How much do you think piracy is affecting the PC Gaming market?

[ThinClient]

Well, a few things, one I don't see it as irrational, two that's not exactly a fallacy, and three he said 5-10% would buy, which seems pretty reasonable.

Read the post immediately above yours.

 

[Dumac]

Piracy doesn't effect sales much, as many studies have already proven.

People will spend what they are willing to on entertainment and then pirate anything above that. Eliminating piracy doesn't change how much people are willing to spend, though.

 

[Dumac]

@Lonyo: Hmm... that analysis isn't quite right. Let's say every month you have $100 to spend on entertainment, which is more realistic budgeting than a flat "I have $100 for games only." In a world without pirating, if you wanted to get games, you'd have to spend that $100 to get games. Most people want more than 2 games. I know I have a large backlog I'd like to get (Assassin's Creed Revelations, Far Cry 3, Crysis 3, Shogun Total War, and so on). I'd have to spend $200 across two months to get all those games.

But if I pirate, I can now get all those games immediately for $0. Then I can spend it on other forms of entertainment like going out with friends. That's $200 that the gaming industry lost.

Few people budget exclusively for games. Your argument is flawed because you assume that all $100 for gaming MUST be spent on games, which is untrue. It's more like this: in a world without pirating, I would have eventually spent $200 on games this year. But because I can pirate, I spent $0 and put that money somewhere else.

A look at pirating needs to factor in many ideas. Some people pirate as a trial version. Some pirate now and buy later when they have the money for it. Some pirate because it's not available otherwise. And some pirate because they just don't have a strong moral compass and like to save money a bit overmuch.

Only that last category, I would say, really takes away from sales.

I don' think its okay to lump money to buy a video game and money to go out with friends together.

You are right that video games are a form of entertainment, but the other forms of entertainment (movies, music, etc) are also easily piratable and heavily pirated, so I don't believe that people would buy a movie because they can pirate a game.

With x dollars to spend, people will spend it on what they believe is most deserving of the money, and then either live without the rest or pirate it.

 

[BoberFett]

Probably the most misunderstood and misrepresented issue in all of gaming.

*snipped*

Great post.

 

[Agent11]

Hopefully we will see more singleplayer games that have a strong multiplayer aspect, that is probably one of the best hedges against piracy.

 

[Midwayman]

Piracy doesn't effect sales much, as many studies have already proven.

People will spend what they are willing to on entertainment and then pirate anything above that. Eliminating piracy doesn't change how much people are willing to spend, though.

Many studies? Given the rate of piracy in the PC market even a low conversion rate would substantially change the amount of units sold. Crysis 2 had something like a 10:1 ratio. Even if only 5% of the pirates bought it, that would have been 50% more sales. Granted thats an extreme case, but with piracy rates even small changes do matter. Margins are thin on most games.

 

[felang]

Many studies? Given the rate of piracy in the PC market even a low conversion rate would substantially change the amount of units sold. Crysis 2 had something like a 10:1 ratio. Even if only 5% of the pirates bought it, that would have been 50% more sales. Granted thats an extreme case, but with piracy rates even small changes do matter. Margins are thin on most games.

How the hell does Crytek know that the ratio was 10:1? Also, those people saying that they don´t pirate anymore because thay have "grown up" or matured" and can now wait 2 months for a sale are on to something.

Why not sell games for $30 instead of $50 or $60? That would surely net a heck of a lot more sales. Do you guys really think most of those people that got Crysis 3 or Tombraider for cheap because of people selling off the AMD bundles included with vid cards would of purchased those games at full price?

I know I´d buy a heck of a lot more games if they were all $30 bucks at release. This would indirectly increase competition between devs (lower margins) forcing tham to deliver better content... ok so maybe I over simplified but still...

 

[Childs]

Why not sell games for $30 instead of $50 or $60? That would surely net a heck of a lot more sales. Do you guys really think most of those people that got Crysis 3 or Tombraider for cheap because of people selling off the AMD bundles included with vid cards would of purchased those games at full price?

I know I´d buy a heck of a lot more games if they were all $30 bucks at release. This would indirectly increase competition between devs (lower margins) forcing tham to deliver better content... ok so maybe I over simplified but still...

Full price, no. Never buy anything at full price, but the best available sale at the time? Sure. The codes just happen to be the best deal. Certain games I'm going to buy regardless, I'm just haggling over price. Its the marginal games that you wait for Steam sales.

Although the increase in launch prices from $29.99 to $39.99 to $49.99, and now $59.99 could account for an increase in piracy. Could also just be that the number of people who play games is larger, so the piracy rate would increase. I think I read one time that they gouge on release because thats when the majority of the sales take place. Like movie releases. After the launch window, its just crumbs. Buts its just common sense that more people buy when the price is low.

It would be interesting to know what the deal really is. They are obviously spending a lot of time and money on DRM and infrastructure to deal with piracy. A cheaper, and more effective solution would obviously be to lower prices. I refuse to believe that they are just dumb people running billion dollar companies. They must be looking at some data which suggests what they are doing is what they need to do.

 

[Annisman*]

I'm sorry, but the moment I read somebody either defending piracy (in any way) or declaring that their 'studies' suggest it's not a big factor regarding sales, I immidiately conclude that this person does alot of pirating themselves.

Why ? Because as humans we need to try and justify ourselves for doing things that go against our moral compass. You don't just do something because it is bad for the sake of it, or do something wrong because it is wrong, you do it because it is 'good' for yourself, and then make excuses why it 'isn't hurting anybody else' etc.

Stop making excuses, for yourself, or for the other criminals.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm sorry, but the moment I read somebody either defending piracy (in any way) or declaring that their 'studies' suggest it's not a big factor regarding sales, I immidiately conclude that this person does alot of pirating themselves.

Yes, but that's because you're an imbecile.

 

[Annisman*]

Yes, but that's because you're an imbecile.

Is this how you got to 25 thousand posts on a message board?

 

[Geosurface]

I'm sorry, but the moment I read somebody either defending piracy (in any way) or declaring that their 'studies' suggest it's not a big factor regarding sales, I immidiately conclude that this person does alot of pirating themselves.

I have firsthand knowledge of several people whom you'd be dead wrong about, in that assumption.

 

[Phynaz]

While this might seem true, it would never work. Only established bans or people wealthy enough to take 6 months to a year off to write and record entire albums, not to mention be able to pay for studio time, producers, sound engineers, marketing to package the product and such, would be able to make music.

You are very, very wrong.

Do you have 13 minutes?

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html

Edit:
I see Smogzinn beat me to it.

 

[Grooveriding]

I'm sorry, but the moment I read somebody either defending piracy (in any way) or declaring that their 'studies' suggest it's not a big factor regarding sales, I immidiately conclude that this person does alot of pirating themselves.

Why ? Because as humans we need to try and justify ourselves for doing things that go against our moral compass. You don't just do something because it is bad for the sake of it, or do something wrong because it is wrong, you do it because it is 'good' for yourself, and then make excuses why it 'isn't hurting anybody else' etc.

Stop making excuses, for yourself, or for the other criminals.

Not trying to antagonize you, but the laws regarding copyright are vastly different depending on where you live. In some countries it's illegal in all circumstances, in others it's only illegal when done for profit or exhibition and in others there are no laws against it.

Copying copyright material is not as black and white as you believe it to be. An individual being aware of the circumstances regarding it and discussing it in a context that goes beyond 'you're a criminal' does not amount to that person being some sort of piracy mogul.

 

[pcslookout]

I can guarantee you everyone in this thread has pirated something in their life.

 

[Annisman*]

Not trying to antagonize you, but the laws regarding copyright are vastly different depending on where you live. In some countries it's illegal in all circumstances, in others it's only illegal when done for profit or exhibition and in others there are no laws against it.

Copying copyright material is not as black and white as you believe it to be. An individual being aware of the circumstances regarding it and discussing it in a context that goes beyond 'you're a criminal' does not amount to that person being some sort of piracy mogul.

We need to look past laws sometimes. Stealing is stealing no matter what part of the world you live in, no matter what your government and it's legislature say or don't say about it. It is my experience, that there are plenty of things that are wrong, and not good to do, that the government hasn't specifically said I cannot do. The onus is now on me, as an individual to make the decision on what to do about it.

If you fix that key issue, the individual, EVERYTHING else will fall right in line. Of course, numerous wars, genocides, and the every day wrong things that we do as humans tells us that this is something that really can't be fixed here on this Earth.

 

[smackababy]

You are very, very wrong.

Do you have 13 minutes?

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html

Edit:
I see Smogzinn beat me to it.

I couldn't even watch the whole video. The sheer idea that this story translates to how the industry should work is ludicrous. So she leeched off of her fans for awhile, got signed and hated it, then turned to kickstarter. She forgot to mention who her band got money up front so they could stop being homeless when they signed and the record company most likely paid for the recording and promotion of her album is laughable.

The idea that these big evil entities that are willing to give artists money to create art that may or may not sell should be done away with is stupid. You lose a ton of literature, music, art. You think that all these start up "indie" developers don't have real jobs? They do, or they are so far in debt they can only pray to ever get out.

This entire argument about hoping for "the people" to pay artists, who have never created ANYTHING worth mentioning, to make some art they may or may not end up liking is also stupid. The kickstarter bandwagon will die soon enough. Once one of these bigger ones fail, people will think twice. I still don't have my Pebble Smart Watch, and that made how much again?

 

[pcslookout]

I couldn't even watch the whole video. The sheer idea that this story translates to how the industry should work is ludicrous. So she leeched off of her fans for awhile, got signed and hated it, then turned to kickstarter. She forgot to mention who her band got money up front so they could stop being homeless when they signed and the record company most likely paid for the recording and promotion of her album is laughable.

The idea that these big evil entities that are willing to give artists money to create art that may or may not sell should be done away with is stupid. You lose a ton of literature, music, art. You think that all these start up "indie" developers don't have real jobs? They do, or they are so far in debt they can only pray to ever get out.

This entire argument about hoping for "the people" to pay artists, who have never created ANYTHING worth mentioning, to make some art they may or may not end up liking is also stupid. The kickstarter bandwagon will die soon enough. Once one of these bigger ones fail, people will think twice. I still don't have my Pebble Smart Watch, and that made how much again?

This.

 

[Craig234]

I can guarantee you everyone in this thread has pirated something in their life.

What do we get for that 'guarantee' when it's wrong?

Oh, that's right, the amount you pay for a product.

 

[Craig234]

Read the post immediately above yours.

Has no bearing.

 

[Phynaz]

I couldn't even watch the whole video.

Perhaps you should if you are going to attempt to argue the points it contains.

Also, send an email to Gary Hoey telling him he didn't do it either (multiple times). And what's sitting on top of the Billboard 100 right now? Why, it's an unsigned group that has a song about telling the record company to go screw off. http://waxy.org/2013/01/indiepocalypse/

Seems to be a lot of people doing what you claim is impossible. One more link below get you headed in the right direction.

Disintermediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation.

Since this is the gaming forum and not the music forum let's get back on topic now.

 

[BudAshes]

I would say it averages out with all the games that are bought and barely or never played.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

You are very, very wrong.

Do you have 13 minutes?

http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html

Edit:
I see Smogzinn beat me to it.

A beautiful talk, I've backed several kick starter projects now despite the increased risk of them simply bombing when compared to more commercially backed games.

The fact is that I'd rather hand my money to someone directly like the doublefine team or Obsidian Entertainment making Project eternity, than I would give that same money (or even 1/10th that money) to someone like Infinity ward churning out another Call of Duty.

We live in a world where people can take your digital content for free and there's nothing you can do about it. Those who embrace that will survive and those who try and fight it are doomed to fail.

 

[Craig234]

We live in a world where people can take your digital content for free and there's nothing you can do about it. Those who embrace that will survive and those who try and fight it are doomed to fail.

I don't really agree.

I've said before I think the new technology that makes every creative product vulnerable to nearly infinite free copying is a great threat to the creation of these products.

People still buy a lot, so the impact is not as high as if more were copied, so far.

I think efforts can mitigate the problem and it's important they do - and that those who try are not guaranteed to do badly because they do.

 

[ImpulsE69]

And they've been saying that for years...yet companies spend more than ever to create said products. Makes sense doesn't it.

I disagree that infinite free copying is a threat. You assume that if person A doesn't create something because it might get copied, that there's not a person B or C that will create something similar or better for free.

People will create, that's what we do. If you make a profit off of it, that's just a bonus.