Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

it turned out to be a rather successful distribution model.

This is an older distribution model then you think. In fact several Newspapers function on the same level.

Problem is however that it is unrelated to what I said.

[cerapa]

Also oddly enough I think the same line of arguement could be made for Counterfeit money. It doesn't harm anyone unless it is found out.

True about that.

But, piracy doesnt hurt anyone, even If its found out. And because of inflation, you are basically stealing money from everyone when making fake money.

[Neonivek]

Yeah but your stealing from everyone when you pirate games as well...

[Goron]

Yes but the individual that strives for self-fulfillment is better than the one that rejects it. :-)

someone that, for example, will knowingly and willingly speed on some roads. They do not attempt to justify their actions with 'its not hurting anyone' or some other such blabber to make it right. They openly and fully admit fault and understand why (maybe not to a cop, but to themselves). That is a step towards self actualization. They have not fully reached the point of utter respect (for the law, for example), but at least they are accepting and acknowledging their actions as wrong. So no, they am not a 5, they are a 4 (in this fictional case), but are open to advancement. They have achieved the self esteem and self respect to understand and admit they are wrong. Sure, they may not act differently, but they know the truth. THats how they got to level 4 in the first place.

I don't think knowingly doing something illegal constitutes the same thing as acknowledging that it is wrong, since right and wrong are value judgements, whereas legal and illegal are objective statements as determined by the law.
See, what is the purpose of the law? To make you go slowly? Or to increase road safety? I'd say it's the latter, and if you knowingly go over the speed limit, that means you're aware of it and make a conscious decision to not obey it based on your own evaluation of the traffic situation. In other words, it makes you stop and think about whether or not to slow down, it alerts you to the possible danger ahead. Thus it fulfills its purpose even when you knowingly disobey it.
Of course, if you disobey it because you didn't even read the sign, then it's not doing a damn thing.

Yes. I agree. You are right.
I suppose my post should have reflected yours a little more. But I still think the point of acknowledging the contradiction of law and right vs wrong is still a step forward, rather than ignoring the law and any argument of right and wrong, while justifying your action by claiming it is not wrong or illegal.

There is no actual material loss with piracy. You cant compare it to speeding on roads, as that can hurt people.

I have speeded (sic) many many times and never hurt or killed anyone. No one suffered material loss.

And now you compare it to robbing a bank. I would not rob anything, even if it had no further problems.

digital piracy is theft by definition. Therefore, if you illegally (that's where the "illegal" part comes in) committed piracy, you have stolen. This is once again an example of you trying to justify an action by ignoring the fact that it is illegal.

Of course someone is harmed when robbing a bank. The bank loses the money. If their insured, then the insurance company loses its money.

banks in America are federally insured.
therefore, in the US this:

The bank loses the money

No they don't lose money and neither does the insurance company.

What happens is inflation increases.

is true.
 Because:

Why would inflation increase? I have never heard of banks printing new money when they lose the old ones.

Not even National banks?

this.
The Federal government just prints up new money, building deficit. Or, at least our current fed does...

Where do you think the 700billion dollar stimulus came from?  ...the printing presses.

Yeah but your stealing from everyone when you pirate games as well...

Well, I say you are stealing from the developer and producer and distributors, but same thing:-)

Someone worked hard to create the game you steal. By not buying it, but pirating and playing it, you are stealing it. That developer is not being rewarded for his/her work. You are benefiting from the blood sweat and tears they shed to generate content (well, actually from the implementation of ideas, because that's what a copyright is, but since its obvious some of you have no desire to be familiar with law, I wont go there).

I just can't believe that so many people are posting on a small time indie game developer's forum, advocating piracy... It just boggles my mind.

[Sordid]

it turned out to be a rather successful distribution model.

This is an older distribution model then you think. In fact several Newspapers function on the same level.

Problem is however that it is unrelated to what I said.

But not at the same scale. The internet gives you instant access to a global market at a miniscule cost. It's incomparable to actually printing on physical media, be it paper, film, DVDs, whatever.

Yes it is. You said they could trust people who want their products to buy them. I think that's still the case. See, I might pirate Sims 3 (if I had a box capable of actually running it, that is) because it's a fun game to kill a few hours with. But is it worth paying actual money for? Fuck no. If you eliminate piracy, all you're doing is getting rid of the publicity that people who wouldn't buy your product if they had to pay for it give you. The vast majority of them still won't buy it.

[Captain Hat]

It really seems now to be a battle between companies that want to churn out as many games as they can, and make sequels to them, and consumers who really want something that was made with quality.

This is why everyone hates EA so much, they produce a lot of crap, but they hold the licenses to many popular series, this puts people at a impasse. Do they want to reward EA for producing absolute crap and raping a game series they really do like, or do should they just wait and hope that by not doing anything, that the rest of the world will follow.

Those people tend to realize later on that the average consumer really doesn't care, they just want a game. Rage follows.

[Neonivek]

While I don't believe every pirated copy would have resulted in a sale. I do say that there is noticable loss of sale.

[Goron]

If you eliminate piracy, all you're doing is getting rid of the publicity that people who wouldn't buy your product if they had to pay for it give you. The vast majority of them still won't buy it.

Fail.
What good is publicity if they are not going to buy it anyways?
And if this is true, why do game company's not distribute their games for free?
Also, the prevalence of development for (more difficultly pirated) console games is so much stronger than computer games. Please explain this? Especially when we have developers publicly indicating they produce games for consoles instead of computers because of piracy (no quote or link available at the moment, you just have to go by faith on this one).

I can not comprehend how you continue to neglect the fact that companies COULD follow your supposed superior business model (giving stuff away for free for publicity, so that people may not pay for it  ), but they DON'T do that. Obviously its because its BAD BUSINESS.

Piracy also hurts the industry. Newspapers are going under, because they cannot generate revenue because people are using 'free' news sources on the web more. Gaming companies will follow suite if people continue finding their games for free and cease paying for them.  The online newspapers are able to provide the free content because of advertising.

And I sure as hell would rather pay $50 for a game than have to deal with advertisements in it...

[Okenido]

It's because most developers and distributors now of days are a bunch of lazy assholes who focus too much on the rule of cool, and sex.

The demos are also often too short to give you a taste on what the game is like.

Either that or the game is no longer in print, so I cannot get it legally.

If you would like me to give examples on where this would apply I would be glad to do so.

[Neonivek]

It's because most developers and distributors now of days are a bunch of lazy assholes who focus too much on the rule of cool, and sex.

The demos are also often too short to give you a taste on what the game is like.

I could really care less about pirating games out of print (Or Piracy if you truely are poor) but that isn't really what is in debate ight now.

Anyhow

1) the problem is that too many people buy rule of cool and sex based games (actually not sex... Gore would fit in better)

2) The reason why Demos are becoming more and more short is that games are becoming increasingly more engine based so the demo actually holds the bulk of what the game is.

[Sordid]

While I don't believe every pirated copy would have resulted in a sale. I do say that there is noticable loss of sale.

Lookie: http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-games-of-2008-081204/
See that list? All of those were top-selling hits. And looking at the bestseller charts (such as this one here), it doesn't seem like games with draconian anti-piracy measures do any better than games that are pirated a lot. So I'd say whether or not a game sells is determined largely by its quality, whatever effect piracy might have is probably not very significant.

If you eliminate piracy, all you're doing is getting rid of the publicity that people who wouldn't buy your product if they had to pay for it give you. The vast majority of them still won't buy it.

Fail.
What good is publicity if they are not going to buy it anyways?

There are always people who buy, as I illustrated in the part that you ever so conveniently left out.

And if this is true, why do game company's not distribute their games for free?

Because they're using an obsolete business model.

Also, the prevalence of development for (more difficultly pirated) console games is so much stronger than computer games. Please explain this? Especially when we have developers publicly indicating they produce games for consoles instead of computers because of piracy (no quote or link available at the moment, you just have to go by faith on this one).

Again, looking at the actual numbers reveals this to be a falsehood. PC gaming is stronger than ever and on the rise.

I can not comprehend how you continue to neglect the fact that companies COULD follow your supposed superior business model (giving stuff away for free for publicity, so that people may not pay for it  ), but they DON'T do that. Obviously its because its BAD BUSINESS.

Yes, of course. And iron ships are an insane idea because everybody knows iron doesn't float.

Piracy also hurts the industry. Newspapers are going under, because they cannot generate revenue because people are using 'free' news sources on the web more.

And that's bad... why, exactly?

[Neonivek]

Newspapers arn't doing badly exactly due to any sort of immoral activity however... but rather the fact that people now have access to up to date information.

[Goron]

It's because most developers and distributors now of days are a bunch of lazy assholes who focus too much on the rule of cool, and sex.

then don't buy, play, or advocate their product. I can assure you that if a majority of the playerbase agrees with your sentiment that the game developers and distributors will change ways.

The demos are also often too short to give you a taste on what the game is like.

reviews? trailers? viral advertising?
Still, thats like watching 3/4 of a movie then claiming "nah, don't like it, therefore I want my money back." or going on an amusement park ride and after the ride saying you are not paying for it because you didn't like it.  Damage is already done. You already benefited from the creative expression. Whether you enjoyed the game, movie, ride, or not, you still experienced it and therefore owe the royalty.

Either that or the game is no longer in print, so I cannot get it legally.

name five games that apply. And before you embarrass yourself, I suggest you go to this website called "Google" and type the game in and look for it for sale. Or you could try "eBay," or "Amazon." Have you heard of them? They are on this thing called the internet.

[Goron]

While I don't believe every pirated copy would have resulted in a sale. I do say that there is noticable loss of sale.

Lookie: http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-games-of-2008-081204/
See that list? All of those were top-selling hits. And looking at the bestseller charts (such as this one here), it doesn't seem like games with draconian anti-piracy measures do any better than games that are pirated a lot. So I'd say whether or not a game sells is determined largely by its quality, whatever effect piracy might have is probably not very significant.

Yes but they would have made MORE money if they were all paid for. Just because someone makes 'a lot' and not 'a ton' does not mean they didn't deserve 'a ton' if they did work worth 'a ton'
That is why you take the job paying the fair wage, not the one that pays 60% of normal, all other things being equal. Because you deserve the 100% for your work.

If you eliminate piracy, all you're doing is getting rid of the publicity that people who wouldn't buy your product if they had to pay for it give you. The vast majority of them still won't buy it.

Fail.
What good is publicity if they are not going to buy it anyways?

There are always people who buy, as I illustrated in the part that you ever so conveniently left out.

So, is that justification for shoplifting? There are still people that buy the retail goods, and the store is still generating a profit as the sales cover the losses from shoplifting, therefore you claim the shoplifting is OK? 

[Neonivek]

Well also don't forget that Piracy doesn't strike all games equally.

Mediocre games are often hit the hardest.