DShiznit wrote:
That would be a matter of opinion, which can differ depending on one's position.


No, it isn't.

Quote:
Also, developers lose sales when someone rents or buys their game used, is Blockbuster then wrong?


No they don't. Game rentals use a different model. They don't get to just buy a $60 retail copy and rent it to people.

Quote:
Developers lose sales when another developer's game overshadows there own, is that wrong?


Irrelevant. Buying game B doesn't entitle you to getting game A for free.
What is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, as not everyone has the same moral standards, and depending on your position, you may believe a given crime is justified. Robin Hood was a thief, but we're told his theft was justified because he was fighting tyranny, even though people who worked for the people he was robbing may disagree. Now I'm not gonna justify piracy or argue whether or not it's wrong(it can be, depending on your position), but I will argue that the way corporations fight piracy is in many cases wrong, and I do not believe it's really as big a threat as they've been saying for the past 20 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI
Don't Copy that Floppy Foo.

Seriously every game I play regularly that I pirated I now own and have purchased a legit copy of. I agree that many companies do over state the effect Piracy has but it is still a big issue. I do agree that authors of software deserve to be paid for their work so if I like the game I sure as hell will buy it even if I pirated it first.
I think that you should purchase the actual thing if it would be better financially/etc. than piracy.
But if money's tight and you really want that game, go ahead and pirate if you want to risk the consequences.
That's sort of what I do, but I wasn't going to argue that, because on it's own that doesn't make it right.
Reapex wrote:
I think that you should purchase the actual thing if it would be better financially/etc. than piracy.
But if money's tight and you really want that game, go ahead and pirate if you want to risk the consequences.


the day they bust down my door and arrest me for piracy is the day I quit doing it 'kay?

Piracy is Perpetual
DShiznit wrote:
What is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, as not everyone has the same moral standards, and depending on your position, you may believe a given crime is justified. Robin Hood was a thief, but we're told his theft was justified because he was fighting tyranny, even though people who worked for the people he was robbing may disagree. Now I'm not gonna justify piracy or argue whether or not it's wrong(it can be, depending on your position), but I will argue that the way corporations fight piracy is in many cases wrong, and I do not believe it's really as big a threat as they've been saying for the past 20 years.


No it isn't. Right and wrong is dictated by SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Individual opinions do not get to set right and wrong. Thus, by the rules of modern society piracy is wrong.

Robin Hood has no application here as piracy isn't fighting tyranny, its about getting stuff that costs money for free solely for personal gain.
Kllrnohj wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
What is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, as not everyone has the same moral standards, and depending on your position, you may believe a given crime is justified. Robin Hood was a thief, but we're told his theft was justified because he was fighting tyranny, even though people who worked for the people he was robbing may disagree. Now I'm not gonna justify piracy or argue whether or not it's wrong(it can be, depending on your position), but I will argue that the way corporations fight piracy is in many cases wrong, and I do not believe it's really as big a threat as they've been saying for the past 20 years.


No it isn't. Right and wrong is dictated by SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Individual opinions do not get to set right and wrong. Thus, by the rules of modern society piracy is wrong.

Robin Hood has no application here as piracy isn't fighting tyranny, its about getting stuff that costs money for free solely for personal gain.


Again, much(if not all) of that is opinion. There are many people in society who pirate, and many more who are sympathetic to piracy for various reasons; there is by no means anywhere near unanimity on this issue. Thus, it is up to individual opinion to decide whether piracy is right or wrong, and under what conditions it may be right or wrong. Back to my Robin Hood analogy: Robin Hood, his followers, and the poor he gives to, all believe the people he is stealing from are tyrannical, because these people have wealth that Robin Hood does not believe they deserve(an opinion). However, if you were to ask these wealthy people, or the many people they employ, they would have a far different opinion on Robin Hood's actions, as their position is opposite of his. You'll find many of the truths we hold dear depend greatly on our own point of view. Many pirates, and some sympathetic to pirates, believe that the companies they are stealing from do not deserve all the profits they gain, and feel that they(and the people they are sharing with) are more deserving of a product than said company is of their money. There are also many(including me) who, even if they don't pirate or believe piracy is right to begin with, think that many of the methods employed by companies and governments to fight piracy are invasive, totalitarian, and wrong(SecuRom anyone?), thus justifying piracy(to them at least) to an extent.
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
The stats I post clearly illustrate it does.


Correlation does not imply causation.


This severely damages the evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

That number of pirates has been increasing sharply since 2000, and we've been getting record snowfalls...
DShiznit wrote:
That number of pirates has been increasing sharply since 2000, and we've been getting record snowfalls...


Look at the chart again; the number of pirates has been decreasing.
They HAD been decreasing, up until 2000(where that graph ends). We've seen a recent sharp increase in piracy along the Somalian coast, and they currently number in the hundreds, with several large ships they've captured.
calc84maniac wrote:


I was gonna post that.

And may I point out that you have 2010 posts, and the year is 2010.
So in the aftermath of this topic, I have a relevant blog post from the company that hosted it.

from http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Another-view-of-game-piracy
Quote:


We've been hearing a lot about game piracy recently, with big developers inflicting draconian online-only DRM systems on their users, and blaming their declining PC game sales entirely on piracy. I'm not questioning that piracy is common, since even honest, DRM-free, indie developers like 2DBoy[1] report a 90% piracy rate. I am, however, questioning what this means. How much revenue are developers actually losing to piracy?

The common industry assumption is that developers are losing 90% of their revenue. That is, pirates would have bought every single game that they downloaded. From personal experience, I know this is not possible -- most pirates that I've met have downloaded enough software to exceed their entire lifetime income, were they to have paid for it all. A more plausible (but still overly optimistic) guess is that if piracy was stopped the average pirate would behave like an average consumer.

This means that to calculate the worst-case scenario of how much money is lost to piracy, we just need to figure out what percentage of the target market consists of pirates. For example, if 50% of the market is pirates, that means that it's possible that you've lost 50% of your revenue to piracy. So how do we calculate what percentage of the market consists of pirates? Do we just go with 90%?
iPhone piracy

iPhone game developers have also found that around 80% of their users are running pirated copies of their game (using jailbroken phones) [2] This immediately struck me as odd -- I suspected that most iPhone users had never even heard of 'jailbreaking'. I did a bit more research and found that my intuition was correct -- only 5% of iPhones in the US are jailbroken. [3] World-wide, the jailbreak statistics are highest in poor countries -- but, unsurprisingly, iPhones are also much less common there. The highest estimate I've seen is that 10% of worldwide iPhones are jailbroken. Given that there are so few jailbroken phones, how can we explain that 80% of game copies are pirated?
Pirated versus legitimateJailbreaking estimates

The answer is simple -- the average pirate downloads a lot more games than the average customer buys. This means that even though games see that 80% of their copies are pirated, only 10% of their potential customers are pirates, which means they are losing at most 10% of their sales. If you'd like to see an example with math, read the following paragraph. If word problems make your eyes glaze over, then I advise you to skip it.

Let's consider the following scenario. Because game pirates can get apps for free, they download a couple new games every day -- or about 500 games in a year. On the other hand, normal gamers tend to play the same game for a longer time -- buying an average of 5 games per year. If this seems low to you, then consider that you are also reading a post on an indie game developer blog. You are probably more hardcore than the average gamer. Anyway, given these statistics, if the market consists of 10 million gamers, then there are 500 million pirated game copies, and 90 million purchased game copies, From the perspective of every individual game, 80% of its users are using pirated copies. However, only 10% of the market consists of pirates.
PC game piracy

Does this also apply to PC (Windows/Mac/Linux) gamers? Many PC game developers find that about 90% of their users are running pirated copies -- does this mean that piracy is killing PC games? Let's try our alternative explanation, and see if these statistics are possible even if only 20% of worldwide PC gamers are pirates. The average PC gamer worldwide only buys about three games a year, and plays them for a long time [4]. I buy many more than that, and you probably do too, but again, we are not average gamers! On the other hand, game pirates might download a new game every few days, for a total of about 125 games a year. Given these numbers, games would see 90% piracy rates even though only 20% of gamers are pirates.

Are these numbers accurate? The NPD recently conducted an anonymous survey showing that only 4% of PC gamers in the US admit to pirating games [5], a number that is comparable to XBox 360 piracy statistics [6] . However, since piracy is inversely proportionate to per-capita GDP, we can expect piracy rates to increase dramatically in places like Russia, China and India, driving up the world-wide average. Let's say to 20%.

This means that if all pirates would otherwise buy as many games as the average consumer, then game developers would be losing 20% of their revenue to piracy.
But would pirates really buy games?

Anecdotally and from studies by companies like the BSA, it's clear that pirates for the most part have very little income. They are unemployed students, or live in countries with very low per-capita GDP, where the price of a $60 game is more like $1000 (in terms of purchasing power parity and income percentage). When Reflexive games performed a series of experiments with anti-piracy measures, they found that they only made one extra sale for every 1000 pirated copies they blocked [7]. This implies that their 90% piracy statistic caused them to lose less than 1% of their sales.
Why are PC games really losing sales?

While many game developers blame piracy for their decreasing PC game sales, it is clear that this is not the problem -- relatively few gamers are pirates, and those that are would mostly not be able to afford games anyway.

However, it's easier for these developers to point their fingers at pirates than to face the real problem: that their games are not fun on PC. The games in question are usually designed for consoles, with the desktop port as an afterthought. This means they are not fun to play with a mouse and keyboard, and don't work well on PC hardware. Their field of view is designed to be viewed from a distant couch instead of a nearby monitor, and their gameplay is simplified to compensate for this tunnel vision.

Blizzard is one of the most successful game developers in the world, and it develops exclusively for desktop computers. Why do they succeed where everyone else fails? They create games that are designed from the beginning to work well with the mouse and keyboard, and with all kinds of desktop hardware. If developers spent more time improving their PC gaming experience, and less time complaining about piracy, we might see more successful PC games.

With the Humble Indie Bundle promotion we've seen that when we treat gamers as real people instead of criminals, they seem to respond in kind. Anyone can get all five DRM-free games for a single penny, and pirate them as much as they want -- we have no way to find out or stop it. However, in just the first two days, we have over 40,000 contributions with an average of $8 each! Would we have seen this much support if the games were console ports that only worked when connected to a secure online DRM server? We'll never know for sure, but somehow I doubt it.
And that works out to a bit over $40,000 for each of the 7 "causes", the 5 developers and the 2 charitable things, which isn't bad in my humble opinion. A very interesting read, Elfprince, thanks for that.
KermMartian wrote:
And that works out to a bit over $40,000 for each of the 7 "causes", the 5 developers and the 2 charitable things, which isn't bad in my humble opinion. A very interesting read, Elfprince, thanks for that.


Especially given that it's been only two days and there are almost 5 left.

[edit]

Also it's at 50,000 donations now.
THANK YOU. Jesus, I was looking for studies like that. Maybe now we can put this to rest. Although I wonder how the increase in complexity of games, and the resulting increase in development team size, is affecting the industry...
http://torrentfreak.com/judges-liken-p2p-to-the-ancient-practice-of-lending-books-100608/

Thoughts?
elfprince13 wrote:
http://torrentfreak.com/judges-liken-a-to-the-ancient-practice-of-lending-books-100608/

Thoughts?
Judges that are in this century, not two centuries ago! What will they think of next?
elfprince13 wrote:
http://torrentfreak.com/judges-liken-a-to-the-ancient-practice-of-lending-books-100608/

Thoughts?
That's a bit daft, really. File sharing would be more like photocopying a book so both people keep a copy. I'd say Kerm has it backwards; this is a case of a judge attempting to use logic applied to physical objects from two centuries ago, which doesn't really work when applied to digital data this century.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 4 of 6
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement