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

[BoberFett]

Wikipedia's definitions are just as made up as yours, and everybody else's.

And no, I don't buy the "It's not the same as Walmart" because, as a pointed out above, "Theft of Services" is a real thing. Legally defined in my home state of PA. Theft, as it turns out, doesn't actually require a physical product or the "They no longer have it" effect.

The big "They aren't the same thing!" doesn't hold water.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.039.026.000.html

There's the PA state code on theft of services. Withdraw all claims that theft requires physical goods to be taken.

Now you're trying to claim that copyright infringement is actually theft of service?

Goddam son! Pick a position and stick with it.

 

[Childs]

It's interesting that you used diablo 3 as an example. Are you aware of how many records it broke in terms of sales? It has passed 400 million in revenue. That is more than twice the revenue of Diablo 2, which generated around 200 million in sales. History will say diablo 3 sold a gabillion copies because of piracy. Right. The internet shut it down. Right. I don't like or play Diablo 3 but if you're going to use this as your argument, you should search for better examples perhaps?

The market is substantially bigger now, and the cost of games has increased dramatically. A better point would have been if Diablo 3 didnt sell as well. Then it could have been blamed on piracy. Doesnt mean it would be necessarily true, but the argument could be made. What could they argue now...piracy meant it didn't sell even more than it did, even though its an inferior to Diable 2? But I guess one could always tweak the numbers to say what you want them to say. One thing to consider is that pirates still have computers. They are buying hardware, and the potential to convert them to paying customers is still there.

You will always have people who are not going to pay no matter what. You have to court the paying customers. Just because a developer makes a product doesnt mean they are guaranteed sales. You dont make a product for people who dont buy, you make it for people who do.

Unfortunately, publishers are developing products for people who do not buy. Paying customers are being inconvenienced, and are less willing to buy because its not a product for them. I think thats about the extent of piracy's effect on the PC market. You can't know if piracy is effecting sales, but you know DRM inconveniences paying customers, leading to less of them. I think the publishers are finally coming around on this and backing off on super restrictive DRM.

They need to just let it go. Just have enough DRM so that a layman can't do a simple direct copy and call it a day. You can't make someone pay, so focus on those that do. If the absolute only way to play a game on PC was to pay, I dont think the market would be significantly bigger. Steam sales would probably do a little bit more money, but thats about it. There are reasons to think that consoles would benefit more, because its cheaper and you have used and rental markets. Piracy is about cost, so if a pirate is to be converted I would think the lowest priced option would win.

Microsoft has had more of a negative effect on PC gaming than piracy. With piracy, much of it is perception. IMHO of course.

 

[smackababy]

Yep. Now I don't have to waste my time OR my money. So when they finally get their wish fulfilled and no one pirates, they'll be scratching their heads wondering why still no one is buying their garbage. Let's take Aliens, Diablo 3, and Dark Space 3 just for a few examples where the internet pretty much shut them down before they had a chance (more or less). Of course, history will say it was because pirates did it. Those review blackouts? Only going to harm them in the end. Sadly, there will always still be those morons who pre-order every fricken game.

Wtf are you talking about? D3 moved 10 million units. 8.5 million that weren't from the yearly WoW subscription incentive. The internet really shut that one down. >_> That isn't the point though.

Piracy isn't a theft of goods, but a theft of ideas. It is similar to patent infringement. You don't steal the item, or even the paper the formula is written on, you steal the idea of how to make it. The internet has revolutionized how we share ideas. Nothing except written language has changed so much in the spreading of ideas game. I believe the majority of people born after like 1975 don't understand just how much the internet has changed the world.

I hate the term piracy. It was a genius move by the people against it to start calling it that though. The word piracy evokes a very different picture than some college kid sharing songs through Napster.

Or at least lie about something better, like how much money you make, dick size, number of women conquered, having an M3, etc.

I really feel like this is directed at a single person who may or may not have posted in this thread. >_>

 

[blackened23]

Yep. Now I don't have to waste my time OR my money. So when they finally get their wish fulfilled and no one pirates, they'll be scratching their heads wondering why still no one is buying their garbage. Let's take Aliens, Diablo 3, and Dark Space 3 just for a few examples where the internet pretty much shut them down before they had a chance (more or less). Of course, history will say it was because pirates did it. Those review blackouts? Only going to harm them in the end. Sadly, there will always still be those morons who pre-order every fricken game.

It's interesting that you used diablo 3 as an example. Are you aware of how many records it broke in terms of sales? It has passed 400 million in revenue and over 20 million physical copies sold. That is more than twice the revenue of Diablo 2, which generated around 200 million in revenue. History will say diablo 3 sold a gabillion copies because of piracy. Right. The internet shut it down. Right. I don't like or play Diablo 3 but if you're going to use this as your argument, you should search for better examples perhaps?

As far as dead space 3, that is actually a very good game, I also quite enjoyed the first two entries in the series. It's unfortunate that it didn't do well (if you're accurate), oh well. But I won't defend aliens. I pretty much believe that the corporate leadership of gearbox software consists of scumbags that prey on consumers, hopefully nobody buys that game at all. By the way, nobody is defending the actions of these corporations who do such things. What I find absolutely hilarious is your insistence on using semantics and the "big bad evil" corporations as a means of defending piracy. I get it. You're robin hood and you're out to save the internet from the big bad corporations, and BOY you will show them when you download their game for free. Yeahh...If you say so. This is 2013. Game reviews are out on the day of release, vote with your wallet. Certainly such things don't give you the green light to pirate, but hey...you don't pirate. Mmmhmm. If you say so.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's interesting that you used diablo 3 as an example. Are you aware of how many records it broke in terms of sales? It has passed 400 million in revenue and over 20 million physical copies sold. That is more than twice the revenue of Diablo 2, which generated around 200 million in revenue. History will say diablo 3 sold a gabillion copies because of piracy. Right. The internet shut it down. Right. I don't like or play Diablo 3 but if you're going to use this as your argument, you should search for better examples perhaps?

As far as dead space 3, that is actually a very good game, I also quite enjoyed the first two entries in the series. It's unfortunate that it didn't do well (if you're accurate), oh well. But I won't defend aliens. I pretty much believe that the corporate leadership of gearbox software consists of scumbags that prey on consumers, hopefully nobody buys that game at all. By the way, nobody is defending the actions of these corporations who do such things. What I find absolutely hilarious is your insistence on using semantics and the "big bad evil" corporations as a means of defending piracy. If you say so. This is 2013. Game reviews are out on the day of release, vote with your wallet. Certainly such things don't give you the green light to pirate, but hey...you don't pirate. Mmmhmm. Gotcha.

Got me how? If you read back, I admitted that back in the day (my younger years) I pirated on dialup ;p Go you! I won't deny Diablo 3 has done..."well" and probably wasn't a good example to throw in, but it did well because people bought it, then promptly put it in the trash bin. We can probably guarantee Diablo 4 if they made it would fail miserably. I'm speaking in context of the topic, which apparently you and some others can't quite get your head around. You can sit there and continue to point fingers, but you're not really making much headway since your trying to argue things that aren't true and making assumptions of character. It would be easier for you to get your point across if you just simply said, "Yes I think piracy impacts companies a great deal for "this reason". I would probably disagree with you, but at least then we'd be on topic.

 

[mindcycle]

Titles that do get greenlit will rely on anything they can to get more people to play - a heavy focus on difficult to pirate portions of the game. Additionally you'll see a focus on getting more money out of the people who actually will pay for a title. Experimental and niche will necessarily have smaller budgets and lower production values, and be mostly marginalized. Developers with genuine passion will try other models, like getting people to pay before the game is developed, so as to not end up in debt.

And I look around at the industry....and that's pretty much what I see. Kickstarter, very conservative selection of triple A titles, marginal genres largely limited to indie development and the poor production values that brings. Heavy focus on multiplayer, microtransactions in everything, always-online games.

Everything that I would reasonably expect widespread piracy to do to the industry....is right in my face.

Yes, it is going in that direction I agree with you. However, I think a lot of the microtransactions and integrated multiplayer elements have been introduced to combat used sales on consoles and not necessarily to combat piracy. Slightly hindering piracy may be a welcome side effect of those changes, but I don't think it was the main reasoning behind it.

Instead of nickle and diming people for crappy content and creating always online single player games I think publishers should instead provide their customers with extra incentives to actually buy the game and make that a better experience than pirating it. A few ways would be decent multiplayer that works as expected, free addons with your serial code, the ability to download mods and mod tools, a community setup for customers to share mods, provide a goddam demo! etc..

However, with the current trend of microtransactions and removing content to sell later as DLC will likely rule out since publishers have been making bank on that shit recently.

 

[smackababy]

The market is substantially bigger now, and the cost of games has increased dramatically. A better point would have been if Diablo 3 didnt sell as well. Then it could have been blamed on piracy. But I guess one could always tweak the numbers to say what you want them to say.

-----

Thing is you will have people who are not going to pay no matter what. You have to court the paying customers. Just because a developer makes a product doesnt mean they are guaranteed sales. You dont make a product for people who dont buy, you make it for people who do. Unfortunately, publishers are developing products for people who do not buy. Paying customers are being inconvenienced, and are less willing to buy because its not a product for them. I think thats about the extent of piracy's effect on the PC market. You can't know if piracy is effecting sales, but you know DRM inconveniences paying customers, leading to less of them. I think the publishers are finally coming around on this.

They need to just let it go. Just have enough DRM so that a layman can't do a simple direct copy and call it a day. You can't make someone pay, so focus on those that do. If the absolute only way to play a game on PC was to pay, I dont think the market would be significantly bigger. Steam sales would probably do a little bit more money, but thats about it. There are reasons to think that consoles would benefit more, because its cheaper and you have used and rental markets.

Microsoft has had more of a negative effect on PC gaming than piracy. With piracy much of it is perception.

You don't know intrusive DRM has had any negative effects though. You can use some anecdotal evidence of how you or some other person didn't buy said game because of the DRM, but that doesn't mean someone else bought it because they couldn't pirate it as easily as clicking the buy button on Steam. And the internet is full of people who say one thing and do the other. Ever seen that "Boycott CoD:MW2" group on Steam on the day MW2 came out? 90% of the people in that group, who probably screamed and shouted about no dedicated servers and how much they hate that crap on forums, are playing MW2. And they are not just playing it, they playing a legit copy.

Got me how? If you read back, I admitted that back in the day (my younger years) I pirated on dialup ;p Go you! I won't deny Diablo 3 has done..."well", but it did well because people bought it, then promptly put it in the trash bin. We can probably guarantee Diablo 4 if they made it would fail miserably.

You don't know how many people still play D3. Nobody but Blizzard knows that. They don't release those numbers. Their forums are still filled with angry neckbeards with thousands of hours played crying about something or other though. And that is just the US forums. I don't go to the EU or Asian forums (if the Asian forums even exist).

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Now you're trying to claim that copyright infringement is actually theft of service?

Goddam son! Pick a position and stick with it.

No, I wasn't trying to claim copyright infringement was theft of services. I was claiming that theft does not require a physical good, and thus that "It's not taking something so it's not theft" is clearly wrong.

 

[mindcycle]

Unfortunately, publishers are developing products for people who do not buy. Paying customers are being inconvenienced, and are less willing to buy because its not a product for them. I think thats about the extent of piracy's effect on the PC market. You can't know if piracy is effecting sales, but you know DRM inconveniences paying customers, leading to less of them. I think the publishers are finally coming around on this and backing off on super restrictive DRM.

They need to just let it go. Just have enough DRM so that a layman can't do a simple direct copy and call it a day. You can't make someone pay, so focus on those that do..

Yes, you hit the mail on the head here, couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[smackababy]

No, I wasn't trying to claim copyright infringement was theft of services. I was claiming that theft does not require a physical good, and thus that "It's not taking something so it's not theft" is clearly wrong.

Yes and most of the time it is called copyright infringement or patent infringement. You can steal ideas from people and intellectual property. However, piracy isn't about stealing those ideas but copying them once they are created. I do agree that it isn't traditional theft in the common meaning of the word, but the idea that "oh I didn't take their copy so its okay" is moronic.

Yes, you hit the mail on the head here, couldn't have said it better myself.

That seems like it would work, but the industry trends show intrusive DRM isn't as "off putting" on sales as the typical, informed, forum poster would have you believe. Even games with zero DRM still get pirated at outstanding rates. People just want something for free.

 

[Childs]

You don't know intrusive DRM has had any negative effects though. You can use some anecdotal evidence of how you or some other person didn't buy said game because of the DRM, but that doesn't mean someone else bought it because they couldn't pirate it as easily as clicking the buy button on Steam. And the internet is full of people who say one thing and do the other. Ever seen that "Boycott CoD:MW2" group on Steam on the day MW2 came out? 90% of the people in that group, who probably screamed and shouted about no dedicated servers and how much they hate that crap on forums, are playing MW2. And they are not just playing it, they playing a legit copy.

Yeah, I can't know. If it is going to have an effect, I think it would be negative. It doesnt help the gameplay experience the customer paid for, it can only get in the way. The pirate doesnt care, because they dont experience it, and they didnt pay.

I really feel like this is directed at a single person who may or may not have posted in this thread. >_>

lol I didnt mean to, but the M3 thing juts popped into my head after I wrote the other stuff. I dont really even remember who that is in reference to, just that every one brings up the M3 thing.

 

[smackababy]

Yeah, I can't know. If it is going to have an effect, I think it would be negative. It doesnt help the gameplay experience the customer pays for, it can only get in the way. The pirate doesnt care, because they dont experience it, and they didnt pay.



lol I didnt mean to, but the M3 thing juts popped into my head after I wrote the other stuff. I dont really even remember who that is in reference to, just that every one brings up the M3 thing.

You would think it effects stuff, but look at the big games that ship with it. People are in an uproar over the whole EA always online SimCity 5 "debacle". They don't understand that SimCity 4 sold less than half a million copies 10 years ago. SimCity 3000 sold less IIRC. Why would they make servers capable of handling 50 times that number of players at a single time? People might think the uproar sends EA a message and they're right. "Our DRM doesn't deter players as much as they try and scream about it. Look at how many people tried to download and play SimCity 5 at the same time!"

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Yes, it is going in that direction I agree with you. However, I think a lot of the microtransactions and integrated multiplayer elements have been introduced to combat used sales on consoles and not necessarily to combat piracy. Slightly hindering piracy may be a welcome side effect of those changes, but I don't think it was the main reasoning behind it.

Instead of nickle and diming people for crappy content and creating always online single player games I think publishers should instead provide their customers with extra incentives to actually buy the game and make that a better experience than pirating it. A few ways would be decent multiplayer that works as expected, free addons with your serial code, the ability to download mods and mod tools, a community setup for customers to share mods, provide a goddam demo! etc..

However, with the current trend of microtransactions and removing content to sell later as DLC will likely rule out since publishers have been making bank on that shit recently.

Well, there's a fundamental question of how you can combat piracy without affecting the second hand games market. Not saying the publishers or developers have any great love of the second-hand market, I'm just not sure how you'd manage to fight piracy without getting used games caught in the same net.

The list of things they could do you have there is kind of interesting. Things like multiplayer and free add-ons, they seem to actually be doing. Mod tools seem like they'd benefit everyone including the pirates - equivalent to "Make a better game and more people will buy it", which really doesn't seem to work.

Demos...that's one of those often used arguments, but is there anything to show it actually works at all? Lower piracy rates on games with demos vs games without one?

 

[smackababy]

Well, there's a fundamental question of how you can combat piracy without affecting the second hand games market. Not saying the publishers or developers have any great love of the second-hand market, I'm just not sure how you'd manage to fight piracy without getting used games caught in the same net.

The list of things they could do you have there is kind of interesting. Things like multiplayer and free add-ons, they seem to actually be doing. Mod tools seem like they'd benefit everyone including the pirates - equivalent to "Make a better game and more people will buy it", which really doesn't seem to work.

Demos...that's one of those often used arguments, but is there anything to show it actually works at all? Lower piracy rates on games with demos vs games without one?

The only real way to combat piracy is for the game to have a good multiplayer experience. Forcing it to be a legitimate to access the official MP servers means players have to buy the games to play with their friends. Not many other things can really deter piracy. Addons are just as easily pirated. I know I didn't pay $5 for horse armor in Oblivion, but I sure as hell wasn't gonna have an unarmored horse! Studios need to understand the average PC gamer is smart enough to pirate your game. Steam could be lowering this though because you don't even have to install the game. Just click buy, wait, and play.

 

[Childs]

You would think it effects stuff, but look at the big games that ship with it. People are in an uproar over the whole EA always online SimCity 5 "debacle". They don't understand that SimCity 4 sold less than half a million copies 10 years ago. SimCity 3000 sold less IIRC. Why would they make servers capable of handling 50 times that number of players at a single time? People might think the uproar sends EA a message and they're right. "Our DRM doesn't deter players as much as they try and scream about it. Look at how many people tried to download and play SimCity 5 at the same time!"

Do we know how much SimCity5 has actually sold? It could have just been a network infrastructure issue. BF3 had a massive launch campaign, and they underestimated the launch requirements then as well. Same with MoH 2012. It may be that they just dont quite know what they are doing with always online games. The spin is something any company's PR dept would do to deflect the issue. I would hope that they didn't believe their own PR releases.

 

[Childs]

Demos...that's one of those often used arguments, but is there anything to show it actually works at all? Lower piracy rates on games with demos vs games without one?

I forget where I read it, but there was a paper or article on how demos actually hurt game sales. Something about giving potential customers enough of the experience that they felt they no longer need to play the full game. I know personally demos have put me off many games, which is good for me, but I'm sure a publisher would rather I bought the full game and simply not liked it.

 

[Childs]

That seems like it would work, but the industry trends show intrusive DRM isn't as "off putting" on sales as the typical, informed, forum poster would have you believe. Even games with zero DRM still get pirated at outstanding rates. People just want something for free.

With that crowd you aren't going to get them to pay. They'll watch twitch.tv streams or youtube streams before they pay.

 

[mindcycle]

Well, there's a fundamental question of how you can combat piracy without affecting the second hand games market. Not saying the publishers or developers have any great love of the second-hand market, I'm just not sure how you'd manage to fight piracy without getting used games caught in the same net.

Well yeah, they pretty much go hand in hand to some degree. What I was saying is that the increase of microtransactions and multiplayer elements wasn't necessary done to combat piracy first and foremost, it was likely done moreso to combat second hand sales of console games

Mod tools seem like they'd benefit everyone including the pirates - equivalent to "Make a better game and more people will buy it", which really doesn't seem to work.

I can see that. But having a community forum where your serial unlocks downloads for mods tools and allows you to share mods would make it easier for paying customers and harder for pirates. Something like that.

Demos...that's one of those often used arguments, but is there anything to show it actually works at all? Lower piracy rates on games with demos vs games without one?

There really isn't that I know of, but there also isn't evidence to suggest they don't. We know they work on consoles since just about every AAA console release has a demo on Xbox Live or PSN. I really think the reason we don't get demo's on the PC is because publishers too often write off the PC community. Thus, all the shotty console ports we've seen in recent years. If they won't even pay a decent dev to make the PC port then creating a demo is likely an even lower priority.

 

[Childs]

Well, there's a fundamental question of how you can combat piracy without affecting the second hand games market. Not saying the publishers or developers have any great love of the second-hand market, I'm just not sure how you'd manage to fight piracy without getting used games caught in the same net.

I think they are using piracy as a preemptive strike against used game sales. Like WMDs in Iraq. Once they get it right on PC, consoles are next. Then they can have total control over pricing and eliminate their biggest competitor...the used game market.

 

[Annisman*]

To the apologists:

I was wrong, technically it's not stealing, you win.

Now that that's over, we can get back to the exact same issue at hand, because it doesn't matter what Webster's calls it, what I call it or what your Aunt Tilly calls it.

I get it, you 'pirated' when you were younger, but you don't want to be labelled a 'thief' for it today. How heroic of you.

 

[ImpulsE69]

To the apologists:

I was wrong, technically it's not stealing, you win.

Now that that's over, we can get back to the exact same issue at hand, because it doesn't matter what Webster's calls it, what I call it or what your Aunt Tilly calls it.

I get it, you 'pirated' when you were younger, but you don't want to be labelled a 'thief' for it today. How heroic of you.

That's very christian of you. How's that working for ya?

 

[BoberFett]

No, I wasn't trying to claim copyright infringement was theft of services. I was claiming that theft does not require a physical good, and thus that "It's not taking something so it's not theft" is clearly wrong.

It's not theft. You're still wrong.

 

[BoberFett]

To the apologists:

I was wrong, technically it's not stealing, you win.

Now that that's over, we can get back to the exact same issue at hand, because it doesn't matter what Webster's calls it, what I call it or what your Aunt Tilly calls it.

I get it, you 'pirated' when you were younger, but you don't want to be labelled a 'thief' for it today. How heroic of you.

There are a lot things I would label you today, but I'd get a mod warning for most of them...

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

It's not theft. You're still wrong.

No, it's piracy. I forgot the boat. Apologies.

 

[blackened23]

No, it's piracy. I forgot the boat. Apologies.

He frequents P+N with all of the crazies over there, not the best type to engage in a debate.