The point is Quid finished the game. His friend wanted the game. His friend borrowed the game. Now the friend completes the game. Two people have enjoyed and completed the game but only one person bought the game. What is different here, mathematically or logistically, from one person buying the game and burning a copy for his friend so they can simultaneously play it? The loss to you is the same, is it not?
Nope. In Quid's case, he's just asserting his first sale rights, which he has, and I have no problem with (because they protect me as well, even if they do sting me a bit in other ways.) In the second case, he's improperly asserting copyright, which is rather substantially different.
Okay, so you don't understand fundamental mathematics. How about you go get yourself at least a Kindergarten education and come back when you can discuss this with the rest of us that have exceeded grammar school.
So there's no difference between the doctrine of first sale and copyright? How about you get your head out of your ass, and instead of relying on your "math is god!" bullshit, how about you actually discuss why a developer might have some serious problems with the erosion of their copyright, which is what happens when people pirate games (but not when they just assert the doctrine of first sale?)
My point, which I've been making pretty consistently, is that if someone refused to compensate anyone else for their goods or services, you wouldn't tell them that they were wrong for stating that as a loss. Yet creators of creative works get told that all the time. And the justifications for doing so, at least to me, are pretty thin.
How about this: You're the one that started bringing math into this. You were told you were wrong. This is because your math is wrong. It isn't an opinion. You don't have a valid argument when it comes to the mathematics of the situation. Your math is factually incorrect and you have been shown why multiple times.
However, you are arguing against piracy using nothing but your fallacious math bullshit and a bunch of invalid analogies that, again, have their basis in your incomprehensible wrong understanding of how math applies here.
The only person here that needs to remove his head from his ass is you. If you want to get away from the math angle, fine, just concede that we are correct, that you were a dumbass to bring it up, and that you'd like to go a different route instead of trying to argue against the fundamentals of mathematics to prove your point.
I agree with your underlying position. Maybe you missed that in all your idiotic rage. But I'm not going to defend your ramshackle, illogical analogies that are based on the opposite of mathematical fact. If you want to take a stand, pick something valid to back yourself up.
I think the problem here is that Angelhedgie doesn't realize or possibly care that we're not talking about the morals of piracy (piracy is wrong, everyone can agree on that). We're discussing the mathematics of piracy. A pirated game is not necessarily equal to a lost sale.
Lets say there's 3 games I want, and I only have money for one. So I decide to buy one of them and download the other two. In this case, I'd say it amounts to a lost sale to the games I didn't buy. There was the oportunity for me to buy either of those 2 other games, but for some reason I chose the one I did. The potential for a sale was there.
Now lets say there's 2 games I want, but I don't have money to buy either of them. I pirate both of them. In this case it's not a lost sale. Because I wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Nothing on earth would have had me had the money for those games, so there was no way I could have bought them.
Now, lets say I have 2 games I want to buy. I pirate both of them and then decide which one I'm going to buy based on what I've played/how it's run on my rig. I only buy one, but not because I don't have the money for both. This doesn't necessarily amount to a lost sale for either of the games. I'm informing myself of the product before I buy it. I'm "test driving" it. Chances are I wouldn't have bought either game if I didn't know how it ran on my system and if it was any good.
Now for the last scenario. I have the money to buy a game, but instead I pirate it. I just don't want to pay for things I don't have to. If piracy was impossible, I would have bought the game. This is the only case where no matter what it counts as a lost sale.
These scenarios are what makes talking about the numbers so difficult. Yes, in any of these cases pirating is pretty much stealing. Your intentions don't make it any different. However, it's not necessarily taking money out of the game developers wallet. It's not necessarily effecting the NPD data. And the numbers/the intentions of the pirates are what matters when it comes to the state of PC gaming.
What if you wouldn't have bought the game at launch, but would have waited a year and bought it at half price had you not pirated it already?
No matter what that person is hurting the PC gaming industry. Sales matter within the first 3 months of a game. Buying it a year later hurts almost as much as not buying it at all.
I think the problem here is that Angelhedgie doesn't realize or possibly care that we're not talking about the morals of piracy (piracy is wrong, everyone can agree on that). We're discussing the mathematics of piracy. A pirated game is not necessarily equal to a lost sale.
Lets say there's 3 games I want, and I only have money for one. So I decide to buy one of them and download the other two. In this case, I'd say it amounts to a lost sale to the games I didn't buy. There was the oportunity for me to buy either of those 2 other games, but for some reason I chose the one I did. The potential for a sale was there.
Now lets say there's 2 games I want, but I don't have money to buy either of them. I pirate both of them. In this case it's not a lost sale. Because I wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Nothing on earth would have had me had the money for those games, so there was no way I could have bought them.
Now, lets say I have 2 games I want to buy. I pirate both of them and then decide which one I'm going to buy based on what I've played/how it's run on my rig. I only buy one, but not because I don't have the money for both. This doesn't necessarily amount to a lost sale for either of the games. I'm informing myself of the product before I buy it. I'm "test driving" it. Chances are I wouldn't have bought either game if I didn't know how it ran on my system and if it was any good.
Now for the last scenario. I have the money to buy a game, but instead I pirate it. I just don't want to pay for things I don't have to. If piracy was impossible, I would have bought the game. This is the only case where no matter what it counts as a lost sale.
These scenarios are what makes talking about the numbers so difficult. Yes, in any of these cases pirating is pretty much stealing. Your intentions don't make it any different. However, it's not necessarily taking money out of the game developers wallet. It's not necessarily effecting the NPD data. And the numbers/the intentions of the pirates are what matters when it comes to the state of PC gaming.
What if you wouldn't have bought the game at launch, but would have waited a year and bought it at half price had you not pirated it already?
No matter what that person is hurting the PC gaming industry. Sales matter within the first 3 months of a game. Buying it a year later hurts almost as much as not buying it at all.
Even if he had no intention of or capability to buy it at the higher price?
I think the problem here is that Angelhedgie doesn't realize or possibly care that we're not talking about the morals of piracy (piracy is wrong, everyone can agree on that). We're discussing the mathematics of piracy. A pirated game is not necessarily equal to a lost sale.
Lets say there's 3 games I want, and I only have money for one. So I decide to buy one of them and download the other two. In this case, I'd say it amounts to a lost sale to the games I didn't buy. There was the oportunity for me to buy either of those 2 other games, but for some reason I chose the one I did. The potential for a sale was there.
Now lets say there's 2 games I want, but I don't have money to buy either of them. I pirate both of them. In this case it's not a lost sale. Because I wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Nothing on earth would have had me had the money for those games, so there was no way I could have bought them.
Now, lets say I have 2 games I want to buy. I pirate both of them and then decide which one I'm going to buy based on what I've played/how it's run on my rig. I only buy one, but not because I don't have the money for both. This doesn't necessarily amount to a lost sale for either of the games. I'm informing myself of the product before I buy it. I'm "test driving" it. Chances are I wouldn't have bought either game if I didn't know how it ran on my system and if it was any good.
Now for the last scenario. I have the money to buy a game, but instead I pirate it. I just don't want to pay for things I don't have to. If piracy was impossible, I would have bought the game. This is the only case where no matter what it counts as a lost sale.
These scenarios are what makes talking about the numbers so difficult. Yes, in any of these cases pirating is pretty much stealing. Your intentions don't make it any different. However, it's not necessarily taking money out of the game developers wallet. It's not necessarily effecting the NPD data. And the numbers/the intentions of the pirates are what matters when it comes to the state of PC gaming.
What if you wouldn't have bought the game at launch, but would have waited a year and bought it at half price had you not pirated it already?
No matter what that person is hurting the PC gaming industry. Sales matter within the first 3 months of a game. Buying it a year later hurts almost as much as not buying it at all.
Even if he had no intention of or capability to buy it at the higher price?
Hmm... not sure. Again, all the various scenarios are what makes it hard to figure out what actually is a "lost sale".
Scenario 1:
Phillipe purchases a game, and makes a copy for a friend. That friend would have bought the game, but won't now. How many sales has the developer lost?
Scenario 2:
Phillipe purchases a game, then gives it to a friend. That friend would have bought the game, but won't now. How many sales has the developer lost?
Not exactly the same.
With pirating, there are multiple copies of the game floating around no one has paid for.
In the borrowing sense, only one copy was bought, and only one copy exists.
Yes, the friend used it, but I think we're getting dangerous here in how we describe lost sales.
Is it piracy if a friend is listening you a CD with you in the car? He didn't buy the CD, but now he's heard it!
What if a friend comes over to play a game of Army of Two? That friend has now enjoyed the game, but never paid for it!
In fact, holy fuck, Army of Two was a game designed around effectively halving its own sales.
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
But my point was that that kind of borrowing goes on, and will go on, forever. It just seems very... iffy to try to manage or worry about that. I mean, at least in those cases only one or maybe two sales were lost from a single purchase.
It doesn't strike that it's as bad as many, many sales being lost from a single purchase.
How about this: You're the one that started bringing math into this. You were told you were wrong. This is because your math is wrong. It isn't an opinion. You don't have a valid argument when it comes to the mathematics of the situation. Your math is factually incorrect and you have been shown why multiple times.
However, you are arguing against piracy using nothing but your fallacious math bullshit and a bunch of invalid analogies that, again, have their basis in your incomprehensible wrong understanding of how math applies here.
The only person here that needs to remove his head from his ass is you. If you want to get away from the math angle, fine, just concede that we are correct, that you were a dumbass to bring it up, and that you'd like to go a different route instead of trying to argue against the fundamentals of mathematics to prove your point.
I agree with your underlying position. Maybe you missed that in all your idiotic rage. But I'm not going to defend your ramshackle, illogical analogies that are based on the opposite of mathematical fact. If you want to take a stand, pick something valid to back yourself up.
No, Drez, I never once brought math in, unless you're trying to say that when I said that it's not automatically wrong to assert that pirated copies should be treated as lost sales as "math". And even then, you're wrong, as I was not making that statement from a mathematical standpoint, but a moral one, as I was taking issue with the underlying moral assertions that you have to make to defend that standpoint. Again, I don't think that pirates have the right at all to assert that we shouldn't count their pirated copies as lost sales beause they never would have bought the copies in the first place.
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
One path is protected by the law. The other...not so much.
You think that may actually be figuring into our considerations a teeny bit?
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
But my point was that that kind of borrowing goes on, and will go on, forever. It just seems very... iffy to try to manage or worry about that. I mean, at least in those cases only one or maybe two sales were lost from a single purchase.
It doesn't strike that it's as bad as many, many sales being lost from a single purchase.
It is an important note to make when companies are using the numbers of sales that never would have occurred to say they actually lost that many sales. Were sales lost? Certainly. Was every pirated game a lost sale? Not in the slightest.
Nice strawman. Did you give him the game? Sure. But in doing so, you no longer were able to play it. Furthermore, Epic was compensated for that game at some point in time.
Not that this stops various lobbyists from wanting to abolish first sale rights and used markets.
How about this: You're the one that started bringing math into this. You were told you were wrong. This is because your math is wrong. It isn't an opinion. You don't have a valid argument when it comes to the mathematics of the situation. Your math is factually incorrect and you have been shown why multiple times.
However, you are arguing against piracy using nothing but your fallacious math bullshit and a bunch of invalid analogies that, again, have their basis in your incomprehensible wrong understanding of how math applies here.
The only person here that needs to remove his head from his ass is you. If you want to get away from the math angle, fine, just concede that we are correct, that you were a dumbass to bring it up, and that you'd like to go a different route instead of trying to argue against the fundamentals of mathematics to prove your point.
I agree with your underlying position. Maybe you missed that in all your idiotic rage. But I'm not going to defend your ramshackle, illogical analogies that are based on the opposite of mathematical fact. If you want to take a stand, pick something valid to back yourself up.
No, Drez, I never once brought math in, unless you're trying to say that when I said that it's not automatically wrong to assert that pirated copies should be treated as lost sales as "math". And even then, you're wrong, as I was not making that statement from a mathematical standpoint, but a moral one, as I was taking issue with the underlying moral assertions that you have to make to defend that standpoint. Again, I don't think that pirates have the right at all to assert that we shouldn't count their pirated copies as lost sales beause they never would have bought the copies in the first place.
What do morals have to do with potential sale volumes?
How about this: You're the one that started bringing math into this. You were told you were wrong. This is because your math is wrong. It isn't an opinion. You don't have a valid argument when it comes to the mathematics of the situation. Your math is factually incorrect and you have been shown why multiple times.
However, you are arguing against piracy using nothing but your fallacious math bullshit and a bunch of invalid analogies that, again, have their basis in your incomprehensible wrong understanding of how math applies here.
The only person here that needs to remove his head from his ass is you. If you want to get away from the math angle, fine, just concede that we are correct, that you were a dumbass to bring it up, and that you'd like to go a different route instead of trying to argue against the fundamentals of mathematics to prove your point.
I agree with your underlying position. Maybe you missed that in all your idiotic rage. But I'm not going to defend your ramshackle, illogical analogies that are based on the opposite of mathematical fact. If you want to take a stand, pick something valid to back yourself up.
No, Drez, I never once brought math in, unless you're trying to say that when I said that it's not automatically wrong to assert that pirated copies should be treated as lost sales as "math". And even then, you're wrong, as I was not making that statement from a mathematical standpoint, but a moral one, as I was taking issue with the underlying moral assertions that you have to make to defend that standpoint. Again, I don't think that pirates have the right at all to assert that we shouldn't count their pirated copies as lost sales beause they never would have bought the copies in the first place.
What do morals have to do with potential sale volumes?
As the old saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law.
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
One path is protected by the law. The other...not so much.
You think that may actually be figuring into our considerations a teeny bit?
I give someone who had no ability of paying for it my copy of a game.
That same person downloads it instead.
Why is the first not -$50 but the second is -$50?
Answer the question please. The law says so is not an answer. Had Indiana decided pi = 3.2 a century ago it wouldn't have been any more true either. Breaking the law does not change the math.
How about this: You're the one that started bringing math into this. You were told you were wrong. This is because your math is wrong. It isn't an opinion. You don't have a valid argument when it comes to the mathematics of the situation. Your math is factually incorrect and you have been shown why multiple times.
However, you are arguing against piracy using nothing but your fallacious math bullshit and a bunch of invalid analogies that, again, have their basis in your incomprehensible wrong understanding of how math applies here.
The only person here that needs to remove his head from his ass is you. If you want to get away from the math angle, fine, just concede that we are correct, that you were a dumbass to bring it up, and that you'd like to go a different route instead of trying to argue against the fundamentals of mathematics to prove your point.
I agree with your underlying position. Maybe you missed that in all your idiotic rage. But I'm not going to defend your ramshackle, illogical analogies that are based on the opposite of mathematical fact. If you want to take a stand, pick something valid to back yourself up.
No, Drez, I never once brought math in, unless you're trying to say that when I said that it's not automatically wrong to assert that pirated copies should be treated as lost sales as "math". And even then, you're wrong, as I was not making that statement from a mathematical standpoint, but a moral one, as I was taking issue with the underlying moral assertions that you have to make to defend that standpoint. Again, I don't think that pirates have the right at all to assert that we shouldn't count their pirated copies as lost sales beause they never would have bought the copies in the first place.
What do morals have to do with potential sale volumes?
As the old saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law.
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
But my point was that that kind of borrowing goes on, and will go on, forever. It just seems very... iffy to try to manage or worry about that. I mean, at least in those cases only one or maybe two sales were lost from a single purchase.
It doesn't strike that it's as bad as many, many sales being lost from a single purchase.
It is an important note to make when companies are using the numbers of sales that never would have occurred to say they actually lost that many sales. Were sales lost? Certainly. Was every pirated game a lost sale? Not in the slightest.
Well of course. I'm still working my way through the thread, but who's saying that every pirated game is a lost sale?
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
But my point was that that kind of borrowing goes on, and will go on, forever. It just seems very... iffy to try to manage or worry about that. I mean, at least in those cases only one or maybe two sales were lost from a single purchase.
It doesn't strike that it's as bad as many, many sales being lost from a single purchase.
It is an important note to make when companies are using the numbers of sales that never would have occurred to say they actually lost that many sales. Were sales lost? Certainly. Was every pirated game a lost sale? Not in the slightest.
Well of course. I'm still working my way through the thread, but who's saying that every pirated game is a lost sale?
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
One path is protected by the law. The other...not so much.
You think that may actually be figuring into our considerations a teeny bit?
I give someone who had no ability of paying for it my copy of a game.
That same person downloads it instead.
Why is the first not -$50 but the second is -$50?
Answer the question please. The law says so is not an answer. Had Indiana decided pi = 3.2 a century ago it wouldn't have been any more true either. Breaking the law does not change the math.
I did answer the question. It's not my fault that you were expecting a mathmatical answer to what is inherently a moral and legal question.
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
But my point was that that kind of borrowing goes on, and will go on, forever. It just seems very... iffy to try to manage or worry about that. I mean, at least in those cases only one or maybe two sales were lost from a single purchase.
It doesn't strike that it's as bad as many, many sales being lost from a single purchase.
It is an important note to make when companies are using the numbers of sales that never would have occurred to say they actually lost that many sales. Were sales lost? Certainly. Was every pirated game a lost sale? Not in the slightest.
Well of course. I'm still working my way through the thread, but who's saying that every pirated game is a lost sale?
And once again the point flies over someone's head. A person never intending to buy the game for whatever reason isn't a lost sale regardless of whether they pirated it, got it from a friend, or a pterodactyl shitted it out on their front lawn Keenan. It's a sale that never was. One instance is piracy. No one disagrees with that. That doesn't make it -$50 because they were never going to buy it.
One path is protected by the law. The other...not so much.
You think that may actually be figuring into our considerations a teeny bit?
I give someone who had no ability of paying for it my copy of a game.
That same person downloads it instead.
Why is the first not -$50 but the second is -$50?
Answer the question please. The law says so is not an answer. Had Indiana decided pi = 3.2 a century ago it wouldn't have been any more true either. Breaking the law does not change the math.
I did answer the question. It's not my fault that you were expecting a mathmatical answer to what is inherently a moral and legal question.
I'm pretty sure most of us agree that piracy is both immoral and illegal. We're talking about lost sales, not lost souls.
I give someone who had no ability of paying for it my copy of a game.
That same person downloads it instead.
Why is the first not -$50 but the second is -$50?
If I may?
Very literally, mathematically speaking, they are equal. Practically speaking, one is practically not possible to control (besides games that require online validation maybe.)
I wish I could think of at least one example, but it is very pointedly made on this very forum, every day, that something existing "by the numbers" is irrelevant if its practical application is nul.
AngelHedgie, the discussion is not on how wrong piracy is. It's on how it effects the PC gaming industry. How many times must you hear it before you realize that?
I give someone who had no ability of paying for it my copy of a game.
That same person downloads it instead.
Why is the first not -$50 but the second is -$50?
If I may?
Very literally, mathematically speaking, they are equal. Practically speaking, one is practically not possible to control (besides games that require online validation maybe.)
I wish I could think of at least one example, but it is very pointedly made on this very forum, every day, that something existing "by the numbers" is irrelevant if its practical application is nul.
Its practical application is figuring out how much developers are lying about their losses if at all. Pointing to all the pirated copies ever and saying they're all -$50 a piece is disingenuous.
This thread has been like head butting a sidewalk for 3 pages now.
AH, you haven't answered a single point with actual arguments, but with rhetorics. The bad kind.
I lost count of the number of people that asked you to provide an actual argument for equating 1 copyright infringement with 1 lost sale or the number of posts explaining in clear words why such a statement is nonsense in economic, mathematical and any other sense except the "delusional" one.
Tough shit.
Its practical application is figuring out how much developers are lying about their losses if at all. Pointing to all the pirated copies ever and saying they're all -$50 a piece is disingenuous.
Hmm... yes, that's important.
Plus it strikes me that tracking down how many copies were borrowed would be near impossible. Even finding out how many were pirated online seems tricky.
I give someone who had no ability of paying for it my copy of a game.
That same person downloads it instead.
Why is the first not -$50 but the second is -$50?
If I may?
Very literally, mathematically speaking, they are equal. Practically speaking, one is practically not possible to control (besides games that require online validation maybe.)
I wish I could think of at least one example, but it is very pointedly made on this very forum, every day, that something existing "by the numbers" is irrelevant if its practical application is nul.
Thank you.
In the most literal of senses, they are equal, Quid. But when we actually look at reality, one is protected by a legal concept that protects all of us, while the other is incurred by violating the law. Can you see how, in a practical sense, we might discount the loss of one while not the other?
I give someone who had no ability of paying for it my copy of a game.
That same person downloads it instead.
Why is the first not -$50 but the second is -$50?
If I may?
Very literally, mathematically speaking, they are equal. Practically speaking, one is practically not possible to control (besides games that require online validation maybe.)
I wish I could think of at least one example, but it is very pointedly made on this very forum, every day, that something existing "by the numbers" is irrelevant if its practical application is nul.
Thank you.
In the most literal of senses, they are equal, Quid. But when we actually look at reality, one is protected by a legal concept that protects all of us, while the other is incurred by violating the law. Can you see how, in a practical sense, we might discount the loss of one while not the other?
Screw the law. We're talking about the numbers game developers use to justify DRM.
Oh, and of course every pirated game is not a lost sale.
My brother pirated Settlers 6 once. He'd never even heard of it. He also got bored of it within, like 2 days.
That being said, it seems... "too good to be true" that most pirates only pirate games they wouldn't have bought otherwise.
It doesn't have to be most. If, say, %10 of the 1,000,000 people that pirated some game never would have bought it, that is $5,000,000 that game companies shouldn't be counting as losses when demanding government intervention.
Oh, and of course every pirated game is not a lost sale.
JK, we established on PAGE 1(not kidding) that there are losses because of piracy, zero day piracy especially etc. There isn't a single person in this thread as far as I've seen saying that Piracy = 0 loss.
The curent debate started when AH called the statement that losses are fractional:
complete and utter bullshit.
and then used an analogy which broke half the windows in my house.
There are a number of reasons why console titles might sell better than PC titles even at a higher price point. A major one is that console games have resale value - I might buy a console game at $60 knowing that I can resell it for $30 later on. A corollary to that is that I might trade in old games to get store credit towards the purchase of a new console game. (On the other hand, the used games market might drive down console game sales since I know that I can wait a couple of months to buy it cheap.) It may also be that console games are simply a better value than PC games - I know for a fact that Fallout 3 will run on my 360. I'm not certain it will run on my PC.
I admit that I don't know for sure what the optimum price for a PC game is. None of this discussion is a substitute for serious pricing studies. It's just my strong instinct that games are priced a little bit too high.
One of the reasons stores like Gamestop stopped taking PC game returns is that they were receiving way too many returns shortly after game releases. People were taking the games home, installing them, downloading no-cd cracks, and then returning the games. Then, the used copies were not selling because they were so easily pirated.
It is true that there are more variables for PC games, which is why a $5-10 price differential seems reasonable, along with enhanced customer support services.
I don't really think games are priced too high, considering how quickly prices drop. You really only have to wait a few months before you can get the game at a discount. Is that really so hard?
It's fine now? Didn't you just say that it would drive down the perceived value of the games market as a whole?
I said that lowering initial prices for PC games across the board might have the side effect of reducing the perceived value of PC games. Tiered pricing is a natural result of product aging (price reductions over time) and secondary markets (i.e. used games). They are different things.
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make, is that this needs to be determined by serious pricing studies. Since the vast majority of titles on a given platform all adhere to the same basic pricing structure - $50 on PC, $60 on 360, $40 on DS, etc. - I strongly suspect that these pricing studies are not being done.
I have to believe that companies are doing a lot of research on pricing. For example, Nintendo did a ton of research on the exact price point for the Wii to maximize profit and market saturation. I am sure game developers who put a ton of money into their games (like Rockstar investing $100 million in GTA IV) do extensive research into pricing for all platforms, along with release dates, price reduction strategies, and platform release schedules (like why the PC release took so long). They probably don't make this research public because it is valuable information.
Plus, there are tons of consultancy firms who do pricing studies on the game industry. I cannot believe that game companies hire them and then ignore their work.
How could developers ever figure out how many copies were borrowed to begin with? How could they possibly attempt to factor that into sales lost?
I guess it might make sense for developers to report borrowed copies as "sales lost to piracy", but it seems disingenuous. As it'd be like a theme park including weather erosion with their vandalism reports. Assuming they could find all the weather erosion to begin with.
And realized that some "vandalism" was accidental. (here the terrible analogy means "wasn't gonna buy anyway")
I think the problem here is that Angelhedgie doesn't realize or possibly care that we're not talking about the morals of piracy (piracy is wrong, everyone can agree on that). We're discussing the mathematics of piracy. A pirated game is not necessarily equal to a lost sale.
Lets say there's 3 games I want, and I only have money for one. So I decide to buy one of them and download the other two. In this case, I'd say it amounts to a lost sale to the games I didn't buy. There was the oportunity for me to buy either of those 2 other games, but for some reason I chose the one I did. The potential for a sale was there.
Now lets say there's 2 games I want, but I don't have money to buy either of them. I pirate both of them. In this case it's not a lost sale. Because I wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Nothing on earth would have had me had the money for those games, so there was no way I could have bought them.
Now, lets say I have 2 games I want to buy. I pirate both of them and then decide which one I'm going to buy based on what I've played/how it's run on my rig. I only buy one, but not because I don't have the money for both. This doesn't necessarily amount to a lost sale for either of the games. I'm informing myself of the product before I buy it. I'm "test driving" it. Chances are I wouldn't have bought either game if I didn't know how it ran on my system and if it was any good.
Now for the last scenario. I have the money to buy a game, but instead I pirate it. I just don't want to pay for things I don't have to. If piracy was impossible, I would have bought the game. This is the only case where no matter what it counts as a lost sale.
These scenarios are what makes talking about the numbers so difficult. Yes, in any of these cases pirating is pretty much stealing. Your intentions don't make it any different. However, it's not necessarily taking money out of the game developers wallet. It's not necessarily effecting the NPD data. And the numbers/the intentions of the pirates are what matters when it comes to the state of PC gaming.
What if you wouldn't have bought the game at launch, but would have waited a year and bought it at half price had you not pirated it already?
No matter what that person is hurting the PC gaming industry. Sales matter within the first 3 months of a game. Buying it a year later hurts almost as much as not buying it at all.
Even if he had no intention of or capability to buy it at the higher price?
Hmm... not sure. Again, all the various scenarios are what makes it hard to figure out what actually is a "lost sale".
Oh my god, people buying year old games are stealing from AngelHedgie!!!D:D:D:
This thread has been like head butting a sidewalk for 3 pages now.
AH, you haven't answered a single point with actual arguments, but with rhetorics. The bad kind.
I lost count of the number of people that asked you to provide an actual argument for equating 1 copyright infringement with 1 lost sale or the number of posts explaining in clear words why such a statement is nonsense in economic, mathematical and any other sense except the "delusional" one.
Tough shit.
And I have. I've pointed out that the argument for not doing so has been that pirates assert that they wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and I've stated that such an argument isn't morally acceptable, and in any other environment would be acknowledged as such. Furthermore, there's really been no defense of said argument from a moral standpoint. Or to put it another way, why shouldn't we say that each pirated copy is a lost sale - and this time, no arguing that "they wouldn't have bought it anyway."
By the way, Quid, the more I think about your argument over first sale vs. piracy, the more disingenuous it becomes. Do developers lose sales to first sale? Sure. But to argue over it is like complaining about the tide - first sale is a legally protected right, and as such any sales lost to it are part and parcel of the territory. In comparison, piracy is a violation of copyright, and as such as something different entirely.
Posts
How about this: You're the one that started bringing math into this. You were told you were wrong. This is because your math is wrong. It isn't an opinion. You don't have a valid argument when it comes to the mathematics of the situation. Your math is factually incorrect and you have been shown why multiple times.
However, you are arguing against piracy using nothing but your fallacious math bullshit and a bunch of invalid analogies that, again, have their basis in your incomprehensible wrong understanding of how math applies here.
The only person here that needs to remove his head from his ass is you. If you want to get away from the math angle, fine, just concede that we are correct, that you were a dumbass to bring it up, and that you'd like to go a different route instead of trying to argue against the fundamentals of mathematics to prove your point.
I agree with your underlying position. Maybe you missed that in all your idiotic rage. But I'm not going to defend your ramshackle, illogical analogies that are based on the opposite of mathematical fact. If you want to take a stand, pick something valid to back yourself up.
No matter what that person is hurting the PC gaming industry. Sales matter within the first 3 months of a game. Buying it a year later hurts almost as much as not buying it at all.
Even if he had no intention of or capability to buy it at the higher price?
Hmm... not sure. Again, all the various scenarios are what makes it hard to figure out what actually is a "lost sale".
Not exactly the same.
With pirating, there are multiple copies of the game floating around no one has paid for.
In the borrowing sense, only one copy was bought, and only one copy exists.
Yes, the friend used it, but I think we're getting dangerous here in how we describe lost sales.
Is it piracy if a friend is listening you a CD with you in the car? He didn't buy the CD, but now he's heard it!
What if a friend comes over to play a game of Army of Two? That friend has now enjoyed the game, but never paid for it!
In fact, holy fuck, Army of Two was a game designed around effectively halving its own sales.
But my point was that that kind of borrowing goes on, and will go on, forever. It just seems very... iffy to try to manage or worry about that. I mean, at least in those cases only one or maybe two sales were lost from a single purchase.
It doesn't strike that it's as bad as many, many sales being lost from a single purchase.
No, Drez, I never once brought math in, unless you're trying to say that when I said that it's not automatically wrong to assert that pirated copies should be treated as lost sales as "math". And even then, you're wrong, as I was not making that statement from a mathematical standpoint, but a moral one, as I was taking issue with the underlying moral assertions that you have to make to defend that standpoint. Again, I don't think that pirates have the right at all to assert that we shouldn't count their pirated copies as lost sales beause they never would have bought the copies in the first place.
One path is protected by the law. The other...not so much.
You think that may actually be figuring into our considerations a teeny bit?
Not that this stops various lobbyists from wanting to abolish first sale rights and used markets.
What do morals have to do with potential sale volumes?
Answer the question please. The law says so is not an answer. Had Indiana decided pi = 3.2 a century ago it wouldn't have been any more true either. Breaking the law does not change the math.
What?
Well of course. I'm still working my way through the thread, but who's saying that every pirated game is a lost sale?
That seems to be what AngelHedgie is claiming.
I'm pretty sure most of us agree that piracy is both immoral and illegal. We're talking about lost sales, not lost souls.
If I may?
Very literally, mathematically speaking, they are equal. Practically speaking, one is practically not possible to control (besides games that require online validation maybe.)
I wish I could think of at least one example, but it is very pointedly made on this very forum, every day, that something existing "by the numbers" is irrelevant if its practical application is nul.
AH, you haven't answered a single point with actual arguments, but with rhetorics. The bad kind.
I lost count of the number of people that asked you to provide an actual argument for equating 1 copyright infringement with 1 lost sale or the number of posts explaining in clear words why such a statement is nonsense in economic, mathematical and any other sense except the "delusional" one.
Tough shit.
Hmm... yes, that's important.
Plus it strikes me that tracking down how many copies were borrowed would be near impossible. Even finding out how many were pirated online seems tricky.
Thank you.
In the most literal of senses, they are equal, Quid. But when we actually look at reality, one is protected by a legal concept that protects all of us, while the other is incurred by violating the law. Can you see how, in a practical sense, we might discount the loss of one while not the other?
Screw the law. We're talking about the numbers game developers use to justify DRM.
My brother pirated Settlers 6 once. He'd never even heard of it. He also got bored of it within, like 2 days.
That being said, it seems... "too good to be true" that most pirates only pirate games they wouldn't have bought otherwise.
JK, we established on PAGE 1(not kidding) that there are losses because of piracy, zero day piracy especially etc. There isn't a single person in this thread as far as I've seen saying that Piracy = 0 loss.
The curent debate started when AH called the statement that losses are fractional:
and then used an analogy which broke half the windows in my house.
One of the reasons stores like Gamestop stopped taking PC game returns is that they were receiving way too many returns shortly after game releases. People were taking the games home, installing them, downloading no-cd cracks, and then returning the games. Then, the used copies were not selling because they were so easily pirated.
It is true that there are more variables for PC games, which is why a $5-10 price differential seems reasonable, along with enhanced customer support services.
I don't really think games are priced too high, considering how quickly prices drop. You really only have to wait a few months before you can get the game at a discount. Is that really so hard?
I said that lowering initial prices for PC games across the board might have the side effect of reducing the perceived value of PC games. Tiered pricing is a natural result of product aging (price reductions over time) and secondary markets (i.e. used games). They are different things.
I have to believe that companies are doing a lot of research on pricing. For example, Nintendo did a ton of research on the exact price point for the Wii to maximize profit and market saturation. I am sure game developers who put a ton of money into their games (like Rockstar investing $100 million in GTA IV) do extensive research into pricing for all platforms, along with release dates, price reduction strategies, and platform release schedules (like why the PC release took so long). They probably don't make this research public because it is valuable information.
Plus, there are tons of consultancy firms who do pricing studies on the game industry. I cannot believe that game companies hire them and then ignore their work.
I guess it might make sense for developers to report borrowed copies as "sales lost to piracy", but it seems disingenuous. As it'd be like a theme park including weather erosion with their vandalism reports. Assuming they could find all the weather erosion to begin with.
And realized that some "vandalism" was accidental. (here the terrible analogy means "wasn't gonna buy anyway")
And I have. I've pointed out that the argument for not doing so has been that pirates assert that they wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and I've stated that such an argument isn't morally acceptable, and in any other environment would be acknowledged as such. Furthermore, there's really been no defense of said argument from a moral standpoint. Or to put it another way, why shouldn't we say that each pirated copy is a lost sale - and this time, no arguing that "they wouldn't have bought it anyway."
By the way, Quid, the more I think about your argument over first sale vs. piracy, the more disingenuous it becomes. Do developers lose sales to first sale? Sure. But to argue over it is like complaining about the tide - first sale is a legally protected right, and as such any sales lost to it are part and parcel of the territory. In comparison, piracy is a violation of copyright, and as such as something different entirely.