How much do you think piracy is affecting the PC Gaming market?

[PrincessFrosty]

I don't really agree.

I've said before I think the new technology that makes every creative product vulnerable to nearly infinite free copying is a great threat to the creation of these products.

People still buy a lot, so the impact is not as high as if more were copied, so far.

I think efforts can mitigate the problem and it's important they do - and that those who try are not guaranteed to do badly because they do.

You're right, it's a great threat to the creation of these products as they exist right now, the same way that say cameras were a great threat to painters who painted likenesses of people before cameras existed, technology always pushes someone out of a job and creates new jobs.

People still buy because a fundamental reason for buying will always exist, while people like getting things for free they will generally still pay for things they like, especially if they have some kind of invested interested in that hobby. Many studies have showed that the people who pirate music for example actually spend way above average amounts of money on music, it's just a fact that has been demonstrated over and over.

Effects to mitigate the problem generally fail, anti-piracy fails, and not only do they demonstrably fail but they tend to cause harm in other ways, it lowers the quality of the product in many ways which consumers find important and so that limited mitigation often comes at some cost, I'd argue that cost is greater than it's benefit.

 

[sirspotti]

I doubt it is anywhere near that amount. I don't know a single person that pirates video games anymore. Steam has all but killed the PC video game pirates with it's sales. It is simply easier to wait and buy they game then to try to find a working pirate copy that is not infected.

This is the obvious answer. Games have become so affordable now that it's not worth the effort to pirate. Same as with music. Now that Spotify exists and Amazon sells albums ~ $5 it isn't worth the time or risk.

The bigger problem is a lack of quality titles with replay value. Ni No Kuni or Skyrim are well worth the $60 or whatever. Games like Tomb Raider or Hitman:Absolution can be rented through Redbox and played through for a measely $6 over a couple days. Maybe we should blame Redbox for any sales decrease.

 

[Red Storm]

This is the obvious answer. Games have become so affordable now that it's not worth the effort to pirate. Same as with music. Now that Spotify exists and Amazon sells albums ~ $5 it isn't worth the time or risk.

The bigger problem is a lack of quality titles with replay value. Ni No Kuni or Skyrim are well worth the $60 or whatever. Games like Tomb Raider or Hitman:Absolution can be rented through Redbox and played through for a measely $6 over a couple days. Maybe we should blame Redbox for any sales decrease.

Redbox is for console games only though right?

I think Steam has played a big part in combating piracy. People have a backlog of games to play from all the sales. Games are so much more affordable on PC compared to consoles.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This entire argument about hoping for "the people" to pay artists, who have never created ANYTHING worth mentioning, to make some art they may or may not end up liking is also stupid. The kickstarter bandwagon will die soon enough. Once one of these bigger ones fail, people will think twice. I still don't have my Pebble Smart Watch, and that made how much again?

This model is called patronage. And for the majority of history it is the method that nearly all art was made under. Kickstarter and it's ilk is just a new version of that same system, but now it can reach a whole lot more people.

I've said before I think the new technology that makes every creative product vulnerable to nearly infinite free copying is a great threat to the creation of these products.

Personally, I think it is only the middlemen that are threatened by the ability to copy. Artists will create because that is what artists do. I lived with two artists who created every day because that is what they loved. One a sculptor one a painter. Neither ever sold enough to pay for their materials, but they kept at it, perfecting their art. Not for money, or praise, but because they loved the art. They displayed their art in local galleries and often gave it away for free when they ran out of room to store it, or just because they decided someone should have it.

Neither of them would be upset if you copied their work, they would be happy that someone loved it that much.

So, you can argue that art will disappear if people can easily copy it, but I know better because I know artists.

 

[BoberFett]

We need to look past laws sometimes. Stealing is stealing no matter what part of the world you live in, no matter what your government and it's legislature say or don't say about it.

I say again, you're an imbecile. Unable to look at the world as anything other than black and white. You're small minded.

 

[dagamer34]

This is the obvious answer. Games have become so affordable now that it's not worth the effort to pirate. Same as with music. Now that Spotify exists and Amazon sells albums ~ $5 it isn't worth the time or risk.

The bigger problem is a lack of quality titles with replay value. Ni No Kuni or Skyrim are well worth the $60 or whatever. Games like Tomb Raider or Hitman:Absolution can be rented through Redbox and played through for a measely $6 over a couple days. Maybe we should blame Redbox for any sales decrease.

I would understand the point of "games being affordable if you wait long enough" and Steam sales are great, but then there are those people that refuse to pay $60 for game because they feel it's too expensive, but then feel entitled to play the game now and pirate (and that's why we get all of these silly DRM schemes)

 

[Midwayman]

The bigger problem is a lack of quality titles with replay value. Ni No Kuni or Skyrim are well worth the $60 or whatever. Games like Tomb Raider or Hitman:Absolution can be rented through Redbox and played through for a measely $6 over a couple days. Maybe we should blame Redbox for any sales decrease.

Well this really comes back to how easy is it to get the content with minimal payment. If it made sense to rent skyrim people would be doing to too. You just can't really finish the game in a normal rental period. I'm not trying to equate renting with piracy, but the same basic financial motives and decision making process applies. People are always going to gravitate towards getting what they want for the lowest possible cost.

Can a shorter game be worth the same price? I think so. After all you don't really see people choosing movies and music based on running time, but on the quality of the experience. Even a shorter game isn't a horrible media value if you're into the time issue. Going to a movie is about $10 here. Maybe 2hrs- $5 an hour. A CD might be $10 and be and hour. $5 an hour as well. A Shorter game might be 12hrs, $60. Again $5 an hour. Yah prices and times vary, but you see they're within the same realm at least.

 

[Midwayman]

I would understand the point of "games being affordable if you wait long enough" and Steam sales are great, but then there are those people that refuse to pay $60 for game because they feel it's too expensive, but then feel entitled to play the game now and pirate (and that's why we get all of these silly DRM schemes)

Yah most of those people won't ever buy unless you force them, and they're just rationalizing their choice.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I would wager that a lot of piracy is done by those who would not have bought the game in the first place. When something is free, you are much more likely to take it, so the numbers of 1 game pirated = 1 lost sale is completely false.

"People" (who may or may not included myself) pirate games they are just curious about. If the game turns out to impress them they'll snag it and support the developers.

 

[smackababy]

This model is called patronage. And for the majority of history it is the method that nearly all art was made under. Kickstarter and it's ilk is just a new version of that same system, but now it can reach a whole lot more people.

The problem with this model for software development is the process takes lots of time. 12 months to develop a game with entire teams working behind it. That is a lot of people just sitting around waiting to get paid. For the most part, art can't be sold until it is completed. This is not the direction the gaming industry should go. People don't want underfunded, underdeveloped, unpolished games from an entire indie scene. Believe it or not, a lot of people like polished AAA titles and a lot of people like CoD no matter what the naysayers would have you think.

Personally, I think it is only the middlemen that are threatened by the ability to copy. Artists will create because that is what artists do. I lived with two artists who created every day because that is what they loved. One a sculptor one a painter. Neither ever sold enough to pay for their materials, but they kept at it, perfecting their art. Not for money, or praise, but because they loved the art. They displayed their art in local galleries and often gave it away for free when they ran out of room to store it, or just because they decided someone should have it.

Neither of them would be upset if you copied their work, they would be happy that someone loved it that much.

So, you can argue that art will disappear if people can easily copy it, but I know better because I know artists.

These people you lived with were hobbyists. Sure, they were artists, but they did not earn a living with their art. I understand wanting to get your art out there, but I also understand that once you start getting paid for what you're producing giving it away is no longer viable. I know that once upon a time Metallica was begging people to listen to their music. Once they started making enough money to quit their day jobs and be full time musicians, they couldn't really afford to go back to giving away free music.

 

[Childs]

I say again, you're an imbecile. Unable to look at the world as anything other than black and white. You're small minded.

lol thats both f'd up and true based on his post. I was going to saying something when he first posted, but I was being an ahole to someone else in another thread. Kinda strange how many people think they are omnipotent. Not that I think he actually think he's omnipotent, but his phrasing implied it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The problem with this model for software development is the process takes lots of time.

You think that the Fountains of the Four Rivers was a weekend project? Large scale art projects were made under the patronage system, look at practically any piece of art created before the 1920's and you are looking at the success of patronage.

This is not the direction the gaming industry should go. People don't want underfunded, underdeveloped, unpolished games from an entire indie scene. Believe it or not, a lot of people like polished AAA titles and a lot of people like CoD no matter what the naysayers would have you think.

We see games like Wasteland 2 and Star Citizen being created under it now. I think those games will be able to challenge any AAA title.

I don't think the industry has a choice. The technology to be able to copy games is not going away, and is in fact going to get easier and easier to use. The public are going to get better and better at using their technology. No amount of legislation is going to change the technology, no amount of moralization is going to change the people.

These people you lived with were hobbyists. Sure, they were artists, but they did not earn a living with their art.

Neither of them were hobbyists. Both of them are professional artists. They just are not profitable artists.

Once they started making enough money to quit their day jobs and be full time musicians, they couldn't really afford to go back to giving away free music.

Of course they could. That is the mistake I'm pointing out. Metallica is one of the easiest bands to find pirated stuff of due to their public denouncement of piracy (the Streisand Effect). Anyone with a lick of computer know how can find pirated copies of their music. Yet they are not financially ruined.

In fact, can you name ANY band that has failed because too many people pirated their music?
Because I know of a number of them that has made it big because they allowed their music to be copied. Jonathan Coulton comes to mind.

The sky is not falling.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I had something to say, but I can't stop laughing at the term "polished AAA titles"

 

[Dumac]

Many studies? Given the rate of piracy in the PC market even a low conversion rate would substantially change the amount of units sold. Crysis 2 had something like a 10:1 ratio. Even if only 5% of the pirates bought it, that would have been 50% more sales. Granted thats an extreme case, but with piracy rates even small changes do matter. Margins are thin on most games.

Study finds pirates buy more music

Another article showing file sharing and music buying go hand-in-hand

Another study

This one about box office sales

Those are the ones I've found with 1 minute searching in google, but I know I've seen better around (maybe even here on ATOT)

I'm sorry, but the moment I read somebody either defending piracy (in any way) or declaring that their 'studies' suggest it's not a big factor regarding sales, I immidiately conclude that this person does alot of pirating themselves.

God, this is what sucks about trying to discuss this project. People like you jump to the conclusion that if you defend piracy (not that I did. I never said that it was morally right, just that it != lost sales) or are anti-DRM then you must be a no-good pirate!

Go screw yourself. I have 261 steam games, a nice gaming PC, and every console and handheld (excluding vita) with tons of games for those as well.

And no, you aren't sorry.

 

[Dumac]

We need to look past laws sometimes. Stealing is stealing no matter what part of the world you live in, no matter what your government and it's legislature say or don't say about it. It is my experience, that there are plenty of things that are wrong, and not good to do, that the government hasn't specifically said I cannot do. The onus is now on me, as an individual to make the decision on what to do about it.

If you fix that key issue, the individual, EVERYTHING else will fall right in line. Of course, numerous wars, genocides, and the every day wrong things that we do as humans tells us that this is something that really can't be fixed here on this Earth.

What the heck are you babbling about?

IP ownership isn't an inherit morality, so the law dictates whats right and wrong here. You may as well say "We need to look past laws sometimes. Driving on the left side of the road is wrong no matter what part of the world you live in, no matter what your government and it's legislature say or don't say about it".

Also, piracy isn't theft.

 

[AVP]

The problem is that 95% of single player games are boring as hell. I have over $600 from 2011-2012 games and maybe 1-2 was worth it.

I am so much happier playing and investing in F2P games like DOTA 2 / GA / Tribes than spending $50 if I don't know if I will like it.

I am not sure if I am going to ever put up another $50 on something i haven't played for a couple of weeks.

 

[Craig234]

What the heck are you babbling about?

IP ownership isn't an inherit morality, so the law dictates whats right and wrong here. You may as well say "We need to look past laws sometimes. Driving on the left side of the road is wrong no matter what part of the world you live in, no matter what your government and it's legislature say or don't say about it".

Also, piracy isn't theft.

IP ownership involves moral issues. Is there a 'moral issue' in content getting created, in having a system that gets more created? In people getting compensated?

However, the law does not necessarily reflect 'moralty'. Two separate discussions.

Piracy is theft.

Now, it might be less defensible theft - pirating a movie to avoid paying - or more defensible - let's make the point with an analogy to a hungry person stealing bread to eat, with the cases of things like 'it's not legally available, so I pirated it as the only way to get a copy'. But it's theft.

Because there are mitigating issues, balanced interests, our laws have had a balance with some protection for owners, and eventual release to the public domain.

And that may get out of whack, thanks Disney. But it's not 'not theft' at all.

 

[Craig234]

The problem is that 95% of single player games are boring as hell. I have over $600 from 2011-2012 games and maybe 1-2 was worth it.

I am so much happier playing and investing in F2P games like DOTA 2 / GA / Tribes than spending $50 if I don't know if I will like it.

I am not sure if I am going to ever put up another $50 on something i haven't played for a couple of weeks.

Fair point.

But that's only part of the issue, and it's made less compelling by there being demos.

 

[smackababy]

You think that the Fountains of the Four Rivers was a weekend project? Large scale art projects were made under the patronage system, look at practically any piece of art created before the 1920's and you are looking at the success of patronage.

Yes, and that is what people want to go away. These indie developers aren't being paid by some entity, be it a church or an individual, to make a game. They are making it then attempting to sell it. Development studios have taken this role. Have a family? Good luck providing while you're waiting on those checks from KickStarter for months. [/quote]

We see games like Wasteland 2 and Star Citizen being created under it now. I think those games will be able to challenge any AAA title.

I don't think the industry has a choice. The technology to be able to copy games is not going away, and is in fact going to get easier and easier to use. The public are going to get better and better at using their technology. No amount of legislation is going to change the technology, no amount of moralization is going to change the people.

I agree the entire industry needs to adapt. However, throwing away development studios and publishers aren't the way to adapt. They provide a great service to developers who don't want to be "starving artists" in hopes they will make it big.

Neither of them were hobbyists. Both of them are professional artists. They just are not profitable artists.

If this was not their primary means of sustainability, they were not professionals.

Of course they could. That is the mistake I'm pointing out. Metallica is one of the easiest bands to find pirated stuff of due to their public denouncement of piracy (the Streisand Effect). Anyone with a lick of computer know how can find pirated copies of their music. Yet they are not financially ruined.

In fact, can you name ANY band that has failed because too many people pirated their music?
Because I know of a number of them that has made it big because they allowed their music to be copied. Jonathan Coulton comes to mind.

The sky is not falling.

Jonathan Coulton had a real job while he made music. He was a software developer and made music in his spare time. He funded himself with another job. This isn't something most artists can do. Luckily, software developers can do this and moonlight as mostly anything else because they make decent money. It is extremely hard to name bands that failed, because they are never heard of. The Metallica example works well because they already had made most of their money. Sadly, artists who are just starting and fall into this problem won't get what they are deserved. The sky isn't falling, but the big bad evil corporations don't need to be exterminated either.

 

[BoberFett]

Piracy is theft.

BZZZZZT!!! Try again. Piracy is copyright violation.

Now, it might be less defensible theft - pirating a movie to avoid paying - or more defensible - let's make the point with an analogy to a hungry person stealing bread to eat, with the cases of things like 'it's not legally available, so I pirated it as the only way to get a copy'. But it's theft.

BZZZZT!!! Wrong again.

Because there are mitigating issues, balanced interests, our laws have had a balance with some protection for owners, and eventual release to the public domain.

Right, eventual release to the public domain in 150 years. And that's assuming copyright doesn't get continually extended, which is laughable considering that it gets extended every time Steamboat Willie's time comes around.

And that may get out of whack, thanks Disney. But it's not 'not theft' at all.

Perpetual copyright is theft. If making a copy of Steamboat Willie today is theft, then preventing ideas from ever entering the public domain through manipulation of law is absolutely theft.

 

[vshah]

i know i'll personally never buy another game with always online drm. leave that to f2p games and i'm happy (currently enjoying path of exile). I pledged over $300 to Planetary Annihilation and Star Citizen specifically because they will be drm free.

 

[Dumac]

IP ownership involves moral issues. Is there a 'moral issue' in content getting created, in having a system that gets more created? In people getting compensated?

However, the law does not necessarily reflect 'moralty'. Two separate discussions. This isn't an issue of human morality, but just a facet of modern society

Piracy is theft.

Now, it might be less defensible theft - pirating a movie to avoid paying - or more defensible - let's make the point with an analogy to a hungry person stealing bread to eat, with the cases of things like 'it's not legally available, so I pirated it as the only way to get a copy'. But it's theft.

Because there are mitigating issues, balanced interests, our laws have had a balance with some protection for owners, and eventual release to the public domain.

And that may get out of whack, thanks Disney. But it's not 'not theft' at all.

No, it isn't a moral issue. Imagine if the first man to start a fire patented it, or someone had IP ownership of a sandwich.

And no, it isn't theft. Neither legally or morally.

From the MPAA CEO:

"We're on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery," source

From wiki:

Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft holding. For instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985), bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I'm pretty sure theft or not, it's still evil. You're profiting from someone else's labors, without their permissions - and in fact in direct opposition to their wishes, without compensating them, with complete knowledge that they are in fact dependent upon sales of those products for their livelihood. You are absolutely doing harm, and taking things to which you have no claim.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Don't even argue with them. When they use words like "morality and evil, and stealing food from the mouths of babes" you aren't going to have a normal conversation.

They've been brainwashed.

Once again, the conversation is just how much it really impacts. NOT whether it is right or wrong.

I think we can all agree that pirating has some impact somewhere. However, does 1 (so called..where is the proof of said numbers?) download mean 1 lost sale? It's ludicrous to assume it is. The question is to what extent pirating impacts overall. It will not be the same for every item, and it's been shown repeatedly the numbers are grossly overstated.

Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know (oh no..I just plagiarized..someone call the cops).

 

[Childs]

I'm pretty sure theft or not, it's still evil.

Evil? I can come up with a lot of things that fall in the evil category before copyright theft...