Gaming piracy figures - real or imagined?

So how does, say, a Ubisoft justify their present form of DRM considering the piracy claims have been overdone? A DRM which has been cracked according to latest reports.

Following article excerpt should be of some interest:

See the rest of the article here:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ly-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

 

I think it's really dumb that people assume that when someone pirates a movie or game it's a lost sale. It's a freaking game, if they can't pirate it, they just won't play it. It's not that important or a big deal. I think most people who pirate games just do it casually and if they can they do it, if they can't, couldn't care less.

 

i would say most of it is made up, to try and make out that piracy is bigger and more dangerous then it really is, but its more down to some VERY shoddy games as well as others using very poor DRM that are making people go towards piracy, if they just calmed down on the DRM then it wouldnt be as bad.

But even then its still not as bad as they make out, they like to have "reasons" for there shoddy, poor coded crappy games for not selling very much but instead of thinking "maybe the game sucks" or something they like to say hey "our games perfect, lets blame Piracy"

 

Depends on how you calculate it. If you assume that all software pirates would have purchased the software, and therefore caused direct loss, then the figures probably at least in the right ballpark (guesstimating to a power of ten). However, that's a HUGE assumption. In many of the calculations, bad assumptions are made that apply piracy rates from the worst case scenario in the general field - for example (making this number up) I say that photoshop is pirated twice for every legitimate sale, so i can therefore conclusively prove that this piracy rate also applies to games, office software, and oses.

Problem is, at best it's always a guess. Few if any people actively admit to pirating a given piece of software or song. In filling out a survey, a person might admit to having pirated A game or A song, but the industry will take that to mean that single instance was THEIR game or song.

The above just discusses figuring out the rates of piracy. Calculating the economic impact is an entirely different story. Would the pirates actually have purchased the software at all? Or at full price upon release? Maybe they would have just purchased it a year later at sale price? Are gaming companies counting the replay of a used game by another console as piracy because two people played for the price of only one sale? Maybe the pirates try the game via piracy, then purchase it later to play online? Or perhaps will an otherwise unnoticed game be played because it's now free, thereby increasing popularity and legitimate sales? There are so many variables that it can be nigh impossible to get a realistic number that isn't within a power of ten.

Now, all that having been said, there are in fact some benefits to piracy, most notably market control. It's the same with pirating OSes - Microsoft didn't pursue pirates (including many foreign governments) of its Windows OS, allowing Windows to become the de facto software around the world. Now that other software relies on Windows, Microsoft has been making light slow push to hand out cheap licenses. Problem is, if they push too hard, pirates will just turn to open source linux variants, wrecking the MS market dominance. You can see the same thing with EA's dominance of the sports gaming segment - their games suck, but they control the sports genre by default. EA games used to be pirated to all hell, and I'm sure they still are.

 

I doubt it's sales honestly. The reason for DRM and anti-piracy measures is the whole "intellectual property" debate which is very iffy amongst people since "intellectual property" isn't something which can be counted nor quantified.

I mean, does honestly smacking a woman who downloads music illegal a 2 million debt REALLY combat piracy of any kind(I recall that being a case 2 or 3 years ago)?

 

Nope, nothing like that stops piracy. But they want the money, and don't care if it ruins her life.

 

Most of the people who pirate will NEVER buy it even if they fail to pirate it.
(frankly most WILL pirate what they want eventually anyway.)

It isn't lost sales... its just a sense of entitlement from the game companies.
They believe they can treat their paying customers like common criminals and are entitled to a certain level of success. These companies are entitled to nothing that they do not earn through good products and customer service.

The PIRATES are getting better treatment than the customers as they are getting more attention...

Protecting your work with serial keys or standard protections is one thing... installing malware on a customer's computer or withholding standard game features (like being able to play a single-player game without an iffy server saying its ok) is ludicrous.

 

Yep there was such a case. She was a mother on welfare with a child. It was a grand case of where corporate triumphed over the evil pirate!

 

Like I said, it was never about "sales"(seeing as most pirates would not have bought anything anyways), it's just some obscure concept of "intellectual property" that governs these actions from the legal point of view. I mean, you can't really put patent on a piece of code like you can put a patent on a piece of technology.

 

Back when games were limited to cartridges and disc-based games were expensive to copy, piracy was limited by the physical media and the debate didn't exist for the field. Then the companies chose to go with a cheaper media (CD/DVD) that is easily copied, but for weak DRM. Now they're backtracking and trying to link physical media back to ownership again (need the disc to play an installed game on the 360, need to have the disc in drive to play on a PC), but there's a backlash because the genpop has already had its taste of freedom from DRM.

As for the music sharing, the fine/judgment is usually linked to the harm/potential harm done, so total = number of uploads * $fine

 

First i wanted to write a long post on this subject, but on second thought i'm not going to, too much words have been already spoken on this topic ...

 

Yet some bears repeating. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Numbers like that are undoubtedly overblown. I think there is much half-truth to all sides of this argument. It's very very difficult to quantify the actual effect piracy has on gaming but top execs only see the world in quantifiable numbers. Soft issues and details do not translate into revenue (lost or gained). It is clearly in a content creators best interest to inflate the piracy problem. Yet I do believe it is a problem, just not one that is so easily wrapped up in some magic formula. That is a tactic to try and use federal courts to make money. :\

 

Yes, you can. It is similar to writing a song. The IP is a defense in case someone else tries to rip the fruits of your effort.

 

quick note - it's a copyright, not a patent. Code does get copyrighted, and copyright over code absolutely gets litigated (e.g., UNIX, SCO and Novell). Patenting code is sort of yes, sort of no. The over-arching code theory might maybe get a patent, but that's become a bit of a toss-up recently.

 

But if someone wanted to purchase said game, wouldn't they rather pay less for a pirated copy , if given the chance ?

And "No", I don't believe in pirating ! No matter what, your taking money out of someones pockets, whether it's the distributor, the developer, or the errand boy's ! Would you like it if you were one of the 3 mentioned above and someone was stealing from you ?

 

I wasn't promoting piracy. I was just showing how piracy does not equal sales loss.

 

Indeed piracy is stealing.

Then again, DRM steals the freedoms of honest consumers.

So as me mum used to say, "two wrongs don't make a right."

 

But a wrong makes a "screw this DRM, I'm pirating this game"

 

Stardock games never have any DRM in their games, and the sales figure of their games such as galactic civ 2 and sins of solar empire proves that the loss from pirating figure is largely overblown.

IMO, i don't consider pirating as stealing, when you steal something, the victim loses something, when you pirate something, the victim loses nothing except for his imaginary profit.

 

That is one way to look at it. That is until the cost of production and distribution exceeds revenue. In other words, when piracy reaches the level that "lost" sales minus actual sales is less than the cost of production and distribution, then it is unequivocally theft.

But of course when that happens, being that there is no profit to be made from games, they will simply stop producing them.

We are a very long way from that scenario all things considered.

But the problem with this argument is that it justifies DRM as a means to delay this seemingly inevitable day when lost sales from piracy are not only greater than actual sales, but will be greater than the cost of production and distribution.

Best argument is a simple one. DRM only affects legitimate consumers and not pirates, piracy figures being overblown do not justify ever increasing encumbrances for legitimate consumers, and that sales and profits continue to climb irrespective of piracy.

I probably left a few points out in that "simple" argument.

 

There were two flightsims I wanted to buy but refused to because they required a constant connection to the internet.

 

Seems like a lot of new games will require that, like Starcraft 2...is this becoming the new trend?

 

I absolutely hate how Blizzard wants people to be constantly connected to battle.net and got rid of LAN play.
The game really is a work of art though.

 

Blizzard is the only company I can forgive and still buy their games even if they require me to connect to play.

 

The one thing that really gets me is that when released through a medium like Steam, companies like Ubisoft still impose their DRM. Steam has a proven DRM, so to speak, why should the customer have to use the additional Ubi DRM? It's like asking your parents for the keys to the car, then requiring the police to give you a breathalyzer before you drive. It's stupid.

 

Well, it's because steam DRM can be, and was cracked easily. Same could be said for Ubisoft's but at least it held the tide longer.

 

media always exagerates news about copyright related stuff, they themselves are on that boat!
I agree with someone ahead of me, those pirated movie/game, only a small portion is the actual loss of sales. Movies, music and games are nice things, but not life neccessities. If they are priced too high, ppl will simply not buy it. the amount of pirates actually shows how greedy those publisher were. gaming maybe the light one, music cds and movie dvd/bds are definitely over charged.

On a side note, I do came across some "clearance sales" of cds for like 1$ each and movies 5$ each. I think that's more like the reasonable price and I did purchace most of my collections there.

 

In fact, limited piracy actually helps with the sales of the game. If made not able to pirate, those who can't get it will simply not buy it, the producer gains nothing from them. However, if there is piracy, instead of gaining nothing from them, those same people will be contributing their time in playing your game, which will contribute to publicity, increasing the actual number of buyers.

 

Yup. But methinks it won't be for long. Not everyone has a high speed, or reliable, connection. C&C4 and Silent Hunter V incorporate this form of DRM and sales are hurting because of it. Even Jeff Green, who now works for EA, denounces it.

 

Be careful with the wording. Its not theft, its a loss of the whole project (say the game). One of the biggest issues with piracy is that its convince people like you (unless you're one of the main players) that theft means a loss of sales. Theft has never been defined as such, it is the taking of someone's else property without consent.

 

I don't recall where I read it, but I remember an article that suggested that in all likelihood most pirates wouldn't purchase the pirated product even if it was sold for $1. There's a much bigger line between $1 and free than between $1 and $60 for many pirates. Food for thought.

 

If it is pure numbers we talk about. But with a social phenomenon the picture is not as clear cut as with pure numbers.

 

That is the standard definition of theft, yes. And oddly enough, the term piracy denotes theft rather than lost sales. However, when lost sales translates into no sales, clearly at this point then it's theft, no? I don't think anyone can play semantics at that point.

So if the same act, if done with ever increasing frequency can lead us to that point, then at least conceptually, piracy as a "lost sale" is still theft. It's just that right now, it can be viewed as an "acceptable" loss considering that the harm has been overestimated and developers seem to be doing fine in the face of the current level of piracy.

 

Read carefully what you wrote in your previous post: unequivocally theft? No way, theft is done even if the software is pirated only once. You don't need a critical mass to start calling it theft.

Now on the "acceptable loss". Two points about this phrase:
1) Without proper studies the loss can't be estimated. So far so obvious. But that the estimation was without basis (different from overestimated) doesn't means it does not exists or that is very low.
2) I am sure that the phrase may sound good except for the programmers, producers, and distributors.

 

I see. I think you might want to read my posts in context. Another poster was making a case that there might be a point where it is not theft on the grounds of relativity. Since he approached the subject reasonably, I gave him the benefit of the doubt but pointed to a case where his reasoning would no longer apply. I.e., when "lost sales" due to piracy was without question, theft.

Since I demonstrated a point where the act of piracy is unequivocally theft, that is where relativity arguments which absolve piracy break down, I left it to him to redefine his argument.

There may be a point at which a sound argument can be made in which lost sales due to piracy is not theft. EULAs aside. In fact, if you read his subsequent posts, you'll see he's working on formulating and expressing that concept.

Just keeping an open mind since intellectual property technically is property that has no tangible existence except for the medium it is distributed on. All of which amounts to a monopoly of the mind which materially benefits a few.

 

That you were answering someone other post doesn't excludes my comment on the use of the wording.

Now, I know this IP argument has been there for a while. But regardless IP is not a monopoly of the mind, it is real as creations are made out of the mind (games, songs, etc.). And since creations are made, rights exists over such to give the creators some revenue for their work (the mind also works, you know). Therefore even the IP is not exactly tangible (like an apple, for example) it can be stolen and as such it is theft. There may be the need for defining the limits (like the amont of installations you get per game) but I can't comment further since I am not entirely informed on the details.

 

In this case it does exclude your comment on the wording since your comment is based on not understanding the whole of the argument. You're assuming from a post and paragraph taken out of context that I'm merely saying that a loss of sale equals theft. When in fact I'm saying in context, that given another poster's argument that piracy can be viewed as just a loss of sale and not theft, there comes a point where that argument fails making piracy theft in no uncertain terms. The post is for his consumption for the purpose of evaluating his claim which appears to absolve piracy to a degree. You will not find where I am saying that piracy does not equal theft such as to warrant care in choice of term(s) used.

I understand the point you are making and don't necessarily disagree with it entirely.

This point though is semantics: "Its not theft, its a loss of the whole project (say the game)"

What's the material difference? Funny thing is, that was addressed in the next sentence of my post you excerpted from.

This is offbase: "One of the biggest issues with piracy is that its convince people like you (unless you're one of the main players) that theft means a loss of sales."

If the discussion were followed in context, you'd be hard pressed to say that I'm convinced that theft merely means lost sales. Yet there are times that theft equals lost sales when it comes to the causal pirate. Had they not discovered the means to acquire it for "free", they likely would have purchased it. Also, for those who can't afford or balk at the price but would buy it at a lower price, but in the interim pirate it, it is a lost sale. Theft nonetheless, but also a lost sale nonetheless under these circumstances.

Intellectual property is indeed by its very definition a monopoly. In law, it is defined as a legal monopoly. It's the granting of exclusive rights to an idea. Hence a monopoly of the mind.

I'm not saying that persons should not profit or benefit from their ideas. Though there are numerous cases to be made that there should be stricter limits on that benefit to the individuals for the benefit of society as a whole.

As an extreme example, imagine if that someone who discovered how to make a fire, patented fire-making, trademarked the term fire, copyrighted how to make a fire and demanded compensation every time someone started a fire, spoke about fire, or printed instructions on how to make a fire?

Imagine if intellectual property rights become eternal?

 

Which ones are those?

 

You're wrong. It is largely lost sales. If there was absolutely no way to pirate a game like Modern Warfare 1 or 2, you don't think those gamers would have bought it? Of course they would have.

A sense of entitlement from the game companies...? No it's a sense of entitlement among the pirates who do not want to pay for software. You've got it backwards.

If I own a small game studio, I'm either using DRM to it's fullest extent, or developing the game on the consoles. If you don't like it, don't buy the game I developed.

If you guys don't like DRM, don't buy the game. Software does not create itself.

 

See the issue is where we draw the line between something as intangible as an idea and something tangible like the output of said idea.

The reason "Intellectual Property" is so strict in the case of music/games is because the industry really has no way of knowing what you're doing with the actual so-called "stolen property" without literally breaking your privacy.

We're threading in waters where different concepts of society are crossing and it's difficult to choose one over the other. Would you be for toning down intellectual property copyrights and patents at the expense of your privacy for instance?

 

you do know that people mod consoles and pirate console games as well, right?

i'm quite positive for the majority of pirates, if they can't pirate a game they will most likely NOT BUY IT. pirates aren't going to buy something just because they can't get it for free; rather, they'll look into alternatives.

also, just because pirates can obtain something for free doesn't mean it's a lost sale.

say perhaps i used photoshop for a class for school. i downloaded the trial and used it to complete an assignment. a year later, i needed to do something again in photoshop. for some reason, i'm unable to do the work at school. i'm not willing to spend money to purchase photoshop to do an assignment. i can't do another trial since i've already used it previously. i pirate photoshop for an assignment then never touch the product again.

this case happens very often - in no way, shape, or form did i intend on purchasing photoshop. there is NO possible way that i am willing to fork out a ton of money to complete one assignment. there was no lost sale because i don't want photoshop, nor ever intend on using it again. these instances make up a portion of the 'lost sale' numbers.

if you own a game studio, your best bet to ensure maximum profit is to MAKE A GAME THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY, or, introduce ads into your game...

 

Yeah, i think if it is easy as pie to by definition "pirate" a program, then people will do it. I think there is a certain fine line between the point where pirating a program and getting past it's authenticity checks/DRM, becomes too hard, and outweigh the beneffits of getting it for free. For example on Pirate Bay there are "Microsoft Office 2007 Portable" torrents, which requires no install, and no effort to get past any DRM/authenticity checks, this is a program that in my mind will/is commonly pirated, since it is so easy to. It's when you get to a game like GTA 4 where downloading it is:
1-long time, usually very bad seed/leecher ratio
2-worries about corruption that spoils the bunch
3-hard to get the full game, uncut, and without any added glitches
4-finding a suitable crack

I myself thought about getting GTA 4 (PC) off of Pirate Bay, but in my mind it was just more benefficial to buy it, it's really cheap now.

 

In a libertarian sense, why draw the line? Ideas and what comes from them should be freely shared and enjoyed by all with minimal encumbrance. Much like open source material and public domain.

But being that the foundation for the concept of intellectual property is capitalism, the line should be drawn where it allows the originator to benefit for a time and/or in certain venues without trampling on fair use.

Before the digital age, fair use/fair dealing was respected. The only infringement to intellectual property was when one attempted to profit off the IP other than the IP holder without permission. Piracy was rampant in those days. As an example, someone would buy an album and share it with friends or allow them to tape record it. They would also record songs off the radio. Were there any encumbrances to doing that? No. Artists made a fortune back then along with commensurate fame. People went to concerts for an enhanced experience which they paid for.

Today, IP is mostly about monetizing intangible assets at the expense of fair use/fair dealing.

Without quantifying and demonstrating the harm done by piracy, fair use affirmative defense applies. The test for fair use defense is:

1. the effect on the copyright owner's rights (e.g. his or her ability to sell the work)
2. The amount of the work copied
3. The purpose of the infringement

#1 and # 3 are called into question since it is not easy to prove the effect of piracy all things considering and the reason behind why something is pirated.

The lawsuits brought on by music companies are a travesty of the law. They targeted individuals who couldn't afford to properly defend themselves thereby making their judgments set precedence. In many cases, it was cheaper to settle than to hire a lawyer and defend oneself. And thus the concept that piracy irrespective of any other factors is always wrong was born.

Why would the toning down of intellectual property rights imply forfeiting privacy? That would be a self-serving concept of the IP holder that justifies the nullification of fair use for the purpose of maximizing gains. What is more, there's no proof, hard or anecdotal, that piracy counter-measures have had any effect on piracy. Moreover, that piracy has actually had a meaningful impact on sales considering that not all piracy equates to a lost sale.

But to answer directly, no, I would not be for toning down IP rights at the expense of privacy. But the thing is, increasing privacy doesn't infringe on IP rights. It only infringes upon corporate greed.

 

But that's a very one sided point of view. There is evidence to the contrary. For example:

Right now Universal (the biggest record label in the world) plans to slash CD prices. New prices will range from $6-$10. This is a result from tests that show CDs at this price point doubled CD sales figures.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying low prices will end piracy or anything like that but I think it's safe to assume that in some cases there is a point where someone will choose to pirate just because they can as opposed to because they can't afford said item or some other reason.

Now, looking at low price Indie games like World of Goo or Yet it Moves it becomes clear there is a large majority of game pirates who steal because they can, end of story. These are high quality, highly rated games from small companies charging a very reasonable price... often these games can be had for less than $10 on sale and both offer demos Yet these games are reported as having a 90%-95% piracy rate. Why is that?

Piracy is stealing. No doubt about it.

Do I like the idea of try before you buy, yes. But just who is trying and buying and who is abusing the system ... Who knows? And this is where the real difficulty comes from in quantifying a real economic impact of piracy. It's such a muddy world but I do believe there is an impact. Exactly how much it is just too hard to determine imo.

 

It may well be stealing by deffinition, but it rarely occurs in a physical sense. I think that even though program pirating is just as bad as stealing a chocolate bar from a candy store, we are all masked when we do it, so it becomes alot easier to do it.

 

the availability sure is there. the problem isn't about circumventing pirates. it's about creating products that people will want to buy, not about purely maximizing profits by preventing pirates.

 

I recently purchased Dirt 2 for the PC even though I have the X360 version. I got the PC version for like $10 new at GoGamer. I installed it and what do you know, it starts installing Windows Live and a bunch of other crap I didn't want on my system. When I went to play the game it wanted me to start a Live for Windows account just so I could play the game and have the demo status removed.

I took out the $10 game and put it where it belongs in the garbage.

You know i'm pretty familiar with how the net works. I could have gotten the game for free without any DRM but I went to do the right thing and paid for it. This is why people dislike DRM. it gets in the way and puts up road blocks in order for you to play.

Two companies who did it right with regards to DRM is Sports Interactive, makers of the Football Manager series. Last year they sold FM 2009 and had you do a internet or over the phone activation. After the game was on the market over 15 months they patched it by removing the DRM.

Stardock hates piracy and hates DRM. They realize people will steal their work but they don't want to infringe on their customers so all their games don't have DRM. OTOH if yoy have a Stardock game and you want an update to the game that's where they'll ask you to prove you own it. Other than that you install said game, remove the disc and they leave you alone.

I have bought Stardock games I have never played just because we need more of these publishers who do get it.

 

Yeah it's like GTA 4's stupid restrictive DRM, sure, no mods allowed to play legit, i can agree with perhaps, but when they get into all these validation checks and making it so you HAVE to get the latest patch to play online, making you jump through hoops to just play the damn game.

 

I just hate it when companies release the first title of a game on PC and then they don't support the sequels. Moreover Capcom who have Resident Evil 5 gold edition out for consoles and Super Street fighter 4 upcoming on the 27th for a console release, have said nothing about a PC release of either game. I'm more hopeful for the SSF4 release, but a recent interview with the games producer said that the PC version is not impossible but also hard to justify based on the piracy figures from SF4. It's complete BS imo because Capcom already stated a long time ago that the PC version of Sf4 exceeded their sales expectations, yet still no announcement for the ssf4 on PC. The same thing goes for epic who released a shabby port of Gears 1 a long time after the original console release and just left it at that.