Looks like the RIAA has decided to finally come round and say that maybe innovation as opposed to legislation is the proper way to reduce piracy:
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-innovation-is-the-best-way-to-kill-piracy-120412/
While they are more than devious in their choice of words, it does bring up a very interesting topic. What can be done to reduce piracy? I personally think that marketing is not helping the ways it did back when online piracy was non-existent, and that today's marketing strategies haven't changed all that much in the broad scope. What I find to be most effective is availability, cost, and hassle. Two examples I have that will cover the above three topics are as follows.
Last week, I wanted to buy a music album. I didn't know much about it, it wasn't even on the band's wiki page. Come to find out that if I wanted to buy it, I would have to import it through Amazon. By import, I mean I would have to have the physical compact disk arrive on my doorstep, all the way from Europe, there goes cost. So naturally I go to check and see if I can get it for digital download through amazon. No. Google? No. iTunes? No. Can't find it anywhere for digital download, there goes availability. I don't want to wait forever and a day to get the album, and I don't want to pay close to $20 for an album I'm not even sure I'll enjoy fully, so now I choose to download it illegally, and even that was a hassle trying to find it online.
Second example is games, and I don't even need to pick a specific game, just imagine DRM, or crippling bugs in games (Sims or Alice, Madness Returns) and hassle is out the window. Not only those two things, but the basic quality of the game. I have to purchase a game, then patch it (because you know, they can never release a fully updated game, there's always patches), and more often then not the flaws of the game are overwhelming, and yet somehow they feel that they can charge $60+ for these sub-par quality games. I know that the prices haven't really gone up much over the past decade or two, because I can recall SNES games costing $50-$60 a game, but I'll be damned if I ever played a SNES game that had even half the bugs and flaws modern games have. Quality goes down, price remains either steady or on the very slow increase, but hardly ever down. That's why it would seem that Indie game development has skyrocketed; People aren't afraid to shell out $10-$15 for games knowing that some small crew of folks take pride in their games, and maybe even feel sentimental about helping them out. Of course serious indie developers are going to enjoy their work more than EA employees on the death march to completion of their games before all the developers are fired.
With regards to games, I find that Steam is the ultimate anti-piracy reducer. They love indie games, they give out deals all the time, and make it incredibly quick and easy to get new games. As far as music goes, I'm finding that I'm a huge fan of Google Play (Google Music), where I can easily search, find it, buy it, and immediately listen to it all online. Prices may not be as good as Steams is for games, but it does cover every other aspect of why piracy is so common, or at least in my opinion.
I'm curious to hear what other people think needs to happen to reduce piracy. Keep the senseless BS out (free is not an acceptable answer, we all know that). I want to hear what innovations can be made to make pirating a thing of the past.
Quote from: Scotty on April 13, 2012, 04:27:41 PMKeep the senseless BS out (free is not an acceptable answer, we all know that).
I disagree. I think some things being free is an acceptable answer. Not for a blanket fix for everything but i think it can work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium And I also think cash market for free games can be good for free to play games. Depending on the game and how far they take it. What i'm basically saying is free can work in some places.
QuoteI want to hear what innovations can be made to make pirating a thing of the past.
Lol, and I only want the cure for cancer. You make it sound easy. But yes i understand you want a quality conversation.
I don't have time to really expand on my other points for your topic. But I would like to get back to it later on.
I used to pirate everything. And then I found Steam. I honestly haven't pirated a game since. Then I bought ME3. NOW IM'A PIRATE FROM THAT RED LIGHT DISTRICT OF A COMPANY ALL DAY LONG.
What I'm saying is that Steam is the greatest idea to counter piracy I have ever seen. Music wise, well we won't go there.
Well, I would pretty much agree with everything you just said. Stop treating your customers like criminals, and stop making things so damn inconvenient, and stop being so god damn greedy.
For example, I love the Sims series. I bought Sims 1, and every expansion for Sims 1 (and this is Sims we're talking about. That's a lot of expansions!).
I bought Sims 2, and I bought every expansion for Sims 2. This is when they decided to start releasing 'Stuff Packs'. I didn't buy those, because I'm not paying 20 dollars for a pack of items. Rather, I bought them much later from a store near me that I love called Half-Price Books. 10 dollars was a much more reasonable price, imo.
Then Sims 3 came out. I bought Sims 3. I was utterly disappointed by the lack of content present in this game. Perhaps it was just because I was used to playing Sims 2, with all of its expansions? I let it slide. Then, when it came out (6 months later), I bought the first expansion, Sims 3 World Adventures. This expansion added an interesting vacation-ish function to the game. Big problem, though; it did NOTHING to provide new, MUCH needed content to the base game that already felt like a skeleton of the game. Bigger problem; it was plagued with GAME CRIPPLING BUGS. My save was corrupted to UNPLAYABILITY. And, of course, they're still shilling out the 'Stuff Packs'. Not to mention the 'Sims 3 Store', where they expect you to buy up all these items as DLC. Is it any wonder that the game felt hollow? All the content is being sold as DLC, because EA are greedy !@#$s.
I still play Sims 3. I have pirated every expansion and Stuff Pack and even a rip of their entire Sims 3 Store catalogue. Because !@#$ you, EA. I loved the series, and then you had to !@#$ it all up. You have no one to blame but yourself. You want my god damn money? Let's see you EARN IT.
Anyway, adding on to what you were saying about Steam, I recently made an account on GOG.com, and oh god, do I love it. Good Old Games recently changed their name to just GOG, because apparently they are no longer simply selling old games, but appear to be moving towards selling newer released games as well, putting it in competition with Steam. Only difference is, everything they sell is DRM-free, and it's all done through their website so I don't need an annoying app running in the background, and they all come with a bunch of bonus stuff, so it's like a dream come true for me. :3
P.S. Off-topic, but GOG.com has 32 Interplay games on sale 50% off this weekend. http://www.gog.com/news/weekend_promo_interplay_blast
If anyone's been interested in playing Fallout 1 and 2, you can get 'em for 3 bucks each. :3
Quote from: Chaos on April 13, 2012, 05:23:11 PM
.....I recently made an account on GOG.com, and oh god, do I love it. Good Old Games recently changed their name to just GOG, because apparently they are no longer simply selling old games, but appear to be moving towards selling newer released games as well, putting it in competition with Steam. Only difference is, everything they sell is DRM-free, and it's all done through their website so I don't need an annoying app running in the background, and they all come with a bunch of bonus stuff, so it's like a dream come true for me. :3
Thank you for telling me about this. Now I need to try it!
Edit: I like their Mac theme even though most of the games i have seen are for Windows only.
I don't know how MUCH they're going to be doing of new games, or how quickly, though; it's just what I've been hearing. They do have Legend of Grimrock, which was released two days ago, though. Still worth checking out, imo. :p
I like how they give you some free games. And that the games are DRM free. So if they die we still have are games.
And that your purchases are attached to your account, so if your computer dies, you can log in and easily redownload your purchases. :3
Oh yes right! So all in all, this is the best way to reduce piracy. Now we need one for music, videos, books, etc.
Streamline purchases. get rid of DRM. Reduce prices.
Quote from: Jake on April 13, 2012, 10:34:34 PM
Streamline purchases. get rid of DRM. Reduce prices.
A lot of those are actively being incorporated, yet piracy still exists. At what point is it enough? The more I think about it, the more I'm starting the question whether ISP's upcoming "re-education" process is going to do the trick. We have online services to purchase most online media, and some have some extremely competitive prices, and DRM... Well... That's one of those things that I'm convinced won't ever go away entirely no matter how much we plead, boycott, or lob proverbial molotov cocktails at the companies that incorporate it. It certainly is on the decline, yet some companies still want to use it and think everything is going to be alright.
For those who caught that last part about ISP's actively targeting piracy, here's some more details (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan.ars). I'm skeptical that any amount of price reduction, DRM removal, or ease of purchase is going to wipe out piracy, there has to be a fallback in place for those who just won't pay money period. I understand the world is in a financial rut as of late, and that may very well attribute to online piracy, but even in a more ideal economy, this would still be a problem. Do I think that it's right to have to have ISP crack-downs? No, but sadly nothing short of free will stop piracy, and we all know that day will never come (hence my first comment about making everything free is not an acceptable answer).
Quote from: Scotty on April 13, 2012, 10:58:02 PM
Quote from: Jake on April 13, 2012, 10:34:34 PM
Streamline purchases. get rid of DRM. Reduce prices.
A lot of those are actively being incorporated, yet piracy still exists. At what point is it enough? The more I think about it, the more I'm starting the question whether ISP's upcoming "re-education" process is going to do the trick. We have online services to purchase most online media, and some have some extremely competitive prices, and DRM... Well... That's one of those things that I'm convinced won't ever go away entirely no matter how much we plead, boycott, or lob proverbial molotov cocktails at the companies that incorporate it. It certainly is on the decline, yet some companies still want to use it and think everything is going to be alright.
For those who caught that last part about ISP's actively targeting piracy, here's some more details (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan.ars). I'm skeptical that any amount of price reduction, DRM removal, or ease of purchase is going to wipe out piracy, there has to be a fallback in place for those who just won't pay money period. I understand the world is in a financial rut as of late, and that may very well attribute to online piracy, but even in a more ideal economy, this would still be a problem. Do I think that it's right to have to have ISP crack-downs? No, but sadly nothing short of free will stop piracy, and we all know that day will never come (hence my first comment about making everything free is not an acceptable answer).
Stopping piracy and reducing piracy are two different things. There is no way to get rid of piracy, but there are a lot of ways to piss off consumers. Companies need to focus on creating better experiences for consumers, and in turn, it will help to reduce piracy. Alienating consumers with shitty DRM, high prices, and requiring them to download specific software are the main reasons people go to pirate. There are also people who pirate because they're cheap and want what they can't afford. These people will always pirate, no matter what businesses do.
I am against ISP crackdowns, because it requires them to spy on what we do online to figure out that we're doing something illegal, and that is none of their business, or anyone elses. If our government wants to get a warrant to search our online data usage, that's fine. But there is absolutely no reason for ISP's to be searching through our data usage history to see if we're up to no good. It's the same as if microsoft automatically recorded all files on our computer and alerted authorities if we had something illegal installed. There job is to supply a service, and if authorities want to seek legal action against one of us, they can go through the proper channels of doing so. The government is constantly trying to find new ways to spy on people, and im sick of it. We have a legal process for a reason.
I'm mistaken in thinking piracy can be *stopped*. That sort of delusion is similar to thinking we can stop physical theft, which is black & white enough to know it's un-achievable. If physical theft was effectively wiped out, that would mean we would have to go to exorbitant lengths that would require substantial sacrifice, expense, and is completely unrealistic. Such is the case for online piracy. Unfortunately, that is what ISP's are trying to do, and you're right, it is uncalled for. We don't have police in place at the entrance of every Wal-Mart and 7-Eleven to check our bags (and subsequently violate our 4th amendment in the United States) before we leave, and it's similar enough to warrant question as to why they feel the need to monitor our traffic as though we are criminals. Given the link I posted previously, it's my understanding that they plan to target torrents, and while they have safeguards in place to appeal the accusations, I know that I personally have used torrents to download entirely legal software (linux distributions to royalty free music). I can already see that they are going to blanket target people that torrent regardless of what the content is, not doing any research to see whether or not it is defined as piracy, and there's going to be a lot of wasted money and effort for the legitimate use of torrents.
So I guess my question to you (Jake), is can you elaborate on your previous quote of:
Quote from: Jake on April 13, 2012, 10:34:34 PM
Streamline purchases. get rid of DRM. Reduce prices.
Sure, it's simple enough to understand, but what do you mean when you use words like "Streamline", and "Reduce prices"? What do you view as feasible enough to stop you or others from pirating? Are there current systems in place that do this? Can they be improved upon? Are they not doing enough? What can they do better? I'm genuinely curious to hear what it is you think they can do better.
QuoteI'm mistaken in thinking piracy can be *stopped*. That sort of delusion is similar to thinking we can stop physical theft, which is black & white enough to know it's un-achievable.
0_o, what mindset where you in today?
I know your talking to (Jake) but i would like to add something in.
Quote from: Scotty on April 14, 2012, 12:45:08 AM
Quote from: Jake on April 13, 2012, 10:34:34 PM
Streamline purchases. get rid of DRM. Reduce prices.
Sure, it's simple enough to understand, but what do you mean when you use words like "Streamline", and "Reduce prices"? What do you view as feasible enough to stop you or others from pirating? Are there current systems in place that do this? Can they be improved upon? Are they not doing enough? What can they do better? I'm genuinely curious to hear what it is you think they can do better.
Its hard to give those kinds specifics. I don't think any of us here have the business experience to give or a digital media company to test what parts of "Streamline", and "Reduce prices" work. And its hard for real business to do so also because messing up could mean going out of business. And what works for music may not work for video.
My bust guess of what your really asking is if we where starting up a new digital media company with some venture capital what are the details in which we could sell are product and feel that we are getting a far profit marge. I'm sure the reason you want to reduce piracy is to give something back to the creators/vendors. That's something that would be fun to think about and i think would answer you question.
Quote from: Scotty on April 14, 2012, 12:45:08 AM
I'm mistaken in thinking piracy can be *stopped*. That sort of delusion is similar to thinking we can stop physical theft, which is black & white enough to know it's un-achievable. If physical theft was effectively wiped out, that would mean we would have to go to exorbitant lengths that would require substantial sacrifice, expense, and is completely unrealistic. Such is the case for online piracy. Unfortunately, that is what ISP's are trying to do, and you're right, it is uncalled for. We don't have police in place at the entrance of every Wal-Mart and 7-Eleven to check our bags (and subsequently violate our 4th amendment in the United States) before we leave, and it's similar enough to warrant question as to why they feel the need to monitor our traffic as though we are criminals. Given the link I posted previously, it's my understanding that they plan to target torrents, and while they have safeguards in place to appeal the accusations, I know that I personally have used torrents to download entirely legal software (linux distributions to royalty free music). I can already see that they are going to blanket target people that torrent regardless of what the content is, not doing any research to see whether or not it is defined as piracy, and there's going to be a lot of wasted money and effort for the legitimate use of torrents.
So I guess my question to you (Jake), is can you elaborate on your previous quote of:
Quote from: Jake on April 13, 2012, 10:34:34 PM
Streamline purchases. get rid of DRM. Reduce prices.
Sure, it's simple enough to understand, but what do you mean when you use words like "Streamline", and "Reduce prices"? What do you view as feasible enough to stop you or others from pirating? Are there current systems in place that do this? Can they be improved upon? Are they not doing enough? What can they do better? I'm genuinely curious to hear what it is you think they can do better.
I'll give you a better reply when I get home from work, but I think at the most basic level, it means companies need to start trying to help the customer rather than milk them for all their worth. Steam is a huge example of that. When I buy a game and get a great discount, I feel like they're helping me out, not nickel and diming me. Download speeds are quick, games are competitively priced, and I can install them on multiple computers. I can tell they're trying to create a great experience for the consumer. Netflix is another great example of doing things right. Sure they jacked up the prices recently, but how can you beat unlimited streaming of movies and tv shows for like 8 dollars a month. It's way easier to go on netflix and watch a couple episodes of how I met your mother then it is to pirate them and have to wait.
until every dlc and every patch is free i refuse to waste $60 on a game and find out i can't even access all of its content until i shell out more money.
if music artists were the one receiving most of the profit, and not labels more people would buy music.
i'm poor so i will pirate regardless but this is for people who have the option to buy it. no one will care about pirating if it's only hurting huge greedy companies like EA.
Not really a practical solution, but I think fixing the economy would get more people to purchase downloads instead of pirating them. There is some correlation between a rise in theft and the downturn of the economy. If there is more prosperity in a country and more people have jobs and that extra money to spend on things like entertainment, more and more people will purchase instead of resorting to piracy.
But I don't think piracy will ever die. People love "free" stuff.
Quote from: ARTgames on April 14, 2012, 01:21:57 AM
Its hard to give those kinds specifics. I don't think any of us here have the business experience to give or a digital media company to test what parts of "Streamline", and "Reduce prices" work. And its hard for real business to do so also because messing up could mean going out of business. And what works for music may not work for video.
It isn't a matter of knowledge of economics, or understanding marketing, it's the fact that the RIAA for the first time
ever is acknowledging that there is a problem, and that instead of legislation, innovation may be the answer. Throwing your hands up and saying "I dunno, someone else who's more qualified to answer the question should speak up" is not going to yield
any results. That's like saying "I hate the President, he's a load of crap and shouldn't get a second term", and then not voting because you don't know any of the politics of the opposing side, or are just too lazy to do the research to find your answer. I addressed his answer with broad questions because he was very general in his response, and if he can refine it down to simple-to-understand concept(s), it may be easier to build off of, which he did. Wanna complain? Better have a proposal for a solution. That's my general thinking behind problems. If people wanna bitch and demand change, they best have a good idea of what it is they wanna change and how they should go about doing it. Simply playing ignorance will get you absolutely no where and you'll continue to bitch until you educate yourself and work on coming up with a reasonable solution.
Quote from: Jake on April 14, 2012, 09:57:13 AM
I'll give you a better reply when I get home from work, but I think at the most basic level, it means companies need to start trying to help the customer rather than milk them for all their worth. Steam is a huge example of that. When I buy a game and get a great discount, I feel like they're helping me out, not nickel and diming me. Download speeds are quick, games are competitively priced, and I can install them on multiple computers. I can tell they're trying to create a great experience for the consumer. Netflix is another great example of doing things right. Sure they jacked up the prices recently, but how can you beat unlimited streaming of movies and tv shows for like 8 dollars a month. It's way easier to go on netflix and watch a couple episodes of how I met your mother then it is to pirate them and have to wait.
I like the concept of Netflix, and don't even necessarily find the price hikes very relevant given the topic of piracy, but there is still the underlying flaw of Netflix. They are at the mercy of the media industry. They don't have free reign to host any ol' shows, and Hollywood would rather suck-start a .45 before handing over all of their films. They lose money, thus the majority of what you find on Netflix is either old, B-rated, or were just a plain flop in box office that they can't go anywhere but up. Netflix fights tooth and nail to get content, and the media industry would much rather we go out and fork over the $20 dollars to get the blu-ray than give them a fraction of a $10-$15 dollar monthly subscription price. Essentially, they're being
really effin' greedy. Heck, I remember (don't quote me exactly on this) reading a while back that streaming is on the rise, and video piracy is on the decline. The main contributor to this effect is believed to be Netflix and other media streaming services. Hollywood must have completely ignored this statistic and decided they'd rather just continue to have the RIAA do all the bitch work and sue the asses off the people who pirate their stuff rather than feed into the rising demand for streaming content. It's the most greedy, selfish BS I've heard of. They would rather lose money than pay into services like Netflix where they're guaranteed to at least get some money from those who would otherwise pirate their content without second thought.
Quote from: HeroicHero on April 14, 2012, 06:26:06 PM
Not really a practical solution, but I think fixing the economy would get more people to purchase downloads instead of pirating them. There is some correlation between a rise in theft and the downturn of the economy. If there is more prosperity in a country and more people have jobs and that extra money to spend on things like entertainment, more and more people will purchase instead of resorting to piracy.
But I don't think piracy will ever die. People love "free" stuff.
I agree entirely. A lot of people plain cannot afford to purchase all of the stuff they pirate, even if they would want to fork over the cash. Heck, people have to cut back on hobbies and make drastic lifestyle changes. While they sit at home as opposed to going out and having fun, they might as well get some movies or music to help pass the time while they wallow in the world's crap economy. It makes perfect sense. In an ideal economy there would be plenty of people who wouldn't mind paying for the movies, music, and games, but unfortunately a lot of people are having hard times even holding down jobs, let alone spending their money on luxuries they could otherwise "acquire".
Scotty that is not what I meant, but anyway I think this post will better fit why you made this topic.
To reduce piracy we need to try make it easier to buy than to steal. One of those factors being price, its hard to compete with the free price of privacy but if we (the company) don't try to gouge out every cent than we have a better time getting at piracy.
This section is more about video
=======================
Make it possible for the consumer to buy a la carte:
Don't get me wrong this is actually happening on many digatal stores but what I'm particularly getting at is cable TV. Many people I speak to who pirate tv content do it because they don't want to pay for all the crap channels and only pay for a few that they really want. Let them do that and some money is better than no money as they turn to the internet.
Put your content everywhere and get it there fast:
Have a stander paid online service that gets the content out faster than the pirates can. If I can go online and stream the video live at the same time it airs on tv than that's more appealing to me than having to weight for the pirates to encode it + the time for me to download it. Taking a week or even a year or maybe even never to put out the episodes online will just make copying it seem worth it to people.
Stop forcing people into old business practices:
This is more for movies. Movie theaters are nice but having that be the only way to get new movies seems old fashioned. They also charge so much to see it its almost worth it to just buy it later on. But if you can get the new hot movie online for a reasonably price that would make it more worth whiled. There would still be a reason to go for the big screen but for the people who don't care about the big screen, don't like the theaters, cant afford the theaters this is the way you can get them.
If you don't put it online, pirates will:
If you have anything worth while to put online it will make its way there. You (the company) have a advantage over the pirates, you can release something faster than them and get the word out fast. And never putting it there is not smart. Your missing out on a opportunity that others will do for you that you will not benefit from.
This is more about music
==================
This one seems hard. We can get music easy and buy only what we like. But yet many people still pirate it. The best thing i can think of is paid streaming services. We have those also. You can really find any song on you tube for example. I guess just put ads on those videos. Which they do.
Probably a bad idea but I think a good idea would be to use music to attack people to buy other products. But i don't want music to turn into just ads also. But having something like that plays music for free but also shows you other things maybe related to the song for purchase would help.
Also something I think would interest people to make good word of mouth about you is to start releasing music at least at CD quality. I can get most music online but its lossy compressed stuff. But if there was a services out there that could give all CD stuff i would like to buy that. But i dont think most people care so i dont think that can really be a fix.
Video games
==========
Game demos (with limits)
I know you can get reviews for any game but no one is a better at making a review for a game than will fit me as one i make myself. Paying $60 for a game and it sucks is not fun. I think giving a piece of the game for free online, and single player is the best way to make someone want to buy the game. Now this is kinda a moot point because they do this. But i don't think nearly enough.
Cashops that if offer things the players can get without paying should do little to nothing to effect game play, and if it does effect game play make it possible for normal people to get it. But this is nothing new.
This is about piracy in general
=====================
Free and work in some places, dont be too greedy
As I said in my fist post i think free can work in some cases. I don't think everything should be free. In music sometimes for new people it's better just heard and known. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium . Its hard to get those people you know will never pay and will just download. I think the best you can do is maybe at some point give your old stuff away for free but with ads or use it to attack people to your other never products. Now it depends on your products off course.
Stop with the piracy tax
I know on AAA title video games there is a piracy tax on those games. But i'm also talking about DRM. Newsflash almost everything you put DRM on has failed and people can just go get a copy someplace else for free and without it. DRM is like going to a crime sean and putting handcuffs on the victim as the criminal escapes. It devalues your product and costs you to developed it and maintain it with little to almost no stop to the problem. "but if we don't have it, it would me it too easy for people to copy" well i see some truth in that, and maybe in that case some sort of system maybe a layman cant get passed. But all and all its already super easy to copy and there is nothing you can do about it.
Its getting late and i cant think too well right now. So ill stop there. If i should expand on something tell me.
Thanks for the elaborate explanation.
I think music is going to be one of the hardest, because so much effort has gone into providing numerous avenues of purchasing music. Oddly enough, I think it's too early to call it a lost cause. Google Play isn't even a year old, Amazon's MP3 cloud service isn't much older, iTunes is... Well... Not sure how to argue in support of them since they've been around, but I think that maybe what it's coming down to is availability (see my first example). I agree that lossless quality music would be nice, but I don't think there is much of a demand for it. Most people who own digital media devices don't yet have unlimited storage to store 20k songs in FLAC (or whatever other lossless format) files. I personally would like it, but I'm not sold that such a solution would do a whole lot.
Some of your video recommendations never occurred to me, and I think you make some very valid points. Movie theaters are old. Very old. It's been well over a year since I set foot inside of one, and it's not because I'm not interested in movies that are coming out. If there was a way to sit at home or some other alternative means to stream box office releases, I'm certain that there would be a LOT more money made.
The a la carte concept is definitely one that people have been screaming for over the last couple of years, and I'm honestly shocked that almost nothing has been done about it (when it comes to cable TV). A prime example is Game of Thrones. People have been pleading for HBO Go to remove their cable dependencies in order to subscribe to it. I wish there was a way to see how many people pirated the series versus how many bought it when it came out. It wasn't out for very long before they had to drop the prices drastically, so I'm guessing that means many didn't buy it since many already downloaded it. It's a shame, even more so because HBO could have made a substantial profit if they allowed people to subscribe to their online service without having to have a cable subscription to the channel.
I take back what I said about music being the hardest. I think games are going to be the hardest, because it is hard to justify spending half a hundred bucks on a game we aren't even sure if we're going to enjoy. My main concern with video games is flat out quality. Like I said before, when I would purchase SNES games, I paid the same price as what I pay for games today, and never once did I have an SNES game that had a bug that would prevent me from finishing the game. I didn't once have to "update" my game before I played it because it was released unfinished. It seriously seems like since video games took off, profit became more important than pride. The industry rushes to release content because they want money more than they want a polished, finished product. At this point, there's so many avenues to get great deals on games, the most overwhelming reason I hear from people as for why they pirate is flat out quality. If the game was glued together with spit and ear-wax, who on earth would want to fork over $50+ dollars for it.
Quote from: Yankyal on April 14, 2012, 01:03:53 PM
until every dlc and every patch is free i refuse to waste $60 on a game and find out i can't even access all of its content until i shell out more money.
if music artists were the one receiving most of the profit, and not labels more people would buy music.
i'm poor so i will pirate regardless but this is for people who have the option to buy it. no one will care about pirating if it's only hurting huge greedy companies like EA.
This and Chaos' post reminded me of the DLC for Alice:Madness Returns. Well first off they advertised saying you'd get the "re-enhanced" version of the first Alice game with purchasing the second game. Come to find out, it was only if you bought the game online, not in the stores.
Secondly, they had a special dress pack that you got if you pre-ordered the game. Which they also had a lot of problems with. And they wouldn't let you purchase the DLC separately from then on, even though many people wanted it. Well the smarties at EA apparently thought consumers were too dumb to figure out that the DLC is already programmed into the game and all you had to do was go into the coding, change one word, and BAM... you got all the special dresses. So after I found that out I posted it all over their forums, they deleted my posts, and I'd repost it. :D
EA: Ruin Everything.
More on topic... what Chaos was talking about, GOG, I think that's a really cool idea. I like that the games are connected with your account so if you lose everything (and I've had that happen twice), you can easily get it back. I think one of the problems is that not many people know about it; I've never heard of it until now. I think if they got bigger it could help.
Something I thought of for video games is video game rental. I know for example steam can have a game out that people can use for a while and then they take it away for demos. Most of the time it is just the multiplayer they have out for obvious reasons. But they could maybe do a rental services for pcs. If i could maybe pay a small fee and get some time to see if i like it that would be nice. I think this may work out because games that tend to have a short single player have a large multiplayer. And games with little to no multiplayer have really long single player. And indie or small games tend to be cheaper so I don't mind just buying it. But for the games that take longer to beat or have a large multiplayer and if person really likes that game they will feel compelled to buy the game so they can have the time to beat it or to play it later on without a time limit. And if the games sucks or its not your thing you did not play the full price for it. And the company still gets some money from both those people.
Now I think I heard that the news with the new PlayStation and Xbox is that they want to cut out used games and rentals by tying new games to user accounts. But maybe they could also have a online rental system and cut out the middle man that they feel is taking there money. It hurts those others but its better than the only way to get a game is to pay for it new.
IDK if book piracy is a big thing also.
@DT: Well, until recently, all the games on there have been games that were released 'back in the day'. I didn't make an account until, like, 2 weeks ago, when Snakeman told me they were giving away Fallout 1 for free for that weekend. I had already heard about them before (they've been around for a while), but hadn't a reason to make an account til now, and I really want to support them and let them get more widespread, which is why I'm telling everyone I know about it. :3
Also, another method to reduce piracy:
Endear yourself to your consumers. People are a lot less likely to feel okay pirating from you if they actually feel like you're on their side. For an example of what NOT to do, see "EA".
It's part of the reason Indie games are starting to thrive. Indie studios are making games they actually care about, and actually communicate with their fanbase. They AREN'T a faceless, soulless machine, churning out cash-grab slop.
EDIT: Along with that, Indie games are, as the name implies, independent, which means they don't have incompetent asshole publishers meddling in the game creation, a place they have NO business being.
Another thing they can do to reduce piracy is STOP SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON EVERY GAME YOU MAKE. Games NEVER cost this much to make back in the day, and can we honestly say games are better now? Sure, graphics are prettier, but the games aren't any more fun. Every game doesn't need to be a samey FPS with 'realistic' graphics. Every game doesn't need to be 3D. Mix it up! Be creative! Stop wasting so much god damn money on every game you make that's preventing the industry from TAKING RISKS and BEING CREATIVE.
EDIT: I wasn't so clear in my conclusion, now that I look at it. This will reduce prices because the COST is reduced, and it will let games actually be INTERESTING again. With interesting games that are cheaper, people are less likely to pirate it because they feel they are getting their money's worth.
Or, hell, keep doing it this way, and let the Indie studios take over. I'm okay with that outcome, actually.
Adding on to something you said, Art:
The game demos. YES. In a day and age where good game reviews are essentially bought and paid for, we NEED game demos back. No one can trust game reviews these days. Anyone remember the "Kane & Lynch" debacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_%26_Lynch:_Dead_Men#GameSpot_controversy) on GameSpot?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/cispa-veto-recommended-by-white-house-bills-authors-defend-it.ars
Want to stop piracy for real? Enhance naval defense.
If you happen to be confusing piracy with the act of illegally obtaining intellectual property without purchase, you may also be confusing intellectual property with physical property. While intellectual property may exist in-law, it directly undermines physical property by inhibiting how it is used. If you have ownership of a computer, and all of the parts that make it up, then surely you are in ownership of all of the bits on your HDD/SSD/CD/DVD/B-RD/, and are rightfully in control of the orientation of those bits. To say that any set of states for the bits on the storage medium that you are the rightful owner of not be allowed because someone else claimed ownership of that arrangement, and has not given permission for use of that arrangement(through purchase or otherwise), is to say that you do not have full control of that storage medium; which is to say that you do not have full ownership of that storage medium. This same logic also applies to all mediums of data transfer, to which the author of the "intellectual property" is presumably not party to, or owner of.
I've not covered all other applications of intellectual property, but here's a clip of a somewhat relevant hour-and-a-half long lecture :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4)
Quote from: MorganEarlJones on June 29, 2012, 02:28:50 AM
Want to stop piracy for real? Enhance naval defense.
If you happen to be confusing piracy with the act of illegally obtaining intellectual property without purchase, you may also be confusing intellectual property with physical property. While intellectual property may exist in-law, it directly undermines physical property by inhibiting how it is used. If you have ownership of a computer, and all of the parts that make it up, then surely you are in ownership of all of the bits on your HDD/SSD/CD/DVD/B-RD/, and are rightfully in control of the orientation of those bits. To say that any set of states for the bits on the storage medium that you are the rightful owner of not be allowed because someone else claimed ownership of that arrangement, and has not given permission for use of that arrangement(through purchase or otherwise), is to say that you do not have full control of that storage medium; which is to say that you do not have full ownership of that storage medium. This same logic also applies to all mediums of data transfer, to which the author of the "intellectual property" is presumably not party to, or owner of.
I've not covered all other applications of intellectual property, but here's a clip of a somewhat relevant hour-and-a-half long lecture :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4)
That, to me anyway, is a good point. People are literally telling me that I cannot use my computer, which I own in full, to create certain combinations of magnetic switches on the HDD. That's almost like someone telling us that we can't store food in the fridge a certain way because other people have done so already. On top of that, how close does a program have to be to another program to be considered copyright infringement? If it's 1 bit off, 2 bits off, etc. What if someone tried to sell "hello world" tutorials for all the different languages and sued the people that made them? How unique does a program have to be before it can obtain copyrights?
Well hold on. Here's the thing though. If you were able to come up with that exact same arrangement of bits on your hard drive by chance then I would agree. The problem is how you came across that specific arrangement. You didn't program the bits yourself, you went online and downloaded it from someone else. It's about context. No one would reasonably agree that you were able to obtain the exact same copy of a program (or music or whatever IP you're talking about) without using some method of "piracy" (or whatever term you want to call it "downloading without owner's consent".)
Let's compare this to music. Let's say someone comes out with a song. They write it, record it, put it out in stores and start selling copies. Then someone comes along who has a copy of this song who has not paid. Would you assume that A) by chance, without ever hearing the original, they happen to write the exact same song, and record it in the exact same way with the same voices, tones, and every quality of the song that the original copy has, or B) that they, by chance, again without ever hearing the original, happened to code bits of data in the precise arrangement that would replicate in every way the original recorded song, or C) they freaking pirated it.
You do see how ridiculous your claim is. Just because someone owns the phyiscal equipment that allows them to pirate something doesn't give them the right to use that equipment however they want. That's basically an argument for allowing hackers or spammers to do what they want. What about credit card fraud? There's no physical property being stolen. Someone went on their computer and arranged some bits and happened to use your credit card to purchase something. They own the computer, so there's nothing stopping them from using however they want right?
Come on...
Couldn't I just make the argument all physical things are made of atoms like software is made of bits...so if I went into court for stealing a toothbrush...I would just plea that all of the atoms in the toothbrush were arranged by me so therefore I didn't steal it? Yeah, I really don't see any good basis for this method of thinking...
Quote from: Lingus on June 29, 2012, 12:13:01 PM
Well hold on. Here's the thing though. If you were able to come up with that exact same arrangement of bits on your hard drive by chance then I would agree. The problem is how you came across that specific arrangement. You didn't program the bits yourself, you went online and downloaded it from someone else. It's about context. No one would reasonably agree that you were able to obtain the exact same copy of a program (or music or whatever IP you're talking about) without using some method of "piracy" (or whatever term you want to call it "downloading without owner's consent".)
Let's compare this to music. Let's say someone comes out with a song. They write it, record it, put it out in stores and start selling copies. Then someone comes along who has a copy of this song who has not paid. Would you assume that A) by chance, without ever hearing the original, they happen to write the exact same song, and record it in the exact same way with the same voices, tones, and every quality of the song that the original copy has, or B) that they, by chance, again without ever hearing the original, happened to code bits of data in the precise arrangement that would replicate in every way the original recorded song, or C) they freaking pirated it.
You do see how ridiculous your claim is. Just because someone owns the phyiscal equipment that allows them to pirate something doesn't give them the right to use that equipment however they want. That's basically an argument for allowing hackers or spammers to do what they want. What about credit card fraud? There's no physical property being stolen. Someone went on their computer and arranged some bits and happened to use your credit card to purchase something. They own the computer, so there's nothing stopping them from using however they want right?
Come on...
For me, it's not really about how the data was obtained. It's about how the data exists. Putting artificial limits on data seems so extremely silly. It's the same as if I bought a recipe, but wasn't allowed to share the recipe with my friends unless I payed the original chef. Putting those kinds of artificial limits on things that are obviously meant and designed to be free is something that I will never grasp. I will never buy a song and say to myself "The maker of this song is supplying me a service right now". No, I will say "I own this song, it exists on my hard drive, and I will do with it's 1's and 0's as I please". it's not pretty, it creates all kinds of problems for business and individuals alike, but that's the hard truth. Data is meant to be free, so it's up to businesses to find business practices that allow them to make money. I no longer pirate, but I will do what I see fit with software and applications that I buy.
The credit card analogy differs in a few ways. One, it's real money that he's stealing, not just a potential sale. Two, he's not just copying 1's and 0's, but rather specifically using 1's and 0's to act in a malicious way. It's the same as if somebody used a computer to launch a missile. The action has real, tangible implications. When I copy a song and give it to a friend, there is no way to measure real world implications. One can argue a potential sale is lost, but one can also argue a potential sale is lost when I hand my used game over to a friend. Both have the same impact on the creator, but one is illegal because it's "copyright infringement".
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on June 29, 2012, 01:10:07 PM
Couldn't I just make the argument all physical things are made of atoms like software is made of bits...so if I went into court for stealing a toothbrush...I would just plea that all of the atoms in the toothbrush were arranged by me so therefore I didn't steal it? Yeah, I really don't see any good basis for this method of thinking...
A better analogy would be owning a machine with the ability to copy atoms to make something like a tooth brush and then keeping it. The creator of the toothbrush could argue that he lost a potential sale because you would have bought the toothbrush if you couldn't have copied it, but then I would argue that he still has the original toothbrush, so no harm no foul. This is why businesses that make intangible goods call them services, because you can't get away with charging for a good that has unlimited supply. I understand completely why they do this, but I will never buy into the fact that I am simply getting a service when I play a game or listen to music that quite literally exists on my computer.
Some of this is just arbitrary rules we have evolved into to keep people happy. And the new possibilities with new technologies is causing ripples in the system. I feel we should discuss why people sell things.
Quote from: Jake on June 29, 2012, 01:11:40 PMFor me, it's not really about how the data was obtained.
I'm not going to requote your whole post since it's so large, but this sentence is particularly important. I think this is the crux of the issue. Piracy
is all about how you obtain the data. Piracy means you took something with out permission from the owner. Intellectual property can be pirated. It seems to me that you're making it out to be something that belongs to everyone. Once an idea or design is put out into public awareness, it belongs to the public. Sure, in an ideal world that would be great. Everyone shares everything. The problem is that it's just not the case. People create things in order to make money. Just because it happens to be non-physical doesn't mean they are any less entitled to the ownership of what they created. Whether that be music, software, a piece of code, the design for a house or piece of machinery or a gadget or whatever. You can't just take it. And just because you paid money in order to use it, doesn't entitle you to
unlimited use. If you buy music, you can't use that music in a video unless the owner of that music gives you permission. If the owner wants to make more money off of that, then that is their right.
Quote from: Lingus on July 02, 2012, 12:43:11 PM
People create things in order to make money.
I'm not going to requote your whole post since it's so large, but this sentence is particularly important. This seems to be one of the biggest arguments for not having piracy. Don't get me wrong even without money I'm sure people will want to keep things behind locked doors but this is still one of the main points. I feel we should discuss why people sell things. I don't mean that skin deep, I know its to make money but I mean more than that.
Quote from: ARTgames on July 02, 2012, 06:08:53 PMI feel we should discuss why people sell things. I don't mean that skin deep, I know its to make money but I mean more than that.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. People sell things to make money. Are you asking why people don't trade? Kind of getting into some of the basics of economy.
Quote from: Lingus on July 02, 2012, 07:20:15 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on July 02, 2012, 06:08:53 PMI feel we should discuss why people sell things. I don't mean that skin deep, I know its to make money but I mean more than that.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. People sell things to make money. Are you asking why people don't trade? Kind of getting into some of the basics of economy.
Oh my bad I will make it more clear. But the yeah the idea was to talk about money and maybe other systems that could suite peoples needs. You said it: basics of economy. How could we make it viable for people to make information "free"?
Quote from: Lingus on July 02, 2012, 12:43:11 PM
Quote from: Jake on June 29, 2012, 01:11:40 PMFor me, it's not really about how the data was obtained.
I'm not going to requote your whole post since it's so large, but this sentence is particularly important. I think this is the crux of the issue. Piracy is all about how you obtain the data. Piracy means you took something with out permission from the owner. Intellectual property can be pirated. It seems to me that you're making it out to be something that belongs to everyone. Once an idea or design is put out into public awareness, it belongs to the public. Sure, in an ideal world that would be great. Everyone shares everything. The problem is that it's just not the case. People create things in order to make money. Just because it happens to be non-physical doesn't mean they are any less entitled to the ownership of what they created. Whether that be music, software, a piece of code, the design for a house or piece of machinery or a gadget or whatever. You can't just take it. And just because you paid money in order to use it, doesn't entitle you to unlimited use. If you buy music, you can't use that music in a video unless the owner of that music gives you permission. If the owner wants to make more money off of that, then that is their right.
To me, it's no different than somebody giving me a recipe, and telling me I can only make cookies with it 5 times and that I can no longer use it anymore. It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't carry any significance to someone like me. Whats to stop people from using the same argument you're using against piracy to support making it illegal to trade books, video games, etc. Technically they contain copyrighted information that is being distributed without paying the original creator and it does the exact same damage as piracy.
Quote from: Jake on July 02, 2012, 10:01:58 PM
Whats to stop people from using the same argument you're using against piracy to support making it illegal to trade books, video games, etc. Technically they contain copyrighted information that is being distributed without paying the original creator and it does the exact same damage as piracy.
Well It depends what you mean by trade but I don't think that's the "exact same damage as piracy". If your trading physical copies then you are loosing your copy but whether or not that really matters to you is something else. Like if your not going to use it ever again. But my main point is just the matter of scale. Sharing a book or game with like 5 of your friends is different from sharing it with thousands of people on the internet. Regardless they probably would like it if you did neater and if they could stop you from doing it they would. Some might consider it piracy at one share or copy and some might assume it will happen anyway to a certain extent.
Art said what I would have said. The fact that the media is digital makes it kind of a different game. In theory, Jake, you're right. It shouldn't be any different. But in reality, you're talking about massive quantities. You're talking about someone buying a book and mass reproducing it, and then sharing those reproduced copies with their friends. If you could make that process free, then you would definitely have an issue with "sharing" books with your "friends" the same way you have a problem with "sharing" music with your "friends".
I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.
Quote from: Lingus on July 03, 2012, 07:30:44 PM
I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.
I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.
If you look at the used game industry, it's killing profits almost as badly as piracy, and many corporations believe that too should be illegal. Eventually, we're going to be fighting to maintain ownership over our games, and they're going to use the same argument that they do against piracy: that they are supplying a service, and sharing a game, even if it is in physical form, is a breach of contract.
Quote from: Jake on July 04, 2012, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Lingus on July 03, 2012, 07:30:44 PM
I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.
I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.
If you look at the used game industry, it's killing profits almost as badly as piracy, and many corporations believe that too should be illegal. Eventually, we're going to be fighting to maintain ownership over our games, and they're going to use the same argument that they do against piracy: that they are supplying a service, and sharing a game, even if it is in physical form, is a breach of contract.
But when you tell your friend the game sucks and he doesn't buy it, they've lost a potential sale, but your friend didn't ever receive their game so there is no harm done. With pirating, yet again they've lost a potential sale, only problem is now you actually posses the game by illegal means so it isn't really the same...?
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on July 04, 2012, 10:39:36 AM
Quote from: Jake on July 04, 2012, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Lingus on July 03, 2012, 07:30:44 PM
I also want to add that I would agree that morally or ethically this is a bit of gray area. I used to believe that there was really no harm done, especially when the person downloading the content was never going to buy the content in the first place. The argument though is that there are plenty of people (probably the majority) that download content just because they can, even though they could afford to buy it and probably would if pirating wasn't an option. That actually does harm the author since they are losing a potential sale.
I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.
If you look at the used game industry, it's killing profits almost as badly as piracy, and many corporations believe that too should be illegal. Eventually, we're going to be fighting to maintain ownership over our games, and they're going to use the same argument that they do against piracy: that they are supplying a service, and sharing a game, even if it is in physical form, is a breach of contract.
But when you tell your friend the game sucks and he doesn't buy it, they've lost a potential sale, but your friend didn't ever receive their game so there is no harm done. With pirating, yet again they've lost a potential sale, only problem is now you actually posses the game by illegal means so it isn't really the same...?
Even if they did 'receive the game', what is the harm done? What relevance does having or not having the game have? It's a 'lost potential sale' either way, regardless of whether you have a copy of the data or not.
(Incidentally, for the record, I put forth that the term 'lost potential sale' is bullshit.)
Quote from: Jake on July 04, 2012, 09:48:24 AM
I've always understood that piracy is harmful, but I also don't like putting limits on data. Losing a potential sale is not reason enough to say something is bad though, because there are many different ways a business can lose a potential sale. If my friend was about to buy a game and I said that it was boring and they decided not to buy it, that is a lost potential sale. If I let my friend read my book, that is a lost potential sale. Each of these lost potential sales does the same damage as someone pirating something once. Obviously piracy is more damaging because it's usually done on a massive scale with thousands of downloaders, but on a case by case basis, it's not anymore damaging than anything that causes the loss of a potential sale.
They feel getting a game for free is a really big LOAPS (loss of a potential sale) :) . And really I understand why getting the game for free is a bigger deal to them than hearing a bad review. (but some try to control the press also) Its also hard to stop word of mouth. Downloading the data kinda forces them into a honor system and they don't trust people. And they want to do something about it. When you hear a bad review all your left with is a bad review. But when someone downloads it and tries it for themselves it leaves them with the game for free. Its possible they could buy it because they like it, just not buy it and like it, or not like it and get rid of it. And they feel people are picking the middle choice too much.
I'd like to clarify that I don't think it is the "harm done" that is the issue here. It's a matter of principal. If you want to own something that is sold, then you have to buy it. It's one thing to say that your friend owns it and they want to loan it to you or give it to you. I have no problem with that. They bought it, they don't want to use it anymore, now they are going to give it to their friend. The issue here is that not what is happening. Nobody is going on the internet and asking their friend to give them a copy of a game. They're going online to services that are setup specifically to distribute copies of the game to anyone and everyone that wants it. Think about how that would seem if it weren't digital. There would be a store that you could walk into and just pickup anything you want and walk out without paying. No one would say anything and you would now own that product without having paid. How could that possibly be acceptable?
Quote from: Chaos on July 04, 2012, 11:25:58 AM
(Incidentally, for the record, I put forth that the term 'lost potential sale' is bullshit.)
Really? Do you mean the term itself, or the concept? I don't see what the problem with the term is... it sufficiently describes the concept. And the concept is pretty valid. A company would have made a sale if it weren't for a certain factor. It was a potential sale, and yet they did not get the sale. Do you mean saying piracy causes lost potential sales is BS? I'd argue that that's pretty valid as well...
And to answer the rest of your post, the point is that piracy causes the lost potential sale. The fact that piracy exists is the issue. If it weren't for piracy, there would be many many people who could potential buy the game, and the fact that there is no other method available for obtaining the game means that they will buy the game. The only reason that these people don't buy the game right now is because they don't have to in order to have the game. So really, them having the game without paying for it is the only reason why it is a lost potential sale. Understand, I am not referring to people who would not have bought the game under any circumstance, either because they can't afford it, choose not to buy it because they don't want to spend the money, or (as is the case with you sometimes) are making a stand against either the company, the game itself, or something about the game/company (such as DRM). In this case, it is not a lost potential sale, and you are correct that it really doesn't make a difference if they end up having the game or not... except for my comments above about it being the principal of the matter.
The concept is bullshit. Why? I have a simple two word rebuttal.
"Piracy is a potential lost sale, which is harmful to the industry!"
"Prove it."
And don't bother trying, because you can't. The term 'potential' guarantees you can't prove it caused harm. You don't know whether they would have bought it if they hadn't pirated it, and you don't know they won't buy even THOUGH they pirated it. You have to make sweeping assumptions about an entire population to make the concept even begin to float.
I love how a legitimate discussion can so easily become nothing but a challenge of semantics and technicalities to see who can get the final laugh.
Quote from: Chaos on July 06, 2012, 10:25:24 AM
The concept is bullshit. Why? I have a simple two word rebuttal.
"Piracy is a potential lost sale, which is harmful to the industry!"
"Prove it."
Ask me if I would have bought a game if I hadn't had the ability to pirate it. Yes. Yes I would've.
Quote from: sayers6 on July 06, 2012, 10:35:36 AM
Quote from: Chaos on July 06, 2012, 10:25:24 AM
The concept is bullshit. Why? I have a simple two word rebuttal.
"Piracy is a potential lost sale, which is harmful to the industry!"
"Prove it."
Ask me if I would have bought a game if I hadn't had the ability to pirate it. Yes. Yes I would've.
Some people would, some people wouldn't. For a publisher to make a claim that every person that pirated it would have bought it is silly.
That's why the subject of the topic is "What's the best way to reduce piracy?" and not "What's the best way to eliminate piracy?"
(Might as well jump on the semantics train with everyone else)
I wasn't saying that everyone would buy the game who at pirated, my point was that
some would. In economics, generally speaking, the more potential sales you have, the more likely something is to be sold. It doesn't matter if everyone would buy it or not. You can't deny that there would be more potential sales, and with a few people like me, their sales would
increase.Quote from: Scotty on July 06, 2012, 12:07:10 PM
That's why the subject of the topic is "What's the best way to reduce piracy?" and not "What's the best way to eliminate piracy?"
(Might as well jump on the semantics train with everyone else)
Hell if we were talking about eliminating it completely, the answer is simple;
stop making shit.
Quote from: Scotty on July 06, 2012, 12:07:10 PM
What's the best way to reduce piracy?"
+Try and make as many of the games functions and services online based so they have to connect to your servers. Make all your games like an onlive service if you can.
+Make your games for systems that are more locked down and harder to pirate on like consoles.
+Bring back arcade machines and lock them tight.
+Make the games cheaper.
I think these are some of the best ways to reduce piracy.
I'm putting my hard-hat on before Chris reads that.
Well I kinda wanted to discuss a system in which piracy would be imposable because all software would be "free" because we had a different incentive than money but I understand that's more in the territory of hypothetical and never going to happen. Not really on topic I guess.
Quote from: ARTgames on July 06, 2012, 01:36:04 PM
+Try and make as many of the games functions and services online based so they have to connect to your servers. Make all your games like an onlive service if you can.
And make it so that when servers go down or a person doesn't have internet the go insane? I almost outright refuse to buy these types of games.
Loss of Profit.Quote+Make your games for systems that are more locked down and harder to pirate on like consoles.
I may not have had a gaming computer for long, but you can do much more on a PC than you can a console, and it's much more portable. Consoles get outdated, and not everyone has them.
Loss of profit.Quote+Bring back arcade machines and lock them tight.
Very few people play these that I know of. But I'm sure if you found someway of making them more appealing, it's plausible.
Unused medium.Quote+Make the games cheaper.
It's hard to make games cheaper with how the current system works, I know quite a few places take out a loan, contract, or something, to pay back what they spent within X amount of time. They charge higher, because they need to make the profit
now. And from what I understand, they aren't getting the full amount of sales they should be, because people like me by them almost exclusively used. I have 2 "new games" in my house. BF3, and infamous 2, one of which came with the PS3. From what I understand, Sony is planning on locking the games with one console, so that prices can be lowered. Not a bad idea, but i wish they would do some sort of a time lock on it, so that after say 1 year, it's unlocked and can be used on any system.
Loss of profit (in current circumstances.)
Companies are not going to give up profit just to make their games cheaper and hopefully less pirated. They will do what they need to, to make profit. Hell, if pirating somehow made them money, you would see a big banner saying "Pirate our games" everywhere.
Quote from: sayers6 on July 06, 2012, 02:01:07 PM
Companies are not going to give up profit just to make their games cheaper and hopefully less pirated. They will do what they need to, to make profit. Hell, if pirating somehow made them money, you would see a big banner saying "Pirate our games" everywhere.
Actually, many companies would argue that they make more profit when doing some of the things Art stated. You think Ubisoft added that crappy online always DRM to reduce their profits? You think Microsoft decided not to release Halo 3 for PC to reduce profits? Whether or not this is beneficial for companies is debatable, but automatically assuming that these are lost profits is wrong. Companies sometimes try to limit consumers to stop piracy in hopes of making more money. I would say that it is a case of short term profit vs long term profit. Imposing DRM to stop piraters might make you more in the short term, but you are also alienating customers that may choose to not buy games from you in the future.
If you notice my post was just a reflection of the times of how they "reduce piracy?" And the last two where for fun. :) But looking at this narrow minded to just reduce piracy I think it will. But taking this more seriously I know the tech enthusiasts argument would be what sayers6 just said. Regardless locking someone into a closed platform like my first two plus signs has worked before and could work for other possibility.
(http://ponilauta.fi/meta/src/13356350627515.jpg)
The Iphone. One of the most locked down platforms ever. And its the the #2 most sold product of all time. (http://www.thejournal.ie/best-sellers-10-of-the-greatest-products-of-all-time-510920-Jul2012/#slide-slideshow2) If all they want is money it could work for them realistically. Not saying that that's the way I want things to be. :/
The profit part seems to be the biggest crux. They're greedy, and they'll do what they have to, to pay back their debts and walk away with a profit. That's why a lot of success is being found in the indie games now-a-days, where less debt is accrued before development even begins, and milestones/schedules, while still important, are a bit more flexible.
I may have mentioned this prior, so I apologize if I'm being redundant, but it's my personal, semi-off-topic, opinion that I think part of the lack of interest in purchasing games is not only attributed to cost effective (or rather, cost reducing) piracy, but the overall quality of what gets released. When video games took off in the 90's, I was hard-pressed... In fact, can't recall a single instance of a bug in the SNES games I played. I think it's the nature of the beast though, that as technology gets better, we inherently accrue more possibilities for bugs, but it's getting to the point where it's obvious that stability comes second to release schedules for a lot of the big-name companies. How often does a new Call of Duty game come out now? How many games has EA crippled (for everyone, seemingly including the supposed Quality Assurance testers as well) upon release? How many games do you need to download a patch immediately after installing from a CD/DVD? The industry is monopolizing on what has become a very profitable market by hiring developers/designers for minimal salary, working them near to death (I'm not joking in saying that either) then letting them go once they hit their deadline, regardless of how complete the final product is, and they often times already have milestones laid out in front of them upon release to go in and buff out all the bug. They're taking what has evolved into a naturally error-prone technological wonder and increasing the instability exponentially by doing everything they can to make as much profit off of it as possible.
So naturally, people are concerned about shelling over $50-$60 dollars for a game that may not even be playable by no fault of their own (i.e. outdated hardware vs. death-march deadlines), let alone enjoyable.
How do they correct this? I don't think they can at this point without taking irrational measures that just wouldn't work (starting over). They dug themselves into a hole over the last decade and a half, and now they are paying the price, with improving technologies outside of video games (P2P file sharing) making sure the sword is firmly planted in their gut.
I agree with you with the problem with today's big games but I do think your looking at the past with a bit of nostalgia glasses. There where many bad games back then, there where many bugs back then, and games back then cost just as much or more than they did today. http://www.1up.com/news/90s-game-price-comparison-charticle (Sorry this was a bit off topic) But I makes me wonder how it would be if the internet was as big as it is today back then.