Video Game Piracy is not a problem, its a Symptom of a Problem (LONG) - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
Am I the only one who doesn't really care if games are multi-platform? I'd like to see games be on both PC and consoles, so long as the PC version doesn't get the short end of the stick, a la R6 Vegas (which ran like crap on a PC) or Resident Evil 4 (self-explanatory). I'm a big fan of everybody being able to play every game; I just choose the PC as my platform because I like the controls and games, when optimized well like COD4, look much better and run more smoothly and at higher resolutions. Sure, it's cool that Crysis was a PC-exclusive and I can wave my finger in console players' faces, but aside from the graphics looking amazing when set on "very high" (regardless of it being a slide show at those settings), there's nothing innovative or truly exciting about the game. Sure, the nanosuit is cool and the action is good...but there's nothing groundbreaking about the game. I like it, and it is very well-made, but it's overrated in the gaming community in my opinion. I just hate seeing games go to ONLY console, meaning I can't play them on my PC...like Halo 3 (which wouldn't be so gay if one could play it online via mouse and keyboard without the awful auto-aim), MGS 4, and so forth.

I'm getting off-topic so I'll throw in my two cents on the direction the piracy discussion is going - people would be dumb to think that piracy does not have at least a little negative effect on gaming companies. However, I also think people would be dumb to believe that game developers don't exaggerate its effects; it's all too easy to blame companies' lack of sales on piracy. Having this mindset of putting the blame on external things keeps companies from fixing the problems they have internally. To try to better illustrate what I just said, I think of it as an analogy; Crysis is to a game like Starcraft 2, as the PS3 is to the Nintendo Wii. Crysis has the best graphics out there bar none, and Crytek should be proud of their engine...but the system requirements printed on the back of the package scare people more than the Loch Ness Monster. Starcraft is marketed towards people will all types of computers, because Blizzard wants people who aren't Bill Gates to be able to enjoy their game fully. Similarly, the PS3 is graphically superior to the Wii, but it costs an arm, a leg, and a nasal passage more - and the Wii is geared toward "group fun." I think Yerli might be exaggerating these piracy assumptions; I don't believe for a second that Crysis would sell much better without any piracy at all, simply because it is designed for a much smaller target market than a Blizzard game.

On a final note - RobWright, what kind of education do you have? I'm intrigued that you correctly use words like "anecdotal" and "implore" in a forum where most people don't even bother to punctuate or capitalize their comments properly.

He has a PhD in Jerkology.

Four years of college, double major in English and journalism.

As for my forum prose, well, I used to engage in the same sort of thoughtless, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, profanity-laced, and insult-lade musings that a lot of people fling around on forums (including this particular thread). But then I grew up and got a job. So I have that going for me, which is nice.

Rob you say that you disagree with my pirating and say it is hurting someone. But then personally I buy games that I like, I have well over 200 PC games collecting dust at my parents house and about 40 or so that I keep at my flat. I do own Crysis as well as 2 copies of Farcry (don’t ask).

Every situation is different, you can’t say everyone that downloads games are the same and I don’t think I’m personally hurting any good games developers. Over the last 15 years or so I have probably pumped in 10’s of thousands of pounds in to the gaming industry. Not to mention the PC industry on all my PC upgrades. I do agree however someone that downloads a game to simply play it and never bothers buying anything and ends up playing the game online with hacked servers and such is indeed killing the industry.

But then is my tacking advantage of this system to circle the games I like to then buy them hurting anyone? Yes it is I guess, it’s hurting games and the developers that I don’t like/aren’t any good and in turn preventing them from hurting my cash flow. But I do realise people like me are in the minority, and the mass majority of those numbers you see on torrent sites are people who will never buy the game.

So what should I do, stop my acts on a moral ground and hurt my cash flow while giving money to developers who I feel don’t deserve it. Or do I take advantage of this avenue that I can travel down and save my self some money and direct the money I do spend on my games to the developers that make the games I like. But again this goes on to what I was saying before about the way games are sold is not working and needs to be changed.

Maybe pirates really are a side effect of a broken system that games retail on. Maybe PC game developers should wise up and change the system and this problem would not be so much of, well a problem.

You could try rubbing 2 sticks together and you might get an Internet connection. Hey why don't you just connect your mobile phone and activate it using that for the Internet. Hell I would not expect it to use more than 256k bandwidth for the activation, that's about one penny or something if not free. I mean nowadays there is 101 ways to connect to the Internet with even the least amount of effort.

DRM is terrible. There's no question about it. It doesn't work. I'll buy my games, but I'll also grab the no-CD cracks so I don't have to keep fishing for discs to play various games. As it stands now it only makes the task of playing a game on the PC much more difficult than playing one on the console. Again, I think Steam has it right with a digital login to access your games. How many people who play modern PC games don't have an internet connection?

However if you need offline access, set the system up so that you can grab offline 'tokens' from the online system allowing you to access a game if, for example, you're traveling without a net connection and want to play Half Life 2 on your laptop.

There are also review sites where you can go and check out what other people think about the game. If the review is good, you might buy it.
Other than that I totally agree with you.
1. Pirating is not stealing.
2. If you won't ever buy the game and pirate it, is the same as if you don't buy the game and not pirate it (to the revenues of the company) It actually might be good for them if you pirate, as it raises awareness, or if the game is good, when you can afford it you might buy its sequels or products from that company.
3. I would buy games if they were cheaper (in Romania where I live I make about $700 a month, mind you that that is a pretty good wage. My parents make about 800 put together and they are over 50 years old. Taking into account that I make $700, I pay rent (share an apartment with 3 guys), I pay food, I pay transportation, internet, and everyday conveniences I am left with 250 to 300 $ A MONTH. Do you think I would pay $50 which adding taxes from my country would be $80 (more that 10% than I make in a month and almost 30% than what I am left with after I pay my bills) on a game. I will pirate it and never feel sorry.
However if it was $15 I would buy it no questions asked. Or if I earned more.
CEO's need to study economics.
Selling to 5 000 000 people for $ 50 is way less profitable than selling to 50 000 000 for 15 $

I personally, prefer when a game is multiplatform. There is no downside except for when they cut too many corners on the port, which honestly had not been a significant problem for several years.

Also if Crytek had made Crysis multiplatform from the getgo, it would have had more reasonable system requirements at launch and probably had more PC sales as a result.

In other news... EA pulls a stupid and drags Bioware and Maxis down with it.

AMDfangirl already provided one link on this, but here is the official forum link that started the firestorm.

http://masseffect.bioware.com/foru [...] m=125&sp=0

Pages and pages of canceled preorders and vows to boycott. Think the message will get across this time?

For 25 years piracy's been a "crisis" that was about to end all computer software development as a business. There were rental stores in every little town and warez bbs's running 300 baud for fast retrieval of the latest gamez.

It seems the panic wasn't altogether warranted, maybe it was the copy protection that was common even then that saved them? I doubt it, I probably still have a 5.25" disk somewhere with Renegade and other sector copying utilities.

I'd moved away from all that in the military, then found Microsoft supporting BBS's giving games away to spur interest in their Windows product in the very early 90's. What sort of insanity is that? People should still be angry, all those starving programmers.

I find it more than ironic that someone who acknowledges being part of Fairlight, a pretty common name in the "scene" of the 80's, is now a GOP chairman in San Diego. Orrin Hatch should be outraged, that's his political dead horse.

But really, keep at it. Nobody actually cares, unless they have a financial stake or a political score to make. Kids will continue to acquire games in whatever method they can, older people who grew up in that world will continue to purchase most things. Some will never mature and find intrinsic value in legitimacy, and for those, maybe copy protections will discourage them sometimes if they don't care to figure out how to bypass the new methods.

No, really, this is an all new debate.

Ok, maybe there is a point to dragging this up occasionally. I was moving boxes of old boxes of software, wondering why I kept them, then remembering, most of these boxes I paid $40-50 for even if the programs within never worked.

Software licensing hasn't changed in 20 years or so either, with piracy being the excuse for not being able to return flawed programs and games. Without some sort of consumer protection, small development companies will always have this issue. There've been too many fly-by-night companies selling garbage-in-a-box that consumers are stuck with once the packaging's opened.

My experiences were more with DOS software, where programmers had to create their own interfaces, but the lessons learned still remain.

Allowing returns may or may not be of benefit overall, but it would at least keep me from feeling like I'd have to be an idiot to impulse buy a software title without spending hours researching it first.

Sadly, I doubt that Bioware are the ones needing convincing. More likely this is the first sign that EA's control of Bioware will not be as seamless as they made it sound.

It's digital vs. physical. Apples and oranges. If you get a hold of a framework I've written in PHP and make a copy for yourself, I still have my code. If I put my code onto cd's, put each CD into a box I paid for and put each box on the shelf and I have say... 10 boxes containing CDs with my code for sale, and you walk into the store and steal one of them, how many boxes do I have?

Situation one (you just copied my code):
I have 1 (one) .zip file full of code. After you work your magic, I still have 1 (one) .zip file full of code.
1 - X = 1. What's X?

Situation two (you just stole one of my beautiful printed boxes I paid for)
I have 10 (ten) awesome printed boxes with a CD in each one, and a little printed manual talking about how awesome my code is. After you make off with 1 of my boxes, I only have 9 products left on the shelves.
10 - X = 9. What's X?

Situation three (you don't set foot in my store, you don't copy anything, but you simply just don't buy any of my awesome products). I start with 10 products on the shelf, you don't buy or copy anything, so in the end I still have 10 products on the shelf.
10 - X = 10. What's X?

Compare X's.

Really, the first situation should be:
(1 * 2) - 1 = 1. You're taking my product and duplicating it. Multiplication followed by subtraction, as opposed to direction subtraction. You're multiplying the number of instances of the .zip file, and then taking all of the new ones you've just created. In the eyes of the law, every instance created of that .zip file should "belong to me" in the sense that you're only paying for a license to use it, and you MUST pay for a license. However, if some kid makes a copy of my code on their computer at home, I might never know about it, and he's not necessarily hurting me or my income, although he could be depending on the circumstances. On a fundamental level, situation 1 and situation 2, while still arguably unethical in their own way, are two completely different things.

Actually, I hold out hope that Bioware will maintain artistic integrity. I don't doubt that they will work hard to make their games as good as they have been in the past. Just that they might be a bit more rushed, and they might be a bit more "safe" (as in more of the same genres and concepts) and a bit more DRMed... or maybe a lot more DRMed.

I would still be a loyal customer of theirs if it were not for the DRM. It makes me sad.

Oh Snap:

I won't give you my own formula of how it IS stealing but here's why people argue with you in a nut shell.

The full cost of publishers goes way beyond the packaging. There are programmers to pay, marketing fees, etc. In return what they are looking for is clearly and legally stated in their copyright; the product is not to be redistributed without a license or be involved in any form of piracy. This becomes a law once the publisher registers a copyright on software.

Now if I can try to paraphrase your argument: You're saying that because you are not physically stealing the game, then it is morally right to play the pirated copy. Which leads to saying that if you download the torrent, which allows you to play the full game for free, then it would not be stealing if you had no intention to purchase it in the first place, right?

Playing a videogame (even trying it for 20 minutes) is a privilege you get if you purchased a product (as stated in their copyright). Just like watching TV, you have to pay for your TV package and then you get X amount of channels. If you decided to hack your TV signal with a black box, and stop paying your television bill, then obviously you are not stealing a "box" in the store but you are stealing from your television service provider. Same applies to videogames. Playing the videogame (full retail version) for free is an infringement to the copyright laws and you are committing an illegal action by downloading that torrent and playing the game for free (even if the game sucks). That is why people keep arguing with you. You are violating an intellectual property act.

Now, if you want to debate on why your moral theories are above the law, then you’ll be arguing for a long long time.

Cafuddled:

Regarding piracy and the general argument is: Why would I pay for a game when I can download it for free and play it for free? Not sure if it's greed...maybe for some. I'd say it's just more appealing for most to be spending their money on some hardware or whatever rather than a game that can easily be played for free.

The distribution of content is key here and I have no idea why publishers are still distributing PC games the same way as they are distributing console games.

I know the question was ment for Rob but there's my 2 cents.

+1

Oh Snap, I see where you're going. IMO, people who download that "torrent" want to play the game (otherwise they wouldn't waste so much bandwidth and time over it). That being said, if you want to play a game and play the game (but a pirated copy), you're stealing.

I agree that there is no primary extra cost to deliver product(actually there is now, implementing DRM), but they are not getting the compensation they deserve from each pirated copy. It's hurting the industry.

Lets see, if I went to a movie and didnt like it, that means I should just sneak in for free next time since if I went when there were plenty of seats it wouldnt hurt anyone, and that way, if the movie sucked, no harm no foul? Yea, keep thinking that way, underachieving and freebie. Now try and go back to the manager and let him know you snuck in, but you liked the movie, so youre going to make it "right". Yeah sure. Piracy comes from pirating, which people still do roday, and did in the past. Basically, they (the pirates) would go where no one else could reach them, and take other peoples things. Sound familiar? So this is ok too. Well, all you bart simpsons out there, youre all jerks, because if youre attitude is, if you dont get caught its ok, then go do it in the movies, hell even rent a boat and pirate out on the high seas, but leave pc gaming alone, as the pickings are getting slim, ok?

Haha, I must say, I love this thread - for all of its wackiness and insight. Oh Snap, I was at odds with a lot of the off-the-wall analogies you wrote earlier in this thread, but you brought up something I actually agree with more recently.

That's exactly how I feel about piracy, where my torrent downloading is concerned. I've played several games I've pirated all the way through, but even if I didn't have the option to pirate them, I would not spend the money to buy them. I know our friend RobWright disagrees with this strongly and paints me along with several other "pirates" with the greed brush (on a side note, I completely understand this; with his views he is in no position to condone any sort of piracy if his words are going to help put a stop to it, especially from his position within this company), but I look at it this way - my roommate owns an Xbox 360 and Halo 3. I have clocked several hours on that game, and despite the fact that I think it is one of the most overrated game franchises in history, it's still a lot of fun to play multiplayer with all 3 of my roommates at once. We just sign on to Xbox LIVE and go at it for a few hours every few days during our free time, and it's a blast. Several times I've gone and played by myself on Xbox LIVE because, when the bullcrap is at a minimum (don't get me started on how unbalanced and unpredictable the melee system, headshots, etc. are in that game), the game is a lot of fun to play. I've gotten way more than $60 worth of gameplay out of that game, and I'll admit - I had, and still have, a lot of fun playing it. Now given everything one has just read, I still would not have paid $60 to buy the game! Assume my roommate never bought the game. Also pretend that Rob Wright and Ben Meyer told me the game would blow my mind, Jeff Gerstman (sp) from Gamespot gave it a 10.5, and IGN decided to redo their site with only Halo 3-related media because it was supposed to be the most mad-1337 game ever conceived, I would still not pay to play the game. Instead, I would sit quietly and wish I could play it, but realize that I don't have the $60+ to spend on Halo 3, its over-priced map packs, and scratch protection to keep that cookie monster of a console system from eating my game. (My roommate's already on his third Halo 3 disc...don't play Xbox 360 without protection, kids) In the same way, I may play and enjoy a mediocre game that I download and don't pay for, but would not otherwise pay for anyway; therefore, from a company's standpoint, my action has not changed a thing.

I know what I just said is a different version of what's already been argued for or against several times already on this thread, but I haven't posted on here in a while, so I decided I'd go ahead and throw in another opinion.

"If you're worried about the industry failing, telling people to "leave pc gaming alone" isn't going to save it. You should be telling people "HEY BUY LOTS OF GAMES PLEASE," not, "if youre going to pirate games just don't play games at all." Buy a 2nd game for a friend or something, and get them into it. Seriously if you're that worried about the PC gaming industry dying, there's lots more you can do besides argue with pirates on tomshardware. Seriously."

So you think the game developers are just lying about pirates hurting profits to the point of them saying screw PC's, we're not making any PC exclusive titles anymore, maybe we'll just throw out a few ports a year or 2 after the console release. Kinda like taking a sidejob on the weekend to make a couple extra bucks. What could the real conspiracy be eh?
Yeah it bugs me that people get things for free that I don't cause i feel it's not right, but I does really bug me that theiving bastards are potentially ruining it for the honest PC fans.
I guess on the bright side, I shouldn't have to upgrade my system till the new consoles come out cause all we're gonna get are subpar console ports that don't do justice to the computer's potential.
If a guy dl's a game to try out and then buys the game, then so be it. But if you think you are going to tell me that all those hundreds of thousands of people dl'ing the games, and have it in their possession are going to have the integrity to actually go and pay money for it later your wacked.
And the fact that you can't wrap your head around the fact that the code in a game is not property is just retarded. If a company spends millions of dollars and several years of many people's time to design and write a game for the purpose of selling it for profit and to pay people wages to live on, but you think it's not a physical thing you can hold in your hand so it's not stealing.
So what do you think is the biggest problem with PC gaming then? Just curious. What should we all do to help? By the way, with all the thousands of dollars you have in your system, it doesn't appear that coming by money is too big of an issue with you Oh Snap.

With an analogy like what you give then comes to this. Since what you typed is nothing but electrons, and I dont know if youve actually typed it, being a nonphysical thing, then therefore your point is worthless, so is your point of view etc etc etc. Look, this is a proper analogy, you may notr like it, but stop with the physical and electron crap. In essence, a copyright is nothing more than paper. I dont like surrender. I dont like thievery. I dont like stealing. In any form, and also in theory. If you choose to back down to the point of your front door fine. But I say, I dont want em that close, cause I have neighbors, friends and businesses they get to before they get to me, and Ill take my share of resposibility to guard these things. Go ahead, and give up, but when theyre at your door, and in your pc, and in your tvv etc... who ya gonna call? heheh

Oh Snap:

I'm about to give up but here's my last attempt. People who download the torrents(the full version, pirated) have an interest in playing the game(I don't care what you say). Once again, if you like playing videogames and you spend hours of entertainment playing that videogame then you owe compensation to the publisher. That being said, you downloaded the pirated versions of Valve games and then purchased it. Well, you're probably one of the few who does it. Everyone else is simply downloading and playing the game without purchasing it when they are done.

To prove this, find the number of torrents that have been downloaded from good games versus poor games. If you look at the number of downloads of games like Crysis or COD4, you'll notice the numbers are very high (compared to other titles who received less attention). If you're a FPS type gamer and you don't purchase say COD4 or Crysis... after the hype, the videos, the near perfect reviews, why would you choose another title? Hell, both games even have a demo allowing you to actually try the game before making your 50$ decision. So, why is Crysis and COD4 the most popular torrents nowadays? Why is it that COD4 is selling like hot cakes on the consoles??? You argument makes sense...for 0.000001% of the population.

The reason why pirated copies are so frustrating is because those who download pirated copies are convincing themselves that there are exeptions under which it is ok to pirate a game. If you play the game (full retail version), then you owe a compensation. If you didn't plan on purchasing the game, that's also you're power as a consumer, but don't turn around and download the torrent, play for hours, and argument that it's justifiable because it's not.

First off, let me just say that I always think the best way to have any kind of an argument is to say "Here's my opinion, I don't care what you think." Second, all we know about someone who pirates a game is that they have enough interest in it to download a .torrent and let the game download for a few hours in the background. That's it. Anything else is entirely speculation. I'm saying that just because someone's motivated enough to download a game and play it for free, that doesn't mean that they're motivated enough to buy it. Some pirates might be, and they just go with the free option instead, but not all are. Just because you're interested enough to play one of the games at gamestop on the xbox360 for a few minutes doesn't mean you're interested enough to buy it. It's a free, easy option to play the game, and it's convenient since it's right there. That's how torrents are.

We obviously disagree when it comes to our moral views, and I don't think any debate is going to change that. You feel that playing a game that someone else made, regardless of whether it's actually good, or whether you play it for 10 minutes or 10 hours, is wrong. I think that downloading a full retail copy of a game and playing it for a while to see if it's actually something you would want to play online with your friends, play through, etc. is, at the very least, less wrong than 10 hours, and I'm personally alright with being less wrong.

You don't need to be insulting with fake numbers. My argument DOES make sense, for quite a few people I'm sure. As I said, I'm not here to defend every pirate, I'm sure in some ways it hurts the industry, but I've come here to defend my case, because myself and many other people on these forums still support the game industry, and in some cases piracy has benefitted it. I think making an all-encompassing "PIRACY IN ALL FORMS IS WRONG AND EVIL" is an ignorant argument to make. That's all.

Well I'm back from my little jaunt around the country, I read all the replies, and think I'll try and distill some of this down and hone some things I thought were of value.

I started this thread because I wanted to see what people think. Articles only do so much good because they are one way, and often come from the perspective of people like RobWright who have in most cases a predictable perspective. I do appreciate his participation, and think he brings up a lot of good points. I usually bring up different points of view just to investigate their validity, not because I personally hold them, so I can tweak my views here and there and try to get a better handle on things. Several people here have made reference to people speaking here just because their hidden in an online cloak and that in real life they would never be so bolt as to make certain claims. I view this as a plus. In the physical world there are many factors which often intimidate people from being honest, and the internet gives the same intellectual freedom of discussion to people which is rare in the physical world, be they a 90lb Thai female or a massive power lifter. I wanted ideas from all comers, and that's just what I got.

So the ideas have been swirling around in this pot, and even at the most bare of minimums I think it's brought some awareness to the subject to the forefront of peoples minds. We've had a lot less posts than views, but I think some interesting things have come floating to the top. So no matter which side people are on here, I think the discourse has been reasonably tame (not vulgar) and I think that the tone of the discussions indicates that people really do want a way to do things above the table, that there are many ways which might work, and many that don't.

Here are some points I thought were of note numerically, when replying it might be useful to reference the reply to the idea offered:

1. Bandwidth limits wont work, because it does not address the issue at hand which is the motivation to steal. A real solution targets the problem at its core, and does not try taking a circular path which might have a side effect which is desirable. You can cure chronic pain by simply killing people, but it might not be the best answer. Also, this idea makes many assumptions about bandwidth usage rates, how it will expand, future uses, how many people live in the home, if they have a VPN which is always racking up time, or if they link their lan across 2 homes in geographically different places. I dont mind paying for speed of access, and I do with a 30/30 FiOS connection, but bandwidth limits make no sense. There are no physical analogues to this because its digital. You can watch unlimited TV, its a digital service, its just on. It's not like the water bill.

2. Morality is relative. It is different across cultures, and even neighbors and spouses and parents disagree over issues. I don't think arguments over morals are very helpful to finding a solution to piracy because its just not human nature. We're barbaric, we lie, cheat, steal, and generally run amok. Much research has been done, and even when people morally oppose things, when asked again if they would do something if there was a 100% chance that no one would ever find out, they usually do it if theres enough personal gain. People suck, so basing ideas on "should" always break down because of person to person relativity. I would like to see some ideas that aren't based on should, and would directly address the problem at hand with a solution. Ideas that, if instituted, would compel even the most morally deficient degenerate to operate above table simply because its not worth the effort to do otherwise.

DRM is an example of DRM companies making a profit by lying to developers by telling them it would stop piracy and raise profits, and that's never happened. Instead they lose profit paying the DRM industry. All DRM has done is challenge hackers, and annoy real customers. Steam is an example of a service which adds value to legit customers, gives incentive to purchase things legally, and denies certain features to those who choose to pirate. It address the issue directly, with no flimsy morality used as the glue to hold it together, practicality and real-world applicability are key. I think that since effort is more universally constant than morality, if you push the cost/effort ratio to strike a balance, piracy will be a fringe issue of the truly destitute or the people who just want to see if they can do it (like Razor 911, ect...)

3. Piracy is not some magical PC only issue. When I bought Atari games, I traded with my friends. Thus, they never bought those. People might buy a single DVD, and loan it to 50 friends over the course of a DVDs lifespan. There is a practical difference since digital media is infinity duplicated, but the "moral" implications are one and the same. Entertainment was viewed by someone who did not pay the creators. This is why I think we need new ideas to fit new paradigms that are popping up as a result of the spread of high-speed connections.

What if I had a personal "Library" account that I owned, and it had all my digital ownership, available to me where ever I went, or even my phone. So I go to a pals house, authenticate, and watch a movie that I paid 5 bucks to add to my library. My friend likes it, so he pays 1 dollar to add it to his, because he might wanna show it to his other friends later. He might not watch it for 20 years again, but he didn't have to front all 5 bucks, and the creators got an extra buck of profit because of person-to-person advertising. Maybe 5 pals gather at the home of the man with the big THX rig and all chip in for a 5 man group discount to add a single flick to all their libraries, watch it there and still have access to it together. People like going in on halves for things, physical ones are shared but digital ones are shared at nearly zero cost to the creator. People like collecting things, and sharing. If digital buying/selling/bartering was as simple and accessible as flea market deals, I think people would flock to it.

4. Single format development is shooting yourself in the foot, especially as tech marches forward and many platforms are more and more compatible. Even cross-platform-multiplayer should be the norm if controls are put into place for certain kinds of rooms and maps, to deal with platform specific advantages in certain titles.

5. DRM is usually seen as shoving stuff down people throats, and fosters resentment. I bet DRM companies are the ones planting and seeding many stories and coming up with funny numbers to convince developers that there are "untold riches" just beyond the horizon if only more cash was given to develop more and more DRM. DRM is a business model which makes money off piracy, they dont want it to go away.

6. The "testing argument" is of dubious claim because when your done, you don't get any benefit other than self-satisfaction from paying for games. Demos can often be misleading though, and in many cases the online play and patching ease compel many to buy games they already pirated. In this case, the single player served as a demo.

7. There is almost no consumer protection for digital items. EULAs are made by lawyers to screw people out rights granted to them by the laws of most nations, and that kind of boilerplate legal crap prevents you from doing anything useful if the software is junk. Stores wont take games back, but why? Pirates dont bother returning them to the store, they dont even go to the store in most cases, they just download them. Regular folks most likely return things that don't work, and software is not diminished by being returned (unless its scratched) as some other items are (used toothbrush anyone?)

Games are released that sometimes take years to patch, and there is no regulation or anything over the developers for this. Class action lawsuits over unpatched games might work, I don't know if this has been tried. I do realize making a perfect game is not going to happen with diverse software and stupid end users, but the current "public beta" that most things are when they hit shelves is not accepted in other markets, and should not be allowed here either. This goes for games, operating systems, productivity and business software.

If my Belkin surge protector fails to protect me, they pay me for damages. If Roboform spams the world with my credit card company, they should be held liable, because when I paid for it there is a contract between them and I. I give money, they protect my stuff and make buying things easier. If I fail to pay, they dont give me software. If they fail to protect, I should get damages. If Battlefield 2142 cant move a Titan without crashing the server, their not giving me the 64 player online experience that I bought it for. I'd like reasonable ideas on this, or at least to explore the issue. Maybe within 2 weeks of an issue, they need to fix it or some type of action results. Rebates to players? Discounts on next purchases? I'm not sure, but something needs to be done, and feet held to the fire.

If EA cant do it because they have gotten used to a certain release cycle and aren't willing to lower earnings to raise quality, then they need to go under, and the licenses auctioned off to others to liquidate debt. I have no interest in what a company thinks its going to make, or expects, or thinks it deserves. Companies that fail to make things at the right price/quality point go away and make room for others, that's capitalism. Maybe some group from India can do more quality for less investment, good for them. Until they pork-barrel out and get beat to the market by a new startup with a better cost/quality ratio and go out of business or buy them out. I only care about them giving me what I paid for, just like anything else. Failing that, a fair compensation or refund mechanism is needed.

8. Analogies from the physical realm seldom apply to the digital. Legally, things do. Like expecting my OS to work, and also my car. Also the OS that runs (Minix usually) my ABS system. Laws and ideas apply, making parallels that involve duplication and sharing don't usually fair well. Guarantees also apply, as they are used to sell more units of whatever. A digital guarantee is worth the same as a physical one.

9. Like someone stated before, all the muck about Crysis could have been avoided with proper market research. If I design a product that people want, ramp up production, advertise and hire all these people and promises to investors and stick products on shelves and they sell like hotcakes the first week that's great. Then if someone posts a YouTube video on how to use some cheap common object to duplicate the idea, and then purchases slow down, whose fault is that? Does the poster of that video owe me money? I patented the idea! I had expectations! Well maybe he does owe you, but who cares he's in Cuba! This is why I say morality needs to take a bow to practicality. ANYONE making a next gen game, with those hardware requirements, on a single platform release, would have to be dense to think they would rake in billions and have Bugatti Veyrons falling from the sky around them. They can sit on high-ground all day, and it wont earn them crap, and piracy wont abate one bit. That was just stupid, and doomed to fail from day one. You might as well make audiophile headphones with radio shack parts and expect people to pay 500 for the set, some might. Or they'll just look at them in the window and build their own. Market research, multi-platform development, fair pricing, online distribution and lots of extras only for legit online accounts would have been much more profitable.

10. Law is not a basis for morality, its a system of guidelines and punishments. We have the death penalty, we still have murder and rape and everything else. Making an "example" only works in small groups where people feel personally attached. It wont work globally, only economics can. Even then, some bad things happen because people are, after all, people. Thats why stores factor in losses due to theft, its just not worth the cost of protecting against it. Law has also been hi-jacked by lobbies. Look at the Iraq war and Pharmaceutical companies. The second amendment is not there for hunting, its for keeping the government in check. American rights and freedoms are being eroded because private interests are taking hold over the masses, and by the time it hits the boiling point we'll be powerless to do anything about it. Try watching TV for 5 minutes without

11. What kind of profits do they expect? Did Crysis not make more than it cost to develop? The market is turning into an oligarchy, but is it because it more profitable to sellout to EA, then found new companies over and over than it is to just make a steady stream over time? It looks good on your resume! You made a company, had a hit game, then sold with windfall profits for all! Or you reinvested profit, developed more, and became Blizzard. If you sell you can get rich quick, use all that to make new companies, and use past success and sales to companies to convince banks that you can do it all over again. Right, Richard Garriot? At Crytek they have jobs...they didint go under...they are making new games still. How much of this is people looking at piracy rates and comparing "perfect world what if's" to real profits? How many bonuses do CEOs need? How many companies have actually gone under do to piracy, and not other things like people giving themselves massive bonuses after a hit game and not saving enough to bankroll the next one? Or changing everything in mid-development? This is not just the gaming industry that does these things. The same old crap is here, but this time we have piracy to point a finger at and blame, soon after the DRM sharks will be sniffing at all places that deal in Intellectual Products and mesmerizing their boardrooms with phantom earnings, for only a small fee...

12. I've seen that "if you cant afford it then don't play it" tossed around a bit. Like I said, morally fine, if simplistic and unenforceable. People just aren't going to take that ball and run with it. Where I live here in Reality, USA I cant begrudge that Romanian for stealing games. I know how he feels. Same for all those others who are just pretty dang poor (relativity here, might be GREAT locally on $500 a month for food, housing and internet and other stuff, until you realize a new US game is $50), or have parents that ignore them and find respite in gaming in general. I think that pricing models should really adapt to bring global economics into the fold, sometimes games are entertainment. For others it might be an escape from an otherwise meager or lonely existence.

13. I've gotten refunds for movies that sucked. I have even gotten refunds for meals that sucked. Some industries realize that total profits raise with quality of service until you reach diminishing returns. I don't think games, or any digital service, should be any different. Short term gains aren't worth long term losses.

So thats it, I hope at least one of these resonates with some people, and that we get some well thought out responses

This is the way I see it. Game developers rely on publishers (EA, Activision Blizzard, Take-Two etc.). ATI/nVIDIA and graphics card manufacturers (eVGA, XFX, Asus etc.) rely on game developers and publishers in the sense that without gamers there will be little need for mid-range and high-end graphics cards for PC.

If the situation is really bad, PC game publishers should seek ways how to co-operate with graphics card manufacturers. The publishers could push for a 100$ raise of prices for all high-end graphics cards and a compulsory bundle of coupons which can be only redeemed for PC games released within the next 2-3 years after the graphics card purchase. After that, pirate or not, every person pays those extra 100$ during a graphics card upgrade for games. It's obvious that people will not want the money to go to waste and will find some games for which to redeem the coupons. Since this approach would tackle the piracy issue quite effectively, one game could be valued at 25$ instead of 50$.

Of course, graphics card manufacturers wouldn't be particularly happy with this approach because pirates buy their 300-500$ cards anyway. After all, you still need a good video card to run the newest PC games with great graphics. In fact, piracy could be one of the main factors contributing to the progress in graphics card technologies for the PC because in many cases a graphics card upgrade also includes the renewal of your PC game collection. Without a chance to get pirated games for free less people will be motivated to pay a lot of money for a nice new graphics card. As an example, I'm still using my 5-year-old Radeon 9700 because I know that spending 200-400$ for a new Geforce 8800 or Radeon 3870 will be kind of pointless without spending at least another 200-300$ on renewing my PC game collection with latest games. On the other hand, it does feel tempting to get a 200-400$ new graphics card and then spend 0$ on renewing the PC game collection through piracy. That way you could even spend the "saved" 200-300$ which you hadn't spend on the new games to buy a new graphics card next year. I suspect there are many people who fall for this type of temptation. If piracy was prevented completely, there will be more people like me who will upgrade their PC maybe once in 5-7 years. As a result, the sales of high-end graphics cards could decrease and new generations of graphics cards could appear more rarely.


To sum up, my main point is that piracy probably does hurt PC gaming industry, but a complete lack of piracy could hurt the PC graphics cards industry. Of course, excessive spread of piracy would probably hurt both industries.

It's a bad analogy, because yet again it's taking something entirely physical and comparing it with digital. Theaters get dirty from people coming in and sitting on the chairs, spilling soda and food. You're talking about physically walking into a theater and sneaking past the guy at the front (or just blatantly walking past him), and taking one of a finite number of seats, where, regardless of whether or not the theater is full, that's a seat that someone else can no longer sit in (if nothing else, you're limiting the choices of others entering the theater). So in the REAL world, where all of these factors actually DO come into play, I'd say no, you really shouldn't sneak into a movie theater. Plus, there really would be no need to, since most theaters will refund your ticket if you leave early on because you don't like the movie. I can't return a PC game if I play it for 20 minutes and realize it's garbage. If I could, I'd never pirate again, because I would just buy a game, try it out for a few, and if it sucked, I'd take it right back, just like I would do with a movie. To make your horrible analogy work, let's change a few things: There would be an infinite number of seats (to make it more comparable to copying a file), you absolutely AREN'T affecting anyone's choice for seats, you're not making any kind of a mess or contributing in any way to the maintenance fees associated with keeping the theater tidy, and you CANNOT get a refund if you were to buy a ticket and leave 20 minutes in. In that case, yeah, I don't see a problem with sneaking into a movie if you either leave a little ways in if it's bad (if it's really bad, you wouldn't stay for the whole thing), and pay for the movie at the front counter if you do indeed watch the whole thing. That's totally not the case though, which is why your analogy is terrible and you're obviously just pissy about piracy but can't come up with a good, logical reason. Next time, if you don't want someone to "put words in your mouth," how about you give a valid comparison instead of another **** analogy. Thanks

That much is obvious.

Open bandwidth? What? How about you specifically compare each point of your movie theater analogy with piracy and explain what's what, because so far your analogy doesn't apply. If the seats are open bandwidth, then that means I'm already paying for the seats, right? Because I pay for my open bandwidth. I think you just figured you'd make a real world comparison with piracy without actually considering every aspect, and now you're wondering why I'm bringing up all these real world objections to sneaking into a movie theater.

"Hey, you'd have no problem stealing a car, right? Because you'd be getting something for free in both cases! It works!"

If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it applies all the way through, otherwise you're just saying, "Hey, here's a situation that's kind of similar to piracy in a couple of ways but completely different in others." It really adds nothing to the discussion.