I'm seeing numbers that SimCity franchise has sold over 30 million units. Most of those came from SimCity 4, at 20 million. I think they should have seen it coming.
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=654925
I'm seeing numbers that SimCity franchise has sold over 30 million units. Most of those came from SimCity 4, at 20 million. I think they should have seen it coming.
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=654925
Annisman*
Golden Member
- Aug 20, 2010
- 1,931
- 95
- 91
Ah, there it is. Very nice. Forgot I'm not allowed to debate or have a discussion because of my beliefs.
Subyman
Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
- Mar 18, 2005
- 7,876
- 32
- 86
Here we go again, gotta be perfectly explicit with every word or someone will argue an off-topic point. There are explicit laws, such as the First-Sale Doctrine that allow a person to sell a product after they have purchased it legally from a copyright holder...
Subyman
Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
- Mar 18, 2005
- 7,876
- 32
- 86
What point? Your point? My point was pretty clear, I was not talking at all about the effects of piracy, perhaps you should read what I said again instead of trying to find an argument that was not there.
PhatoseAlpha
Platinum Member
- Apr 10, 2005
- 2,131
- 21
- 81
Well, that one's not a totally entirely irrelevant point. They do typically call it a license in the EULAs, and as I recall EULA's overriding the First Sale Doctrine actually held up in court in that AutoCAD case. Relevant for Americans, at least.
Subyman
Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
- Mar 18, 2005
- 7,876
- 32
- 86
Because the consumer never owned the product. That's how they get around it. It has long been disallowed to transfer a license such as a photoshop or steam account. That depends on what type of contract the user signed when they purchased the license.
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
This is one I truly don't agree with. It's anti-consumer pro corporation at it's finest. Of course it's legal because the average person doesn't have the resources to turn over lawyer speak TOS in court. Technically, giving your relative your copy of said product is illegal (and essentially pirating since we can use that term so loosely to describe anything apparently). Even trading games with your friends is illegal because you don't own the rights to do anything with it.
Fortunately, if this ever did have to go to court, it wouldn't hold up (and hasn't if I can find the cases I'm thinking of (didn't Blizzard have an issue with their TOS with Starcraft 2?). It would be interesting to see someone take Steam to court over their policies, but something tells me that one wouldn't get far in this day and age.
Annisman*
Golden Member
- Aug 20, 2010
- 1,931
- 95
- 91
You stated yourself that you used to pirate when younger. I then made the 'assumption' that you don't want to be called a thief for it today. I'm not saying anything crazy here.
I'm willing to bet most users here defending piracy are still pirating today/used to pirate like yourself.Defending yourself for past actions is normal, and someone is going to call you out on it. I'm sorry that it's me.
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,666
- 21
- 81
The first sale doctrine was made before the digital transmission of software like Steam, Origin, GFWL.... The law has no amendment or defense for people who receive only a reproduction of the original copy. Steam - their servers send you a copy of the original software, while the original copy stays in possession of the transferee, and provide you with just a different unique product key.
If you're going to name legalities, at least research them first.
There's what's right, and there's what's practical.
Take a book. Bookseller sells a book to person one. Npw, first, that's a physical good. It doesn't eactly have a 'license' - but it sort of does. Try reading that book onto a tape and selling copies - that's copyright infringement over you 'using the book you own as you see fit'.
Let's say they person one to be the only one to read the book. Now, how are they going to enforce that? It's totally impractical. How can they keep person one from loaning the book to person 2, or reselling the book? It's not just practical, and so they don't try to do anything like that - they just prevent the things more practical.
Now, what's right? There's nothing really wrong in principle with saying 'the company is selling the right to consume the book to person 1 only'. It's not not practical.
Now it is more practical with other things. When person 1 buys a movie ticket, he can't let a friend watch the next showing. It's limited to one person, one time. If the person rents a movie download on cable tv, it's limited to that account for a limited time. They can't practically limit who watches that tv so they don't try, other than prohibiting commercial airing, but the time limit is sure enforced. But the buyer clearly doesn't 'own' the movie.
In principle, what's wrong with a publisher saying 'this product has a license to enjoy it sold to this one person, and if someone else want to enjoy it, they can buy one'.
What people forget is that this could lower prices also.
With a service like Steam that becomes a lot more practical. The purchase is linked to one account only that is licensed only for one person, and there's no resell.
What's wrong with that? Oh by the way check steam sales, pretty great.
It seems to me very legitimate for products to be 'licensed' for one person to consume. If technology allows enforcing that, great.
Pointing out that it's more lenient when it can't be enforced like with a book isn't much of an argument why that should be the model.
Honestly, I think everyone here is too busy calling other people names to understand the fundamental issue.
Piracy is NOT the same as "stealing" or "theft" by most US laws. It IS, however, illegal. I in no way condone, approve of, or endorse piracy by making this distinction.
Piracy is generally accepted as immoral or at least amoral--as a pirate, you obtain something that normally costs money for no money beyond the expense of an internet connection.
The question lies in whether you would have bought it if legitimate outlets were your only option. I believe this is OFTEN (but not always) the case: people pirate "extras" that they would have not bought normally--in other words, no extra legitimate sales would have been made.
People no longer really have the "as a demo" excuse. There are simply too many gameplay videos and "Let's Play" videos on Youtube which show exactly what the game will be like. People who pirate as a "demo" are justifying their actions illogically (and before anyone says "regional locks on Youtube," I'll say VPNs exist, and you'd probably want/need one for pirating anyway). I'd say that any pirating TRULY as a demo, regardless of the little sense it makes in terms of risk (and not just as an excuse) before purchase doesn't result in any lost sales because the pirate goes on to a legitimate purchase or uninstalls it.
iThe most common excuses remaining are "not available," "can't afford," and DRM. In the first two scenarios, there is no or little harm done--if they don't have the ability to buy it or the money to spend (again, as a legitimate reason and not an excuse), GENERALLY no sale is lost. Some, of course, would have saved up for several paychecks to get a game legitimately. I cannot estimate at that number, but I suspect the intersection between "too poor to buy games" and "wealthy enough to have a gaming system plus VPN and uncapped data for piracy" is pretty small.
For the people who do it due to DRM: it honestly depends. Some people would refuse to buy a DRM game to "vote with their dollars" but then pirate because they really want to play it (after cracking the DRM, of course). Others will do what I did--legitimately buy a game (ACII, in my case) and then use pirating to get a cracked version or a workaround. In these two cases, no sale is lost. In other cases, the DRM is just used as an excuse to get the game for free.
There will obviously be some that will ALWAYS pirate, justifying it differently every time. And pretty much all piracy is illegal, if not immoral/amoral (depending on laws, of course). So the question is not "is piracy morally wrong/illegal" so much as it is: "how much does piracy hurt? And who?" I suspect that it's not quite the devestating death knell publishers insist on (just look at the 80s to see that piracy is not the only reason for bankruptcy. I mean, the market's going to stop supporting shovelware at some point.) and not quite the harmless pleasure many make it out to be.
There have been studies, but pretty much all of them have been funded by big publishers, with small sample sizes, cherry-picking and flawed variable control (very difficult to truly accomplish in such an inherently uncontrolled environment). So the question's still up in the air.
Personally? I have enough disposable income (I mean, I can afford to build a $1000 PC every couple of years. That's got to be above the norm) and Steam sales on games I'm into happen often enough that piracy just isn't an appealing option--too much risk and not enough reward.
Piracy is NOT the same as "stealing" or "theft" by most US laws. It IS, however, illegal. I in no way condone, approve of, or endorse piracy by making this distinction.
Piracy is generally accepted as immoral or at least amoral--as a pirate, you obtain something that normally costs money for no money beyond the expense of an internet connection.
The question lies in whether you would have bought it if legitimate outlets were your only option. I believe this is OFTEN (but not always) the case: people pirate "extras" that they would have not bought normally--in other words, no extra legitimate sales would have been made.
People no longer really have the "as a demo" excuse. There are simply too many gameplay videos and "Let's Play" videos on Youtube which show exactly what the game will be like. People who pirate as a "demo" are justifying their actions illogically (and before anyone says "regional locks on Youtube," I'll say VPNs exist, and you'd probably want/need one for pirating anyway). I'd say that any pirating TRULY as a demo, regardless of the little sense it makes in terms of risk (and not just as an excuse) before purchase doesn't result in any lost sales because the pirate goes on to a legitimate purchase or uninstalls it.
iThe most common excuses remaining are "not available," "can't afford," and DRM. In the first two scenarios, there is no or little harm done--if they don't have the ability to buy it or the money to spend (again, as a legitimate reason and not an excuse), GENERALLY no sale is lost. Some, of course, would have saved up for several paychecks to get a game legitimately. I cannot estimate at that number, but I suspect the intersection between "too poor to buy games" and "wealthy enough to have a gaming system plus VPN and uncapped data for piracy" is pretty small.
For the people who do it due to DRM: it honestly depends. Some people would refuse to buy a DRM game to "vote with their dollars" but then pirate because they really want to play it (after cracking the DRM, of course). Others will do what I did--legitimately buy a game (ACII, in my case) and then use pirating to get a cracked version or a workaround. In these two cases, no sale is lost. In other cases, the DRM is just used as an excuse to get the game for free.
There will obviously be some that will ALWAYS pirate, justifying it differently every time. And pretty much all piracy is illegal, if not immoral/amoral (depending on laws, of course). So the question is not "is piracy morally wrong/illegal" so much as it is: "how much does piracy hurt? And who?" I suspect that it's not quite the devestating death knell publishers insist on (just look at the 80s to see that piracy is not the only reason for bankruptcy. I mean, the market's going to stop supporting shovelware at some point.) and not quite the harmless pleasure many make it out to be.
There have been studies, but pretty much all of them have been funded by big publishers, with small sample sizes, cherry-picking and flawed variable control (very difficult to truly accomplish in such an inherently uncontrolled environment). So the question's still up in the air.
Personally? I have enough disposable income (I mean, I can afford to build a $1000 PC every couple of years. That's got to be above the norm) and Steam sales on games I'm into happen often enough that piracy just isn't an appealing option--too much risk and not enough reward.
Last edited:
I can not find anything to back those numbers up. That is a press release and the only actual numbers I can find are much much lower. I am not saying the numbers I found are wrong, but I'm more inclined to believe someone with nothing to gain from reporting it than someone trying to hype their game. Let's say the SimCity franchise has reached 30 million people, couldn't it be from the SimCity source becoming free in 2008? Maybe millions of people went and tried out the humble beginnings?
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
You are glossing over (or never read) the very reason I even stated it. I wasn't looking for forgiveness or justification. I honestly don't care about if you think it is right or wrong. In the context of what I said, I stated that 90% of what I downloaded went uninstalled. It was in context of the discussion about impact. My overall impact was very minimal because of this. The things I liked, I bought (and in some cases, I bought multiple copies). It was stated as a "this is what I believe many people do" scenario, to go along with my the companies are overstating the problem statements. Many people don't download games and play them through like many would have you believe, there's a collectors mentality. It has nothing to do with getting games for free, that is just the means by which they get them. It is a different story for movies and music obviously. If the "piracy is wrong wrong wrong" crowd would actually get past the "ur bad" mindset, we could have an intelligent discussion, but much like discussing religion and politics, it can't be done because there's always the one side that only sees black and white.
If you really want to know if I feel guilty? No, but that's not what this topic is for.
@Craig - valid points. The issue I have is the unrealistic reach of it, but like you say it really has to do with practicality. The changes in the last 5 years have made many restrictions more practical to enforce than they used to be. I would be curious to see if sales numbers change.
Last edited:
Basically. Every argument revolves around:
1) Hey piracy is okay because stealing is only stealing if the product is physical!
2) Hey piracy is okay because XYZ corporation are evil jerks!
3) Hey piracy is okay because i'm entitled to free stuff!
4) Hey piracy is okay because I sell used games!
5) Hey piracy is okay because DRM is evil!
It's basically delusional self-justifaction for something that is not legal or ethical. People lie to themselves so much that they begin to believe it, basically...
I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but in general It's like a continual circular argument consistent of obsessing over dictionary definitions and semantics while avoiding the main issue of whether it is legal or not. It is not legal or ethical. Whatever though. EA IS EVIL, BOY I'M GOING TO SHOW THEM!
Like I said. If you hate it so much vote with your wallet. I for one never buy a game that has one-hundred layers of DRM, and I will not pirate it either. What I don't do is kid myself into thinking that there's nothing wrong with pirating something. There's also the fact that there's a lot of dis-ingenuousness from those who just want to pirate stuff for free and blather out the above reasons regardless of whether the product has DRM from XYZ corporation or not. They are just pirates who want free stuff. Why not just admit it. Instead they argue the same tired and incorrect points over and over and over in an attempt to delude themselves into thinking its okay....
Last edited:
ImpulsE69
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2010
- 14,946
- 1,077
- 126
You are just so far off the mark it makes me wonder if you actually read what's posted or just skim the names and respond the same rhetoric.
You are just so far off the mark it makes me wonder if you actually read what's posted or just skim the names and respond the same rhetoric.
I've read those same reasons for 13 pages. Maybe you should get your eyes checked. By the way, none of that was directed to you in particular.
@Blackened23: I don't think that people here are trying to say that pirating is okay. All the posts I've read are going something like "This is WHY people pirate, and this is why it doesn't really have an impact." None of it really justifies it as "good" or "acceptable" (with a few fringe exceptions, as always). Most everyone here knows that pirating is illegal and morally wrong, regardless of the impact.
At everyone here: I think even if pirating has no impact, there is still some moral stigma. If I run over a random squirrel, will I have damned the ecosystem? No, but I still feel bad for ending a life, and I still feel bad for the far reaching implications--the city needs to clean it up, it makes the roads less sanitary, it can be a safety hazard. Similarly, even if pirating doesn't damage a publisher, the pirate should still feel a moral sting and recognize that there will be some far reaching effects beyond sales (erosion of moral values in general, like the broken window effect, spread of viruses through a maliciously infected copy, and so on).
I think we can have a reasonable discussion about the financial impact of pirating without name calling and getting off topic. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, because we're all guilty of it. Anger and impatience may be our first response at disagreement, but it shouldn't rule what we say.
At everyone here: I think even if pirating has no impact, there is still some moral stigma. If I run over a random squirrel, will I have damned the ecosystem? No, but I still feel bad for ending a life, and I still feel bad for the far reaching implications--the city needs to clean it up, it makes the roads less sanitary, it can be a safety hazard. Similarly, even if pirating doesn't damage a publisher, the pirate should still feel a moral sting and recognize that there will be some far reaching effects beyond sales (erosion of moral values in general, like the broken window effect, spread of viruses through a maliciously infected copy, and so on).
I think we can have a reasonable discussion about the financial impact of pirating without name calling and getting off topic. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, because we're all guilty of it. Anger and impatience may be our first response at disagreement, but it shouldn't rule what we say.
Last edited:
It could be, but my point is the user base for SimCity is substantial. Even if it was 10 million, thats still fairly big. Any new SimCity game was going to do very well on release.
lol Not likely. Just when its about to turn that corner, someone has to get that last jab in.
Since I'm in the UK - EU - pirating isn't stealing its copy right infridgement. Still illegal; and I do say wrong; but its not stealing......They have made court cases; they have the decisions; laws state it isn't stealing.
Now that we've attempted to get that through - again and lets just repeat it for the sake.......ITS NOT STEALING - its COPY RIGHT INFRIDGEMENT........
Now - as I've said its not as rampent as the companies make it out to. I know several at gaming companies say its a way to pass the blame when their games fail because; the game is crap; too much drm and the fact its easier to play with a crack than no crack on the game.
Also in the states you have right of first sale on software; which the software companies are blantantly trying to smash. UK - guess what's going into law - allowing people to make copy of their exsisting software; movies and music. Why because being able to back up your phsycial copies of movies; music and games should be allowed.
Now if you decide to up load that for everyone to have; well that's on you and I do think is wrong. Being able to get music; movies and games tends to be cheaper these days than it has been in a long time; but that's because the consumers that have been price fixed for years on movies and music have been fighting back.
Companies have been found guilty of price fixing on music; movies since the 80s. When the cds came out everyone thought prices would drop. They didn't actually they rose; same thing with dvds. The price to actually press a cd/dvd compair to old records and tapes; you'd be surprised how cheap it was from the very beginning. It was a couple dollars for records and tapes; compaired to the pennies it is for cds/dvds.
Again this does not mean pirating is right; but at some point people need to hold these companies accountable for their actions.
WAIT - HOLD ON!
Some of you are asserting piracy is theft. It is not. This is not open for debate, copyright infringement and theft are 2 different things in every possible sense of the word, when you say piracy is theft you're simply wrong and the reasons have been clearly given many times over.
There is a pervasive idea around here that if you correct someone on this point that you must support piracy or think it's legal, and this is a deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples positions (a straw man) and that is monumentally frustrating to have people assert over and over again that you must condone piracy simply because you're correcting someone who is FACTUALLY wrong about something.
Just because someone corrects the theft/copyright issues DOES NOT MEAN THEY NECESSARILY SUPPORT PIRACY. I've skimmed through most of this thread and I can't find any examples of someone who says piracy is legal, or even saying that piracy is right.
It's completely unfair and unreasonable to conflate these 2 things, because some people such as myself believe that piracy is wrong (at least in some circumstances) but also acknowledge that piracy is not theft.
Right...got that through your skulls yet?
Good.
Now pay attention.
This is not just pedantic arguments for the sake of being right on the internet, there is actually a very good reason that some people correct this factually incorrect statement.
Some of us acknowledge that there's practical differences between theft and copyright infringement, in the case of theft goods (yes, or services) are removed and that is at some cost to the owner/provider, that cost always exists, so it's safe to say that stealing (theft) is always wrong.
However since copyright infringement does not impact the resources of the owner, but rather represents POTENTIAL lost revenue in the future, there is a LOGICAL and PRACTICAL difference in the harm or potential harm that piracy causes.
I can already hear you screaming at the top of your lungs "he's trying to justify piracy - rah rah rah", and before your emotion kicks in and destroys any ability to have an interesting discussion about this, let me remind you that I do not condone piracy.
What I'm saying is that logically that the harm done due to piracy is not comparable to the harm done with theft, there are circumstances where I would agree that no harm has been done when someone has pirated something, for example: if someone has already bought the game and the DRM is broken and they can't play. In that case piracy is a good thing, it allows legitimate customers to play a game they couldn't otherwise play.
Right...
And I know what's coming next...the same emotional crowd will respond with "he's saying that all piracy is like the example above, and that's not realistic - Rah rah rah!"
Look, I'm NOT saying that, the fact that I have to actually assert that explicitly here is really just a testament to a problem we have where so many people are emotionally clouded that they see one sentence they dislike and infer everything bad under the sun about that person.
Could you please stop doing that, stop straw manning peoples positions on piracy, just because someone asserts "piracy is not theft", doesn't mean they are saying it's legal, it doesn't mean they're saying it's not wrong, they're saying what they're saying "piracy is not theft" this is a FACT. If you want to know if that person condones piracy, then instead of assuming that why don't you just actually be polite and ask that person?
Some of you are asserting piracy is theft. It is not. This is not open for debate, copyright infringement and theft are 2 different things in every possible sense of the word, when you say piracy is theft you're simply wrong and the reasons have been clearly given many times over.
There is a pervasive idea around here that if you correct someone on this point that you must support piracy or think it's legal, and this is a deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples positions (a straw man) and that is monumentally frustrating to have people assert over and over again that you must condone piracy simply because you're correcting someone who is FACTUALLY wrong about something.
Just because someone corrects the theft/copyright issues DOES NOT MEAN THEY NECESSARILY SUPPORT PIRACY. I've skimmed through most of this thread and I can't find any examples of someone who says piracy is legal, or even saying that piracy is right.
It's completely unfair and unreasonable to conflate these 2 things, because some people such as myself believe that piracy is wrong (at least in some circumstances) but also acknowledge that piracy is not theft.
Right...got that through your skulls yet?
Good.
Now pay attention.
This is not just pedantic arguments for the sake of being right on the internet, there is actually a very good reason that some people correct this factually incorrect statement.
Some of us acknowledge that there's practical differences between theft and copyright infringement, in the case of theft goods (yes, or services) are removed and that is at some cost to the owner/provider, that cost always exists, so it's safe to say that stealing (theft) is always wrong.
However since copyright infringement does not impact the resources of the owner, but rather represents POTENTIAL lost revenue in the future, there is a LOGICAL and PRACTICAL difference in the harm or potential harm that piracy causes.
I can already hear you screaming at the top of your lungs "he's trying to justify piracy - rah rah rah", and before your emotion kicks in and destroys any ability to have an interesting discussion about this, let me remind you that I do not condone piracy.
What I'm saying is that logically that the harm done due to piracy is not comparable to the harm done with theft, there are circumstances where I would agree that no harm has been done when someone has pirated something, for example: if someone has already bought the game and the DRM is broken and they can't play. In that case piracy is a good thing, it allows legitimate customers to play a game they couldn't otherwise play.
Right...
And I know what's coming next...the same emotional crowd will respond with "he's saying that all piracy is like the example above, and that's not realistic - Rah rah rah!"
Look, I'm NOT saying that, the fact that I have to actually assert that explicitly here is really just a testament to a problem we have where so many people are emotionally clouded that they see one sentence they dislike and infer everything bad under the sun about that person.
Could you please stop doing that, stop straw manning peoples positions on piracy, just because someone asserts "piracy is not theft", doesn't mean they are saying it's legal, it doesn't mean they're saying it's not wrong, they're saying what they're saying "piracy is not theft" this is a FACT. If you want to know if that person condones piracy, then instead of assuming that why don't you just actually be polite and ask that person?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter