Gaming piracy figures - real or imagined?

I think console gamers are simply a better demographic to produce games for, they take much less effort to "please" than the seasoned PC gamer. They do not question hardware capabilities, nor do they really know any better with regards to graphics and effects, so do they ever question those aspects? Hardly. They know most console gamers are relatively ignorant when it comes to knowing what's actually powering their gaming and the specifics of games and hardware, and they also know that us as PC gamers are less ignorant, sure there are PC gamers that just go on their PC to game and nothing else, and expect nothing short of good performacne and visuals, and don't question, but not many.

 

Going back to the original topic, I do think piracy figures are inflated to some extent by the publishers since they really don't have a reliable and accurate method of measuring loss to profits to any reasonable degree of accuracy. In my view the Stardock approach to combating piracy really is the best way to preventing lost sales without treating legitimate gamers to a gauntlet of intrusive and inconvenient DRM methods.

Some of the smaller game publishers are trying the Stardock approach, I only noticed that my (original) copy of Tropico 3 requires me to fill in my CD-key each time a patch is released (which can only be downloaded and run when the game itself is running). It's not as ridiculous as the Ubisoft method since I only need a live internet connection whenever I need the game patched similar to the popular MMOs.

 

^ Well, I wouldn't say they are inflated. Just they lack any basis to come with the number, because they may also be sub-rated. Of course anyone who thinks the companies are just greedy will think the numbers are inflated, but it can be the contrary.

In the end so far the article proves that: we don't know for sure the real number.

 

True. Even with controls PC gamers are picky. If we see a game mechanic that doesn't make sense or controls, we complain. Developers have to get everything right for PC Gamers.

 

Yeah, and many gamers don't realize that they are generations behind graphics tech, when their consoles are still using pixel and vertex shaders, not to say there's anything wrong with older gen hardware, you most certainly can get GTA 4 to run nicely on an AGP 7950 GT, but the hardware in consoles is from 2006.

 

"Piracy" figures never account for the number of folks that couldn't afford to pay for the item if they hadn't pirated it. The figures are always touted as "lost sales" to hype the drama, but in fact barely a tiny fraction of those piracy figures would translate into sales if the piracy was stopped.

You don't see a car maker touting stolen car figures as lost sales of cars right? Same concept. You aren't selling $1000 of CD's to to someone who's annual income is $500....

 

Good points regarding inflating piracy claims and Stardock.

I remember back in 2006 IIRC that Sports Interactive the makers of the stellar Football Manager pulled the plug on their Hockey equivalent claiming they were dropping the series because of huge piracy. First off that was a lie because I played the demo as well as some other forum members and we all had the same conclusion. They shoehorned Football Manager into their Hockey sim. I tried the demo and wasn't interested.

Reading other forum messages regarding that game and all said they would rather buy and play Football Manager. AND piracy rate for Football Manager is HUGE !. So here we have another publisher crying wolf. Yeah piracy is a problem and will always be an issue but like you and I have said, Stardock has the best solution to piracy and DRM.

That's why I have bought games from them I never opened just to show my support.

 

People do pirate games on the consoles, but it is less frequent and more complicated than pc piracy. But keep in mind pc game sales are only 7% of the gaming software pie. In other words, pc piracy cost pc developers exponentially more in lost sales relative to overall gaming sales.

'Majority of pirates' is irrelevant. If only 1 person who would have purchased a game (say... Modern Warfare 2) had it not been available to steal online, that is a lost sale. This ends the argument.

Your photoshop example does not make sense in this context, unless there are full access free trials of modern warfare 2 (or any game) around..

 

This is twisting the truth a bit. Every instance of recording a song off the radio and sharing it with friends was absolutely a copyright infringement. People could have gone to the store to buy the tapes, but chose to pirate the songs off the tv and radio instead. Limited encumbrances, sure, but absolutely illegal. In many countries other than the US (not sure why), blank tapes and cds are taxed pretty substantially, with a portion of those taxes going to compensate artists, and most of the rest going to promote struggling artists. It may have been harder to enforce copyright in the past, but technology changed so that it is in fact possible to TRY to prevent illegal copying.

Untrue. Users who fell into proper fair use categories can, will, and do defend themselves, or aren't really targeted as copyright violators. Simplifying the artists' right as the ability to sell the work is overly simplifying the law to fit your argument. Copyright provides the artist the right to control the sale, use, distribution, and performance of the work. In recent cases, the RIAA and other plaintiffs have been required to prove the harm done, not just make assumptions that the harm in fact occurred, so most of the cases are hitting some fairly large roadblocks, suggesting that the law is in fact moving in the right direction after a number of missteps.

Also, I have to point out that piracy is not wrong irrespective of other factors. Fair use defenses have always been invoked where appropriate. Professors have been accused of copyright violations for copying portions of a work to distribute to their classes, but that has in fact been successfully defended in the past as a proper fair use. Governments (not google) can archive copyrighted works without worrying about lawsuit because it's another fair use exception. In fact, the third factor you list above is the factor that often tips the balance - by copying/downloading a song, you deprived the artist of proper royalties, and the studio of it's share of the profits. By further distributing songs, you create even greater harm, in that every person you upload to is not paying the rightholder for his/her fair share of the sale. [/quote]

But what options do you give the corporations that do in fact pay the artists and endure costs to promote them? Every proprietary protection measure taken thus fair has been broken thus far. In an ideal world, the general population would abide by the honor system and pay for what they consume. However, a portion of the general population will lie cheat and steal to get what i wants for free, so the studios and corps impose DRM. We're probably at the point where regardless of the medium a work is distributed in, it can be cracked to some degree. Maybe DRM isn't working as well as they hoped, but what other options are there to protect the artist's rights and the corporation's investments? If you think it's not working, suggest an alternative that would actually work in the real world.

 

What is really really really really really stupid is...

Rockstar did some presentation where they used a slider. For Consoles it was on low, for PC it was on Medium/High.

Yet it doesn't look any better on PC... but it crushes all but the best systems.

I think the medium/high setting is really, zero optimization. The higher the scale, the less optimized it is.

 

Related to the first post of this thread, this is complete bulls***, like every time we hear that "xxxx billion and jobs lost due to yyy" crap. Would jobs really be "lost" it wouldn't be measurable. What might indeed be lost for video games in terms of jobs and money is a net gain for other sectors. Basic economic laws.

 

Not necessarily. If you never budgeted to buy a game, when you pirate it you are not redistributing any money to other sectors.

 

gotta show the investors you're trying.

that simple.

 

Whether you use your spare money to buy something else, save it or put it in a jar, the available resources that are not spent on something are put to a profit somewhere else. But let's not get away from the topic too much : p

 

than take into account Mass Effect 2 for xbox 360. if i play the game, beat it, then give it to my friends to play who will then continue to develop new nodes on this chain, why aren't those people targeted for piracy? are those considered lost sales too? how are you certain they were to buy the game had they not been able to borrow it?

you're using hypothetical motivations to drive statistics which you can't empirically stand behind. defining lost sale contains so much ambiguity which gives complete flexibility for statistical and business evidence of why companies should be given more money.

my photoshop example is a very common misuse of software. i'm speaking beyond video games - so don't be shallow. video games are a fraction of what is pirated. the scenario puts weight against the claim that people who use pirated software intend on purchasing the software had the software not been readily available for free. you cannot recognize something like this as a lost sale.

the large issue is that production companies are business oriented - money comes first. the more money, the better they are. this is what gives them excuses to put DRM's into their software, and the reason isn't to prevent pirates. it's to exploit the idiots who pirate software so they can get caught and the companies can push lawsuits and generate money for their 'lost sales'.

if PC game developers are worried about their games selling, then maybe they shouldn't make pathetic games. 60 bucks to play a game that last 6-7 hours is not justifiable to the people - this creates a 'reason' to pirate software.

developers like HiRez developed Global Agenda - many people thought it sucked and expressed their opinion to the developer on their forums during the game's initial release. HiRez took polls on what should be included in future patches to better develop the game. within 2 patches with the initial release in February, and a very large patch coming within the next month, the game has made a complete transition. the developers listen to their customers. the game is supposed to be free to play for restricted content, and pay to play for full open access. they haven't even initialized pay to play methodologies because they know people aren't going to pay for it. they're working with the community to ensure that they're pushing a product that is what people want to pay for, and then they're begin the pay to play pricing. they even polled the people asking what price their customers would pay for the paid content.

that is HOW you make money (not to mention the product requires an online account with them as well as being able to be purchased through steam, so it restricts the use of pirating the software since no one has a server for Global Agenda, and you would need a good amount of people on a pirated server to be able to participate in the bulk of the content). that is the type of game model that will break through piracy.

 

That's really what it comes down to considering piracy is impossible to stop and they know it. But we live in such a litigious society with far too many shareholder rights that they have to appear to be adding shareholder value and maximizing gains. No matter how small the percent or fraction of a percent as the case may be.

 

In your console lending a game to a friend example, those people are being targeted... once we have big enough hard drives and fast enough download speeds you won't have that disc to lend out and the game you purchase will be exclusive to you.

Defining a lost sale in the pc gaming industry is simple. You would like to complicate it, but you can't. A lost sale is a sale that would have occurred in the absence of piracy. Like my Modern Warfare 2 example.

Yes, companies strive to make money... what's your point?

You say DRM is a vehicle to push lawsuits and reclaim lost sales... maybe it is... what's your point?

Games cost money to make... and no one intends on making a pathetic one. If you don't want to play a "6-7 hour pathetic game" at $60, don't buy it. If you turn around and pirate it, it tells me that the game is not really that bad after all and you are making up excuses. You may not have purchased at $60, but you may have at $30, $15, $5, that is a lost sale. If you say you would not have purchased it no matter what, then you are suggesting game you think are "bad" should be free?

 

If you are debating the numbers behind the piracy calculation then you never had to draw up a budget for your department. You make that number as big as it can possibly be and then your play on the sympathies of the audience.

They are well aware that it is not a 1:1 relationship between buying and pirating. It is in their best interests to make that number seem as big as possible.

I do not know if any of the younger audience had these days but you know what was the #1 reason for having friends that you went over by back in the day? So you could get to play with their toys that you couldn't own! Imagine if we got to the point where you could not even borrow or play a game unlss you had a license :O

Point is with piracy we obtain alot of things that we would not normally obtain because it is free and "everyone knows this".

 

Bottom line is the numbers are ALL fictitious. Nobody knows for sure, it's all a big guess by anyone. It could easily range from 0% to a billion% lost sales. You will NEVER know. What they CAN do, however is understand how many their actual sales will be, which is all they should worry about. Otherwise, it's like trying to budget what you'd do if you won the lottery.

I'll admit as a teen I pirated games (Amiga mainly), albeit it was a different time then, I had to know a guy who knew a guy who was able to get you a cracked version on a floppy. I can tell you as a fact that just because I got the game through questionable means, there was no way in hell I would have bought it otherwise. Is it a lost sale? No. I can tell you this was the same way for dozens of other people I knew.

 

I agree that the numbers are made up as no one knows how many copies have been pirated unless all the torrent sites gave them a list of completed torrents. Even so just because someone pirated a game doesn't equal a lost sale if the person pirating the game had NO intention of ever buying the game in the first place. As a publisher they can't add those numbers as lost sales as they were always nonexistent.

 

Exactly. It's like saying you lost $25 Million because you didn't win the lottery.

 

It is imagined.

If piracy is obsolete and i can only play original games then i wont be playing at all. only GREAT games then. Look at BC2 I bought it since it is GREAT>

 

You're over simplifying the copyright license. You're handing over the disc with the game, there's no way (afaik) with the recent 360 updates to run a game without the physical media present in the console. The license travels with the media for games and software. If you hand your friend your copy of (going back to a pre-cd-key game) Diablo after installing it on your own computer so you can both enjoy it, that's piracy. If you uninstall your copy and hand over the discs to your friend, that's fine. With cd-key games, you have to hand that over as well. In some cases (like WoW), the license attaches to the cd-key, not the physical media. You can hand over your discs to a friend and they can just go buy a cheaper cd-key that permits playing the game.

 

One of my friends (not saying me because I'd get my post removed) downloads games because they can. They are not going to buy a game just because they can't pirate it.

Another example, is that say my friend buys a game for the xbox 360 and then he wants to play it on his laptop. Instead of buying the exact same game, he would just download it. If he already supported the game creator with buying the game they made, then he wants to play it however he wants (pc or 360)

I know people will have problems with it, but my friend pirates it just because he can. Even if pirating didn't exist, he wouldn't buy every game. Also add in the DRM, I can't see anyone buy pc games. I myself buy all my games for xbox.

 

Some pirates won't buy the game no matter what, but they still count it as lost sale.. so I don't think it's entirely accurate.

 

Disagree completely. There is no difference between in having ME2 being passed around numerous people than piracy. Most of the pirated games I've seen are RETAIL. Let me repeat that, RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL. Which is why the whole idea of putting in broken parts in the game for leaked versions or pirated versions doesn't work most of the time, because the pirated version is a REAL RETAIL version with just the DRM broken. Like Securom disabled, but the rest of the game is 100% same as RETAIL.

So how is having a RETAIL game being pirated any different than one person buying a RETAIL version of console and then numerous people playing off the same disc?

There has to be innumerous players who pirate and buy the game. I'm pretty that is another huge dent to the piracy figures.

There is also the people who pirate the game initially, and just wait until price drops then they buy it. That has to be another factor considered in these sales figures.

Just because someone pirated a game doesn't mean they aren't included among the sales figures at a later point. Is it justified, I think so. No one likes spending $50 to find out the game is garbage and then not being able to return it.

 

the EULA reads that you are the sole owner/user and no one else is allowed to the content except for you. if you're not present, then no one else is allowed to play the game. you break a contractual license with the developer for sharing your CD among people who didn't purchase it.

you're not allowed to just uninstall programs and install them on other computers either unless you are the physical owner of that computer. the license is to a person, and you generally cannot hand over the title to someone who didn't purchase the software.

a method of doing this on Steam is sharing ID's / passwords. people do this to share single player games with their friends or house mates. my friend uses his brothers steam account to play single player games that he would ordinarily not buy.

however, that technically is illegal and is considered piracy. the copy of the game is licensed to his brother, and not him, not to mention that he is installing the games from a steam account that is not his. so he's broken the steam EULA and the game's EULA.

is sharing games illegal too? they break the same rules piracy violates besides replication of the media...

 

Breaking the EULA is not considered illegal, the EULA is just a personal agreement between the producer and the player, and not legal binding.

 

Unfortunately, EULAs are simply a legal quagmire in the US. You can't just say blanket statements about them. Contract law is VERY tricky stuff, and half of the disagreement is whether or not the EULA even sets up a valid contract.

 

Still though piracy is morally wrong. Software programmers have to feed their families too you know.

 

And driving a car is morally wrong. Buggy whip manufacturers have mouths to feed as well A business model propped up by artificial constraints (patents, copyright, EULA, etc) means that the market is not operating as efficiently as it could.

The vast majority of software programmers do not make their living writing retail software. Just like recorded music, the model made sense when there was a significant cost for distribution, advertising and copying. Given the rise of the Internet and the marginalization of all those costs, the market and the business models need to change.

I'm not condoning piracy. I'm just saying that it's like a force of nature, and fighting against it is silly. Same with our war on drugs, and the war on terrorism, etc. Fighting directly against it without recognizing and working with the how and why is a recipe for failure.

 

But don't go to the extremism too. There is need of some constraints in order to have an order. It is easy to weave banner for "full freedom" and "I do just want I want to do" but the reality is a bit different. The existence of constraints (laws) are there because the existence of people that want to abuse of others (be stealing their creations, paying low, etc.).

For example, it is easy that with internet and digital distribution game price should go down (pirates would say go down to zero... anyways) but there is a fact that with newer technologies making a game has become more expensive and in some cases the budgets rival those of the movies.

In all, I am not trying to say that what you said is complete nonsense but rather that we should not oversimplify issues without proper knowledge or information.

 

Lucky for some others in other countries, EULA contract papers are about as worthy as toilet paper if they try to supercede local laws. Yet they aren't as comfortable.

Every pirate copy sold is a lost sale, because the buyer had buying intent in the first place. Doesn't matter if it's Nike sneakers or Britney Spears CD.

If money is not transferred, it's just warez. Call me an oldschooler

 

I'm not saying people shouldn't get paid. I'm saying that the current model is a dead-end, and the laws used to prop up the obsolete model are detrimental to freedoms of a much larger scope, such as the First Amendment. The DMCA and various other copyright extensions severely infringe on that.

Also, the price to produce has nothing at all to do with the distribution model. Just because you spend a lot of money making something does not mean you are guaranteed a return on it. That is part of the risk of business. That is why you need to adjust to the market and the realities of it, rather than just assuming it's the evil pirates making your game unprofitable and if you could somehow stop them, everyone would magically give you their money. Game manufacturers need to realize they're competing against movies, TV, music, and many other forms of entertainment, and realize that a bad product + not being returnable + high prices is a recipe for lots of people to think they're being ripped off, so they're going to pirate (not the majority) or go elsewhere for their entertainment, and spend their money on things that they feel are more fair to them. Live music shows, movies, any of a number of things.

 

totally agree with this.
the problem is the big game publishers will not change their gaming business model because it is making them so much money on the console front.
sure they can do things to lessen the impact of piracy (im not talking about drm), such as pricing, distribution methods, in-game ads, etc; many of which have been discussed in many threads. but as long as they have the console sales, they wont change anything.
in fact, it seems like they wouldnt care less if pc gaming died altogether. it would give them a tighter gaming grip in a sense.

piracy, whether it be software or some other merchandise, simply shows that old business models do not work anymore.
calling people who buy or d/l these merchandise morally bankrupt is missing the point and oversimplifying the issues too.

 

The market have been adjusting, maybe not for the better. For example EA is trying all these activation keys for extra "free" DLC which are tied to accounts, or Ubisoft and its draconian DRM.

But I should say the comment I mostly disagree (not you personally) is that we assume piracy itself makes no contribution to reduce the revenue of the product (games in this case). If people are pirating something is because there is a desire to have that good (game, music, etc.), and if there is desire then it means it has some value the user may agree to pay (maybe not retail price, that I agree), thus there are lost sales (that the ratio of "pirated good/lost sales" is not 1 doesn't means it may not be high, say 0.9).

 

you miss the point.
sure there is a desire for the software game for the pirate since it is free. so he downloads it.
if he however has to pay 50usd for it most pirates will loose that desire.
hence it is not a lost sale because the pirate would never pay the price for a legit game.
with this being said, there are however many other reasons for piracy, other than getting something for free - all of these have been discussed ad infinitum in these forums so i wont even go into that.

 

if PC gaming died then this entire notebook sub-forum would be burried. Nvidia's and ATI's consumer performance branch would cause a good chunk of debt to the company, and consumer performance machines would cease to be produced.

Alienware, sager, and many other notebook manufacturers would go bankrupt.

though these companies are not directly related to game production, they have serious needs to keep PC game development in business. combined, these companies will never let PC gaming die.

consoles still are finding the same issue - it seems people i know are buying less and less games and focusing on ones that already have high replay value because the cost of console games continue to rise, not to mention having to fork out an additional $5 a month to own an account that allows you to communicate to their servers, only to play a game who's main storyline is a few hours, and then work with a sub-par UI to play online with immature children screaming into the microphones.

the gaming industry is in need for its next milestone. we've been at the current one for a little too long.

 

Maybe we should send this question to the MythBusters!

 

Has anyone read those: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ly-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars and http://gizmodo.com/5517850/riaampaa...that-deletes-infringing-content-automatically ?

 

LMAO ... but how would they ultimately blow something up with this one?

 

Well they'd obviously take an Assassin's Creed 2 DVD, a pirate and wrap them in C4 DUH!

 

I think you 1st link is the OPs initial link.

 

I don't agree that pirating a game equals stealing it. If you do not pirate a game -- developer gets $0. If you do pirate the game -- developer again gets $0. This is given the assumption that you never intended to spend money on the pirated software; which is the main idea of pirating it in the first place. There is absolutely no stealing in the common sense -- owner did not loose absolutely anything but you pirating it. It is the fact that you gained something for free that is in dispute (and illegal of course).

Then again some people get caught -- and they are forced to pay few milion $ for a few $ worth thing they've stolen. I am asking who is stealing from whom in this case? Say you go to the bank and you steal a pen. Later the bank gets robbed but there is a video of you stealing a pan. Then you are forced to pay the entire amount that was stolen by someone else. Can you see the analogy with these stories or ridiculous fines?

Also, it is easy to judge pirates from the USA - where even a puny graduate student can afford to have all the software purchased with legal licenses. If he doesn't get them for free from the University or with discounts that are available here.

To put it into perspective of some eastern european countries... would you buy a licensed copy of say Win7 if it cost $550 instead of $180? Not to mention that most of the electronics prices are twice as much, and the average wage is 2-3 times less. Which adds a factor of 2x(2 or 3) = 4 to 6 to scale the things properly. Say you bought a laptop in US for $1000 (e.g. I bought m11x for $900). How many people would have bought it if the price was $4000-$5000 ? But you do need a decent laptop... everyone needs it these days. Then you'd buy your music on iTunes. Oh wait... it's the same price as in US, only the price is converted into Euro which adds another 1.3 factor in the calculation. It really adds up.

 

I never like these arguements. Same with MPAA saying camera man needs to feed family.

Camera man and programmer are already paid. Whether I pirate the game or not has ZERO impact on their salary. Their salary is not a percentage of the sales, they are hired and paid by a fixed salary regardless of piracy.

And the overall sales is more than enough for programmers etc. It's the executives who don't get their 10 million dollar bonus that are crying.

 

Well, with respect to you 1st paragraph it is theft (or stealing) when you pirate as it always have been defined (theft) as taking something from someone without its consent, not by making someone lose something. Copyright is the word.

As for your last paragraph, I totally agree that in here in Europe everything is more expensive than in US, just making something instead of 50usd 50 euros, that is a big rip.

 

Well if they don't want piracy , well they can lower prices a lot.. they'll sell more and won't make that much losses... but in the greed of capitalism , they would nver consider that option... that's why $70 games are only going to be sold to hardcore ppl and not to those who just want to try them... these ppl will just pirate it.. they could also give bigger demos but they just won't... well in a way , these companies deserve it.

 

Many (probably not all) EULAs also permit transfer of the license, which to properly effect would require transfer of the physical media as well as any DRM/CD-keys. Uninstalling is a prerequisite of surrendering your license. As for passing a game around, it's gray area, but probably falls into the same boat (in terms of licensing) as used game sales, in that multiple people enjoy a single piece of software, but the studio only sees one sale (unless gamestop has some kickback agreement, which i highly doubt)

 

i'm gonna go steal a car. i mean, the guy who built the damn thing already got paid, right? oh wait, he wouldn't stay hired unless past sales justify making more cars in the future. darn it.

 

Add to the fact that gamers can turn hostile if they feel they've been ripped off in the past with a crap game by game companies who basically didn't fix the problems but took their money anyway.

I'm not saying this justifies piracy but I know from personal experience i've been ripped off way too many times for a broken game with little to no response from the company who made it. So now I wait for reviews and impressions. I no longer fall for impulse buys.