote.

I understand it can be frustrating to see others take something for free while you pay for the privilidge. But are you right to direct your anger at the people who get something for free? I mean if you buy a console at launch for a high price and then they announce a huge price drop and many people get it for half the price you do, who should you be angry at? Should you be angry at the consumers for getting something so cheaply, for which you worked so much harder to get? Should you be angry at the people who decided to lowered the price, allowing this "injustice" to happen? Should you be angry at yourself for making a bad decision? Or should you maybe, just maybe, not be angry at anyone, just be happy for everyone who got a good deal?

Also I'd like to argue that sometimes paying for a game can turn out to be an immoral action. Imagine millions of people buying a game, giving the developers millions of dollars. Then it turns out that the game promotes extremely hateful messages. Or for an even more bleak scenario, the gaming company turns out to be just a front for a criminal organization, with the profits from the game going towards funding drug trafficing. The point of these imagined scenarios was to point out that giving more and more money to developers does not necessarily make the world a better and better place.

Originally Posted By Lucien21

I think i'll boost a Porsche tommorrow and take it for a test drive, see if it's worth the money. If I like it I may even send them a couple of bucks.

As long as you return the Porsche in original condition with a refilled tank and the owner doesn't even notice it was gone, I say go for it. If they open the glove department and find a couple of bucks inside, even better!

Originally Posted By Naster

 

 

Thanks for elaborating with a more constructive comment. I can see this is a touchy subject for you.

 

I'm trying to see this from your perpective. I get it you see the act of pirating as something that means breaking an absolute moral code. In your view the developers have this right, a right to not have anyone play their game unless they first give the developers money according to the sum they demand. And this right in your view seems to be absolute, trumping everything else.

 

But I don't see that invisible barrier between me and a game, I don't see a rationalization for that unquestionable right. Practically speaking in today's world one can easily get a copy of game and play it without paying for it. That is an undeniable fact. And I personally don't see anything morally wrong in this act in itself - I only recognize consequences for determining the morality of actions.

 

When I think about whether I should give money to a developer, I think about the consequences of that action, not whether it's my duty, or because some juridical law tells me I should. Basically I imagine two parallel universes inside my head, one where I haven't given them any money, and one where I have. The universe that I imagine to be better in the future is the one which I choose to make reality.

Originally Posted By Naster
 

 

For me paying for games is kind of like voting for a political candidate; I think of the candidates that I think best deserve my monetary vote. And I like to do good research before casting my vote.

 

'Research' only takes a couple of hours, so a demo should be more then enough to see whether you like a game or not.

If you 'waste' more time on it, it means the game is good enough to buy it, despite whatever DRM, bugs or cluncky gameplay that may ruin part of the game.

Ok, not every game gets a demo these days, but something that everyone should demand from the developers. Sending mass emails will have a bigger impact then pirating the game

Originally Posted By markornikov

That's how the economy works doesn't it? if you want something you buy it.

Who says it has to work like that with games? What if it was more like you respect someone so you pay for their services (the service being the creation of a game, not the act of allowing you to play it)? In many countries restaurants make a good portion of their money from tips, and you're expected to tip for a good service but not for substandard service.

Originally Posted By markornikov

What kind of an argument is that? It's never happened before, so there's no way you can justify piracy by making up fictional stories!

They were intentionally extreme examples to make my point more clear, but seems like that didn't help. The point is that giving money to developers has consequences beyond you becoming poorer and the developers becoming richer. For a more realistic example, when a very sexist, racist, homophobic etc. game sells like hot cakes it can send a message to the industry that things like that are okay, or even worse that players enjoy such stuff. Thus if you buy such a game you can contribute to making the world a shittier place to live in.

Originally Posted By markornikov
 

'Research' only takes a couple of hours, so a demo should be more then enough to see whether you like a game or not.

If you 'waste' more time on it, it means the game is good enough to buy it, despite whatever DRM, bugs or cluncky gameplay that may ruin part of the game.

Ok, not every game gets a demo these days, but something that everyone should demand from the developers. Sending mass emails will have a bigger impact then pirating the game

What difference does it make if I play a demo and then buy a game, or if I pirate a game and then buy it? The end result is the same: the developer gets the exact same amount of money! And yes I would prefer a demo that lets me play through a big enough chunk of the beginning, just for for practical reasons, but alas, as you point out, those aren't that common these days, and are sometimes released months after the game is released.

I don't fully agree with the idea that if one plays a game past a certain time threshold he should always automatically buy it. If a long demo leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I don't wish to play the full game any further, why would I be obligated to pay for the game? Shouldn't the same logic apply if the demo is replaced with a pirated games?

I agree though that some pirates can use pretty childish excuses to justify their pirating, enjoying the hell out of playing a game but proudly exclaiming they didn't pay a dime for it because it had DRM they didn't find agreeable. I'd like to think I'm more considerate than that.

I actually find it strange that you're even arguing with me, since you were the one posted that "Piracy for Dummies" chart that I fully agree with, and you even stated that you "don't agree that piracy is necessarily evil." I'm not trying to come off as smug or argumentative, just trying to give my two cents on the topic. It feels like maybe some are reading too much between the lines of my comments - or maybe it's just that it's a hot topic. I do welcome and appreciate any constructive criticism of any of my arguments. I thought tincup2 for one brought out some valid concerns about "demoing" games the way I do.

Originally Posted By Naster

 

What difference does it make if I play a demo and then buy a game, or if I pirate a game and then buy it? The end result is the same: the developer gets the exact same amount of money! And yes I would prefer a demo that lets me play through a big enough chunk of the beginning, just for for practical reasons, but alas, as you point out, those aren't that common these days, and are sometimes released months after the game is released.

 

I don't fully agree with the idea that if one plays a game past a certain time threshold he should always automatically buy it. If a long demo leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I don't wish to play the full game any further, why would I be obligated to pay for the game? Shouldn't the same logic apply if the demo is replaced with a pirated games?

 

I agree though that some pirates can use pretty childish excuses to justify their pirating, enjoying the hell out of playing a game but proudly exclaiming they didn't pay a dime for it because it had DRM they didn't find agreeable. I'd like to think I'm more considerate than that.

The problem is that one if an official release by the company that is put out to give people a taste of the game and the other is copyright infringement of the entire game that has been put on the internet without the permission of the people who worked long and hard to make the product.

Obviously the bigger problem is the times where you play a game and don't buy it afterwards. Either because you didn't enjoy it and didn't merit it worthy or because you couldn't be bothered or maybe even because you couldn't afford it. Pirates tend to set out with lofty ideals that slip pretty easily once there is no incentive to actually pay money. (After all you have already played the game so why do I need to pay for it now)

My view is that if you actually allocated time and effort to download and play a game it must be because you are interested in the game. Therefore the developer deserves some form of monetary consideration for that interest, now whether you think they deserve the full asking price or wait until the product drops to a price you are willing to pay is a matter of personal taste. You shouldn't be wasting your time with games that you value at £0.00 because you deem it's content to be worthless so why would you play it.

Piracy is not required to determine whether a game is worth spending your money on. You can use your own experience of what kind of games you enjoy combined with the videos and reviews on websites you trust and possibly recommendations from friends to build a picture of how desirable a game will be to your personal taste. This combined with your financial restrictions will determine how many games and at what price you are prepared to make a purchase.

Too many people these days think they are entitled to goods and services just because they exist and are relatively easy to access. It's the same arguments you saw from idiot looters at the recent London riots. They were only taking what they were entitled too because people with money had all this stuff and they didn't.

I see the points Naster makes and I can even agree with some of them in theory, especially when it comes to a situation where the publishers deceived you with their marketing claims, and you find the game is nothing like you had been led to believe it would be.  This pitfall for the consumer, is unfortunately  exacerbated by the fact that one cannot take a game back just because you think you're not getting what you thought you were getting.

A personal opinion of mine, is that publishers are partly choking the industry as well, by being so greedy, not giving the devs enough, but conversely spending too much on anti-piracy and marketing, and lawsuits and whathave you ... and all of this pushes the price of games up, which will of course decrease your market that is willing to pay those prices.

The thing that is the biggest problem with the whole piracy issue though, is that it's created a certain culture.  Kids who don't even think about things such as ethics, say to each other;  "Hey, why are you paying for your games?  ...just go to XXX and download it for free! in fact, you can get anything you like for free!"   Especially younger 'uns will of course grab any free item if there are no consequences for them. They don't even think of the fact that this is in fact IP theft, or the consequences to the industry.

Sadly, I think many people who habitually pirate, don't think of what they are doing to the gaming industry, or they don't even care - as long as they can get what they want - for free- right away....and too many lull their consciences by saying:  i'll buy the game - when i have money!" 

Yet they played the game when it was newly released... but by the time they "have money " for the game, how much has it aged, and how much has the retail price of it been cut?  Often by the time a game hits the bargain bin, it's not the devs getting anything out of sales anymore - only the fatcat publishers.

Part solution:   lower the price of games so that a larger amount of honest people can afford to buy them, which will also increase your "word-of-mouth" base. 

I understand the need for marketing, and i think it is necessary so spend some cash on it of course.  Maybe some of it can be used in campaigns to give piracy a bad name, or to encourage people to up and pay for what they get...- there must be ways to bring out the sense of fair play in people.  I think a large part of the problem is ignorance on the consumer's side - just an educated guess.