But hey, it's not. Because it doesn't have the PS2's library.
Well, a lot of the PS2's library wouldn't really fit in well with portable gaming. Imagine sitting on the train for half an hour, and firing up your portable PS2 to enjoy some portable gaming, and spending most of your time watching a Metal Gear Solid cutscene.
Well-designed portable games are designed around the possibility of playing the games in short bursts. And they are better for it.
To be honest piracy helps sell consoles. Loads of people come into the store asking for old PSP games so they can access the exploits to pirate games instead of having to update the firmware. The console you can pirate games for the easiest should by rights be an added incentive because in the long run you can try any game you want on the cheap.
Though admittedly the complexity of some manners of piracy will be beyond the kids the mums and dads are buying it for.
Just look at what piracy did for Dreamcast. Last a long time it did.
To be honest piracy helps sell consoles. Loads of people come into the store asking for old PSP games so they can access the exploits to pirate games instead of having to update the firmware. The console you can pirate games for the easiest should by rights be an added incentive because in the long run you can try any game you want on the cheap.
Though admittedly the complexity of some manners of piracy will be beyond the kids the mums and dads are buying it for.
Just look at what piracy did for Dreamcast. Last a long time it did.
Is that support or sarcasm? I didn't really follow DCs history so I can't be sure.
To be honest piracy helps sell consoles. Loads of people come into the store asking for old PSP games so they can access the exploits to pirate games instead of having to update the firmware. The console you can pirate games for the easiest should by rights be an added incentive because in the long run you can try any game you want on the cheap.
Though admittedly the complexity of some manners of piracy will be beyond the kids the mums and dads are buying it for.
Just look at what piracy did for Dreamcast. Last a long time it did.
Is that support or sarcasm? I didn't really follow DCs history so I can't be sure.
Piracy was ridiculously easy on the DC. All you had to do was burn a slightly modified (data had either been compressed, or large non-essentials like FMV removed) ISO to a CD, stick it in your DC, and BAM.
I think we all know of the inevitable fate of the Dreamcast.
Also, selling consoles may be nice, but the money is made from software. Those who buy the system for piracy aren't going to be the types that pirate just to try- that's what rentals are for. They're gonna buy it, buy some memory sticks, and never touch a UMD case.
Is that support or sarcasm? I didn't really follow DCs history so I can't be sure.
It's sarcasm. Piracy helped kill the Dreamcast. Very few people I knew who owned one actually bought games.
Piracy doesn't help anyone. Games publishers lose out on sales, games console manufacturers lose out on royalties, it results in a smaller game library for the console, since developers have less money to make new games, and legitimate gamers end up paying more for their games to support the pirates.
Most pirates end up with a stockpile of more illegal games that they can play, and in the end they seem to end up being more addicted to the process of downloading and cracking games than playing the games themselves. You talk to them about Final Fantasy XII, and they brag about how they downloaded it, but they obviously haven't played past the first 30 minutes of it, or any other game. Piracy destroys their enjoyment of gaming in the end.
Remember, pirates are not just killing the industry, they are causing you to pay more for your games. In effect, they are stealing from you. So, if you meet a pirate, kick them in the balls, and steal their wallet to get even.
At the time the PS2 came out, it was actually a fairly competent DVD player IIRC. I know I had just recently purchased a DVD player for something like $140, which while it had some decent features (optical out, component out, MP3 playback, etc.) was basically a piece of dogshit from some no-name Taiwanese company. The PS2 kicked that thing's ass, and played games to boot...for only $300. Not a bad deal at all.
At the time the PS2 game out, it was a piece of shit for a DVD player, as far as video and audio quality. Compared to the first-gen Sony player I had at the time (and still have, because it is a wonderful, wonderful piece of machinery), it looked like ass. The layer skips were intrusive, the video was muddy, the sound was half-assed, the responsiveness was garbage. Compared to $50 players of the era, it was fine, but it was barely competent much less good.
Now, I'm an A/V-phile, so take that for what you will, but it's not like Sony was giving everyone a grade-A (or even grade-B) DVD player for free in their little game box.
Oh...well then. I guess I was overestimating how well the PS2 stacked up back then. I just remembered it being favorable. And I was only comparing it to players in the $100-$150 range (at the time)...obviously anything higher-end would kick its ass.
mcdermott on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
In short, what happened was Sony assuming that the customers will always be there no matter what they make or how much they charge for it, simply because they're #1 by so big a margin.
They got cocky, basically. Then they went insane.
Sounds just like Nintendo. Good ol Yamauchi days.
Yeah, and we all know how DOOMED Nintendo turned out to be. You could argue that Nintendo's arrogance had a very large part in the success of the PlayStation, which led to the success of the PlayStation 2, which led to Sony thinking they could automatically assume market leadership with the PS3 (arrogance), which just might lead to the success of the Wii. And thus, the circle is complete.
The PS2 pause on the DVDs is more than likely a layer change. It happens to DVD players in general. The reason it feels like a skip during a chapter change is because they're usually placed at the end of a chapter, between scenes so they aren't as obtrusive. My PS2 is the combined components of 3 separate PS2s (I have dubbed it "FrankenStation"), and while on occasion it will refuse a DVD, once it starts I have no problems with skipping or stops, other than that layer change on dual layer movies. I know this is all sort of foaf information, but considering my lens is a 3001 I think it's pretty impressive. Also, when the PS2 was released, DVD players in the US were at or around the performance of the PS2's DVD player. I don't see how a DVD player could be considered "mediocre" if it plays DVDs and has all of the options a standard DVD player has.
Also, we can argue all day about the point of the article being authoritive rather than informative, but that doesn't excuse the lack of fact checking.
Also kudos to eToyChest for allowing the average Joe to have a chance to write for a reputable website. And also for being the only website operator on the forums who doesn't spam the shit out of the site. And for breaking news and giving us an insider's look from time to time.
Is that support or sarcasm? I didn't really follow DCs history so I can't be sure.
It's sarcasm. Piracy helped kill the Dreamcast. Very few people I knew who owned one actually bought games.
Piracy doesn't help anyone. Games publishers lose out on sales, games console manufacturers lose out on royalties, it results in a smaller game library for the console, since developers have less money to make new games, and legitimate gamers end up paying more for their games to support the pirates.
Most pirates end up with a stockpile of more illegal games that they can play, and in the end they seem to end up being more addicted to the process of downloading and cracking games than playing the games themselves. You talk to them about Final Fantasy XII, and they brag about how they downloaded it, but they obviously haven't played past the first 30 minutes of it, or any other game. Piracy destroys their enjoyment of gaming in the end.
Remember, pirates are not just killing the industry, they are causing you to pay more for your games. In effect, they are stealing from you. So, if you meet a pirate, kick them in the balls, and steal their wallet to get even.
Game publishers have a set amount of money they want in return from the investment in a game and if more people buy the game instead of pirating it they will magicly lower the prices for everyone?
[spoiler:2cb241526c]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand[/spoiler:2cb241526c]
I'm not saying piracy doesn't hurt gaming (Amiga and Dreamcast being the worst examples of piracy becoming to common), but prices are being set by what the companies can charge, not by a how large the imaginary loss is from people who like you say in most cases don't play the game much and therefore never were likely to pay for it.
ArcticMonkey on
"You read it! You can't unread it!"
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Is that support or sarcasm? I didn't really follow DCs history so I can't be sure.
It's sarcasm. Piracy helped kill the Dreamcast. Very few people I knew who owned one actually bought games.
Piracy doesn't help anyone. Games publishers lose out on sales, games console manufacturers lose out on royalties, it results in a smaller game library for the console, since developers have less money to make new games, and legitimate gamers end up paying more for their games to support the pirates.
Most pirates end up with a stockpile of more illegal games that they can play, and in the end they seem to end up being more addicted to the process of downloading and cracking games than playing the games themselves. You talk to them about Final Fantasy XII, and they brag about how they downloaded it, but they obviously haven't played past the first 30 minutes of it, or any other game. Piracy destroys their enjoyment of gaming in the end.
Remember, pirates are not just killing the industry, they are causing you to pay more for your games. In effect, they are stealing from you. So, if you meet a pirate, kick them in the balls, and steal their wallet to get even.
Game publishers have a set amount of money they want in return from the investment in a game and if more people buy the game instead of pirating it they will magicly lower the prices for everyone?
[spoiler:603e49966a]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand[/spoiler:603e49966a]
I'm not saying piracy doesn't hurt gaming (Amiga and Dreamcast being the worst examples of piracy becoming to common), but prices are being set by what the companies can charge, not by a how large the imaginary loss is from people who like you say in most cases don't play the game much and therefore never were likely to pay for it.
Actually, it'll hurt a lot more in the future, since development costs are so high now. At least thats what they say. Personally I believe it, they have to render so much higher quality stuff now.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I really didn't like that article. I'm not going to say that it was too biased or not biased enough or I don't agree, because it's an editorial.
But, everything was so dramatic. Every console is either a dark, sinking hole of failure or a shining success wrapped in excellence. Also the "History of Gaming" referred to twice or three times seems to last about 6 years, which the author, admittedly, states several times.
So while I enjoyed many parts of article I just wish it wasn't written like a Soap Opera episode: The characters either just won a lottery, or are in a coma.
I'm not saying piracy doesn't hurt gaming (Amiga and Dreamcast being the worst examples of piracy becoming to common), but prices are being set by what the companies can charge, not by a how large the imaginary loss is from people who like you say in most cases don't play the game much and therefore never were likely to pay for it.
If more people buy a game, then developers are more likely to either:
a) Spend more money on creating new games, or
b) Spend more money on making games better, or
c) Reduce the price of games.
It's pretty simple. If developers make less money, then they have to either decrease their budgets or increase costs. If they make more money, then they can reduce costs.
If there is a bigger consumer-base, then prices will probably be lower.
It's the same for all software. I work on specialist software that has a worldwide market that would be lucky to be more than a thousand institutions, so it costs more than ten thousand dollars to buy. Games have a much bigger market, so they cost less, even though many would cost much more to produce.
There is no way to justify piracy, other than saying "I'm a cheapskate who wants a non-necessary item for free".
I beg to differ.
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
Honestly, I do the same with music. My ability to download music for free has no bearing on the amount of money I spend on music, on the contrary, there are lots of artists that I wouldn't have taken the risk of spending £10 on an album of, but would download it for free, and then I liked it so much I went out and bought it the next day. Similarly, I have downloaded an album, been disapointed, and deleted it, where had i been unable to download it first, I would have bought an album I dislike.
Game publishers have a set amount of money they want in return from the investment in a game and if more people buy the game instead of pirating it they will magicly lower the prices for everyone?
Yes. Yes they will.
Platnium hits. Best sellers. All are price reduced once they hit a certain number of sales.
Malor, what I think you are missing in this discussion is that while rampant piracy does indeed damage the industry, overzelous efforts on the part of the manufacterer to prevent it can do as much or more damage.
The example closest to this discussion is the PSP: Sony has pushed so many firmware updates over the last year (and provided so little in terms of features) it has severely damaged the PSP market.
How about when sony was distributing viruses (the rootkit fiasco) and exposing themselves to massive civil liability in order to try and stop piracy.
Hell, just look at the problems Starforce caused for various companies in the PC games market.
There is no way to justify piracy, other than saying "I'm a cheapskate who wants a non-necessary item for free".
I beg to differ.
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
Honestly, I do the same with music. My ability to download music for free has no bearing on the amount of money I spend on music, on the contrary, there are lots of artists that I wouldn't have taken the risk of spending £10 on an album of, but would download it for free, and then I liked it so much I went out and bought it the next day. Similarly, I have downloaded an album, been disapointed, and deleted it, where had i been unable to download it first, I would have bought an album I dislike.
No, this is still bullshit.
You just said, he buys them if he enjoys them.
What if he doesn't enjoy the game he stole and finished?
He doesn't buy those, does he?
So basically, he walked into a restraunt, ordered food, didn't enjoy and left without paying.
There is no way to justify piracy, other than saying "I'm a cheapskate who wants a non-necessary item for free".
I beg to differ.
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
Honestly, I do the same with music. My ability to download music for free has no bearing on the amount of money I spend on music, on the contrary, there are lots of artists that I wouldn't have taken the risk of spending £10 on an album of, but would download it for free, and then I liked it so much I went out and bought it the next day. Similarly, I have downloaded an album, been disapointed, and deleted it, where had i been unable to download it first, I would have bought an album I dislike.
No, this is still bullshit.
You just said, he buys them if he enjoys them.
What if he doesn't enjoy the game he stole and finished?
He doesn't buy those, does he?
So basically, he walked into a restraunt, ordered food, didn't enjoy and left without paying.
But its okay, cause he doesn't always do this?
Pirating is greed in every case.
I completely understand your viewpoint, but I disagree.
There is no way to justify piracy, other than saying "I'm a cheapskate who wants a non-necessary item for free".
I beg to differ.
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
Honestly, I do the same with music. My ability to download music for free has no bearing on the amount of money I spend on music, on the contrary, there are lots of artists that I wouldn't have taken the risk of spending £10 on an album of, but would download it for free, and then I liked it so much I went out and bought it the next day. Similarly, I have downloaded an album, been disapointed, and deleted it, where had i been unable to download it first, I would have bought an album I dislike.
No, this is still bullshit.
You just said, he buys them if he enjoys them.
What if he doesn't enjoy the game he stole and finished?
He doesn't buy those, does he?
So basically, he walked into a restraunt, ordered food, didn't enjoy and left without paying.
But its okay, cause he doesn't always do this?
Pirating is greed in every case.
I completely understand your viewpoint, but I disagree.
Care to elaborate?
I know someone who is just like your friend.
No amount of explanation can make him look less like a brat who just plain doesn't want to pay for games.
There is no way to justify piracy, other than saying "I'm a cheapskate who wants a non-necessary item for free".
I beg to differ.
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
Honestly, I do the same with music. My ability to download music for free has no bearing on the amount of money I spend on music, on the contrary, there are lots of artists that I wouldn't have taken the risk of spending £10 on an album of, but would download it for free, and then I liked it so much I went out and bought it the next day. Similarly, I have downloaded an album, been disapointed, and deleted it, where had i been unable to download it first, I would have bought an album I dislike.
No, this is still bullshit.
You just said, he buys them if he enjoys them.
What if he doesn't enjoy the game he stole and finished?
He doesn't buy those, does he?
So basically, he walked into a restraunt, ordered food, didn't enjoy and left without paying.
But its okay, cause he doesn't always do this?
Pirating is greed in every case.
That analogy doesn't work. The food takes time and money to make it when a person orders the food. Illegally downloading music doesn't cost the studio extra time and money.
I completely understand your viewpoint, but I disagree.
Care to elaborate?
I know someone who is just like your friend.
No amount of explanation can make him look less like a brat who just plain doesn't want to pay for games.
Ok, him pirating has no impact on the amount of money he gives to the games industry. He has a set budget of how much he is going to give them over any given timeframe. All that his piracy does is determine where that money goes, and he wants it to go where the games he likes come from. He is voting with his wallet.
edit - and you can substitue me in for him, and change games to music.
There is no way to justify piracy, other than saying "I'm a cheapskate who wants a non-necessary item for free".
I beg to differ.
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
Honestly, I do the same with music. My ability to download music for free has no bearing on the amount of money I spend on music, on the contrary, there are lots of artists that I wouldn't have taken the risk of spending £10 on an album of, but would download it for free, and then I liked it so much I went out and bought it the next day. Similarly, I have downloaded an album, been disapointed, and deleted it, where had i been unable to download it first, I would have bought an album I dislike.
No, this is still bullshit.
You just said, he buys them if he enjoys them.
What if he doesn't enjoy the game he stole and finished?
He doesn't buy those, does he?
So basically, he walked into a restraunt, ordered food, didn't enjoy and left without paying.
But its okay, cause he doesn't always do this?
Pirating is greed in every case.
That analogy doesn't work. The food takes time and money to make it when a person orders the food. Illegally downloading music doesn't cost the studio extra time and money.
No, but they still lose sales.
They still made the product. Just because you download it doesn't mean they don't lose a sale. You played it for free. Just becaues 'You wouldn't have bought it anyways' doesn't give you the right to download it.
Hell, anyone could use that then.
Then no one buys games, because they wouldn't have bought that game anyways. So they should be allowed to play it for free?
Just because a movie doesn't sell out at a theater doesn't give you the right to sneak into one of the empty seats.
Sure they didn't lose any space that a paying customer would have used, but they didn't make any money off you while you enjoy their product.
Its greed, and selfish. Just because the companies are greedy and selfish too, doesn't give you the right to be greedy and selfish.
What if he doesn't enjoy the game he stole and finished?
He doesn't buy those, does he?
So basically, he walked into a restraunt, ordered food, didn't enjoy and left without paying.
But its okay, cause he doesn't always do this?
Pirating is greed in every case.
That analogy doesn't work. The food takes time and money to make it when a person orders the food. Illegally downloading music doesn't cost the studio extra time and money.
Perhaps a better anaolgy is sneaking into a movie and only paying if the movie was any good. The studio makes less money, although the cost of making the movie does not increase.
Malor, what I think you are missing in this discussion is that while rampant piracy does indeed damage the industry, overzelous efforts on the part of the manufacterer to prevent it can do as much or more damage.
The example closest to this discussion is the PSP: Sony has pushed so many firmware updates over the last year (and provided so little in terms of features) it has severely damaged the PSP market.
I think that has hurt homebrew developers, which is a different matter entirely. It is linked to piracy, since both are about running unsigned binaries, but equating homebrew with piracy isn't really fair.
If protection measures stopped pirates from buying a PSP, then I doubt Sony care. They don't make much money from the PSP hardware, and if a customer was intending just to pirate games, then they probably don't want them as a customer anyway, since they won't really make any money from them.
I don't think they really care about hurting homebrew developers/users either, since they make up such a small proportion of consumers. However, this has probably hurt their "geek cred" quite a bit.
In any case, they seem to have done the right thing with the PS3: they have created an environment for homebrew developers to experiment in (by allowing Linux to be installed) without compromising copy protection.
I completely understand your viewpoint, but I disagree.
Care to elaborate?
I know someone who is just like your friend.
No amount of explanation can make him look less like a brat who just plain doesn't want to pay for games.
Ok, him pirating has no impact on the amount of money he gives to the games industry. He has a set budget of how much he is going to give them over any given timeframe. All that his piracy does is determine where that money goes, and he wants it to go where the games he likes come from. He is voting with his wallet.
edit - and you can substitue me in for him, and change games to music.
Hypothetical:
Guy has a small, constant amount of disposable income: enough for, say, 2 games a month. Every month he buys those two games, based on games that he has downloaded and enjoyed. In addition to these games, he downloads other games that he did not enjoy as much, and thus did not spend his small, constant income on.
Are the companies still losing sales because of his downloading?
I completely understand your viewpoint, but I disagree.
Care to elaborate?
I know someone who is just like your friend.
No amount of explanation can make him look less like a brat who just plain doesn't want to pay for games.
Ok, him pirating has no impact on the amount of money he gives to the games industry. He has a set budget of how much he is going to give them over any given timeframe. All that his piracy does is determine where that money goes, and he wants it to go where the games he likes come from. He is voting with his wallet.
edit - and you can substitue me in for him, and change games to music.
Thats not voting with your wallet.
That is stealing.
then I guess that is the source of our disagreement on this topic.
Hypothetical:
Guy has a small, constant amount of disposable income: enough for, say, 2 games a month. Every month he buys those two games, based on games that he has downloaded and enjoyed. In addition to these games, he downloads other games that he did not enjoy as much, and thus did not spend his small, constant income on.
Are the companies still losing sales because of his downloading?
Yes, because they put the games out for people to buy and play. Not just play.
I don't get what we're arguing. It's stealing. It's plain, and it's simple. It's stealing.
Hypothetical:
Guy has a small, constant amount of disposable income: enough for, say, 2 games a month. Every month he buys those two games, based on games that he has downloaded and enjoyed. In addition to these games, he downloads other games that he did not enjoy as much, and thus did not spend his small, constant income on.
Are the companies still losing sales because of his downloading?
Yes, because they put the games out for people to buy and play. Not just play.
I don't get what we're arguing. It's stealing. It's plain, and it's simple. It's stealing.
How is his downloading games that he wouldn't be able to afford either way causing the company to lose sales? Forget the morality argument for a second. If Guy wouldn't pay for these games in any situation, how is his pirating of them causing the studios to lose potential profit?
Hypothetical:
Guy has a small, constant amount of disposable income: enough for, say, 2 games a month. Every month he buys those two games, based on games that he has downloaded and enjoyed. In addition to these games, he downloads other games that he did not enjoy as much, and thus did not spend his small, constant income on.
Are the companies still losing sales because of his downloading?
Yes, because they put the games out for people to buy and play. Not just play.
I don't get what we're arguing. It's stealing. It's plain, and it's simple. It's stealing.
How is his downloading games that he wouldn't be able to afford either way causing the company to lose sales? Forget the morality argument for a second. If Guy wouldn't pay for these games in any situation, how is his pirating of them causing the studios to lose potential profit?
It's not just morality. He has no right to do so. When the hell were we given the right to try everything, but only pay for what we enjoy?
I'm not condoning piracy. I'm just trying to correct the logical fallacy that every pirated game == one lost sale. It doesn't make sense when you take my given hypothetical (which is analogous to situations in reality).
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
The entertainment industry works on a "hit percentage" model. Basically, for every profitable game/album/movie they release, there are ten that either turn a miniscule profit or make a loss.
If you only buy the games you really enjoy, and pirate the rest, then you are still hurting them, and you are decreasing the odds that they will take a risk on more "out there" games in the future. They take a risk on producing games, so why can't you take a small risk in buying them.
I mean, it's not like game reviews don't exist. Sure, you might buy the occasional game or movie or CD that doesn't live up to expectations, but that is part and parcel of being a consumer. It's not like reviews and game rentals don't exist.
If you play through ten pirated games then buy one of them, you still played through nine games without paying a cent to the developers.
You have a friend, he has a very rich dad who will buy him anything he wants. Your friend gets this sweet toy, and you want it, but can't afford it. So you take it, and rest assure that his dad will buy him another one. No harm, no foul.
Well, you repeat this process, and eventually rich dad decides that its not worth buying his son the same toys over and over again, so he cuts him off.
When you download the game, you may not be removing a physical copy of the game, but you are withdrawing one potential sale from the sales figure. So instead of maknig money off of you, they don't.
Eventually more and more people start downloading games, removing potential sales, but keeping physical copies on the shelves. Devolpers and backers see that the games are not selling. People start losing jobs because the games aren't selling, they lose money because even though everyone played the game, no one bought it.
They lose money BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BUY THE GAME.
Just because you don't like the game, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
Just because you don't like the game, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
Just because you don't like the game, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
I haven't been paying attention to the thread, so you'll have to excuse me, but how'd a thread about Sony and effectively the PS3 turn into a discussion about warez?
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
There's clearly some sort of communication problem here, because I can't understand why nobody is getting what I'm saying.
I understand what you mean. the thing is, if piracy was physically impossible, game sales would go up. Not everyone who pirates ends up paying for the great games - so remove piracy as an option and they'd have to actually buy the game.
I haven't been paying attention to the thread, so you'll have to excuse me, but how'd a thread about Sony and effectively the PS3 turn into a discussion about warez?
What if every gamer in the world is suddenly too poor to afford the games?
What happens then?
Everyone downloads, no one buys, no new games are made.
The industry is hurt.
I imagine that would be the case given a worldwide economic crash
There's clearly some sort of communication problem here, because I can't understand why nobody is getting what I'm saying.
I understand what you mean. the thing is, if piracy was physically impossible, game sales would go up. Not everyone who pirates ends up paying for the great games - so remove piracy as an option and they'd have to actually buy the game.
I agree entirely. The vast majority of pirates aren't Guy. But that doesn't necessarily equivocate "one pirated game" with "one lost sale".
Ok, him pirating has no impact on the amount of money he gives to the games industry. He has a set budget of how much he is going to give them over any given timeframe.
Well then just buy less freaking games. Or get a weekend job.
It's not like he's going to die if he doesn't play through every goddamn game out there.
I can't afford every game I want. So, I just add the games I am interested in, but can't afford to a list. Then when there is a slow month games-wise, I buy them. I'm still occasionally buying Gamecube games as a result.
The whole "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument is bullshit.
Hypothetical:
Guy has a small, constant amount of disposable income: enough for, say, 2 games a month. Every month he buys those two games, based on games that he has downloaded and enjoyed. In addition to these games, he downloads other games that he did not enjoy as much, and thus did not spend his small, constant income on.
Are the companies still losing sales because of his downloading?
Yes, because they put the games out for people to buy and play. Not just play.
I don't get what we're arguing. It's stealing. It's plain, and it's simple. It's stealing.
How is his downloading games that he wouldn't be able to afford either way causing the company to lose sales? Forget the morality argument for a second. If Guy wouldn't pay for these games in any situation, how is his pirating of them causing the studios to lose potential profit?
It's not just morality. He has no right to do so. When the hell were we given the right to try everything, but only pay for what we enjoy?
Never was a right. Doesn't mean it isn't a fantastic deal for the consumer, whereby the only way for the producer to prevent such "loss" is produce a higher quality product more attuned to that consumer's wants. Production based Industrial/Market models went out with the Model T. Now you're competing against finer products with a limited and selective demographic. Welcome to Capitalism motherfucker.
Posts
Well, a lot of the PS2's library wouldn't really fit in well with portable gaming. Imagine sitting on the train for half an hour, and firing up your portable PS2 to enjoy some portable gaming, and spending most of your time watching a Metal Gear Solid cutscene.
Well-designed portable games are designed around the possibility of playing the games in short bursts. And they are better for it.
Is that support or sarcasm? I didn't really follow DCs history so I can't be sure.
Piracy was ridiculously easy on the DC. All you had to do was burn a slightly modified (data had either been compressed, or large non-essentials like FMV removed) ISO to a CD, stick it in your DC, and BAM.
I think we all know of the inevitable fate of the Dreamcast.
Also, selling consoles may be nice, but the money is made from software. Those who buy the system for piracy aren't going to be the types that pirate just to try- that's what rentals are for. They're gonna buy it, buy some memory sticks, and never touch a UMD case.
...Same thing that happened to Nintendo, and then SEGA.
It's sarcasm. Piracy helped kill the Dreamcast. Very few people I knew who owned one actually bought games.
Piracy doesn't help anyone. Games publishers lose out on sales, games console manufacturers lose out on royalties, it results in a smaller game library for the console, since developers have less money to make new games, and legitimate gamers end up paying more for their games to support the pirates.
Most pirates end up with a stockpile of more illegal games that they can play, and in the end they seem to end up being more addicted to the process of downloading and cracking games than playing the games themselves. You talk to them about Final Fantasy XII, and they brag about how they downloaded it, but they obviously haven't played past the first 30 minutes of it, or any other game. Piracy destroys their enjoyment of gaming in the end.
Remember, pirates are not just killing the industry, they are causing you to pay more for your games. In effect, they are stealing from you. So, if you meet a pirate, kick them in the balls, and steal their wallet to get even.
Oh...well then. I guess I was overestimating how well the PS2 stacked up back then. I just remembered it being favorable. And I was only comparing it to players in the $100-$150 range (at the time)...obviously anything higher-end would kick its ass.
I cry sometimes.
Game publishers have a set amount of money they want in return from the investment in a game and if more people buy the game instead of pirating it they will magicly lower the prices for everyone?
[spoiler:2cb241526c]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand[/spoiler:2cb241526c]
I'm not saying piracy doesn't hurt gaming (Amiga and Dreamcast being the worst examples of piracy becoming to common), but prices are being set by what the companies can charge, not by a how large the imaginary loss is from people who like you say in most cases don't play the game much and therefore never were likely to pay for it.
Actually, it'll hurt a lot more in the future, since development costs are so high now. At least thats what they say. Personally I believe it, they have to render so much higher quality stuff now.
But, everything was so dramatic. Every console is either a dark, sinking hole of failure or a shining success wrapped in excellence. Also the "History of Gaming" referred to twice or three times seems to last about 6 years, which the author, admittedly, states several times.
So while I enjoyed many parts of article I just wish it wasn't written like a Soap Opera episode: The characters either just won a lottery, or are in a coma.
PSN/XBL: dragoniemx
If more people buy a game, then developers are more likely to either:
a) Spend more money on creating new games, or
b) Spend more money on making games better, or
c) Reduce the price of games.
It's pretty simple. If developers make less money, then they have to either decrease their budgets or increase costs. If they make more money, then they can reduce costs.
If there is a bigger consumer-base, then prices will probably be lower.
It's the same for all software. I work on specialist software that has a worldwide market that would be lucky to be more than a thousand institutions, so it costs more than ten thousand dollars to buy. Games have a much bigger market, so they cost less, even though many would cost much more to produce.
Supply and demand only works with commodities. Games aren't a limited commodity. The only exception to this is when they go out-of-print.
There is no way to justify piracy, other than saying "I'm a cheapskate who wants a non-necessary item for free".
I have a friend (not me) Who downloads PC games, plays them, often to completion, and then will go out and buy them. If he enjoyed them. Often he does this because the are available much earlier this way, and he plays competitivly, so he is at an adavntage.
Honestly, I do the same with music. My ability to download music for free has no bearing on the amount of money I spend on music, on the contrary, there are lots of artists that I wouldn't have taken the risk of spending £10 on an album of, but would download it for free, and then I liked it so much I went out and bought it the next day. Similarly, I have downloaded an album, been disapointed, and deleted it, where had i been unable to download it first, I would have bought an album I dislike.
Yes. Yes they will.
Platnium hits. Best sellers. All are price reduced once they hit a certain number of sales.
The example closest to this discussion is the PSP: Sony has pushed so many firmware updates over the last year (and provided so little in terms of features) it has severely damaged the PSP market.
How about when sony was distributing viruses (the rootkit fiasco) and exposing themselves to massive civil liability in order to try and stop piracy.
Hell, just look at the problems Starforce caused for various companies in the PC games market.
You just said, he buys them if he enjoys them.
What if he doesn't enjoy the game he stole and finished?
He doesn't buy those, does he?
So basically, he walked into a restraunt, ordered food, didn't enjoy and left without paying.
But its okay, cause he doesn't always do this?
Pirating is greed in every case.
I completely understand your viewpoint, but I disagree.
I know someone who is just like your friend.
No amount of explanation can make him look less like a brat who just plain doesn't want to pay for games.
edit - and you can substitue me in for him, and change games to music.
They still made the product. Just because you download it doesn't mean they don't lose a sale. You played it for free. Just becaues 'You wouldn't have bought it anyways' doesn't give you the right to download it.
Hell, anyone could use that then.
Then no one buys games, because they wouldn't have bought that game anyways. So they should be allowed to play it for free?
Just because a movie doesn't sell out at a theater doesn't give you the right to sneak into one of the empty seats.
Sure they didn't lose any space that a paying customer would have used, but they didn't make any money off you while you enjoy their product.
Its greed, and selfish. Just because the companies are greedy and selfish too, doesn't give you the right to be greedy and selfish.
edit: damn you filler. Pistols at dawn.
I think that has hurt homebrew developers, which is a different matter entirely. It is linked to piracy, since both are about running unsigned binaries, but equating homebrew with piracy isn't really fair.
If protection measures stopped pirates from buying a PSP, then I doubt Sony care. They don't make much money from the PSP hardware, and if a customer was intending just to pirate games, then they probably don't want them as a customer anyway, since they won't really make any money from them.
I don't think they really care about hurting homebrew developers/users either, since they make up such a small proportion of consumers. However, this has probably hurt their "geek cred" quite a bit.
In any case, they seem to have done the right thing with the PS3: they have created an environment for homebrew developers to experiment in (by allowing Linux to be installed) without compromising copy protection.
That is stealing.
EDIT: Plufim; you got it.
Guy has a small, constant amount of disposable income: enough for, say, 2 games a month. Every month he buys those two games, based on games that he has downloaded and enjoyed. In addition to these games, he downloads other games that he did not enjoy as much, and thus did not spend his small, constant income on.
Are the companies still losing sales because of his downloading?
then I guess that is the source of our disagreement on this topic.
I don't get what we're arguing. It's stealing. It's plain, and it's simple. It's stealing.
The entertainment industry works on a "hit percentage" model. Basically, for every profitable game/album/movie they release, there are ten that either turn a miniscule profit or make a loss.
If you only buy the games you really enjoy, and pirate the rest, then you are still hurting them, and you are decreasing the odds that they will take a risk on more "out there" games in the future. They take a risk on producing games, so why can't you take a small risk in buying them.
I mean, it's not like game reviews don't exist. Sure, you might buy the occasional game or movie or CD that doesn't live up to expectations, but that is part and parcel of being a consumer. It's not like reviews and game rentals don't exist.
If you play through ten pirated games then buy one of them, you still played through nine games without paying a cent to the developers.
Lets look at it this way.
You have a friend, he has a very rich dad who will buy him anything he wants. Your friend gets this sweet toy, and you want it, but can't afford it. So you take it, and rest assure that his dad will buy him another one. No harm, no foul.
Well, you repeat this process, and eventually rich dad decides that its not worth buying his son the same toys over and over again, so he cuts him off.
When you download the game, you may not be removing a physical copy of the game, but you are withdrawing one potential sale from the sales figure. So instead of maknig money off of you, they don't.
Eventually more and more people start downloading games, removing potential sales, but keeping physical copies on the shelves. Devolpers and backers see that the games are not selling. People start losing jobs because the games aren't selling, they lose money because even though everyone played the game, no one bought it.
They lose money BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BUY THE GAME.
Just because you don't like the game, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
Just because you don't like the game, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
Just because you don't like the game, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
What if every gamer in the world is suddenly too poor to afford the games? What if they all decide they won't buy the game anyways?
What happens then?
Everyone downloads, no one buys, no new games are made.
The industry is hurt.
edit: Shit, good point. I'll drop it.
I agree entirely. The vast majority of pirates aren't Guy. But that doesn't necessarily equivocate "one pirated game" with "one lost sale".
Well then just buy less freaking games. Or get a weekend job.
It's not like he's going to die if he doesn't play through every goddamn game out there.
I can't afford every game I want. So, I just add the games I am interested in, but can't afford to a list. Then when there is a slow month games-wise, I buy them. I'm still occasionally buying Gamecube games as a result.
The whole "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument is bullshit.