Computer piracy debates

[Andara Bledin]

Regarding Fallout: New Vegas, Obsidian, and Metacritic, apparently Obsidian's contract with Bethesda stated that Obsidian would not get any royalties for sales unless the Metacritic score was at least 85, which it missed by 1 point. The did, however, receive a flat fee for development of the game.

Obsidian is actually hurting quite a bit right now, and following the cancellation of a project that was to be published by Microsoft, they had to lay off a number of staff.

Article at Joystiq

^-.-^

[SkullKing]

yeah, that news made a bit of a stir in the gamedev community.

I really liked their work, and honestly wanted to support them with my purchase.

[Nekojin]

That sucks. New Vegas is a superior game to Fallout 3. Granted, already having an engine to work from helped a great deal, but Obsidian did so much to improve the engine and make it feel more like the original Wasteland and Fallout games.

[Gravekeeper]

While I do agree with Gabe Newall on the general topic of piracy, I find most the arguments for it ridiculous. If you replaced "game" with any other product in all of your examples we'd all rightfully be calling you a criminal. Yet somehow its okay because you can't read a review or think its overpriced?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Nevermind that utterly ridiculous self defeating argument that its okay to pirate because it wasn't worth the price tag. That's supply and demand, and whether you think the Big Companies(tm) are justified or not, the price goes up the more sales they lose to pirating. Its a self defeating argument.

As stupid as the "You wouldn't download a car" ads were, they did have a point, even if the execution was pretty idiotic.

[Jaden]

While I do agree with Gabe Newall on the general topic of piracy, I find most the arguments for it ridiculous. If you replaced "game" with any other product in all of your examples we'd all rightfully be calling you a criminal. Yet somehow its okay because you can't read a review or think its overpriced?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Nevermind that utterly ridiculous self defeating argument that its okay to pirate because it wasn't worth the price tag. That's supply and demand, and whether you think the Big Companies(tm) are justified or not, the price goes up the more sales they lose to pirating. Its a self defeating argument.

As stupid as the "You wouldn't download a car" ads were, they did have a point, even if the execution was pretty idiotic.

This, this, a thousand times this. The way I see it is - would you walk into a store and shove a game, or a movie, or handful of CDs or whatever, into your backpack and walk out without paying for it? Because I really don't see a difference.

[Andara Bledin]

If you replaced "game" with any other product in all of your examples we'd all rightfully be calling you a criminal.

If you're not talking about virtual media, then you're trying to call an apple an orange.

Trying to compare the damage caused by casual piracy to that caused by theft is what I find ridiculous, and it does more to hurt the cause of those who produce non-physical goods more than it helps.

Yet somehow its okay because you can't read a review or think its overpriced?

There are a lot of times where a review does absolutely no good to tell a person whether a game would be to their tastes.

However, for issues such as game length, basic type, etc, reviews are more than sufficient.

I completely agree with the price argument. If it's too expensive for what it is, then suck it up and move on.

As stupid as the "You wouldn't download a car" ads were, they did have a point, even if the execution was pretty idiotic.

No; they're still trying to compare copyright infringement to theft. They aren't the same things and people should stop trying to compare them.

At the very least, one is a criminal act and the other is primarily civil. Try calling the cops because someone downloaded a popular game and they'll tell you to get lost.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

More apt comparisons are other forms of copyright infringement. Would you photocopy a college textbook to avoid paying the sometimes ridiculous prices that the textbook makers charge? Many college students do, and while some people do make a fair amount of noise over it, there are typically no lawsuits over it except when there's someone mass-producing the copies.

How about to music? Everyone my age has done mix tapes, and I grew up before CD-Rs were commonplace. Even today, sharing music is everywhere, and there's even a nationally-broadcast cell phone ad where the two protagonists trade playlists. Are we to assume that they auto-purchased all of the music from the other's playlist? Of course not.

Infringement, yes. Theft... no, it's not.

[protege]

The biggest problem is that the media companies do not want to clearly nail down whether you've bought a physical item or a license, because they benefit from being able to play both ends against the middle. They can act like it's a physical item when it suits them (getting you to buy the newest edition when your old media wears out), and they can act like it's a license when it's in their best interests.

That's exactly the problem. Those companies want it both ways, and when they can pick-and-choose how and when it suits their needs. To them, any customers are simply "renting" the property. That's one reason it pissed me off when I was scrapping my computer, buying a new one, and throwing the old Windows XP on it. Micro$haft tried to tell me that I....and countless other folks...couldn't do that without voiding the license. I'd have to spend several hundred bucks on a new copy. Pardon my French, but fuck that. Why the hell should I have to go out and purchase *another* copy of something I already own? Good thing that one of my neighbors was a tech...who told me how to legally deactivate the license and move it. Oh, and of course Micro$haft didn't mention that bit. Can't understand why

Then there are some strange licensing issues, usually involving hobby items. I can understand, say, GM wanting to protect their trademarks and the Chevy bowtie emblem. I have no problem with that. They *should* protect their logos and trademarks. But, to claim a trademark on a Corvette body style from nearly 50 years ago? Never mind that the Revell '67 Corvette kit I'm holding right now was previously issued in the 80s...and that box doesn't contain any of those items. No, I have a feeling that some overzealous lawyer saw dollar signs when Revell wanted to reissue the kit...and told his client (GM) to protect itself. There's no reason for that, other than some more money squeezed out.

[Gravekeeper]

Trying to compare the damage caused by casual piracy to that caused by theft is what I find ridiculous, and it does more to hurt the cause of those who produce non-physical goods more than it helps.

The ads were stupid, but like I said they have a point. There's an attitude around piracy of blaming the creator or distributor or the market itself for the crime rather than the person committing it. The arguments tend to get framed like its their fault you're committing a crime. You're not stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family here.

The damage may not be great to large mega publishers, but it can take down a mid sized or smaller publisher or developer with relative, even alarming ease. Then you're left with the mega publishers everyone says is evil incarnate to begin with. Who will keep raising prices in response to lose of sales until people stop buying and/or they just stop making games because there's no longer any profit.

Its ultimately self defeating and the cavalier around piracy is really aggravating as a result.

There are a lot of times where a review does absolutely no good to tell a person whether a game would be to their tastes.

Then they should read a few more reviews. I really don't understand this one. "I don't know if I'll like the product so I'll steal it first to make sure" is a pretty ridiculous statement on its face. Seeing as every possible product ever forged by the hands of man is reviewed 8 ways from Sunday by the Internet.

Would you photocopy a college textbook to avoid paying the sometimes ridiculous prices that the textbook makers charge?

How about to music? Everyone my age has done mix tapes, and I grew up before CD-Rs were commonplace.

Can a college student get the photocopies to 100,000 other people? Did you have the ability to upload your mix tape to 100,000 more people? Who then passed it on to another 100,000, and other and another across the entire world?

The distribution scale is completely different and because its been so abused, the backlash has gone the other way against all distribution. Regardless of scale. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

I had a huge post all typed up and then realized: The post I'm responding to is exactly the type of commentary about with the OP is lamenting.

It ignores the fact that most of the forms of copyright infringement mentioned actually lead to greater sales, not less, and lumps almost all forms of piracy into the same pile.

^-.-^

[fireheart17]

My opinions on the OP as follow:

Some people will just not pay anything, for anything. Those are the sort of people who, for example, pirate the Humble Indie Bundle. I think this is wrong

I agree. Seriously, you can pay at least $1 for the Humble Indie Bundle. If that's too much for you, then you need to assess your priorities.

Some people pirate a game to basically get a demo - They'll pay for it if they think it's worth it. If they don't think it's worth it, they'll just stop. I am ok with this as long as you are being sincere and not finding some flaw just so you can justify to yourself not paying, and the game does not have a legal demo.

Some games I will watch a playthrough of or download an actual demo off the net if I can.

Some people pirate games because they CAN'T get them legally. I am ok with this, and actually think it is a good thing. (e.g.:"Bully" was censored here, and I consider pirating it an acceptable act of civil disobedience. I consider this kind of censorship wrong and think it is right to fight against it)

I have only ever gotten hold of Nancy Drew games because the release date is delayed here in Australia for GOD knows what reason. Especially because there is nothing wrong with the games and no censorship present.

Some people will pirate a game that they think is worth SOME money, but not as much as the people are asking for it.

This is why I tend to get all of my games second-hand where possible. The only game I have bought "new" has been Pokemon White. Everything else has been purchased secondhand. The games still work fine.

More apt comparisons are other forms of copyright infringement. Would you photocopy a college textbook to avoid paying the sometimes ridiculous prices that the textbook makers charge? Many college students do, and while some people do make a fair amount of noise over it, there are typically no lawsuits over it except when there's someone mass-producing the copies.

This is actually a foreign concept to me admittedly. Mostly for 2 reasons:

1) the textbooks are generally available at my university library.
2) most lecturers will also provide what is known as a reader, which consists of a number of handouts bound together.

[lordlundar]

I agree. Seriously, you can pay at least $1 for the Humble Indie Bundle. If that's too much for you, then you need to assess your priorities.

That's actually worse. There are some processing fees with credit cards and the like where paying a dollar means it's actually costing them to put it out. You're better off pirating it then because at least the processing fees aren't happening. That said, you're still better off paying more for the legal copy.

[Gravekeeper]

It ignores the fact that most of the forms of copyright infringement mentioned actually lead to greater sales, not less, and lumps almost all forms of piracy into the same pile.

I'm sure Android developers dealing with 80% piracy rates will be glad to hear your financial projections for them. =p

[s_stabeler]

I had a huge post all typed up and then realized: The post I'm responding to is exactly the type of commentary about with the OP is lamenting.

It ignores the fact that most of the forms of copyright infringement mentioned actually lead to greater sales, not less, and lumps almost all forms of piracy into the same pile.

^-.-^

I'm actually suspicious about that statistic that says that pirates buy more games; I've never seen the methodology they used, so it could easily be just asking, in which case the pirates might well be lying.

about piracy, and I'm using music piracy here, since I know more about it: those that say "the big companies can take the hit"- they probably can. but what about the artist? sure, someone like Lady Gaga probably barely notices. There aren't many music superstars at any one time, you will notice, especially when you realize there are something like 1000 a year in the UK alone who start trying to make it. Those 1000 probably get very little, if anything, per year. So yes, when you sell millions of copies, piracy probably doesn't hurt you too much. when you're lucky to sell 100, then it gets much worse. ( I've actually seen a small band giving away the music on CD. they were probably only out the cost of the blank disks)

[Duelist925]

I'm actually suspicious about that statistic that says that pirates buy more games; I've never seen the methodology they used, so it could easily be just asking, in which case the pirates might well be lying.

about piracy, and I'm using music piracy here, since I know more about it: those that say "the big companies can take the hit"- they probably can. but what about the artist? sure, someone like Lady Gaga probably barely notices. There aren't many music superstars at any one time, you will notice, especially when you realize there are something like 1000 a year in the UK alone who start trying to make it. Those 1000 probably get very little, if anything, per year. So yes, when you sell millions of copies, piracy probably doesn't hurt you too much. when you're lucky to sell 100, then it gets much worse. ( I've actually seen a small band giving away the music on CD. they were probably only out the cost of the blank disks)

For the most part, I agree with this, but on just about every torrent site I've been too when I've been looking for hard to find music or what have you, the "big ones" are the ones most pirated--not saying smaller bands don't get pirated, but there is the fact that a band just starting out is, well, just not going to have enough people INTERESTED in their music yet for piracy to be a huge issue. They're probably making more money from the stage shows than album sales at that point.