Games Piracy - What's your take on it?

[meghatronic]

I'd like to think I've grown up a bit now.

I play demos or play the game at a friends house. If I like it, I buy it. Through waiting a bit until after release and searching, I can usually find a bargain.

This way, however, very few games make the cut for me to buy. Cod4 did, and I'm going to get UT next week.

 

[Spend_day]

More games and a better platform, similar to steam should be made available and embraced by the industry to help prevent the temptation to illegally download
People want things on demand, be it movies, sport, music or games, and the internet is the ultimate delivery system,

the EA downloady thing isn't bad haven't used it lots but i have used it abit. its reliable takes seconds to update even if u havent used it in ages. where steam has got better but still does little annoying things like randomly forgets my password or just wont log on etc etc

 

[div0]

Most people in here do not seem to understand the difference between theft and piracy, they are not the same!!!

Theft, you take something! Depriving the owner of a tangible asset.

Piracy, you copy something! The owner still has the asset.

It might be illegal to pirate software, but in some cases no damage is being done to the industry if the person downloading the software, would not have got it if they couldn’t have downloaded it, I know someone who needs certain software for university, if they could not get it for free, then they would not get it! The practicaly of spending 1+k on software for 1 module of a degree is just not reasonable.

Damage is only being done to the industry when someone, does not buy the game BECAUSE they downloaded it.

The industry seems to think that every pirated software, is one less sale. They come out with these astronomical figures of lost revenue. Simple truth is, if it was not 'free' people would not have got it anyway! [student prospective].

You are correct that piracy and theft are different crimes.

But then you go and try to use the same justification for software piracy, as has already been covered.

Just because you can say 'I wouldn't have bought it anway' and just because 'the manufacturer doesn't lose out' - doesn't mean it is any less of a crime.

I've already shown that you could take the same approach with a tangible item. I'm not going to repeat (in full) a post I've made several times before, but you can quite easily 'take' a TV (that you'd never have bought in the first place), then leave a small payment to cover the manufacturing costs (which would be far less than the cost to buy the TV, but still enough to ensure the manufacturer ISN'T 'losing out').

Most people would agree that the above example is still theft (and it is). Software piracy is no different. It's technically a different crime, and in many cases (like my example of theft above) the manufacturer doesn't nessesarily 'lose out' - but that is just a POOR attempt at justifying getting something for nothing!!

No-one (not even the software companies) are trying to claim that every free copy downloaded would actually have been a sale. That's just ridiculous.

But the simple fact is that just because you can't afford something, doesn't mean that you have a right to obtain a copy of it and then justify your acquisition by saying that no-one lost out, because you wouldn't have bought it anyway.

As I've said before - people who illegally obtain copies of software need to just man-up and admit that they've got it because they simply wanted to have it, they didn't want to pay for it and they knew they could get away with it. There is no other reason, and if any of those 3 statements above weren't true, then most people would not be doing it. But all the other 'reasons' that people post are just poor ways of attempting to 'justify' why they did it.

 

[Dreadi]

I borrowed Mass Effect off a housemate.. amazing game.. but i definitely wouldn't buy it now that i know the story.

Am i good or bad?

same, i completed CoD4 but i didn't buy it because my uni internet doesn't allow online play thus making buying pretty pointless, ok it looks nice and shiny but it's five hours long so i'll just play in it on a mates system and save some cash

 

[FooAtari]

It looks like we can all agree piracy is stealing. But some of us obviously sleep easier at night doing it than others.

What I object to though is div0's analogy above. Downloading is not always the same as stealing from a shop or paying wholesale value for an item.

I walk into a shop, look at a £500 quid TV and ask the assistant what it costs the shop to buy it. He says's £400. So I give him £400 and leg it. I have just stolen from a shop. I have robbed them of their £100 profit which they need to operate and stay in business. Had I not taken that TV somone would else would have paid the market price for it........

I look at a game on a shelf. I have played the demo of the game and thought it was average, fun for 10 mins but not worth paying for. I walk out with no intentions of ever buying it. I then go home and browse www.torrentsforimmoralevilbas*****.com and spot the game on there. I think, well I can get it for free, I may as well give it a go. The developer/publisher did not loose a sale here, they did not loose money I was not going to buy it anyway.

However the person uploading the game did steal from them, because a percentage of the people who downloaded the game probably would have bought the game. So the whole shop analogy of div0's is more relevant to all uploaders, and some downloaders, but not all.

Now I'm not justifying piracy, it's still theft. But I object to taring everyone that has downloaded an album, movie or game with the same brush.

Someone else brought up the interesting point of selling second hand games. Technically you are robbing them of a sale there. Just walk into Game and see the shelves full of second hand games. That is 100% profit for them with nothing going back to the publisher/dev? Isn't that wrong too? It's not really that much better than pirating. You could even argue it's worse, people buying them are willing to pay for the game.

It's not black and white , as people have said, as well as the obvious disadvantage it can also be an advantage, pirating can also lead to sales as well as take them away.

 

[Psyk]

What do people think to people buying games, completing them and then selling them on ebay for instance? In effect two people are enjoying the same game whereas it only amounts to one unit shifted by the developer/publisher and is an interesting thought. Would that be classed any different to borrowing a game from someone else?

Some companies are really against second hand games and want it to be made illegal. Imo they can sit and swivel. Any product can be sold second hand and I don't hear car manufacturers complaining that people are buying second hand cars instead of new ones. I guess the only difference is that when you buy a second hand game, it's going to be just as good as buying it new, except possibly for a few scratches on the packaging or disc.

 

[Psyk]

I look at a game on a shelf. I have played the demo the game was average, fun for 10 mins but not worth paying for. I walk out with no intentions of ever buying it. I then go home and browse www.torrentsforimmoralevilbas*****.com and spot the game on their. I think well I can get it for free I may as well give it a go. The developer/publisher did not loose a sale here, they did not loose money I was not going to by it.

It's one thing to say "I would never have bought it", but how can you be sure? What if it were completely impossible to get games for free? How can you be absolutely sure that if that was the case you wouldn't buy the game?

 

[div0]

What I object to though is div0's analogy above. Downloading is not always the same as stealing from a shop or paying wholesale value for an item.

I walk into a shop, look at a £500 quid TV and ask the assistant what it costs the shop to buy it. He says's £400. So I give him £400 and leg it. I have just stolen from a shop. I have robbed them of their £100 profit which they need to operate and stay in business. Had I not taken that TV somone would else would have paid the market price for it........

Except you have given them the money to 'produce' another TV. A TV that they WILL still be able to sell to another customer and make the same profit on.

All that's happened is you've acquired a TV for less than you should have. Then provided enough money to ensure they can effectively 'make' a FREE (no loss to them) replacement.

They can then still sell that replacement to another customer in exactly the same way as if you hadn't taken the TV in the first place.

Think of it this way.

Initially, the company has 1 TV that costs £400 to make, but can be sold for £500
After you take it, they have £400 (which you give them)
They 'make' a new TV (copy) with the £400
Now the company again has a TV that costs £400 to make, but can still be sold for £500.

The company is in the same position as they were before you took the TV, just you have acquired something for less than you should have.

They HAVEN'T lost out - but YOU HAVE gained.

Would you say this isn't theft? Of course not. So why do people use 'the company don't lose out' as an excuse for software priacy?

It doesn't make sense. The crime isn't about the seller 'losing out', it is about the person acquiring something which they have not bought.

The analogy is a good one and still holds true

 

[FooAtari]

It's one thing to say "I would never have bought it", but how can you be sure? What if it were completely impossible to get games for free? How can you be absolutely sure that if that was the case you wouldn't buy the game?

What do you mean I couldn't be sure? It wasn't that great, if I really liked it I would have bought it. If I think I'll buy it when it gets cheaper it goes on my Gamestracker wish list to buy later. I have downloaded very few games, I barely seem to have enough time to play what I buy without adding to that. In the case of racing sims I even buy games I'm pretty sure I won't play much, just to support what is a niche market.

 

[FooAtari]

Except you have given them the money to 'produce' another TV. A TV that they WILL still be able to sell to another customer and make the same profit on.

All that's happened is you've acquired a TV for less than you should have. Then provided enough money to ensure they can effectively 'make' a FREE (no loss to them) replacement.

They can then still sell that replacement to another customer in exactly the same way as if you hadn't taken the TV in the first place.

Think of it this way.

Initially, the company has 1 TV that costs £400 to make, but can be sold for £500
After you take it, they have £400 (which you give them)
They 'make' a new TV (copy) with the £400
Now the company again has a TV that costs £400 to make, but can still be sold for £500.

The company is in the same position as they were before you took the TV, just you have acquired something for less than you should have.

They HAVEN'T lost out - but YOU HAVE gained.

Yes they have. If they operated like that they wouldn't stay in business very long. They need those profits to pay the bills, pey the employees etc. They would be operating at a LOSS as they do not have money to operate the business. There is more than just the cost of manufacturing the goods.

Would you say this isn't theft? Of course not. So why do people use 'the company don't lose out' as an excuse for software priacy?

It doesn't make sense. The crime isn't about the seller 'losing out', it is about the person acquiring something which they have not bought.

As I said before I wasn't making excuses. I completely agree it's theft. But the whole issue of piracy as put forward by the labels, studious and publishers is the fact they are loosing money, not so much that we are getting something for nothing.

The analogy is a good one and still holds true

Yes for the crackers and and people that release the game. Not always for people downloading the game.

 

[4T5]

As one of the Poorest if not The poorest member on here you would expect me to Pirate my games as it would be the only way i could play them. Not the case though, I Don't pirate Games, Videos. Films not nothing. Strange a, How the Supposed criminal wrong'un type can resist this Theft where as the Clean living Good earning well brought up members can't. I have never wanted to or needed to Pirate my games, I use the Demos to check them out & ask friends & read the boards for reviews.
I get a lot out of my gaming & am probably one of the most Regular online players on these boards but still i don't need to Thieve my games. I'd rather borrow a game of a mate than Thieve it.

 

[div0]

Yes they have. If they operated like that they wouldn't stay in business very long. They need those profits to pay the bills, pey the employees etc. They would be operating at a LOSS as they do not have money to operate the business. There is more than just the cost of manufacturing the goods.

You are missing the point.

I leave enough money to cover ALL the costs for producing an 'identical' TV. A TV that they can profit on in the same way as they would with the one I take.

Surely you agree that those costs are NOT £500, otherwise they wouldn't make any profit by selling the TV for £500.

Oh, and yeah they didn't profit on the one I took (I agree) - but don't worry, I wouldn't have bought it for £500 because I couldn't have afforded it I was only taking it because I wanted it, but I would NEVER have bought it. However I did leave them enough money to make a 'copy' of that TV (including all the costs to pay someone to make it, and any other costs), so don't worry they didn't 'lose out'

unless you are trying to suggest that I would need to leave £500 (or more?) for them to 'replace' the TV that I took?! Surely you're not suggesting that. I'm sure you'll agree that they can make a replacement for less than £500 - and so as long as I leave them whatever that amount is, then they can make a new 'copy' of the TV for FREE (they don't have to spend ANY of their own money to make it). They then still have a TV that they can sell for a profit, in EXACLTY the same position as before I took the original TV.

The only difference is that in the case of software the 'taker' doesn't need to leave ANY money to ensure that the 'seller' can 'replace' the 'copy' they took.

Trust me, the analogy is good. Read it carefully and I think you'll understand

/edit (added)

All you have done is started to think exactly like most software manufacturers...'We need to sell things for MORE than it costs to make, if we're to stay in business'.

So in the case of software, even though it is 'free' (ignoring development costs) to 'create' each copy of the software. They still have to sell them for more than ZERO in order to stay in business. If EVERYONE came along and said 'I wouldn't have bought it, so its ok' and 'the manufacturer isn't losing out', then they would NEVER make any profit and would go out of business.

With software piracy, people always assume that even though THEY justify it as ok, that OTHERS won't and so the software company will still get the same sales (and hence profit)!

But in my example (with a tangible item) you automatically fell into the trap that they would go out of business because IF EVERYONE did what I did (and JUST paid enough to cover costs of making a 'replacement' set), then they would never make any profit!

 

[platypus]

Just like Music and DVDs, perhaps when Games come down to a reasonable price piracy will be less of a problem for the games industry.

 

[Von Luck]

..

 

[Chronictank]

It's one thing to say "I would never have bought it", but how can you be sure? What if it were completely impossible to get games for free? How can you be absolutely sure that if that was the case you wouldn't buy the game?

I can say 100% that there are games in my collection, that if i didnt try it first i would not have gone and bought because they were either unheard of/a risk i wasnt willing to spend money on

I gave a couple of examples above but i can say i wouldnt have touched more niche titles or games by smaller developers,

so what stance you take is up to you really it's most certainly not 100% negative as some people here like to portray, i personally think there shouldnt be copy protection at all past the usual dvd protection and cd keys as it is a waste of time and money, the cost of which is being passed onto the consumer

And i wish people would stop posting examples where you take something from a shop, for the n'th time its NOT the same at all
It's like taping something off the tv instead of buying the dvd, or copying a rental

 

[Reiver]

I'm sure many people will refuse to believe that I pay for titles that I've already downloaded, however that is exactly what I do - same with music, I tend to buy CDs having first sampled the tracks as MP3 downloads.

I don't find music to be equatable to software piracy since the costs of production and the scale of the industry are so different. Good bands will always make money, even if they released their music free and only brought in money from touring. Software companies can't do live shows! Although as an exampleof try before you buy it can't be beat. 90% of the CDs i own (3-4 hundred) were bought as a result of piracy. I don't listen to the radio because there's no station that caters to my tastes. The TV never has what I like on any of their music shows. My only way to "discover" new bands is word of mouth followed by a download.

I wish software companies would take a look at why their sales have fallen objectively instead of just blaming peoples desire to get things for free. I imagine that the vast majority of people who "steal" software are otherwise law abiding. We wouldn't consider stealing a telly etc. (woeful analogy btw) so why do we steal software? Sure there's greed (and these corporations need to look at themselves for fueling it!) and there's the perception of it being victimless but there's also a valid commentary on the state of gaming. We feel like we're being shafted by these companies so why the hell should we care about their profit margin?

The worrying thing for me is the use of this to justify more sh()tty console ports and "cross developments". All that's going to do is drive more people into DLing the game.

 

[div0]

I can say 100% that there are games in my collection, that if i didnt try it first i would not have gone and bought because they were either unheard of/a risk i wasnt willing to spend money on

Why SHOULD you be able to try before you buy?

I agree that it's a good idea. But if the manufacturer DOESN'T offer that option, then it isn't any less wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.

I gave a couple of examples above but i can say i wouldnt have touched more niche titles or games by smaller developers,

Absolutely, and I think most people agree that offering a 'free' sample is a good way to promote software and get people to possibly buy the FULL version. This is why MANY software companies have adopted that principle. But again, if they chose not to, don't try and justify piracy with poor excuses

so what stance you take is up to you really it's most certainly not 100% negative as some people here like to portray, i personally think there shouldnt be copy protection at all past the usual dvd protection and cd keys as it is a waste of time and money, the cost of which is being passed onto the consumer

Again I don't think that most people would disagree here. Many copy protection attempts only serve to increase the cost to genuine consumers, or to inconvenience them with installing/running the product.

But again, it is no justification for piracy

And i wish people would stop posting examples where you take something from a shop, for the n'th time its NOT the same at all
It's like taping something off the tv instead of buying the dvd, or copying a rental

Again, no one is saying this

If you are referring to my examples, I suggest you re-read them.

My example is a good analogy of how taking something from a shop can result in the same 'justifications' (for theft) as people use for software piracy.

It is possible to take something from a shop and say 'don't worry I would never have bought it' and also ensure that the shop doesn't 'lose out' (provided that you leave sufficient 'payment' to cover the costs of making a new item)

My point is simple. If you want something for nothing, then just be man enough to admit that that is why you downloaded it. Don't try and make excuses and try to justify your piracy. There is no justification as the exact same 'reasons' can easily be applied to any theft of a tangible item. It still doesn't make it right, so why bother trying to justify it!!

That is all

 

[divine`]

I Don't pirate Games, Videos. Films not nothing

Perhaps this is why you are poor malc? You pay the massively inflated hyper prices on all your entertainment media!

 

[div0]

Perhaps this is why you are poor malc? You pay the massively inflated hyper prices on all your entertainment media!

Poor financially, but rich in morals!

 

[4T5]

Perhaps this is why you are poor malc? You pay the massively inflated hyper prices on all your entertainment media!

Yep it's all games manufacturers fault that i am in this mess
I think i get my moneys worth though, I must have well over 2500 if not 3000hours logged on BF2 spread between 2 accounts. Not bad for a little over 30 quid
I don't buy DVD's though & am quite happy to wait the 6 months or so it takes for them to be on telly for nowt.

Poor financially, but rich in morals!

Thank you Sir.