Is piracy dying?

[spoffle]

I will pirate Garden Warfare 2 Deluxe Edition but I will say very nice things about the game on Facebook, gaming sites and forums for about 2-3 hours. What's better for EA, I pirate the game and create the little ad campaign or I don't touch it?

What are you even talking about?

If you think piracy is wrong, so is choosing your own prices for the products you purchase, it's as simple as that.

Where did I say piracy was wrong? Choosing your own prices based on prices that are available isn't even close to being the same thing as piracy. What obligation do I have to purchase from the UK based Origin store, when EA themselves have set up another website with different prices that I can use?

You're effectively advocating the notion that we should all buy from the highest priced place to ensure the developers make the most profit, and that if we don't then it's akin to piracy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[spoffle]

Can you simply just go to another store, or do you have to circumvent a region lock to do so (by making an account where you claim to be in another country/using a VPN/alternating your DNS settings/whatever)?

You'd have to use something that gives you a Mexican IP address, but that isn't particularly relevant considering the general view on region locks in general.

It can't be a case that region locks are bad EXCEPT FOR THIS INSTANCE!.

That aside, you use your regular Origin account to login to the Mexican site, buy and activate the game.

 

[spoffle]

So you're circumventing what they're intending, I'd argue. You can use their Mexican site, but they don't mean for you to use it. Why's it okay to go against their wishes?

Because of capitalism. That's how EA operate, except for this? If they actually wanted to do something about it, they'd region lock accounts.

But as I said, what's better for EA? I don't buy it at all, or I buy it for $45 from Origin Mexico?

 

[Zethor]

What are you even talking about?

Keep trying, you'll get there.

Where did I say piracy was wrong? Choosing your own prices based on prices that are available isn't even close to being the same thing as piracy. What obligation do I have to purchase from the UK based Origin store, when EA themselves have set up another website with different prices that I can use?

You're effectively advocating the notion that we should all buy from the highest priced place to ensure the developers make the most profit, and that if we don't then it's akin to piracy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

As I said, if piracy isn't wrong, using keys sites or pretending to be a Mexican isn't wrong either. I just find it inconsistent to consider piracy wrong while having no issues with buying keys.

 

[spoffle]

That itself would have issues... like when people move country. The fact you have to circumvent a region lock shows you're going against what they intend. The fact they don't have a double region lock doesn't change that.



Why are you making their choice for them? Doesn't the fact you have to circumvent region locking show they don't want that..? An author might be completely unaffected financially if someone distributes their novel to scores of people who genuinely wouldn't have read it otherwise... but doesn't their opinion matter? What if they only want people who've paid to have a copy?

Because it's an option I have in a free market to go to their other site and purchase it from there.

As for your author example, I simply couldn't care less if they only wanted people who've paid for a copy to read it, as it's not a reasonable request.

As you're essentially saying it's okay for them to have an issue with a friend borrowing a copy of their book from me. They have no right to state who can read my copy of a book they wrote.

You seem reluctant to answer my question about what's better for EA. I buy from the Mexican Origin store, or I don't buy it at all.

 

[FoxEye]

You seem reluctant to answer my question about what's better for EA. I buy from the Mexican Origin store, or I don't buy it at all.

Those aren't the only options.

If you would but wait a little while, the price in this country would come down.

You seem to think that you are entitled to get it on release, but paying only what it would cost some time later (or in a sale). Because that's what Mexican prices represent. A 50% off sale.

 

[spoffle]

Keep trying, you'll get there.



As I said, if piracy isn't wrong, using keys sites or pretending to be a Mexican isn't wrong either. I just find it inconsistent to consider piracy wrong while having no issues with buying keys.

Where did I say piracy is wrong, and why are you placing so much importance on what private companies say about how you can buy their products?

Where exactly do you draw the line there? As you seem to think their say is so important that buying CD keys for games is akin to piracy. That's an extremely pro corporation, anti consumer stance.

 

[FoxEye]

Where exactly do you draw the line there? As you seem to think their say is so important that buying CD keys for games is akin to piracy. That's an extremely pro corporation, anti consumer stance.

You mean pro the people who are making the product? Perish the thought.

Much better to champion the "rights" of people who just want to consume it without paying the asking price.

 

[spoffle]

Those aren't the only options.

If you would but wait a little while, the price in this country would come down.

You seem to think that you are entitled to get it on release, but paying only what it would cost some time later (or in a sale). Because that's what Mexican prices represent. A 50% off sale.

Where did I say I was entitled to it? Entitlement doesn't come into it at all.

It's simply a choice, and in a practical sense there's no difference to them if I buy it sooner from their Mexican site, than later at the UK site for the same price.

So why make any fuss? The point is that either way, I'm not paying £55.

 

[spoffle]

You mean pro the people who are making the product? Perish the thought.

Much better to champion the "rights" of people who just want to consume it without paying the asking price.

The asking price has been paid...

It doesn't matter that they make the product, else you'll be advocating the restriction of second hand games next.

 

[FoxEye]

It doesn't matter that they make the product, else you'll be advocating the restriction of second hand games next.

The funny thing is you don't realise how good this would be for everyone.

Steam doesn't allow 2nd hand game sales. Tell me, have Steam sales been good for consumers or bad?

I previously supported the 2nd hand games market but I no longer do. The main people making money are the games shops like CEX or whoever. And there is no evidence to suggest that people are buying more games thanks to being able to sell their old ones.

I now strongly believe that 2nd hand sales are bad for everyone.

 

[Zethor]

Where did I say piracy is wrong, and why are you placing so much importance on what private companies say about how you can buy their products?

Where exactly do you draw the line there? As you seem to think their say is so important that buying CD keys for games is akin to piracy. That's an extremely pro corporation, anti consumer stance.

Note that I didn't say piracy was wrong either, my stance is that piracy and buying keys are similar. As for your stance, while it is pro rich consumer (the Westerner) it is actually anti poor consumer (Mexicans, Russians etc.) because of the higher demand for keys in certain developing regions of the world. Every time you purchase an Origin Mexico key or G2A buy a huge bulk of retail copies to sell online, the local prices are pushed higher due to the laws of supply and demand.

 

[spoffle]

Obviously you can do it. I'm asking you to accept you're going against the rights holder's wishes by doing so.

I never said I wasn't, I've said that it doesn't matter. Some rights holders are against lending, or multiple consuming the content of a single copy.

Why's it unreasonable? And it's not necessarily just wanting one person to read it, but not wanting there to be multiple copies made and distributed.



We're talking about digital media, no? So them being against you making another copy and giving it to a friend doesn't seem unreasonable...

So I hand them my Kindle and they read it on that. It's the same thing. The rights holders' wishes don't matter.

I didn't realise the Asperger's meant I had to answer such a stupid question for you to be happy. It's axiomatic, no? Of course they're better off if you simplistically look at if they're better off taking £x instead of nothing. However, there is the question of how you measure the impact - if more people become aware of it and start ditching the UK store for the Mexican one, or they have to close down the Mexican one to stop people they don't intend getting access (to the detriment of their Mexican customers), or if a UK resident would in fact have been willing to pay £40 but instead gets it as a fraction of the cost by circumventing EA's region lock, etc.

Again, free markets. It really doesn't matter. If I go to Mexico and buy all the games I want, what's the issue there?

 

[Rofflay]

Metal Gear Solid 4 on Steam was £44.99 i believe and needed a mod to even support framerates with V-sync past 120fps. I reckon that game must be high up on the piracy list along with Witcher III too.

Hard to justify. Fallout 4 will be the next big one.

 

[spoffle]

Cool, so you accept you're going against what they want.

Yes, and I never said anything otherwise.

Then it becomes analogous to a physical book, where throughout history they have been shared... but one copy can be used at once. Do authors complain about that? That's different to eg. photocopying a book and handing out copies, or getting a PDF, printing copies, and handing them out.

It was your example...

It's going against their wishes. Why should you circumvent them? If you don't like it, you don't need a copy of Battlefront to play in your basement whilst eating Twinkies, so why not just abstain?

Because it's an option? I literally have that option, piracy is also an option, literally.

 

[FoxEye]

Metal Gear Solid 4 on Steam was £44.99 i believe and needed a mod to even support framerates with V-sync past 120fps. I reckon that game must be high up on the piracy list along with Witcher III too.

Hard to justify. Fallout 4 will be the next big one.

Yes, and I won't be buying at those prices. But given time, the prices will fall, as they try to maximise their income. It's just a waiting game.

Or you could pirate, or buy a key. The choice is yours, and I'm also not going to condemn piracy. It's just that piracy, G2A or bypassing region locks are all different means of paying less than the asking price.

 

[thebennyboy]

Not pirated a single piece of music since signing up to Google Play Music. £7.99 for all you can eat music, and soon to be Youtube Red included.

 

[Illusion]

Your ISP will still be logging all your traffic, and companies can ask your ISP to hand over all logs of traffic to sift through it all for illegal activity. Just because you're streaming and not 'downloading' doesn't mean you're safe.

This is absolute rubbish. No ISPs don't log everything you do and no they can't just hand over these none existant logs for people to sift through.

Piracy is still very much alive. Private torrent trackers are as busy as ever and news groups too if the replies in here are anything to go by. Music and video streaming services have filled some of the void and pirating games seems way less common these days (only because it's harder though I imagine).

It won't really ever go away. I think some people like to claim they do it as it's an easier method of delivery which I agree with to an extent, but at the same time I'm sure there are millions who would still take the free option even if you could pay a trivial amount to stream the latest films in HD

 

[spoffle]

Yes... it's not as though you twisted it around as a slam-dunk against me .

You mean that it just wasn't a good example that backfired on you?

 

[spoffle]

No, because it's evident from the above I meant they don't want there to be multiple copies distributed, like when they sell one copy of a physical book there's one copy floating around. It isn't locked to one person's eyes. So when compared to ebooks the comparison would be wanting there to be one copy, not someone buying access to a copy then copying it themselves/letting numerous others have a copy, so instead of there being one copy for £x there are now as many copies as people who downloaded it or whatever. It's quite simple.

You literally said;

What if they only want people who've paid to have a copy?

So it's irrelevant whether it's digital or not, that's what you said.