Valve calls pirates 'underserved customers'

[Shmee]

Originally posted by: WraithETC
I pirate games and then justify it because it pisses off the people who hate piracy. I will only stop if they embrace my piracy.

^ LOL nicely put. Data is Data IMHO. While I am not endorsing piracy or illegal activity, consider this:

If something is legal, does that necessarily mean it is wrong? Also, wont right and wrong differ from person to person depending on their own opinions? What is right and wrong? Is it relative, or absolute?

Think about all the things that have been done that have been legal that were wrong, or all the things that were illegal that were the right thing to do. I can think of at least several well known examples, in various countries...think of project Valkyrie or Oscar Schindler in Nazi Germany. What about the atrocities governments such as Nazi Germany themselves committed, that were legal?

So, to flat out say that piracy is wrong, piracy is stealing, so and so is a bad person, so and so is a hero...etc...is somewhat of an incorrect statement not because it "IS flat out wrong"
but because with morally ambiguous and controversial issues, people have different opinions on what is right and wrong, and not everyone shares the same morals.

While the developers of games and record companies, as well as the US govt would say piracy is wrong, that is their opinion. It happens to be illegal because the US govt is of that opinion, luckily for the developers.

So, when it comes down to right or wrong, this shouldn't be an argument because people have all sorts of different opinions on this. What should be taken into account is the possible consequences. (possibly being caught, retaliation by companies in the form of DRM, companies going out of business due to lack of sales)

Anyways, good for valve!

 

[TridenT]

Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is taking one thing and then the other person doesn't have the one thing, but now you do. Piracy is making another of that one thing so now both you and the other person have that one thing. Stealing a car from a dealership is vastly different from COPYING BYTES FROM ANOTHER COMPUTER. The dealership no longer has that car where as you have the bytes and so does the other computer. I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
When I got my first game system (Atari 2600) in 1979 games were 50 bucks a pop. And that was 30 years ago on a 2 bit system (literally 2 bits). 60 bucks 30 years later is fine considering hardware has come a long way and games are much more sophisticated. I pay 60 bucks for a game, but I never buy blindly. I either get a demo or wait for reputable reviews.

They were crazy expensive even 10 years ago. According to this Canada inflation calculator, that $70 I paid for Quake in 1996 is roughtly $89.04 CDN today. That's about $70 US. Today's games only cost $50 US on release day.

Chrono Trigger was $110 CDN when it came out in 1996. That's $140 CDN after inflation. $110 US in today's money. There was a reason we didn't own many games in those days.

I don't know what the US inflation rate is, but $50 CDN in 1979 is equal to $140 CDN in today's dollars. Games were extremely expensive back then.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't really buy the "they're to expensive" arguement. With PC Games, you can usually find a hot deal on a recently released title for like $40. This isn't a vacation to the bahamas here, its more like dinner at chilis. Its a pretty cheap luxury item, and its not like some one is stealing bread to feed their starving family.

I used to copy games a lot when I was younger, mostly just to LAN with people. I did it because I was cheap and because I could. I didn't have a lot of money, but I could have afforded it. Hell, I spent more then that on a pair of jeans on more then one occasion.

There's some truth I think to the underserved customers thing though. If the only way you can get something is by downloading it, well then I guess thats what you're going to do.

$60 is too much.

Rather, $60 is too much to pay for the average game that comes out. It's just fine for the once-a-year boxful of awesome. I'd pay $60 for Mass Effect. I resent/regret paying more than about $20 for the other 99% of the games that come out per year.

$30 for games without a demo. $40 for games with a demo that's representative of the final game.

When I got my first game system (Atari 2600) in 1979 games were 50 bucks a pop. And that was 30 years ago on a 2 bit system (literally 2 bits). 60 bucks 30 years later is fine considering hardware has come a long way and games are much more sophisticated. I pay 60 bucks for a game, but I never buy blindly. I either get a demo or wait for reputable reviews.

Don't forget about inflation, 50 bucks 30 years ago were worth a LOT more than what 60 bucks are worth today.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is taking one thing and then the other person doesn't have the one thing, but now you do. Piracy is making another of that one thing so now both you and the other person have that one thing. Stealing a car from a dealership is vastly different from COPYING BYTES FROM ANOTHER COMPUTER. The dealership no longer has that car where as you have the bytes and so does the other computer. I see nothing wrong with this.

Some people have been so brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA they won't see the difference.

Good luck trying to get some people to think for themselves. I give up trying to reason with the RIAA's brainwashed sheep who believe the newspeak.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is taking one thing and then the other person doesn't have the one thing, but now you do. Piracy is making another of that one thing so now both you and the other person have that one thing. Stealing a car from a dealership is vastly different from COPYING BYTES FROM ANOTHER COMPUTER. The dealership no longer has that car where as you have the bytes and so does the other computer. I see nothing wrong with this.

Some people have been so brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA they won't see the difference.

Good luck trying to get some people to think for themselves. I give up trying to reason with the RIAA's brainwashed sheep who believe the newspeak.

Agreed. Stealing physical goods as opposed to copying bytes of computer data is in no way the same thing. Those who say that argument is justification for piracy are idiots. It's just a simple fact, not justification for anything illegal.

Just because a court can decide whether or not to file criminal charges in a piracy case, doesn't automatically make the two synonymous. I might as well make the argument that driving over the speed limit is the same as shooting someone in the face. It uses the same illogical reasoning..

I can link to stuff too.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...nt#Comparison_to_theft

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: BassBomb
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Anyways for me I don't pirate because the games are too expensive, I pirate because most games are NOT worth the money they cost. The games that are worth the cost I do buy (Orange Box, Far Cry, FEAR etc)

No, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Of course its a common justification for people who steal, only because they have to come to this preconceived notion in order to justify their theft to begin with. If its not worth buying, then don't play it, period. If you think the game sucks, you have no right to steal it just to reinforce your preconcevied opinion. Its really that simple.

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I think you missed my point, if a game isn't worth $40-60 to you or whatever the street price is at the time then you need to wait until a time where the price reaches your threshold.

That's what living in a capitalist society is all about.

I can't walk into a BMW dealership and tell them that I don't think the 135i is worth $40,000 and that I would only consider paying $20,000 and when they refuse I simply steal the car. That's not a moral argument you can win.

But that is your argument in a nutshell and you can see how quickly it falls apart in the real world.

OMG, wow stop, you're making too much sense, its making my head hurt.

my head is going to burst if one more person equates tangible property theft with digital content theft

its still a type of theft , but lets not lie and pretend its the same thing

what would you be more upset about ? me coming to your house and stealing your car..or me coming to your house and copying your software and leaving the original intact?

Wrong.

A car is a product, just like a piece of software. Material and man hours were consumed in making it, and those that do produce things have a right to be compensated for their work.

It's as simple as that.

No, open source supported by donations consistently turns out better and more reliable software.

 

[NoSoup4You]

I'd be interested to see what the piracy rates were for Warhead considering it was only $29.99 brand new. I'm not convinced price plays a huge role in piracy. They download because they can. Unless they know it's a game they'll likely be playing for years, then they buy it. I have a friend that does exactly that and he sees absolutely nothing wrong with it. He has a six figures income, so cash is not a huge concern. He bought Fallout 3 but pirated Bioshock. He bought Warhead but pirated Tomb Raider...etc.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: NoSoup4You
I'd be interested to see what the piracy rates were for Warhead considering it was only $29.99 brand new. I'm not convinced price plays a huge role in piracy. They download because they can. Unless they know it's a game they'll likely be playing for years, then they buy it. I have a friend that does exactly that and he sees absolutely nothing wrong with it. He has a six figures income, so cash is not a huge concern. He bought Fallout 3 but pirated Bioshock. He bought Warhead but pirated Tomb Raider...etc.

Pirating Bioshock is just necessary. You can get through bioshock in a day, easily. Waste of money even at $10. Games like Diablo II will always get my money. That game is still amusing to me even though I have played it for like eight years now!!!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Most of the people I've known that have pirated titles has mainly been due to financial reasons - they want to play a game hella band, but just can't spare the scratch.

I think they could dent piracy again by giving a 20% discount with proof of fulltime student status or something like that. Only problem is potential for abuse.

I like this idea, kind of like how movie theaters offer student discounts. It's easy to fake but too much of a hassle, so most people don't bother.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't really buy the "they're to expensive" arguement. With PC Games, you can usually find a hot deal on a recently released title for like $40. This isn't a vacation to the bahamas here, its more like dinner at chilis. Its a pretty cheap luxury item, and its not like some one is stealing bread to feed their starving family.

I used to copy games a lot when I was younger, mostly just to LAN with people. I did it because I was cheap and because I could. I didn't have a lot of money, but I could have afforded it. Hell, I spent more then that on a pair of jeans on more then one occasion.

There's some truth I think to the underserved customers thing though. If the only way you can get something is by downloading it, well then I guess thats what you're going to do.

PC games are never $60 anyway, new releases are typically $50, sometimes $45 on preorder or with certain deals.

If you're reaaaaallly lucky you may get it for $40, but that's a longshot.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Only reason I ever would pirate games is because I just do not have the financial freedom that some do to get all the games I want. Why else would you pirate? Because you don't have the fucking money

Then work more. The attitude that since you don't have money, it's OK to steal is the singular biggest threat to PC gaming. Don't make enough at your current job? Go get a second job. Hell, a paper route will pay for a new game every couple of weeks(if it takes that long). Not having the money is never a valid reason to steal.

so you're not going to buy the game anyway!

Take a game that is 10 hours that a thief may play through, if he worked for that long at minimum wage instead of playing the game he couldn't afford, he would have been able to buy it. It shocks me how lazy some people are. If you have the spare time to have gaming as a hobby, then you have the spare time to have a low hour part time job. If you don't have time for both- work the job for a few months then buy all the games you want and quit the job to play them.

According to Valve's actual data (as opposed to your random hyperbole), the biggest threat to PC gaming is delayed releases overseas.

Or you can just continue sputtering nonsense, I don't really care. Domestic pirates are an insignificant fraction of PC piracy and they always have been.

 

[Eeezee]

Wait, sorry, I guess I stepped into the wrong thread. I thought we were talking about Valve making a good business decision. Piracy was high in Russia because people couldn't buy the games that were being advertised in magazines, so they decided to try selling the games and suddenly piracy dropped dramatically. That just makes sense. Good for Valve, I know a lot of companies still delay release dates in various regions for some reason.

But it turns out we're actually talking about whether copying bytes on a disk is the same as robbing a bank or something. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and every time I hear it the argument is just as stupid. Copying a game is not in any way the same as stealing a car. On the most basic level, you're comparing a $50 product to something that costs tens of thousands of dollars. And worse than that, the publisher can still sell that copies of the game to others; they may have paid an opportunity cost, but they didn't lose any money when the game was copied. By stealing the car, you're actually preventing the dealership from selling it to someone else and stealing physical, tangible goods that have inherent real-world value, even as just raw materials.

If you still think that this is a reasonable comparison, then you need to pull your head out of your ass and go study for your GED.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Wait, sorry, I guess I stepped into the wrong thread. I thought we were talking about Valve making a good business decision. Piracy was high in Russia because people couldn't buy the games that were being advertised in magazines, so they decided to try selling the games and suddenly piracy dropped dramatically. That just makes sense. Good for Valve, I know a lot of companies still delay release dates in various regions for some reason.

You're on the ball.

But it turns out we're actually talking about whether copying bytes on a disk is the same as robbing a bank or something. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and every time I hear it the argument is just as stupid. Copying a game is not in any way the same as stealing a car. On the most basic level, you're comparing a $50 product to something that costs tens of thousands of dollars. And worse than that, the publisher can still sell that copies of the game to others; they may have paid an opportunity cost, but they didn't lose any money when the game was copied. By stealing the car, you're actually preventing the dealership from selling it to someone else and stealing physical, tangible goods that have inherent real-world value, even as just raw materials.

Does it matter what the value of a good or service is? Other than legal classification (petty, grand, etc) theft is theft. Take into account someone's keepsakes (say maybe a picture of your dog - stupid example I know, but it happens) that are stolen from a home during a burglary. They have a physical inherent value of nearly nothing, but to the owner they are priceless. You'd be pissed too.

As far as the loss of sellable product - this is the part that nobody seems to understand. It doesn't matter if it was a physical tangible good or not, the publisher lost the transaction to YOU when you pirate a title. It is a tangible loss! I don't understand how hard it is for people to understand this! The developer/publisher has put equity into their product (man hours, advertising dollars) that they are attempting to recoup and hopefully profit from by selling a title, and you have stolen that opportunity for equity recovery by pirating the title. Anything that anyone APPLIES a value to has an inherent real-world value. Otherwise explain to me why IP theft is worth millions to companies?

If you still think that this is a reasonable comparison, then you need to pull your head out of your ass and go study for your GED.

If you don't think it is a reasonable comparison, I say go back to your parents and tell them they failed at raising you since they obviously didn't teach you some of the basic things a 2 year old needs to know. :roll:

 

[ayabe]

This whole car thing got started because of a claim of perceived worth to the buyer, which in the case of software or a car, is exactly the same, each individual must make that choice and isn't entitled to get it for whatever price they deem appropriate, in this case $0.

IP is worth something, whether you personally agree with it or not.

Also, European and North American pirates do obviously contribute, it's not simply Asia and Russia that's the problem. It's easy for Valve to say whatever is convenient for them at the time, they made a smart choice back in the day and are now reaping huge benefits. But trying to paint pirating with such a large brush is dishonest in the extreme.

This very thread is ample evidence that people all have their own reasons for pirating, most of which have nothing to do with when a game is released.

In the meantime we all suffer, in terms of DRM or console only/crappy port releases or good companies going under.

 

[Saga]

I'm pretty sure the only games I've ever pirated are ancient and the reason I pirated them is I couldn't even find a $10 copy on flea-bay. Icewind Dale 2 comes to mind, I couldn't find that shit anywhere and I looked for weeks.

My philosophy is quite simple. If I cannot justify spending $60 on the game, it's probably not worth it to buy, so I just don't. It's saved me from experiencing almost all of the garbage games produced in the past two years.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is taking one thing and then the other person doesn't have the one thing, but now you do. Piracy is making another of that one thing so now both you and the other person have that one thing. Stealing a car from a dealership is vastly different from COPYING BYTES FROM ANOTHER COMPUTER. The dealership no longer has that car where as you have the bytes and so does the other computer. I see nothing wrong with this.

Some people have been so brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA they won't see the difference.

Good luck trying to get some people to think for themselves. I give up trying to reason with the RIAA's brainwashed sheep who believe the newspeak.

Agreed. Stealing physical goods as opposed to copying bytes of computer data is in no way the same thing. Those who say that argument is justification for piracy are idiots. It's just a simple fact, not justification for anything illegal.

Just because a court can decide whether or not to file criminal charges in a piracy case, doesn't automatically make the two synonymous. I might as well make the argument that driving over the speed limit is the same as shooting someone in the face. It uses the same illogical reasoning..

I can link to stuff too.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...nt#Comparison_to_theft

Totally. Its a shame some people need to be told by others whats right and wrong and cant think for themselves which unfortunately results in them spewing out "OMG BUT ITSHH WROONG!! ITSHH STEEELING!!" type of crap.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Totally. Its a shame some people need to be told by others whats right and wrong and cant think for themselves which unfortunately results in them spewing out "OMG BUT ITSHH WROONG!! ITSHH STEEELING!!" type of crap.

Told by others?

Who's sipping the Kool-aid here guy?

I just love you "ya, I'm stickin' it to the man" types who think you're really raging against everyone else because you steal software.

Talk about some self-righteous entitlement BS :roll:

 

[Cellulose]

If a believer in utilitarianism you might be able to justify the losses of PC software sales by the probable increase they have on hardware sales.

In my opinion, allowing someone to download a game who would never buy it, is better than not allowing them at all - however they are just less of a priority and less deserving than those who pay for games.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is taking one thing and then the other person doesn't have the one thing, but now you do. Piracy is making another of that one thing so now both you and the other person have that one thing. Stealing a car from a dealership is vastly different from COPYING BYTES FROM ANOTHER COMPUTER. The dealership no longer has that car where as you have the bytes and so does the other computer. I see nothing wrong with this.

Some people have been so brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA they won't see the difference.

Good luck trying to get some people to think for themselves. I give up trying to reason with the RIAA's brainwashed sheep who believe the newspeak.

Agreed. Stealing physical goods as opposed to copying bytes of computer data is in no way the same thing. Those who say that argument is justification for piracy are idiots. It's just a simple fact, not justification for anything illegal.

Just because a court can decide whether or not to file criminal charges in a piracy case, doesn't automatically make the two synonymous. I might as well make the argument that driving over the speed limit is the same as shooting someone in the face. It uses the same illogical reasoning..

I can link to stuff too.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...nt#Comparison_to_theft

Ah yes, the obligatory Dowling v. US from the pro-piracy advocates. Unfortunately the SS of the legal code cited from Dowling vs US is different from electronic copyright infringement, which has been amended numerous times as a result of changing media formats to reflect such change. Of course the amended laws that supercede the 20+ year old ruling of Dowling v. US leave little ambiguity as to how electronic copyright infringement is perceived in the eyes of the law:

S 1257, Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act (Hatch).
The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act

As for the physical goods argument, simple question for you. Do electrons have mass?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Totally. Its a shame some people need to be told by others whats right and wrong and cant think for themselves which unfortunately results in them spewing out "OMG BUT ITSHH WROONG!! ITSHH STEEELING!!" type of crap.

Its a shame that some people need to be told what's right and wrong, clearly a failure somewhere in their upbringing to not understand such fundamental concepts of morality. I guess its also a shame we need goverment and a legal system to define law, and police to enforce the law, etc. etc. This is goverment and politics 101 type stuff here, where Hobbes' Leviathan is required reading.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Totally. Its a shame some people need to be told by others whats right and wrong and cant think for themselves which unfortunately results in them spewing out "OMG BUT ITSHH WROONG!! ITSHH STEEELING!!" type of crap.

Its a shame that some people need to be told what's right and wrong, clearly a failure somewhere in their upbringing to not understand such fundamental concepts of morality. I guess its also a shame we need goverment and a legal system to define law, and police to enforce the law, etc. etc. This is goverment and politics 101 type stuff here, where Hobbes' Leviathan is required reading.

If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

Sure it would, the problem is enforcement, not the fundamental issue of whether its stealing or not, or even right or wrong. Do you think the majority of people downloading and pirating software don't know its wrong? Most know its wrong, they just know they won't get caught and would rather steal it than pay for it. Piracy is rampant because its anonymous and does not require physical trespass, and on an individual level, the gain from piracy is typically not worth prosecuting. It has nothing to do at all with any purported moral grey area pro-piracy advocates suggest.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Agreed. Stealing physical goods as opposed to copying bytes of computer data is in no way the same thing. Those who say that argument is justification for piracy are idiots. It's just a simple fact, not justification for anything illegal.

Just because a court can decide whether or not to file criminal charges in a piracy case, doesn't automatically make the two synonymous. I might as well make the argument that driving over the speed limit is the same as shooting someone in the face. It uses the same illogical reasoning..

I can link to stuff too.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...nt#Comparison_to_theft

Ah yes, the obligatory Dowling v. US from the pro-piracy advocates. Unfortunately the SS of the legal code cited from Dowling vs US is different from electronic copyright infringement, which has been amended numerous times as a result of changing media formats to reflect such change. Of course the amended laws that supercede the 20+ year old ruling of Dowling v. US leave little ambiguity as to how electronic copyright infringement is perceived in the eyes of the law:

S 1257, Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act (Hatch).
The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act

As for the physical goods argument, simple question for you. Do electrons have mass?

Had a feeling you'd reply and use the same tired argument. That pirates are somehow trying to use this as justification for pirating. Well guess what, i'm not a pirate. I'm just pointing out that you can't link to an article that simply states how piracy cases can "at the discretion of a judge", be tried as criminal cases, and then say that the two are the same exact thing.

They aren't the same thing, plain and simple. Those who want to argue otherwise might as well be arguing about how breaking the law is the same no mater what way you break it. Like I said above.

Simple question for you. Is the word copy a synonym of the word steal?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Xavier434
If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

Sure it would, the problem is enforcement, not the fundamental issue of whether its stealing or not, or even right or wrong. Do you think the majority of people downloading and pirating software don't know its wrong? Most know its wrong, they just know they won't get caught and would rather steal it than pay for it. Piracy is rampant because its anonymous and does not require physical trespass, and on an individual level, the gain from piracy is typically not worth prosecuting. It has nothing to do at all with any purported moral grey area pro-piracy advocates suggest.

I spoke about the ethical side earlier in this thread regarding how useless it is to argue about it and I truly believe that what I said in some form is the future. The future is not going to involve letting piracy roam free and it is not going to involve massive amounts of enforcement. I'm not saying that it won't be either of those from an ethical standpoint nor am I saying that either could or could not work. What I am saying is that those potential futures just isn't how our market works. What will work is a solution that meets somewhere in middle and also finds ways to profit off of that middle ground in a creative and unique way that has yet to be tried. See my previous post for an example.