I'm not at all convinced that DRM - especially the kind of draconian DRM Ubisoft is employing - is the answer, but I can't fault them for at least trying something. The current triple-A PC market is tenuous, and as someone who much prefers a mouse and keyboard, I'd hate to see it go away.
On that note, is there any reason why we can't have mouse and keyboard games on a console? Then I could have dedicated gaming hardware, the devlopers could have their preferred platform, and I could have my preferred interface to a game.
Current consoles (well, the 360 and PS3, not sure about the Wii) support them, but not games be default. they need to be done specifically to support them, and developers don't do it. Likely because, well, not many people plug a mouse and keyboard in so it's not worth the time, and because for multiplayer, it gives unfair advantage to those that have them. They're not standard controllers like on a PC.
It's not a developer issue - the 360 APIs simply don't support USB mice for game controls.
It's a choice on Microsoft's part. They could patch it if they wanted too. Retroactively patching in support for it on already released games would be more complicated, of course.
As to why Microsoft made that choice, I can imagine a few reasons, not the least of which is that they have a vested interest in keeping the PC alive and kicking as a gaming platform.
Sorry for bringing this up, but, what? Microsoft has been doing everything in it's power to try to kill PC gaming, from closing down Ensemble, which made the guaranteed million seller AoE games, to forcing 2nd parties like remedy into dropping the PC versions of games that were in development from the beginning of their devcycles
I really can't do more than speculate as to why they made those decisions - but rest assured, if Microsoft wanted to kill PC gaming, it would be dead. They are in a better position to do so than any corporation in the world.
Remember, shutting down development of certain games doesn't mean you want to kill the platform as a whole. Sometimes it just means you're putting your money into other projects PC development, more than other platforms, is hit-driven. If you believe a game will have only middling sales, it's generally not worth the cost to do a PC version. Piracy eats any profit you might have made.
You want region locks and then don't port games over? People will install homebrew to play their imports and hey, might as well take the second step and also start pirating.
Like it or not, a lot of times piracy is a result of the customer saying FUCK YOU TOO back to the company for putting up any sort of barriers to their consumption, whether it be price, availability, DRM, or just general inconvenience.
yes because people have a right to every media they want and they are owed the new hotness right now.
I don't think piracy is morally reprehensible or anything, lord knows 99% of the board has done their share. But if you are good enough at doublethink that you can make yourself believe that what you are doing is somehow justified then you are a silly goose. A very silly goose.
If you don't care about the artists or the publishers, by all means pirate and don't feel guilty about it. But if you actually care about the media you are consuming and you can somehow believe that what you are doing is not an insult to the parties responsible then you are... a very silly goose.
They may be silly gooses. You're the one without their money. Who's the silly goose now?
A lot of people really *don't* care about your well-being personally. The sooner you that the sooner you'll be happier and have their money. Their justifications are secondary to that fact.
Yes I am perfectly happy with this. If you pirate and say 'yeah I just don't give a fuck' at least you are honest with yourself. It is when people claim that pirating is a 'victimless crime' or that piracy is morally justified that i am mystified by.
I find it hard to think of a way in which pirating a game that is not offered for sale in your region is not a victimless crime, myself. If it later comes out you're morally required to buy it if you played it for any real amount of time, but otherwise 0 sales = 0 sales.
You want region locks and then don't port games over? People will install homebrew to play their imports and hey, might as well take the second step and also start pirating.
Like it or not, a lot of times piracy is a result of the customer saying FUCK YOU TOO back to the company for putting up any sort of barriers to their consumption, whether it be price, availability, DRM, or just general inconvenience.
yes because people have a right to every media they want and they are owed the new hotness right now.
I don't think piracy is morally reprehensible or anything, lord knows 99% of the board has done their share. But if you are good enough at doublethink that you can make yourself believe that what you are doing is somehow justified then you are a silly goose. A very silly goose.
If you don't care about the artists or the publishers, by all means pirate and don't feel guilty about it. But if you actually care about the media you are consuming and you can somehow believe that what you are doing is not an insult to the parties responsible then you are... a very silly goose.
They may be silly gooses. You're the one without their money. Who's the silly goose now?
A lot of people really *don't* care about your well-being personally. The sooner you that the sooner you'll be happier and have their money. Their justifications are secondary to that fact.
Yes I am perfectly happy with this. If you pirate and say 'yeah I just don't give a fuck' at least you are honest with yourself. It is when people claim that pirating is a 'victimless crime' or that piracy is morally justified that i am mystified by.
The whole pirates don't buy games thing is so fucking stupid. Yeah pirates don't buy games because they don't have to. If piracy magically became impossible tommorow do you think the thousands of people who pirate games would just say 'yeah gaming was fun, but I think i'll try figure skating now'? That is absurd.
You know what people do when they don't want to buy your stuff and don't pirate? They consume the media they already have over and over again and are perfectly happy with it. You'd still be the silly goose getting 0 sales claiming to be perfectly happy but in a tizzy about people doing the perfectly normal human behavior of rationalizing their actions.
You know what people do when they don't want to buy your stuff and don't pirate? They consume the media they already have over and over again and are perfectly happy with it. You'd still be the silly goose getting 0 sales claiming to be perfectly happy but in a tizzy about people doing the perfectly normal human behavior of rationalizing their actions.
If they're perfectly happy with what they have, why would they bother pirating new things?
You know what people do when they don't want to buy your stuff and don't pirate? They consume the media they already have over and over again and are perfectly happy with it. You'd still be the silly goose getting 0 sales claiming to be perfectly happy but in a tizzy about people doing the perfectly normal human behavior of rationalizing their actions.
If they're perfectly happy with what they have, why would they bother pirating new things?
Because they don't have a choice? People adapt to their situation. Right now they have the option of paying less for a superior[1] product. We're talking about when they don't have that option.
Or do you mean to say that poor people can't be happy. :P
[1]: Superior as defined by the consumer. As it turns out, for a lot of people, being able to watch/play something that won't be released until 3 months later or not at all in their country, without having to take the time and expense to go to the store and buy something that's a luxury item often trumps the slightly better quality and hard copy ownership and feeling of goodness of contributing to the creator from buying the legit product. This is the situation in a lot of 3rd world countries, where bootlegs are sold openly in department stores for the equivalent of about $3 while the legit option costs about 3 months of wages (see: Microsoft products).
This is definitely ad hominem but what are you, fucking twelve? Here's your argument:
P1 = Pirates share illegal content.
P2 = Pirates aren't selfish.
C1 = Pirates share illegal content because they aren't selfish.
P3 = Pirates wouldn't share illegal content if they were selfish.
C2 = Let's make pirates selfish.
This is about as retarded as arguments get. If premise two was a solid premise then maybe, but it isn't. That aside, conclusion one is so shoddy that I would have to slap you senseless anyway. Pirates participate in the community for totally self serving reasons which are relatively benevolent to everyone except copyright holders. To think otherwise is either willfully ignorant or foolishly optimistic.
P1=Your friends lend you their games
P2=Your friends aren't selfish
C1=Your friends lend you their games because they aren't selfish.
P3 =Your friends wouldn't lend you their games if they were selfish.
C2 =Let's make your friends selfish.
Every game your friend lends you = Lost Sales
So let the publisher sue your friend for lending you games.
Current consoles (well, the 360 and PS3, not sure about the Wii) support them, but not games be default. they need to be done specifically to support them, and developers don't do it. Likely because, well, not many people plug a mouse and keyboard in so it's not worth the time, and because for multiplayer, it gives unfair advantage to those that have them. They're not standard controllers like on a PC.
To add on to what was said about this earlier, not only does the 360 not have any support for mice, Microsoft explicitly forbids allowing the mouse and keyboard as an input device for games published on the 360. The only use of the keyboard allowed is for some form of text input.
I find it hard to think of a way in which pirating a game that is not offered for sale in your region is not a victimless crime, myself. If it later comes out you're morally required to buy it if you played it for any real amount of time, but otherwise 0 sales = 0 sales.
I agree with you in that case but in the normal case it has very clear victims.
You know what people do when they don't want to buy your stuff and don't pirate? They consume the media they already have over and over again and are perfectly happy with it. You'd still be the silly goose getting 0 sales claiming to be perfectly happy but in a tizzy about people doing the perfectly normal human behavior of rationalizing their actions.
You really believe this is true of people who pirate games in the western world?
And all I was saying is that the 'moral argument' for piracy is merely a justification, and a shitty one at that. It appears we are in agreement.
Publishers should start suing the renting business.
Because people rent games they can beat under 20h and the publishers get $0 from it and lost sales over it.
Because they don't have a choice? People adapt to their situation. Right now they have the option of paying less for a superior[1] product. We're talking about when they don't have that option.
Or do you mean to say that poor people can't be happy. :P
[1]: Superior as defined by the consumer. As it turns out, for a lot of people, being able to watch/play something that won't be released until 3 months later or not at all in their country, without having to take the time and expense to go to the store and buy something that's a luxury item often trumps the slightly better quality and hard copy ownership and feeling of goodness of contributing to the creator from buying the legit product. This is the situation in a lot of 3rd world countries, where bootlegs are sold openly in department stores for the equivalent of about $3 while the legit option costs about 2 months of wages (see: Microsoft products).
Ok, I skipped over the bolded bit when reading previous posts in the thread. It's a whole other story in those cases. Hell, I'm curious about the way these things work in poorer countries.
Publishers should start suing the renting business.
Because people rent games they can beat under 20h and the publishers get $0 from it and lost sales over it.
I'm pretty sure Nintendo did this, or at least tried to back in the 90s.
Yeah, companies have tried at different times to get leverage over rental places; fortunately first sale is still a pretty easily understood and well-defended right. And probably, piracy has hurt blockbuster as much as it's hurt the content creators.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Yeah, companies have tried at different times to get leverage over rental places; fortunately first sale is still a pretty easily understood and well-defended right. And probably, piracy has hurt blockbuster as much as it's hurt the content creators.
I'd love it if someone made a study to see if rentals deter borrowing. Even if it doesn't I'm sure at least some rentals turn into purchases, just like used sales can turn into new game sales on sequels and/or DLC.
Digital delivery far more than that probably. My dad used to hit the rental place (blockbuster) once a week pretty regularly. But nowadays he just does the movies on demand or whatever, wants to see something, hits a few buttons on the remote, and BAM. No hour drive into town required, and it's cheaper.
Losses due to piracy = Losses due to material being lend/rent
I wanted to play MGS3 but i don't have a PS3 so i borrow from my friend who has a PS3 and a copy of MGS3.
So there is a loss sales for PS3 and MGS3.
So can Sony and Konami sue my friend for lending me his PS3 and copy of MGS3?
It's piracy in a small scale among friends.
Losses due to piracy = Losses due to material being lend/rent
I wanted to play MGS3 but i don't have a PS3 so i borrow from my friend who has a PS3 and a copy of MGS3.
So there is a loss sales for PS3 and MGS3.
So can Sony and Konami sue my friend for lending me his PS3 and copy of MGS3?
It's piracy in a small scale among friends.
If they could, they definitely would.
I wonder how much the industries lose every year to library loans.
You're straining to make an argument. Lending or renting a copy is legal. Only 1 person can be playing the game at a time. This is distinctly different from what happens with piracy.
Undoubtedly some companies are seeking to shutdown such avenues so that people have to buy their own copy (and shame on them.) That doesn't mean that we can equate piracy with lending a book. When you lend something you don't have it anymore.
I would only describe piracy as victimless in cases where either:
1) The media has been purchased and then a pirate copy obtained for convenience. (they already have their money)
2) The media would definitely not have been purchased anyway. (there isn't a lost sale)
2 is probably used as a rationalization a lot more than it actually applies. The notion that pirates would, in the absence of piracy, just play the games they already have forever and never buy a new one is ludicrous. They would buy something. Undoubtedly not as much as they pirate, but some purchases would be made. The companies that are missing sales are being victimized.
The argument that piracy is somehow justified by the victim being a faceless, evil corporation is also nonsense. Poor financial performance by the company results in pain for the employees. Something has to give - longer hours without more pay, less pay, layoffs, pushing the software out the door before it's done, something. If a company's revenue drops or misses the expected target then it will generally take steps to lower its expenses. Payroll is the #1 place to do that.
I don't think pirates are evil incarnate or anything, but if you're going to try to justify piracy then at least use arguments that are based in reality. I'm glad that there are people out there breaking things and thumbing their nose at the system, but ideally the vast majority of people playing a game would pay for it. Let's not pretend that illegally getting our games for free is somehow a benevolent act, or that we "have no choice." That's just not credible.
I do, however, care about the expansion that's coming for Anno 1404 (good game, by the way).
Also, I don't really want to justify piracy, but if I had never copyright infringed video game albums, I would not have ever even known that they release some quality albums over there in Japan. And, damn, I have to drop an equivalent of a $60 to get one. No way I'm going in blind on that one.
By the way, Ninja Blade might have been a sub-par game, but the soundtrack is excellent.
I wonder how much the industries lose every year to library loans.
Harry Potter still sells well despite early leaks and piracy.
Well enough to turn JK Rowling from bankrupt to UK richest woman.
Rowling makes more then like the rest of the industry combined. Seriously, as you start to get out of the top ten, and classics/books for students the sales are minute. One bad christmas season here saw Borders (one of the two biggest chains) go under. The industry as a whole is that close to the wire.
But uh I doubt it's much that they lose any meaningful amount of sales to libraries.
Rowling makes more then like the rest of the industry combined. Seriously, as you start to get out of the top ten, and classics/books for students the sales are minute. One bad christmas season here saw Borders (one of the two biggest chains) go under. The industry as a whole is that close to the wire.
Borders is still in business.
Your local store might have closed but the company still exists. They just closed a bunch of unprofitable stores. Their remaining stores are profitable.
GothicLargo on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
As I'm sure you can imagine, there were many responses to Friday's offering. We received many communiques from people who create games for a living, across the widest possible spectrum, and there's no monolithic viewpoint - other than a correlation between the size of your game's budget and your willingness to endure casual piracy.
For my part, I'm aware that people copy games - I was twelve once, after all - but the extent to which piracy is accepted as a valid ethos is absurd. It's considered the appropriate response to so many scenarios that the notion of it as an outgrowth of any coherent ethical framework is hilarious. It's so, so rad when people tart up their nihilism.
As I'm sure you can imagine, there were many responses to Friday's offering. We received many communiques from people who create games for a living, across the widest possible spectrum, and there's no monolithic viewpoint - other than a correlation between the size of your game's budget and your willingness to endure casual piracy.
For my part, I'm aware that people copy games - I was twelve once, after all - but the extent to which piracy is accepted as a valid ethos is absurd. It's considered the appropriate response to so many scenarios that the notion of it as an outgrowth of any coherent ethical framework is hilarious. It's so, so rad when people tart up their nihilism.
When you're making the kind of money that lets you throw a few thousand at scholarships and game companies throw games at you I assume your viewpoint may be somewhat skewed towards one side than the other. Labelling those on the other side as being approximately 'twelve' doesn't help.
DarkWarrior on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
As I'm sure you can imagine, there were many responses to Friday's offering. We received many communiques from people who create games for a living, across the widest possible spectrum, and there's no monolithic viewpoint - other than a correlation between the size of your game's budget and your willingness to endure casual piracy.
For my part, I'm aware that people copy games - I was twelve once, after all - but the extent to which piracy is accepted as a valid ethos is absurd. It's considered the appropriate response to so many scenarios that the notion of it as an outgrowth of any coherent ethical framework is hilarious. It's so, so rad when people tart up their nihilism.
When you're making the kind of money that lets you throw a few thousand at scholarships and game companies throw games at you I assume your viewpoint may be somewhat skewed towards one side than the other. Labelling those on the other side as being approximately 'twelve' doesn't help.
I think the point still stands that as you get older / more responsible you get disenchanted with 'sticking it to the man' or whatever and realize that having your life in order to not needing to resort to theft is rather satisfying.
As I'm sure you can imagine, there were many responses to Friday's offering. We received many communiques from people who create games for a living, across the widest possible spectrum, and there's no monolithic viewpoint - other than a correlation between the size of your game's budget and your willingness to endure casual piracy.
For my part, I'm aware that people copy games - I was twelve once, after all - but the extent to which piracy is accepted as a valid ethos is absurd. It's considered the appropriate response to so many scenarios that the notion of it as an outgrowth of any coherent ethical framework is hilarious. It's so, so rad when people tart up their nihilism.
When you're making the kind of money that lets you throw a few thousand at scholarships and game companies throw games at you I assume your viewpoint may be somewhat skewed towards one side than the other. Labelling those on the other side as being approximately 'twelve' doesn't help.
I think the point still stands that as you get older / more responsible you get disenchanted with 'sticking it to the man' or whatever and realize that having your life in order to not needing to resort to theft is rather satisfying.
Again, it isn't theft, its copying. Theft deprives someone of their item, copying does not. By downloading the Beatles soundtrack you aren't suddenly depriving everyone else in the world of their music. It also requires a baseless notion that not getting stuff for free is more satisfying than getting stuff for free.
Your local store might have closed but the company still exists. They just closed a bunch of unprofitable stores. Their remaining stores are profitable.
No they don't. Other way around. Borders went into Administration late last year.
Leitner on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
It deprives them of income, which is the money the developer / publisher / retail outlet would've gotten. Theft doesn't have to just be material either - people put time into that shit. And I know you're going to say one theft doesn't rob them of all the time / effort put into the product as a whole, but it detracts from it.
Again, it isn't theft, its copying. Theft deprives someone of their item, copying does not. By downloading the Beatles soundtrack you aren't suddenly depriving everyone else in the world of their music. It also requires a baseless notion that not getting stuff for free is more satisfying than getting stuff for free.
By saying this you're implying that the Beatles' music belongs to everyone in the world. My my my what a socialistic notion.
Again, it isn't theft, its copying. Theft deprives someone of their item, copying does not. By downloading the Beatles soundtrack you aren't suddenly depriving everyone else in the world of their music. It also requires a baseless notion that not getting stuff for free is more satisfying than getting stuff for free.
By saying this you're implying that the Beatles' music belongs to everyone in the world. My my my what a socialistic notion.
Well I dont like the beatles so its really an evil notion.
And I know you're going to say one theft doesn't rob them of all the time / effort put into the product as a whole, but it detracts from it.
Except it doesn't detract from it outside of meaning they get less money from it. That is no different than if a person had never bought nor downloaded the game. It is an intellectual property violation.
It deprives them of income, which is the money the developer / publisher / retail outlet would've gotten. Theft doesn't have to just be material either - people put time into that shit. And I know you're going to say one theft doesn't rob them of all the time / effort put into the product as a whole, but it detracts from it.
Wanna jump off your high horse yet?
Hells no, I'm jumping hurdles later.
If I sit here now and coincidentally write the greatest song ever, it was the best song in the worlllllllllld, but this is just a tribute, and I do it in 5 minutes, record it and it sounds shit but everyone loves it would I feel offended for my 5 minutes of time lost? Maybe not. With music in particular, and its been brought up a lot before, artists make very little from everything but concerts, its the organisations which take the big money from music sales and such. Movies sucked and bombed before the internet as well, shocking I know.
DarkWarrior on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
And I know you're going to say one theft doesn't rob them of all the time / effort put into the product as a whole, but it detracts from it.
Except it doesn't detract from it outside of meaning they get less money from it. That is no different than if a person had never bought nor downloaded the game. It is an intellectual property violation.
Some people actually take pride in their work and take offense to when people sample that work for free.
And I know you're going to say one theft doesn't rob them of all the time / effort put into the product as a whole, but it detracts from it.
Except it doesn't detract from it outside of meaning they get less money from it. That is no different than if a person had never bought nor downloaded the game. It is an intellectual property violation.
Some people actually take pride in their work and take offense to when people sample that work for free.
That isn't theft though. It is like claiming a person who commits arson is committing theft. Just because it might be morally wrong doesn't make it theft.
And I know you're going to say one theft doesn't rob them of all the time / effort put into the product as a whole, but it detracts from it.
Except it doesn't detract from it outside of meaning they get less money from it. That is no different than if a person had never bought nor downloaded the game. It is an intellectual property violation.
Some people actually take pride in their work and take offense to when people sample that work for free.
That isn't theft though. It is like claiming a person who commits arson is committing theft. Just because it might be morally wrong doesn't make it theft.
Its not even morally wrong, its not like people are clubbing someone over the head and stealing their mp3s. Those in charge would like you to believe its morally wrong but you're not putting people out of work. The WGA strike put tonnnnnnnnnnnes of people out of work who had nothing to do with it just to gain some marginal pay increases, now that is morally wrong.
Again, it isn't theft, its copying. Theft deprives someone of their item, copying does not. By downloading the Beatles soundtrack you aren't suddenly depriving everyone else in the world of their music. It also requires a baseless notion that not getting stuff for free is more satisfying than getting stuff for free.
By saying this you're implying that the Beatles' music belongs to everyone in the world. My my my what a socialistic notion.
It will, in about 3 years time. Copyright has a limit.
Posts
I really can't do more than speculate as to why they made those decisions - but rest assured, if Microsoft wanted to kill PC gaming, it would be dead. They are in a better position to do so than any corporation in the world.
Remember, shutting down development of certain games doesn't mean you want to kill the platform as a whole. Sometimes it just means you're putting your money into other projects PC development, more than other platforms, is hit-driven. If you believe a game will have only middling sales, it's generally not worth the cost to do a PC version. Piracy eats any profit you might have made.
I find it hard to think of a way in which pirating a game that is not offered for sale in your region is not a victimless crime, myself. If it later comes out you're morally required to buy it if you played it for any real amount of time, but otherwise 0 sales = 0 sales.
You know what people do when they don't want to buy your stuff and don't pirate? They consume the media they already have over and over again and are perfectly happy with it. You'd still be the silly goose getting 0 sales claiming to be perfectly happy but in a tizzy about people doing the perfectly normal human behavior of rationalizing their actions.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
If they're perfectly happy with what they have, why would they bother pirating new things?
Twitter
Because they don't have a choice? People adapt to their situation. Right now they have the option of paying less for a superior[1] product. We're talking about when they don't have that option.
Or do you mean to say that poor people can't be happy. :P
[1]: Superior as defined by the consumer. As it turns out, for a lot of people, being able to watch/play something that won't be released until 3 months later or not at all in their country, without having to take the time and expense to go to the store and buy something that's a luxury item often trumps the slightly better quality and hard copy ownership and feeling of goodness of contributing to the creator from buying the legit product. This is the situation in a lot of 3rd world countries, where bootlegs are sold openly in department stores for the equivalent of about $3 while the legit option costs about 3 months of wages (see: Microsoft products).
Edit: Recalculated, it is closer to 3 months
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
P1=Your friends lend you their games
P2=Your friends aren't selfish
C1=Your friends lend you their games because they aren't selfish.
P3 =Your friends wouldn't lend you their games if they were selfish.
C2 =Let's make your friends selfish.
Every game your friend lends you = Lost Sales
So let the publisher sue your friend for lending you games.
I agree with you in that case but in the normal case it has very clear victims.
https://medium.com/@alascii
You really believe this is true of people who pirate games in the western world?
And all I was saying is that the 'moral argument' for piracy is merely a justification, and a shitty one at that. It appears we are in agreement.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Because people rent games they can beat under 20h and the publishers get $0 from it and lost sales over it.
Ok, I skipped over the bolded bit when reading previous posts in the thread. It's a whole other story in those cases. Hell, I'm curious about the way these things work in poorer countries.
Twitter
I'm pretty sure Nintendo did this, or at least tried to back in the 90s.
Twitter
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I'd love it if someone made a study to see if rentals deter borrowing. Even if it doesn't I'm sure at least some rentals turn into purchases, just like used sales can turn into new game sales on sequels and/or DLC.
Twitter
Blockbuster is just being made obsolete.
I wanted to play MGS3 but i don't have a PS3 so i borrow from my friend who has a PS3 and a copy of MGS3.
So there is a loss sales for PS3 and MGS3.
So can Sony and Konami sue my friend for lending me his PS3 and copy of MGS3?
It's piracy in a small scale among friends.
If they could, they definitely would.
I wonder how much the industries lose every year to library loans.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Harry Potter still sells well despite early leaks and piracy.
Well enough to turn JK Rowling from bankrupt to UK richest woman.
Undoubtedly some companies are seeking to shutdown such avenues so that people have to buy their own copy (and shame on them.) That doesn't mean that we can equate piracy with lending a book. When you lend something you don't have it anymore.
I would only describe piracy as victimless in cases where either:
1) The media has been purchased and then a pirate copy obtained for convenience. (they already have their money)
2) The media would definitely not have been purchased anyway. (there isn't a lost sale)
2 is probably used as a rationalization a lot more than it actually applies. The notion that pirates would, in the absence of piracy, just play the games they already have forever and never buy a new one is ludicrous. They would buy something. Undoubtedly not as much as they pirate, but some purchases would be made. The companies that are missing sales are being victimized.
The argument that piracy is somehow justified by the victim being a faceless, evil corporation is also nonsense. Poor financial performance by the company results in pain for the employees. Something has to give - longer hours without more pay, less pay, layoffs, pushing the software out the door before it's done, something. If a company's revenue drops or misses the expected target then it will generally take steps to lower its expenses. Payroll is the #1 place to do that.
I don't think pirates are evil incarnate or anything, but if you're going to try to justify piracy then at least use arguments that are based in reality. I'm glad that there are people out there breaking things and thumbing their nose at the system, but ideally the vast majority of people playing a game would pay for it. Let's not pretend that illegally getting our games for free is somehow a benevolent act, or that we "have no choice." That's just not credible.
I do, however, care about the expansion that's coming for Anno 1404 (good game, by the way).
Also, I don't really want to justify piracy, but if I had never copyright infringed video game albums, I would not have ever even known that they release some quality albums over there in Japan. And, damn, I have to drop an equivalent of a $60 to get one. No way I'm going in blind on that one.
By the way, Ninja Blade might have been a sub-par game, but the soundtrack is excellent.
Rowling makes more then like the rest of the industry combined. Seriously, as you start to get out of the top ten, and classics/books for students the sales are minute. One bad christmas season here saw Borders (one of the two biggest chains) go under. The industry as a whole is that close to the wire.
But uh I doubt it's much that they lose any meaningful amount of sales to libraries.
That's what media centers are for, mmm.. yeah..
First thing I do after buying a dvd, rip it to the media center.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Borders is still in business.
Your local store might have closed but the company still exists. They just closed a bunch of unprofitable stores. Their remaining stores are profitable.
Anyway, has Ubisoft made any statements since all this brouhaha started? Or are they just ignoring the wails of the masses?
When you're making the kind of money that lets you throw a few thousand at scholarships and game companies throw games at you I assume your viewpoint may be somewhat skewed towards one side than the other. Labelling those on the other side as being approximately 'twelve' doesn't help.
I think the point still stands that as you get older / more responsible you get disenchanted with 'sticking it to the man' or whatever and realize that having your life in order to not needing to resort to theft is rather satisfying.
Again, it isn't theft, its copying. Theft deprives someone of their item, copying does not. By downloading the Beatles soundtrack you aren't suddenly depriving everyone else in the world of their music. It also requires a baseless notion that not getting stuff for free is more satisfying than getting stuff for free.
No they don't. Other way around. Borders went into Administration late last year.
Wanna jump off your high horse yet?
By saying this you're implying that the Beatles' music belongs to everyone in the world. My my my what a socialistic notion.
Well I dont like the beatles so its really an evil notion.
Hells no, I'm jumping hurdles later.
If I sit here now and coincidentally write the greatest song ever, it was the best song in the worlllllllllld, but this is just a tribute, and I do it in 5 minutes, record it and it sounds shit but everyone loves it would I feel offended for my 5 minutes of time lost? Maybe not. With music in particular, and its been brought up a lot before, artists make very little from everything but concerts, its the organisations which take the big money from music sales and such. Movies sucked and bombed before the internet as well, shocking I know.
Some people actually take pride in their work and take offense to when people sample that work for free.
That isn't theft though. It is like claiming a person who commits arson is committing theft. Just because it might be morally wrong doesn't make it theft.
Its not even morally wrong, its not like people are clubbing someone over the head and stealing their mp3s. Those in charge would like you to believe its morally wrong but you're not putting people out of work. The WGA strike put tonnnnnnnnnnnes of people out of work who had nothing to do with it just to gain some marginal pay increases, now that is morally wrong.
It will, in about 3 years time. Copyright has a limit.