Piracy
- Thread starter Ellie
- Start date
Piracy isn't good, but it being bad doesn't stop a shitload of people from doing it nonetheless. Which is why it isn't effective to 'not do it' yourself, because they will continue. Only if everyone would suddenly stop downloading illegal stuff altogether, maybe software prices would drop, and more shit would be made, but I don't think so. It's just too benificial to get expensive stuff for free, so you should just enjoy it while you can. It could be over in a couple of years when they discover a new way to protect software so no-one can hack it.. (purely hypothetical)
That said, I'd hate it if I'd made a good piece of software, which I'd have spent a couple of hours on, and people would just get it for free.
also that, yeah. I myself pirate quite a lot of stuff (every piece of software that would cost me cash), and also photoshop. But I imagine that once I'm using it 'as a professional' to make loads of money with it, I'd buy it. (also because of those irritating companies that fine you for using software you don't have a license for)Ceroscuro":24hqhds4 said:
That said, I'd hate it if I'd made a good piece of software, which I'd have spent a couple of hours on, and people would just get it for free.
I really dislike the idea of portraying piracy as stealing because of typical conceptual understanding of stealing.
You can so easily think that it's like stealing in the normal sense:
A more accurate example would be that you go into a book store and find an interesting book. Instead of buying the book you take pictures of all the pages and put the book back where you found it. You then leave with pictures without buying anything, but you don't take away their book. I.e. they don't loose anything except a potential customer. It's an invisible price.
Of course this example has the problem that you leave with pictures of the book and not the book itself. With software you would have left with a copy of the book.
Why don't people 'steal' books this way? Well... maybe some do, but the number is vastly inferior to how many 'steal' software. I believe the biggest reason is the ease with which it can be done.
As you probably noticed I have only focused on duplication of software, but is that software piracy?
What exactly is software piracy? What is the definition?
Googling gives various results with interesting ones such as this:
Copying Software without paying for it or without getting permission from the owner.
I did pick this one out because it implies the possibility of legal software piracy. This can of course not be trusted, but what about the other more plausible definitions? Are there a definite legal one? Or as I believe it differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction often without a precise definition?
What are the effects of software piracy? (Let's assume we are considering a particular commercial software product)
I tend to define 4 group of people:
Group 2 and 3 are the most interesting because they determine the effect of software piracy. Group 2 being lost revenue and group 3 being gained profit. (Group 1 could be so large that group 2 and 3 are insignificant)
My guess is that company estimates on lost revenue tend to look at the combined size of group 2 and 4 while assuming group 3 = 1. That is, the biggest possible over-estimate. While that may not be true I believe it's feasible that all loss estimations by companies are over estimates. By how much we don't know. In fact there are loads of uncertainty.
While we may have an idea of the size of the groups we have no idea how they are partitioned among the groups. I would say there are intrinsic uncertainties in such estimates.
Naturally one should consider whether my group definitions seem plausible. I don't consider the fact that people may change over time.
There are other factors as well. People who don't buy it due to the measures taken against piracy. I did for example not buy Spore purely and only for it's bad piracy measure.
I tried it at a friend before they corrected it and had already grown tired of it, otherwise I might have bought it.
This brings me to the more interesting subject: What can be done about piracy.
I personally don't mind whatever measures against piracy are taken in say games I buy as long as they are not inconvenient to me.
More can be done than just copy-protection. One can try to increase the availability. I have once bought and downloaded a game through Steam because a torrent was to slow.
Consider the fat epidemic (or whatever it's called). Consider the scenario where you can choose between going to the store and get a game legally or get it without having to leave your house illegally. Get my point?
I do think there should be legal measures against pirates available (there are). The software companies should naturally also be in the potential loss of revenue as a result of bad reputation.
I also think there should be more clear consumer protection rules. Can any of you tell me which rights you have when you buy a piece of software?
Have any of you ever read an EULA and noticed a part which is not applicable in your jurisdiction?
Let's I buy a game and I cannot play it due to the protection software giving a false possible thus making me unable to play the game. Would I just have wasted 60 bucks? No chance of any return?
I have tried that and I admittedly send it return for a refund, I circumvented the copy-protection. In this example I didn't do anything illegal, but I still hope that it shows you cannot simply consider the whole area black and white since there are so many nuances.
There are many details hidden under the rug and we definitely SHOULD NOT SACRIFICE CONSUMER RIGHTS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF BATTLING PIRACY.
In principle I am against piracy.
*hugs*
- Zeriab
You can so easily think that it's like stealing in the normal sense:
Most people who pirate don't take away the software from where they got it. They duplicate it.Schism":2vx5hmnt said:
A more accurate example would be that you go into a book store and find an interesting book. Instead of buying the book you take pictures of all the pages and put the book back where you found it. You then leave with pictures without buying anything, but you don't take away their book. I.e. they don't loose anything except a potential customer. It's an invisible price.
Of course this example has the problem that you leave with pictures of the book and not the book itself. With software you would have left with a copy of the book.
Why don't people 'steal' books this way? Well... maybe some do, but the number is vastly inferior to how many 'steal' software. I believe the biggest reason is the ease with which it can be done.
As you probably noticed I have only focused on duplication of software, but is that software piracy?
What exactly is software piracy? What is the definition?
Googling gives various results with interesting ones such as this:
Copying Software without paying for it or without getting permission from the owner.
I did pick this one out because it implies the possibility of legal software piracy. This can of course not be trusted, but what about the other more plausible definitions? Are there a definite legal one? Or as I believe it differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction often without a precise definition?
What are the effects of software piracy? (Let's assume we are considering a particular commercial software product)
I tend to define 4 group of people:
- People who would buy it regardless of the ability to get it pirated.
- People who would have bought it, but didn't since they can get it pirated.
- People who bought it, but only noticed it because they can get it pirated.
- People who will never buy it.
Group 2 and 3 are the most interesting because they determine the effect of software piracy. Group 2 being lost revenue and group 3 being gained profit. (Group 1 could be so large that group 2 and 3 are insignificant)
My guess is that company estimates on lost revenue tend to look at the combined size of group 2 and 4 while assuming group 3 = 1. That is, the biggest possible over-estimate. While that may not be true I believe it's feasible that all loss estimations by companies are over estimates. By how much we don't know. In fact there are loads of uncertainty.
While we may have an idea of the size of the groups we have no idea how they are partitioned among the groups. I would say there are intrinsic uncertainties in such estimates.
Naturally one should consider whether my group definitions seem plausible. I don't consider the fact that people may change over time.
There are other factors as well. People who don't buy it due to the measures taken against piracy. I did for example not buy Spore purely and only for it's bad piracy measure.
I tried it at a friend before they corrected it and had already grown tired of it, otherwise I might have bought it.
This brings me to the more interesting subject: What can be done about piracy.
I personally don't mind whatever measures against piracy are taken in say games I buy as long as they are not inconvenient to me.
More can be done than just copy-protection. One can try to increase the availability. I have once bought and downloaded a game through Steam because a torrent was to slow.
Consider the fat epidemic (or whatever it's called). Consider the scenario where you can choose between going to the store and get a game legally or get it without having to leave your house illegally. Get my point?
I do think there should be legal measures against pirates available (there are). The software companies should naturally also be in the potential loss of revenue as a result of bad reputation.
I also think there should be more clear consumer protection rules. Can any of you tell me which rights you have when you buy a piece of software?
Have any of you ever read an EULA and noticed a part which is not applicable in your jurisdiction?
Let's I buy a game and I cannot play it due to the protection software giving a false possible thus making me unable to play the game. Would I just have wasted 60 bucks? No chance of any return?
I have tried that and I admittedly send it return for a refund, I circumvented the copy-protection. In this example I didn't do anything illegal, but I still hope that it shows you cannot simply consider the whole area black and white since there are so many nuances.
There are many details hidden under the rug and we definitely SHOULD NOT SACRIFICE CONSUMER RIGHTS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF BATTLING PIRACY.
In principle I am against piracy.
*hugs*
- Zeriab
Ok, so as said above the people who pirate software because it is expensive, the software is not meant for you. It's meant for people who make a crapload of money using the software. As much as CS4 seems to cost, it's only like a week or less of salary for the people at whom the software is directed. For everyone else, using things like GIMP is fine until you can afford to buy Photoshop. You might try to say "Well, if I wouldn't buy it anyway it doesn't matter if I don't buy it and use it or don't buy it and use GIMP either way I am not buying it" Well, as much sense as that seems to make to you, it doesn't matter. You didn't make the software. If you want to make rules like that, make your own software. That's the exact idea that inspired GIMP, so don't look at me like I am crazy.
Zeriab, your groups theory is interesting, but it is not true that group 1 is so large that 2 and 3 are insignificant. In fact, group 2 dwarfs group 1 and 3. Take a look at this article about World of Goo: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008 ... ear-90.ars
Now that is an indie game, with a very modest price (I think it was $20 when it came out)
As for the tough DRM I think it's their for the same exact reason we all lock our doors before we go to sleep. The difference is that they are not locking their doors in case someone tries to get in, they lock their doors because they know someone will try to get in. Piracy, of course, came before the DRM did, so it's silly to blame the DRM. In addition, unless you buy the game on steam you can almost always get a refund for it. Most companies will let you do the refund. In fact, PC Gamer did a candid experiment where they bought games that they knew had tough DRM and no return policy and managed to get a refund on most of the games. Pretty much every company was willing to give a full refund or an exchange or some such thing.
Now, the point about availability of games I agree that it's nicer when a game is so easily available. That's why I usually wait to buy games until they come out on steam. That's not an argument for piracy, it's an argument for steam.
Of course the area is not black and white. The companies themselves know that and most of them are understanding with discrepancies in the EULA. Confusion with the EULA and knowingly ignoring and and just using the software illegally on purpose is a different story.
Zeriab, your groups theory is interesting, but it is not true that group 1 is so large that 2 and 3 are insignificant. In fact, group 2 dwarfs group 1 and 3. Take a look at this article about World of Goo: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008 ... ear-90.ars
Now that is an indie game, with a very modest price (I think it was $20 when it came out)
As for the tough DRM I think it's their for the same exact reason we all lock our doors before we go to sleep. The difference is that they are not locking their doors in case someone tries to get in, they lock their doors because they know someone will try to get in. Piracy, of course, came before the DRM did, so it's silly to blame the DRM. In addition, unless you buy the game on steam you can almost always get a refund for it. Most companies will let you do the refund. In fact, PC Gamer did a candid experiment where they bought games that they knew had tough DRM and no return policy and managed to get a refund on most of the games. Pretty much every company was willing to give a full refund or an exchange or some such thing.
Now, the point about availability of games I agree that it's nicer when a game is so easily available. That's why I usually wait to buy games until they come out on steam. That's not an argument for piracy, it's an argument for steam.
Of course the area is not black and white. The companies themselves know that and most of them are understanding with discrepancies in the EULA. Confusion with the EULA and knowingly ignoring and and just using the software illegally on purpose is a different story.
Glitchfinder
Staff
All right. I've seen a few arguments here that made me cringe. Let's go over them, one by one, and see what I can make of them. (In reality, the arguments are all from one post by Wyatt)
All right. This is a logical fallacy. You're comparing apples and oranges. RMXP is aimed at people who will probably never finish a game, and is priced accordingly. It is nowhere near professional grade, and in reality, it is a far inferior product to a custom built game. If you've ever seen the ad, it looks to be aimed at prepubescents. Programs like Photoshop and Maya, on the other hand, are professional grade. You can't really find a better image editor than Photoshop, and Maya is most certainly not intended for those who have no true commitment to finishing a project. Although Photoshop is relatively easy to learn, the fact remains that it was intended for people who edit photos for a living. Comparing something obviously intended for a young market that has nothing better to do, and something intended to be a way to make money, the reasons for price differences should be obvious. You can obviously make money with software like Photoshop and Maya, whereas many of you have openly admitted that you would never purchase a game made with RMXP.
All right. The fallacies here will need some real explaining. First off, when you download a pirated piece of anything, you are, in fact, receiving something physical. Data is being sent from whatever server or computer it is currently on to your computer. This data will travel in the form of electricity and/or light across the planet to reach you. Although you may not receive the same bit of electricity or light that was sent out, it remains to be said that you do in fact receive something.
The second fallacy here takes a lot more explaining. Infinity is infinity, right? Technically true, but that does not mean that one infinity is equal to another. It has been mathematically proven that infinity is of a variable size. In other words, there are actually more real numbers than there are integers. This is because real numbers incorporate several different sets of infinities, whereas whole numbers (or integers) are only one set. My point? Even if taking one from infinity means it is still infinity, it is a smaller infinity. Even if it can never become finite, it can still grow smaller. Thus, it means that you are essentially stealing from an online warehouse with infinite stock. The stock may never become finite, but it is still one fewer when you are done.
Commodore Whynot":28evku4t said:
All right. This is a logical fallacy. You're comparing apples and oranges. RMXP is aimed at people who will probably never finish a game, and is priced accordingly. It is nowhere near professional grade, and in reality, it is a far inferior product to a custom built game. If you've ever seen the ad, it looks to be aimed at prepubescents. Programs like Photoshop and Maya, on the other hand, are professional grade. You can't really find a better image editor than Photoshop, and Maya is most certainly not intended for those who have no true commitment to finishing a project. Although Photoshop is relatively easy to learn, the fact remains that it was intended for people who edit photos for a living. Comparing something obviously intended for a young market that has nothing better to do, and something intended to be a way to make money, the reasons for price differences should be obvious. You can obviously make money with software like Photoshop and Maya, whereas many of you have openly admitted that you would never purchase a game made with RMXP.
Commodore Whynot":28evku4t said:
All right. The fallacies here will need some real explaining. First off, when you download a pirated piece of anything, you are, in fact, receiving something physical. Data is being sent from whatever server or computer it is currently on to your computer. This data will travel in the form of electricity and/or light across the planet to reach you. Although you may not receive the same bit of electricity or light that was sent out, it remains to be said that you do in fact receive something.
The second fallacy here takes a lot more explaining. Infinity is infinity, right? Technically true, but that does not mean that one infinity is equal to another. It has been mathematically proven that infinity is of a variable size. In other words, there are actually more real numbers than there are integers. This is because real numbers incorporate several different sets of infinities, whereas whole numbers (or integers) are only one set. My point? Even if taking one from infinity means it is still infinity, it is a smaller infinity. Even if it can never become finite, it can still grow smaller. Thus, it means that you are essentially stealing from an online warehouse with infinite stock. The stock may never become finite, but it is still one fewer when you are done.
Guest
Guest
;D
││█║▌│║▌║ ▌│║▌║ ▌││":2uurqb5e said:
yes.
but how do we know piracy has downsides. it has existed ever since software has been made, so there has never been a time that there were computers, and people had to pay for every bit of software they obtained (ok there was, but it didn't take long). of course it's only natural that not paying for things has downsides, but would it really be 'great' if you had no other chance then to buy software? we'll never know..
Ok, a crapload of money was an unclear. What I meant was that it was aimed at professionals who use the software in their profession. There's quite a few people like that, and even if they make on the low end of what a professional designer would make (say around 55k) that's still less than a weeks salary for them to purchase it.
Also, your idea that they would keep things in a closed release is ridiculous. They keep things like the Source engine or the Dunia engine closed because the price is tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and because there is a very limited number who will buy that. Moreover, it is only companies who will buy it, not your traditional end user. Photoshop is designed for an end user.
You say you don't care about the downsides, but I bet you would if you were in the position of one of the many independent developers that are having quite real problems over this. People try to say that they do it to large companies who don't care about their customer or they do it for outrageously expensive software, but we can see quite clearly that the indie game scene, which continues to undercut itself, faces the piracy issue just as much.
In fact, some of the people that I have worked for within this community that have released their games as commercial have told me about how they were facing issues with piracy. One of them told me that it looked to him like at least half of the people who registered at his forums and talked about the game had never actually bought the game.
@samot: What? Wow that is the most selfish way you could possibly have addressed that statement. Think about the downsides if you were in the other position.
Also, your idea that they would keep things in a closed release is ridiculous. They keep things like the Source engine or the Dunia engine closed because the price is tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and because there is a very limited number who will buy that. Moreover, it is only companies who will buy it, not your traditional end user. Photoshop is designed for an end user.
You say you don't care about the downsides, but I bet you would if you were in the position of one of the many independent developers that are having quite real problems over this. People try to say that they do it to large companies who don't care about their customer or they do it for outrageously expensive software, but we can see quite clearly that the indie game scene, which continues to undercut itself, faces the piracy issue just as much.
In fact, some of the people that I have worked for within this community that have released their games as commercial have told me about how they were facing issues with piracy. One of them told me that it looked to him like at least half of the people who registered at his forums and talked about the game had never actually bought the game.
@samot: What? Wow that is the most selfish way you could possibly have addressed that statement. Think about the downsides if you were in the other position.
I don't see anything selfish about Samot's statement, it's completely true. o.O
Personally, if I was a developer, I would be griped that people were "stealing" my software, yes. I would be damn annoyed. But, all the same, I would appreciate that it is going to happen and will always happen. There is no way to stop it. I can't really comment on what I'd do if I was a developer because I am not in that situation, and it would depend on the situation at hand. If millions of people were pirating my software but I was still making £30k a year, it would not bother me too much. If ten people were pirating my software and somehow because of that I was making diddly-squat, then I would be annoyed.
My statement that piracy != stealing was not meant to defend piracy in the slightest. I was merely pointing out that while piracy may or may not be wrong or cause damage it is not stealing. It is something completely different. It is the same as selling bootleg jeans. You do not steal them. Yes, it is still bad, but it is a completely different crime and calling it stealing is blerg.
Personally, if I was a developer, I would be griped that people were "stealing" my software, yes. I would be damn annoyed. But, all the same, I would appreciate that it is going to happen and will always happen. There is no way to stop it. I can't really comment on what I'd do if I was a developer because I am not in that situation, and it would depend on the situation at hand. If millions of people were pirating my software but I was still making £30k a year, it would not bother me too much. If ten people were pirating my software and somehow because of that I was making diddly-squat, then I would be annoyed.
My statement that piracy != stealing was not meant to defend piracy in the slightest. I was merely pointing out that while piracy may or may not be wrong or cause damage it is not stealing. It is something completely different. It is the same as selling bootleg jeans. You do not steal them. Yes, it is still bad, but it is a completely different crime and calling it stealing is blerg.
From Wikipedia
According to the DMA, software is property. Therefore, by definition, piracy is stealing.
Also, Whynot, the group of people that would have bought a software but didn't because they could pirate it is actually large enough that it is not just "Oh, well I can not buy it and not use it and we both lose or I could not buy it and use it anyway and at least one of us is happy."
Also, again, this issue is actually affecting individuals:
http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2009/05/ ... r_cla.html 98.5% Piracy
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... m-the-Poor 92% Piracy
http://kotaku.com/5264139/indie-devs-tu ... acy-strike 97% Piracy
That took me like 30 seconds of googling to get those. 3 independent developers, one of which specifically quotes personal financial troubles (in the case of the third.) You are trying to say you see nothing wrong with the fact that of the 36,000 that played his game only 1000 bought it? Don't try to tell me that none of those 35000 would have bought it, even if a third of those people bought it that's a boost in profit of about 1100%
According to the DMA, software is property. Therefore, by definition, piracy is stealing.
Also, Whynot, the group of people that would have bought a software but didn't because they could pirate it is actually large enough that it is not just "Oh, well I can not buy it and not use it and we both lose or I could not buy it and use it anyway and at least one of us is happy."
Also, again, this issue is actually affecting individuals:
http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2009/05/ ... r_cla.html 98.5% Piracy
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... m-the-Poor 92% Piracy
http://kotaku.com/5264139/indie-devs-tu ... acy-strike 97% Piracy
That took me like 30 seconds of googling to get those. 3 independent developers, one of which specifically quotes personal financial troubles (in the case of the third.) You are trying to say you see nothing wrong with the fact that of the 36,000 that played his game only 1000 bought it? Don't try to tell me that none of those 35000 would have bought it, even if a third of those people bought it that's a boost in profit of about 1100%
As I said, if I could afford to buy it and would buy it, I would buy it. If I could never afford it, I wouldn't buy it.
I am not saying that all pirating is A-ok, re-read my posts please.
I am not saying it is ok for everyone to pirate a piece of software.
While piracy is available, I believe it is ok for those who would never have bought it to try it out. I am not saying it should be purposely made available, I am not saying it is legal, and I am not saying that all piracy is ok.
I do not care about the group that pirate it but can afford it, for the purposes of what I was arguing. I am saying from the point of view of someone who would never have bought it. Saying one is ok does not mean saying both are ok.
I am not saying that all pirating is A-ok, re-read my posts please.
I am not saying it is ok for everyone to pirate a piece of software.
While piracy is available, I believe it is ok for those who would never have bought it to try it out. I am not saying it should be purposely made available, I am not saying it is legal, and I am not saying that all piracy is ok.
I do not care about the group that pirate it but can afford it, for the purposes of what I was arguing. I am saying from the point of view of someone who would never have bought it. Saying one is ok does not mean saying both are ok.
Guest
Guest
;D
Firgof Umbra
Member
I personally believe that 'piracy' as it is defined here is just removing the artificial scarcity of a product which could be infinitely available should the origin point of the product allow it to be. Some or all of pricing in computer games are based around artificial scarcity. They are giving you a resource, gameplay/entertainment, in return for your dollar and attention.
I don't think that's the only component but I feel that a lot of the discussion about piracy is about the loss of profit. I don't think it is so much that a developer is losing profit as it is they are losing their product's, a packaged unit of gameplay and entertainment, scarcity. Many of those whom pirate a particular piece of software simply would not buy the product in the first place so I feel an argument about profits is a little moot.
Now, regarding people who typically buy software pirating something, I feel that those are murky waters. There's no clear 'impact point' for when someone decides 'I will pirate this now'. I feel a lot of that impact point though is composed of things like the product's scarcity (is it only sold in brick and mortar stores? can the user buy it online? does buying it online require a credit card? what are their rights when they purchase the software online?) , the product's take on what the customer may do with it (DRM-free or DRM'd, Moddable or not moddable), the company that developed the title (their personal history with the user, other titles the user has played, how brand-loyal the user is to the developer, whether the company is large or small and old or new), the availability of funds of the user (how expensive is the title vs. its perceived worth, is there a recurring fee, what platforms does it operate on, what are the system requirements, does it have a demo, how representative is the demo and was it reviewed by critics, what were the critical opinions of the demo) and how much effort must be expended to use the software (time to get the software to the user, the footprint on the hard-disk, new shader technology + driver updates, installation software, how smooth the game plays on various hardwares, loading times, number of discs, payment models, etc.).
It's a BIG decision with a lot of factors. I doubt anyone will ever be able to say 'piracy is caused by X'. Personally, and this is my opinion (I am not representing Blind Mind Studio's), I think the best tools to combat piracy are to think all of those things above out in advance as a developer and address them all as best you can. Try and always only bring out great titles and you'll have great brand loyalty which will definitely tilt the scales in your favor if someone is debating internally whether they'll pirate your product or not. Basically, you need to get someone to stop and think about whether they should or shouldn't and if you and your product are worth ignoring basically what is a 0-cost transaction, excluding time, to 'buy the product blind'. I also think telling your consumer that you're worried they might be a pirate by including DRM or by limiting or slowing down their hardware is a heavy-handed method.
Piracy is not going to go away and it has been around since we gave people access to rewritable media that worked from computer to computer. It is in our nature to share cool things with our friends because we like to share experiences. A game is an experience in a tight package. And I shiver to think that some people in the industry might get squeamish about a game trading hands between friends. I think the jury is still out on torrents and so forth when it comes to distribution but it's essentially the same practice. Torrents remove the artificial scarcity of a game's experience. And I feel that even when a game is pirated the company may draw quite a bit of benefit if the person is surprised by your product. After all, what is more valuable than immediate profit is a userbase who enjoy your work and are very willing to support you as long as you continue to provide for them experiences of similar calibre; what's more, they're more than willing to try and convert their friends into your userbase as they feel that you're worth the effort. We gaming developers and studios have a lot more in common with musicians and bands than I think some realize.
And though this may not be a large part of the debate, I think the $50 standard is a little strange and 'slapped on'. I think the price of the game should be decided upon in advance and the game built around that so that you don't accidentally "cheat" someone out of their money but you also don't make your game appear to be 'priced for more than it's real worth'. It's a hard gauge and I don't pretend to know how the price should really be modeled but I think a little wiggle room in pricing would be a very good direction for the industry; it's a sort of stagnant thing that doesn't really need to be stagnant for any other reason but for taking advantage of people being used to 'well but that's the standard charge'. I don't think just about anything with the gaming industry "needs" to be standard or standardized. I in fact think we, as a whole, could do with a lot of freshening up and diversity; I worry that the balance between profit and love is tipping. I sure hope we don't go off the deep end and become profit-centric and found agencies like the MPAA and RIAA in the mistaken belief that we must self-regulate; the ESRB is something that I really do worry about. They, in essence, are a black-box which you put a game into and it poops out a rating, not remarking really anything about it and they're starting to become a bit too close to the film ratings board in my opinion, whose execution is very flawed I feel even if the idea is a good one.
DRM is but a step on that path. I think we should give people more credit. As the old saying goes 'If you treat someone like a crook, they'll become one'. I think if you treat people like potential pirates they will become as such. Not to mention that it is pretty silly to ignore how quickly such preventative measures are dealt away with and say 'but THIS time it'll be DIFFERENT with the ULTRA-PIRATE-STOPPER 9000'. Meanwhile your customers are being beaten in the face by UPS 9000 while the Pirates are having a nice cup of tea, playing the game, the UPS 9000 being told to water their garden after a lengthy dispute over whether they bought the game or not, calling up all their friends and telling them 'the magic words' which completely circumvent your UPS 9000.
All that said, I do hope people don't make a habit of pirating games just because the artificial scarcity has lately been removed thanks to torrents and file distribution networks. Just like people forget to pay the electricity bill even when they're having such a glorious time with their electronics, I think people sometimes forget to hand us our payment after they're done having fun with our software. I do hope they don't forget too often and accidentally shut off the lights of all us smaller power companies. :s
I don't think that's the only component but I feel that a lot of the discussion about piracy is about the loss of profit. I don't think it is so much that a developer is losing profit as it is they are losing their product's, a packaged unit of gameplay and entertainment, scarcity. Many of those whom pirate a particular piece of software simply would not buy the product in the first place so I feel an argument about profits is a little moot.
Now, regarding people who typically buy software pirating something, I feel that those are murky waters. There's no clear 'impact point' for when someone decides 'I will pirate this now'. I feel a lot of that impact point though is composed of things like the product's scarcity (is it only sold in brick and mortar stores? can the user buy it online? does buying it online require a credit card? what are their rights when they purchase the software online?) , the product's take on what the customer may do with it (DRM-free or DRM'd, Moddable or not moddable), the company that developed the title (their personal history with the user, other titles the user has played, how brand-loyal the user is to the developer, whether the company is large or small and old or new), the availability of funds of the user (how expensive is the title vs. its perceived worth, is there a recurring fee, what platforms does it operate on, what are the system requirements, does it have a demo, how representative is the demo and was it reviewed by critics, what were the critical opinions of the demo) and how much effort must be expended to use the software (time to get the software to the user, the footprint on the hard-disk, new shader technology + driver updates, installation software, how smooth the game plays on various hardwares, loading times, number of discs, payment models, etc.).
It's a BIG decision with a lot of factors. I doubt anyone will ever be able to say 'piracy is caused by X'. Personally, and this is my opinion (I am not representing Blind Mind Studio's), I think the best tools to combat piracy are to think all of those things above out in advance as a developer and address them all as best you can. Try and always only bring out great titles and you'll have great brand loyalty which will definitely tilt the scales in your favor if someone is debating internally whether they'll pirate your product or not. Basically, you need to get someone to stop and think about whether they should or shouldn't and if you and your product are worth ignoring basically what is a 0-cost transaction, excluding time, to 'buy the product blind'. I also think telling your consumer that you're worried they might be a pirate by including DRM or by limiting or slowing down their hardware is a heavy-handed method.
Piracy is not going to go away and it has been around since we gave people access to rewritable media that worked from computer to computer. It is in our nature to share cool things with our friends because we like to share experiences. A game is an experience in a tight package. And I shiver to think that some people in the industry might get squeamish about a game trading hands between friends. I think the jury is still out on torrents and so forth when it comes to distribution but it's essentially the same practice. Torrents remove the artificial scarcity of a game's experience. And I feel that even when a game is pirated the company may draw quite a bit of benefit if the person is surprised by your product. After all, what is more valuable than immediate profit is a userbase who enjoy your work and are very willing to support you as long as you continue to provide for them experiences of similar calibre; what's more, they're more than willing to try and convert their friends into your userbase as they feel that you're worth the effort. We gaming developers and studios have a lot more in common with musicians and bands than I think some realize.
And though this may not be a large part of the debate, I think the $50 standard is a little strange and 'slapped on'. I think the price of the game should be decided upon in advance and the game built around that so that you don't accidentally "cheat" someone out of their money but you also don't make your game appear to be 'priced for more than it's real worth'. It's a hard gauge and I don't pretend to know how the price should really be modeled but I think a little wiggle room in pricing would be a very good direction for the industry; it's a sort of stagnant thing that doesn't really need to be stagnant for any other reason but for taking advantage of people being used to 'well but that's the standard charge'. I don't think just about anything with the gaming industry "needs" to be standard or standardized. I in fact think we, as a whole, could do with a lot of freshening up and diversity; I worry that the balance between profit and love is tipping. I sure hope we don't go off the deep end and become profit-centric and found agencies like the MPAA and RIAA in the mistaken belief that we must self-regulate; the ESRB is something that I really do worry about. They, in essence, are a black-box which you put a game into and it poops out a rating, not remarking really anything about it and they're starting to become a bit too close to the film ratings board in my opinion, whose execution is very flawed I feel even if the idea is a good one.
DRM is but a step on that path. I think we should give people more credit. As the old saying goes 'If you treat someone like a crook, they'll become one'. I think if you treat people like potential pirates they will become as such. Not to mention that it is pretty silly to ignore how quickly such preventative measures are dealt away with and say 'but THIS time it'll be DIFFERENT with the ULTRA-PIRATE-STOPPER 9000'. Meanwhile your customers are being beaten in the face by UPS 9000 while the Pirates are having a nice cup of tea, playing the game, the UPS 9000 being told to water their garden after a lengthy dispute over whether they bought the game or not, calling up all their friends and telling them 'the magic words' which completely circumvent your UPS 9000.
All that said, I do hope people don't make a habit of pirating games just because the artificial scarcity has lately been removed thanks to torrents and file distribution networks. Just like people forget to pay the electricity bill even when they're having such a glorious time with their electronics, I think people sometimes forget to hand us our payment after they're done having fun with our software. I do hope they don't forget too often and accidentally shut off the lights of all us smaller power companies. :s
