Piracy

[TheMightyEthan]

I've used Gamefly before, and yeah it's basically Netflix for games. Thing is it only works for console games, and I imagine most of the time when people refer to "pirating to demo" they're referring to PC. Yeah, on console "pirating to demo" doesn't really work as an argument cause you can rent games, whether in a brick and mortar store or from a service like Gamefly, but on PC if they don't release a demo then your only option to try it out is to pirate it (or hope you have a friend who bought it).

[deanb]

*Look waaay back for my account of those times.

 

You used * twice, but only had one at the end...

 

 

Regarding current console piracy I guess we'll have to see what happens with the PS3. The 360 has piracy but it's not yet cracked, just a disc drive tweak (which it's amazing how no one wants to get "homebrew" on the 360 ever since they found the FW on the 360 could be flashed ). But the PS3 is cracked, and that means not only can disc games be pirated, but the DLC and DD games can be too. And since devs are banking on those I reckon they won't look too kindly on it then.

 

I wonder, has anyone tried Gamefly? Like, back in the day I would rent some games. Sometimes to demo the game, or to experience a game for a bit to know what my friends were talking about.

 

 

Hear of it. We have a similar service called Lovefilm which my housemate has (As name suggests it's more like Netflix, but does do the games stuff on the side. Very little is recent mind) Thing is that's only for console games. Great and all but no good for benchmarking your rigs capabilities on a game, or see what kind of port it's like.

 

 

[peteer01]

Do they hate piracy in general? Do they hate day-zero piracy? Or just PC development? Because I've seen devs/pubs hate piracy, I've seen em hate zero-day piracy. But it's always in the frame of PC gaming n why they use DRM. DRM stops the zero-day stuff, which is meant to be the worst. And it's doing a great job here. But nothing for console, despite being worse.

I think there's a big difference between PC piracy and console piracy, and maybe it was mentioned pages ago...maybe not...but I think it bears repeating.

 

I have pirated on my PC. If piracy was murder, it would fall under some form of manslaugher. It wasn't premediated. I have not pirated on a console since the Dreamcast, which was stupidly easy to pirate on.

 

My point is that there is a difference in the mentality that can lead to piracy on a PC, and the mentality you need to pirate on a console.

 

I downloaded a demo for some photo editing software. I liked it. The timed demo expired, but the software was pricey, and there'd been an online coupon that'd recently expired, and I figured that if I could get another demo window, there was a good chance there'd be another deal, and I could get the software for 20% off, or whatever the deal I'd missed was. (The software is DxO Optics Pro, for those who are curious)

 

I tried uninstalling and then reinstalling it after registering for another demo using a different e-mail address. It didn't work.

 

I tried scrubbing it from my registry, and then reinstalling it.

 

I tried Googling for a way to get the demo to run again, and found a program that was supposed to crack the demo so that you could use it indefinitely.

 

Now, if that had worked, I never would have bought it. I did end up buying it, and while I don't remember exactly what I paid, it was at least $150. I wasn't trying to pirate it, I was just unwilling to pull the trigger on buying it at full price because of a google search for coupons/special offers turning up a deal that I'd missed out on.

 

Another good example is downloading a game to see if it runs on your PC correctly. I am sure people have done this with the best intentions at heart. You install it, it runs, and you figure you'll try it out a bit, and tell yourself you'll buy it if it's any good.

 

20 hours later...

 

The console parallels are free demos, trial versions of downloadable games, and renting games. You don't get a mod chip or look into running pirated software on a 360 or PS3 because you aren't sure how a game will run or because you can't rent... Most people can rent and if it's made for the console you own, you know it's going to run the way it's supposed to.

 

Anyway, I'm probably not being as coherent as I'd like...but the big difference is that I think a lot of people who pirate on consoles are bound and determined to pirate if they can. I don't think that's nearly as true for piracy on the PC.

Edited February 23, 2011 by peteer01

[deanb]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/23/opinion-ubisoft-drm/

 

A goo read. Though things many of you will already know.

[SomTervo]

On the console DRM issue, Dead Space 2 has an interesting 'Online Pass' scheme for owners of the game.

 

I suppose this is more directed towards pre-owned purchases, rather than piracy, but still. You need a Pass to use the online features (DLC, Multiplayer), and if you buy a fresh copy of the game you get a code for a Pass inside it- if you buy a second hand copy of the game you need to buy an Online Pass (about £1 I think) as the one that came with the game has been used. It's hardly original, and it seems totally fair enough, especially considering it's not active DRM, and if you pirated the game you would still have to pay that £1 if you wanted to play online at all.

[deanb]

I was gonna just throw this on the news feed but it's pretty short:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/02/notch-on-piracy-if-a-pirated-game-is-a-lost-sale-should-bad-reviews-be-illegal/

[CorgiShinobi]

I know the dude has money, but I wouldn't equate that to expertise. That, and his analogy kinda sucks. To make an identical car or apartment, you're buying materials to create the doppelganger. Copying a file presents you with the same product, no effort required aside from going online.

 

Reviews are opinion pieces that display one individual's take on a game, but with the backhanded dealings and reliance you see, it does seem to paint reviews (and reviewers) as vital. I know common consumers are fickle, judging products by reviews and advertising, and so many forgo taking a risk and using their experience.

 

EDIT: Also, while I believe developers should focus on strengthening relationships, that's why we have social networking and PR departments. Notch "believes" pirates can be converted to consumers, but really, how do we go about that again? Put aside archaic DRM, and how do you stop people from going from FREE to $59.99?

Edited March 2, 2011 by Atomsk88

[deanb]

Don't charge $60 is always a good idea. And as he mention, just add more content and services to it than the pirated version can offer.

 

And I think he point was more than a negative review (a 'bad' review is a badly written) generally results in low sales too. So it was more about not focusing on the bad, and at least not lumping all the lost sales on one scapegoat as there's plenty of factors that knock down sales.

 

And social networking and not so much PR (which more deals with media these days that the actual customers) is sort of what he's talking about. Most devs just use social networking like facebook n twitter to advertise "here's what gamebloggu had to say on how awesome Brink is" etc. And then you the gamer retweet and advertise it on. They don't much engage. And I don't think that's a piracy thing as so much something they should do anyway.

[CorgiShinobi]

Don't charge $60 is always a good idea. And as he mention, just add more content and services to it than the pirated version can offer.

 

And I think he point was more than a negative review (a 'bad' review is a badly written) generally results in low sales too. So it was more about not focusing on the bad, and at least not lumping all the lost sales on one scapegoat as there's plenty of factors that knock down sales.

 

And social networking and not so much PR (which more deals with media these days that the actual customers) is sort of what he's talking about. Most devs just use social networking like facebook n twitter to advertise "here's what gamebloggu had to say on how awesome Brink is" etc. And then you the gamer retweet and advertise it on. They don't much engage. And I don't think that's a piracy thing as so much something they should do anyway.

That's what I was referring to; negative reviews. I'm just saying reviews seem to be given this overwhelming power due to the indecisive nature of consumers, and how publishers (and etc) interact with them.

 

To me, it seems like Notch, and others beforehand, make pirates into this "misunderstood" crowd that just needs love because daddy wasn't there. Pay more attention to them, whisper sweet nothings into their ears and I'm sure they'll make purchases! Like, find the missing variable and the problem wull have a solution.

 

I think how we've discussed piracy alone in this thread shows the intricate motives and dealings that go on through an individual's thought process. Don't charge $59.99? Well, what price is there that's better than FREE? Does every company need to refocus efforts into making sure every game has add-ons, passcodes, and enough material to counter the pirate motive? Does there need to be some kind of hivemind of unified developers on how to look at a pirate community?

 

When it comes down to it, this is another Indie vs. Exec debate. Dude of Minecraft who made a good enough sum for an individual gained the authority to talk to the big wigs on business.

 

EDIT: and social networking costs money too. For little business, i.e. my experience, you usually need a good crew to focus on the masses. I've seen it done before, and for example, Rovio has good Twitter networking with consumers.

 

On Facebook, I have seen companies take on a more conversational discussion. Still, it takes two to tango and if pirates really do need to hear the love of developers, they have to be open to it as well.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Atomsk88

[RockyRan]

Don't charge $60 is always a good idea. And as he mention, just add more content and services to it than the pirated version can offer.

 

And I think he point was more than a negative review (a 'bad' review is a badly written) generally results in low sales too. So it was more about not focusing on the bad, and at least not lumping all the lost sales on one scapegoat as there's plenty of factors that knock down sales.

 

And social networking and not so much PR (which more deals with media these days that the actual customers) is sort of what he's talking about. Most devs just use social networking like facebook n twitter to advertise "here's what gamebloggu had to say on how awesome Brink is" etc. And then you the gamer retweet and advertise it on. They don't much engage. And I don't think that's a piracy thing as so much something they should do anyway.

That's what I was referring to; negative reviews. I'm just saying reviews seem to be given this overwhelming power due to the indecisive nature of consumers, and how publishers (and etc) interact with them.

 

To me, it seems like Notch, and others beforehand, make pirates into this "misunderstood" crowd that just needs love because daddy wasn't there. Pay more attention to them, whisper sweet nothings into their ears and I'm sure they'll make purchases! Like, find the missing variable and the problem with have a solution.

 

I think how we've discussed piracy alone in this thread shows the intricate motives and dealings that go on through an individuals thought process. Don't charge $59.99? Well, what price is there that's better than FREE? Does every company need to refocus efforts into making sure every game has add-ons, passcodes, and enough material to counter the pirate motive? Does there need to be some kind of hivemind of unified developers on how to look at a pirate community?

 

When it comes down to it, this is another Indie vs. Exec debate. Dude of Minecraft who made a good enough sum for an individual gained the authority to talk to the big wigs on business.

 

See, I don't understand this kind of thinking. Making an active effort to curb piracy past idiotic DRM isn't sympathizing with pirates, it's merely working toward making your product more effective and one that convinces more people to buy the game instead of pirating.

 

It's not "sweet talking", and it's not victimizing, but it's analyzing the problem. And what do you know? Pirates are humans like you and me. They have thought processes. They're not just some kind of misfigured aliens hellbent on destroying the industry with the words "KILL KILL KILL" on their foreheads. You ask why some people victimize pirates, I ask why people vilify them. The minute you refuse to to "sweet talk" pirates into buying the product is the minute you've lost the war against piracy, period.

 

Have you noted the article in RPS that notes that PC sales are up 19%? Despite other reports saying retail PC game sales are down? Think about that for a minute. What's missing here? Digital distribution, and it's digital distribution that's turning pirates into buyers and buyers into more buyers. Why? Pricing. You ask "what kind of price competes with free?" I say "$10, $5, $2.50" or any of Steam's crazy sales on games 1+ years old.

 

You're always going to have people who pirate for absolutely no reason and wouldn't buy a game even if it was 1 cent, but here's the deal: those kinds of pirates are not the only kinds of pirates. If a game is dirt cheap or just a really good bargain, a lot of people who would've pirated the game are going to buy it, and many people who already pirated it think "hey, this game's on the cheap now. I remember I liked it. I might as well buy it now that I want to play it again".

 

This is the kind of thing publishers need to be doing. No, not caressing pirates, but doing things that makes them want to pay instead of steal. And yes you'll have people who steal for the sake of stealing, but that's not the only kind of piracy by far, and taking the attitude of "these people are humans and not mindless drones" (i.e., they listen to reason) goes a long way into curbing piracy. Entrenching yourself stubbornly because "you don't deal with scum" and going the path of the most resistance with intrusive and annoying DRM is NOT the answer, no matter how many lazy publishers say it is. Honestly, they're just mad they have to work with pirates to convince them, and they're mad their lazy, misguided attempts at curbing piracy aren't working. That's why they think every game pirated is a lost sale, because publishers want the benefit of every potential customer buying a game without having worked to convince them, even the more "difficult" customer.

 

In short, it's an entitlement issue. But not on the side of pirates, on the side of developers. They feel entitled to sales figures they never earned.

[deanb]

Oh on the bad review thing that was directed at Notchs wording.

 

They're mostly aiming for the casual crowd. If you can make it easier to buy the game than pirate it, and provide a better service than just supplying the free game, then you can draw folks over. It's how steam works. It's much much easier to buy a game on steam than pirate it. You click buy, hit next a few times, wait for it to download then click it to play it. Minecraft is just as pain free (though depends if you're set up on Paypal or not), and if you bought the game it provided the ability to save your games on the site. Something a pirated version doesn't have. (because buying it nets you a minecraft account). I do think he'll have issues if he tries to make the beta guys pay though.

If you look in software, as in like actual programs n such, they'll tend to run a free version, or non commerical version. Then if you want it for business use, priority updates and direct support you buy it. Games need to kind of look into that model. Angry Birds on iPhone, sells for 60p and they've been continually adding to it. Massive seller.

Provide a high value product and people will generally buy your game. You sell your game for $60 and the consumer decides it's most likely worth $20, well the closest price to that is the $0 pirated version.

 

 

And in regards to the final bit, this is the same philosophy Gabe Newell has on pirates and he's one of the most successful guys in gaming. (If not the most successful, I don't even think Kotick is worth $2billion+) So I don't think that his relatively recency to notability makes what he says any less worthy.

 

Also I'm tired so not writing this as well as I'd normally hope to. probably even repeated words a few times.

[CorgiShinobi]

Lawl, everyone has entitlement issues. That something is owed because X, and Y, therefore Z.

 

Before I continue, I'll clarify this so as to not enrage the flood that I know would happen otherwise. I treat everyone as human. Oh, but I'm very pessimistic on the nature of man, and so through that perspective I don't always see high prospects for either side.

 

It's always going to be never-ending warfare because the industry evolves. While we decrease prices, add features, and improve, something new is going to stroll along to justify some idiotic desire for theft or increasing profit. That's why I don't sympathize with pirates, or anyone who whines about something lost.

 

Yeah, heart of ice, but again, I don't believe there's any kind of innocence here that can be rectified through a promise of a lollipop. Take the incentive to communicate, lower prices to some degree, but while we continue to discuss the industry, how many do look at it through that perspective? The industry.

 

We get online to talk about this, but the gaming community is rather large. I know a lot of gamers, and pirates, who don't bother with any kind of news, statistics, what CEO said this and what game is being delayed. I'm saying, when you reach out, there's got to be a hand to grab.

 

EDIT:

 

TL;DR

 

I'm pretty indifferent to what the hell people do, as long as said people don't complain. (Still) Best friend has pirated great games, no purchase insight.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Atomsk88

[RockyRan]

Oh on the bad review thing that was directed at Notchs wording.

 

They're mostly aiming for the casual crowd. If you can make it easier to buy the game than pirate it, and provide a better service than just supplying the free game, then you can draw folks over. It's how steam works. It's much much easier to buy a game on steam than pirate it. You click buy, hit next a few times, wait for it to download then click it to play it. Minecraft is just as pain free (though depends if you're set up on Paypal or not), and if you bought the game it provided the ability to save your games on the site. Something a pirated version doesn't have. (because buying it nets you a minecraft account). I do think he'll have issues if he tries to make the beta guys pay though.

If you look in software, as in like actual programs n such, they'll tend to run a free version, or non commerical version. Then if you want it for business use, priority updates and direct support you buy it. Games need to kind of look into that model. Angry Birds on iPhone, sells for 60p and they've been continually adding to it. Massive seller.

Provide a high value product and people will generally buy your game. You sell your game for $60 and the consumer decides it's most likely worth $20, well the closest price to that is the $0 pirated version.

 

 

And in regards to the final bit, this is the same philosophy Gabe Newell has on pirates and he's one of the most successful guys in gaming. (If not the most successful, I don't even think Kotick is worth $2billion+) So I don't think that his relatively recency to notability makes what he says any less worthy.

 

Also I'm tired so not writing this as well as I'd normally hope to. probably even repeated words a few times.

 

I'd just like to add that launching every single game at $60 is a horrible mistake, because if a game is "kind of good but not really that good", you're dooming your game from day 1. As it is, gaming afficionados already know they want to get more games than they can possibly play, and as such a lot of people begin prioritizing. Good game now? Or bargain bin buy? If your game goes into the "bargain bin buy" category for a lot of people, you're in deep shit because not only do you not see sales immediately, you might never see sales ever, because a game has to be damn good for you to remember to buy 6-months-to-several-years down the line.

 

Anecdotal evidence time: I liked the concept of Blur and I thought it a neat concept, but most definitely not $60 neat, so I put it in my "buy when it's cheap" bin. I've yet to get the game, but of course that means nothing to Bizarre creations now (because it doesn't exist anymore). Had the game been $40 or $30 since the beginning, I would've eyed it a lot more and probably even bought it. But now? Who knows? I might not get it, because I have a backlog of "games to get now that they're cheap" too. Assassin's Creed 2, inFAMOUS 1, Alan Wake, etc., so the game's competing with THOSE titles too.

 

If publishers want good sales on non-AAA games right off the bat they better expect to price the games aggressively, because at $60 they compete with the huge, AAA titles that people have been waiting for years, and the non-AAA titles will always, always lose out on that little contest.

[RockyRan]

Lawl, everyone has entitlement issues. That something is owed because X, and Y, therefore Z.

 

Before I continue, I'll clarify this so as to not enrage the flood that I know would happen otherwise. I treat everyone as human. Oh, but I'm very pessimistic on the nature of man, and so through that perspective I don't always see high prospects for either side.

 

It's always going to be never-ending warfare because the industry evolves. While we decrease prices, add features, and improve, something new is going to stroll along to justify some idiotic desire for theft or increasing profit. That's why I don't sympathize with pirates, or anyone who whines about something lost.

 

Yeah, heart of ice, but again, I don't believe there's any kind of innocence here that can be rectified through a promise of a lollipop. Take the incentive to communicate, lower prices to some degree, but while we continue to discuss the industry, how many do look at it through that perspective? The industry.

 

We get online to talk about this, but the gaming community is rather large. I know a lot of gamers, and pirates, who don't bother with any kind of news, statistics, what CEO said this and what game is being delayed. I'm saying, when you reach out, there's got to be a hand to grab.

 

EDIT:

 

TL;DR

 

I'm pretty indifferent to what the hell people do, as long as said people don't complain. (Still) Best friend has pirated great games, no purchase insight.

 

 

Well that viewpoint is fine and dandy for someone who doesn't have a game publishing company, but I'm talking what's in the best interest of the business that needs (or at least WANTS) to see sales from people who normally pirate, and the only way to achieve them is to convince them. It's that simple.

 

Pirates who always pirate no matter what aren't absolutely any different than a random Joe on the street who's never into video games and won't buy one ever. You know what businesses call the latter person? "NOT the market". By default, businesses don't regularly go out of their way to entice the consumer who is not in their market (you don't see Lamborghini commercials being aired after Deal or No Deal). By the same token, a pirate who will always pirate no matter what price we're talking or incentives to buy isn't a part of their market, because there's literally nothing that business can do to get that person to buy a game. The best course of action? Ignore them.

 

The rest of the pirates who would buy a game if it was cheap enough or had good enough incentives? THOSE are the people publishers should go after, not with intrusive DRM, but with bargains and incentives. That's the only way to see a dime out of those people, so either developers put up or shut up. Intrusive, draconian DRM isn't going to get people anywhere, but good prices and extra features and content will.

[CorgiShinobi]

How many do you want to convert?

 

The way I see it, while we must rid ourselves with inefficient DRM, and poor practices, there are many different groups/crowds that require different methods. That's where I scoff at the idea that it's really more simple than anyone one person with authority, whether online, executive, or media, claims it to be.

 

Also, if you choose Plan A, does it have any negative consequences? Would Plan B had been better, though it was theorized to be less effective? Now wait, we did Step X and Step Y, but where is the result?

 

That's what set me off, the phrasing that, "You just gotta listen, and all the pirates will make purchases!" Well, there's more than one type of pirate, right? Forget the ones that steal for giggles, and we're still left with unique brands of consumer. While normally you have to deal with a market, now we're beginning to see reasoning to make case studies on online personalities.

 

While Billy will pay $10.00, Suzy and Mary will only pay $2.50. Depending of what Reviewer A and Reviewer B, along with Dandy from the block say, what will it take to get Suzy and Mary to spend more without resulting in their pirating behavior.

 

[RockyRan]

How many do you want to convert?

 

The way I see it, while we must rid ourselves with inefficient DRM, and poor practices, there are many different groups/crowds that require different methods. That's where I scoff at the idea that it's really more simple than anyone one person with authority, whether online, executive, or media, claims it to be.

 

Also, if you choose Plan A, does it have any negative consequences? Would Plan B had been better, though it was theorized to be less effective? Now wait, we did Step X and Step Y, but where is the result?

 

That's what set me off, the phrasing that, "You just gotta listen, and all the pirates will make purchases!" Well, there's more than one type of pirate, right? Forget the ones that steal for giggles, and we're still left with unique brands of consumer. While normally you have to deal with a market, now we're beginning to see reasoning to make case studies on online personalities.

 

While Billy will pay $10.00, Suzy and Mary will only pay $2.50. Depending of what Reviewer A and Reviewer B, along with Dandy from the block say, what will it take to get Suzy and Mary to spend more without resulting in their pirating behavior.

 

 

 

Well, see now we're back to square one, aren't we? This is exactly the type of thing that goes on for every single game, whether we're talking piracy or not. Case studies and focus groups are run by people all the time because they want to turn potential customers into paying customers, and now we're pretty much on the same page that pirates who don't torrent for the sake of torrenting are potential customers too. The ball is in the publisher's court now. They got the piracy numbers, now it's up to them to convince as many of those people to buy their game, but if they don't feel like convincing them they really shouldn't be whining.

[CorgiShinobi]

Yeah, but it'll take both parties. If pirates want to be heard, then we need someone to listen. If developers want to improve relations, there has to be someone on the other end of the table to have a discussion.

 

I'm just not convinced enough people/companies on either side say what they mean, or try to reason why anything doesn't go as planned. "Well, you see, because of this, that is why. Now if you did this, I mean really, it would have worked. Really, it's so simple!"

[RockyRan]

The other end of the table is already filled. Look at the ridiculous number of sales on Steam, the numerous people who say they've stopped pirating because of them, and the statements from Gabe saying that they don't even look at piracy numbers because they're so low. The potential has all but been proven to be there. It's up to the publisher now to see if they want to take advantage of it. It may not be the end-all-be-all solution, but this is a great start, and if developers don't get this start going they're really the ones who don't want the conversation.

[CorgiShinobi]

Well good. So when we see a developer take initiative, I'm expecting there to be constructive action taken on both parties' part rather than unorganized bargaining and compromise.

 

A lot of people want different things, both developers and consumers. You name it, a price, a feature, all vary between individuals of the same party.

 

EDIT: Spelling and Grammar fix. (I put the blame on my empty stomach. )

Edited March 2, 2011 by Atomsk88

[peteer01]

Gaming is one of the most expensive hobbies around

It is? I look at the other hobbies I've had, like golf and photography...and I think gaming is pretty reasonable compared to those.

 

But if you honestly can't afford it, and so you pirate it, how is that hurting anyone? The developer/publisher wouldn't have gotten your money anyway, because you can't afford it. What difference does it make?

it hurts developers/publishers because old habits die hard. If you pirate because you genuinely can't afford the game, why would you suddenly stop pirating when you're just barely squeaking by? For everything that you might want, including saving more than 10% of your annual salary, there's always something that has to be cut, and choosing to cut something you can't pirate isn't going to be at the top of your list if you've already gotten into the habit of pirating.

 

I get that there are students working their way through college that have student loans and credit card debt that get a console from Mom and Dad, and that they genuinely can't afford games for it. That doesn't make pirating morally or legally OK.

Edited March 2, 2011 by peteer01

[deanb]

So "The Social Science Research Council" has done a 3 year long review on piracy of all mediums in developing nations. Here's their summary:

http://piracy.ssrc.org/about-the-report/

 

What makes this golden though is here is their pricing list to get the full research paper:

http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-report/

(read the end)

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Drinking is a hell of a lot more expensive than gaming. Gaming is one of the cheaper hobbies IMO. Easily some of the most bang for your buck when comparing the amount of time and enjoyment once you're past the initial costs.

[TheMightyEthan]

But if you honestly can't afford it, and so you pirate it, how is that hurting anyone? The developer/publisher wouldn't have gotten your money anyway, because you can't afford it. What difference does it make?

it hurts developers/publishers because old habits die hard. If you pirate because you genuinely can't afford the game, why would you suddenly stop pirating when you're just barely squeaking by? For everything that you might want, including saving more than 10% of your annual salary, there's always something that has to be cut, and choosing to cut something you can't pirate isn't going to be at the top of your list if you've already gotten into the habit of pirating.

 

I get that there are students working their way through college that have student loans and credit card debt that get a console from Mom and Dad, and that they genuinely can't afford games for it. That doesn't make pirating morally or legally OK.

That harm is speculative an indirect. If I were to pirate Big Game because I can't afford it, that doesn't hurt developer of Big Game, regardless of whether at some point in the future I might be able to afford other, different games. If however, in the future, I pirate those games I could afford rather than buying them, I have hurt those developers, and thus have committed a morally wrong act. The initial piracy, however, of Big Game was not morally wrong because no harm came of it, or at the very least only becomes wrong at the point where the habit I developed causes me to not buy a game I might otherwise have bought.

 

I'm going to take an even stronger stance than that, however: there is nothing morally wrong with pirating any media that the pirate would not have bought anyway. There's also nothing morally wrong with someone pirating a game when its price is at an unacceptable (to them) level, and then buying the game when it reaches a level they are willing to pay. I'm not making any claims as to how many people actually behave this way, but as a theoretically matter I would say those actions are perfectly morally acceptable.

 

Legality is an entirely different issue, of course.

[arbitarty]

But if you honestly can't afford it, and so you pirate it, how is that hurting anyone? The developer/publisher wouldn't have gotten your money anyway, because you can't afford it. What difference does it make?

it hurts developers/publishers because old habits die hard. If you pirate because you genuinely can't afford the game, why would you suddenly stop pirating when you're just barely squeaking by? For everything that you might want, including saving more than 10% of your annual salary, there's always something that has to be cut, and choosing to cut something you can't pirate isn't going to be at the top of your list if you've already gotten into the habit of pirating.

 

I get that there are students working their way through college that have student loans and credit card debt that get a console from Mom and Dad, and that they genuinely can't afford games for it. That doesn't make pirating morally or legally OK.

That harm is speculative an indirect. If I were to pirate Big Game because I can't afford it, that doesn't hurt developer of Big Game, regardless of whether at some point in the future I might be able to afford other, different games. If however, in the future, I pirate those games I could afford rather than buying them, I have hurt those developers, and thus have committed a morally wrong act. The initial piracy, however, of Big Game was not morally wrong because no harm came of it, or at the very least only becomes wrong at the point where the habit I developed causes me to not buy a game I might otherwise have bought.

 

I'm going to take an even stronger stance than that, however: there is nothing morally wrong with pirating any media that the pirate would not have bought anyway. There's also nothing morally wrong with someone pirating a game when its price is at an unacceptable (to them) level, and then buying the game when it reaches a level they are willing to pay. I'm not making any claims as to how many people actually behave this way, but as a theoretically matter I would say those actions are perfectly morally acceptable.

 

Legality is an entirely different issue, of course.

 

I generally take a fairly anti-piracy stance, but there is one point that holds true which you've mentioned.. If I can't afford to buy a game, there is no difference in cash flow to the developer if I pirate it or not. Either way I'm not buying it.

[Thursday Next]

I'm going to take an even stronger stance than that, however: there is nothing morally wrong with pirating any media that the pirate would not have bought anyway. There's also nothing morally wrong with someone pirating a game when its price is at an unacceptable (to them) level, and then buying the game when it reaches a level they are willing to pay. I'm not making any claims as to how many people actually behave this way, but as a theoretically matter I would say those actions are perfectly morally acceptable.

 

Legality is an entirely different issue, of course.

 

You're still taking something without permission and not paying a fair price for it. How is that not morally wrong? If someone uses my internet connection when I'm not at home, it won't affect my bandwidth cos I'm not using it, I've got an unlimited data plan so it won't affect my costs, but if I go home and find that someone has been free loading off of something that I work to provide I'll be, I think justifiably, pissed off.

 

If you are never going to buy something, then you will never have the right, morally or legally to use it, unless the owner decides to give it away for free. If the user does decide to give it away for free then you have the right to use it from that moment on. It does not make it cool for you to have pirated it in advance of it being given away.

 

On the subject of "pirate now, pay later," morally that too is wrong. The product has a value now. That value will be different tomorrow. If you use it now then you have a moral obligation to pay for it now. The fact that you "can't" wait till later when the price is within your budget is in itself justification that the value now is higher for a good reason.

 

*NOTE: When I say something "Is morally right / wrong" I am of course measuring this by my own subjective standard.*