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.
Very true. Just keep in mind that most games lose money (just like most record labels lose money) on about 85% of releases. They stay in the black thanks to big hits like COD4, the GTA franchise, the Diablo franchise, etc. Sales loss of even 5-10% on those hit titles can be the difference between staying in business and going under.
It is also interesting how many people who pirate games call customer service when their pirated copies don't work. In the article, they estimated that between 30-50% of customer service calls came from people with illegitimate copies of the game. Even taking those with a grain of salt (maybe 15-25%?), that's a lot of cost to the companies.
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.
Why are you dragging morals into this? Everyone else is talking finances.
Go make a morals of piracy thread if you want to talk about it so badly.
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."
Google Price elasticity.
Read on.
Answer me do you believe that all the people who "have demand" for the game @ 0$ would have the same demand @ 40?
Thank you.
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.
So you want us to argue without using the fact that proves you're wrong?
Why can't you just accept that if one party doesn't loose something, the act isn't classifies as theft?
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."
Google Price elasticity.
Read on.
Answer me do you believe that all the people who "have demand" for the game @ 0$ would have the same demand @ 40?
Thank you.
Except that the "$0" price point isn't legitimate, and they know it.
AngelHedgie is the only guy I know that can argue an incorrect point for five pages, finally concede the point, and then want to throw the concession away anyway.
I don't think they care about borrowing. It doesn't happen on a large enough scale to matter. The ratio of games bought to games borrowed can't approach what we're seeing with digital piracy.
Even with a larger grain of salt, the developers eat a non-zero cost for each pirated copy thanks to those customer service calls. I worked with a consultancy firm to try to increase customer service efficiency at a large company by about 8%, That would have saved them millions. Customer service is damn expensive.
Or to put it another way, why shouldn't we say that each pirated copy is a lost sale - and this time, no arguing that "they wouldn't have bought it anyway."
Google Price elasticity.
Read on.
Answer me do you believe that all the people who "have demand" for the game @ 0$ would have the same demand @ 40?
Thank you.
Except that the "$0" price point isn't legitimate, and they know it.
Dear fucking god man. What the fuck are you saying? Yes, they are participating in an illegal activity which is virtually unpunished percentage-wise so costs are indeed as close to zero as it gets.
It doesn't fucking matter if the 0$ price tag seems unrealistic, it is what they pay.
Entertainment is elastic and I'm absolutely certain you realize that.
I don't think they care about borrowing. It doesn't happen on a large enough scale to matter. The ratio of games bought to games borrowed can't approach what we're seeing with digital piracy.
Even with a larger grain of salt, the developers eat a non-zero cost for each pirated copy thanks to those customer service calls. I worked with a consultancy firm to try to increase customer service efficiency at a large company by about 8%, That would have saved them millions. Customer service is damn expensive.
That should probably be classified as a sepparate crime, though. Probably fraud, as well as criminal hubris.
I wonder how many people call the butterball hotline for help with store-bought turkey.
I don't think they care about borrowing. It doesn't happen on a large enough scale to matter. The ratio of games bought to games borrowed can't approach what we're seeing with digital piracy.
Even with a larger grain of salt, the developers eat a non-zero cost for each pirated copy thanks to those customer service calls. I worked with a consultancy firm to try to increase customer service efficiency at a large company by about 8%, That would have saved them millions. Customer service is damn expensive.
That should probably be classified as a sepparate crime, though. Probably fraud, as well as criminal hubris.
I wonder how many people call the butterball hotline for help with store-bought turkey.
Heh, I wonder too. Even if it's a separate crime, the two are still related. It's just another thing to consider when trying to figure out the overall impact of piracy on the health of game developers.
I don't think they care about borrowing. It doesn't happen on a large enough scale to matter. The ratio of games bought to games borrowed can't approach what we're seeing with digital piracy.
Even with a larger grain of salt, the developers eat a non-zero cost for each pirated copy thanks to those customer service calls. I worked with a consultancy firm to try to increase customer service efficiency at a large company by about 8%, That would have saved them millions. Customer service is damn expensive.
That should probably be classified as a sepparate crime, though. Probably fraud, as well as criminal hubris.
I wonder how many people call the butterball hotline for help with store-bought turkey.
Heh, I wonder too. Even if it's a separate crime, the two are still related. It's just another thing to consider when trying to figure out the overall impact of piracy on the health of game developers.
You have to supply a valid serial number when calling the Butterball hotline.
I don't think they care about borrowing. It doesn't happen on a large enough scale to matter. The ratio of games bought to games borrowed can't approach what we're seeing with digital piracy.
Even with a larger grain of salt, the developers eat a non-zero cost for each pirated copy thanks to those customer service calls. I worked with a consultancy firm to try to increase customer service efficiency at a large company by about 8%, That would have saved them millions. Customer service is damn expensive.
That should probably be classified as a sepparate crime, though. Probably fraud, as well as criminal hubris.
I wonder how many people call the butterball hotline for help with store-bought turkey.
Heh, I wonder too. Even if it's a separate crime, the two are still related. It's just another thing to consider when trying to figure out the overall impact of piracy on the health of game developers.
You have to supply a valid serial number when calling the Butterball hotline.
My girlfriend's response was "Butterball has a hotline?"
Case fucking closed. He admits they're the same thing he's just suffering from massive cognitive dissonance combined with blind outrage.
They're only the same thing if you go down to the barest level. When you actually add the little complexities that life adds, like the fact that one occurs due to a legally protected consumer right while the other occurs through the violation of the law, someone might be inclined to think that perhaps they really aren't equal in an actual, practical sense. Which is what I fucking said.
Or, Quid, in your mind, a woman killing her rapist, a cuckold killing his wife in a jealous rage, and a hitman eliminating his target are all the same thing - the taking of a human life. Right?
Case fucking closed. He admits they're the same thing he's just suffering from massive cognitive dissonance combined with blind outrage.
They're only the same thing if you go down to the barest level. When you actually add the little complexities that life adds, like the fact that one occurs due to a legally protected consumer right while the other occurs through the violation of the law, someone might be inclined to think that perhaps they really aren't equal in an actual, practical sense. Which is what I fucking said.
Or, Quid, in your mind, a woman killing her rapist, a cuckold killing his wife in a jealous rage, and a hitman eliminating his target are all the same thing - the taking of a human life. Right?
If you were talking about the raw numbers of people who killed one another, yes, they'd be the same thing. Which is exactly the case here. We're talking about the numbers, not what causes those god damned numbers. Statistics don't include morals for a reason.
If you were talking about the raw numbers of people who killed one another, yes, they'd be the same thing. Which is exactly the case here. We're talking about the numbers, not what causes those god damned numbers. Statistics don't include morals for a reason.
But when the FBI tracks homicide numbers, they usually don't include justifiable homicide by reason of self-defense, which was example 1. Which is the point. Has Quid shown any evidence that "losses due to first sale" have been lumped into the piracy losses numbers? No. Is there reason that the two should be kept separate? Yes, because they have different sources. And yes, good statistics do make sure to break down causes, because that's sort of important information.
If you were talking about the raw numbers of people who killed one another, yes, they'd be the same thing. Which is exactly the case here. We're talking about the numbers, not what causes those god damned numbers. Statistics don't include morals for a reason.
But when the FBI tracks homicide numbers, they usually don't include justifiable homicide by reason of self-defense, which was example 1. Which is the point. Has Quid shown any evidence that "losses due to first sale" have been lumped into the piracy losses numbers? No. Is there reason that the two should be kept separate? Yes, because they have different sources. And yes, good statistics do make sure to break down causes, because that's sort of important information.
The whole point is that game developers won't provide these essential breakdowns.
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.
No one is saying pirating games is acceptable, but we're not discussing magical happy fairy land where everyone does what is morally and legally right.
We're talking about reality. And in reality it is possible to pirate games. And some people don't practice ethical behavior and they do pirate games. We're discussing how this reality affects PC game developers' behavior, especially in regards to justifying DRM.
The subject of lost sales came up because some developers have pointed at the millions of copies torrented and said "Look! We lost $[retail price of pirated copies] in sales!", which is incorrect if even ONE of the people that downloaded a copy wouldn't have bought it. It doesn't matter if it's hypothetically off by one or one thousand, the statement is ignoring reality and is inaccurate.
Using that number as a justification to pay for DRM to stop piracy is a logical fallacy, because you are not guaranteed that being unable to pirate the game will equal a sale.
To make it less abstract, if a company says they will lose $2 million to piracy, and they buy DRM for $1 million that claims to stop all pirating of the game. Using the logic of 1 pirated copy = 1 sale, they would make $1 million more than without DRM. That's magical happy land. Reality will most likely proceed to kick that company in the balls.
For more fun, here's a logically accurate analogy to play with (it works okay if you throw DRM in, too):
Suppose you have a book. You read it. Now you give it to a friend and he reads it. You both have the information in the book now, and only one copy has been paid for. (This is first sale doctrine as it applies to physical objects, you have effectively sold the book to your friend for $0, and he can sell it back for $0)
Now suppose you have the book and also have a completely free photocopier. No ink or paper to buy, it just magically works (to make it comparable with digital copying). You can read the book, and also create another instance of the information inside. The book is not damaged by this, and you and your friend can now read it at the same time. This results in both of you having the information as well, and only one sale. (This is copyright infringement, someone took the time to create the ideas in the book, but are limiting access to it by making you pay for the method of communicating it.)
Then there's the scenario where you read the book, and then someone steals the book. You still know the information in the book, but don't have the physical object anymore. (This is stealing, note the differences and similarities. Technically, you could classify it as a $0 sale that one party didn't agree to.)
DRM in this scenario would be trying to prevent the photocopying. There are a few ways you could try to do it, all exceedingly expensive, such as using a special ink that the copier can't see, using paper that will crumble after the page is turned, or making it so the book bursts into flame when it senses a strong light source.
In real life, copying a physical object is prohibitively expensive, but information is an idea that only needs a method to communicate it. Our archaic legal system that's still based on ownership of a physical object is woefully inadequate with regards to digital information, and our common understanding of the word stealing needs to be refined.
This is just my view on the whole issue, so it may be different for other people.
In college, I pirated virtually every game I played. That included any console games that I could play on my modded playstation.
Now, I pirate no games whatsoever, for PC or otherwise.
What changed between then and now? No, not some stupid sense of moral responsibility. For me, it was simple economics. I have a job, and I can afford to buy my games. In college, if I couldn't pirate a game, I didn't play it. I simply didn't have the money. Now I can buy virtually whatever game I want, and thus I do.
The same is true of every single one of my college friends that I still keep in contact with. It is exactly the same scenario for that particular group of 30-40 people. Heavy piracy when they couldn't afford it, no piracy now.
I'm sure that others aren't as morally scrupulous as I am (hahahahahahah), but I do know that some fairly significant value (of Americans) that pirate do so because they can't afford the games. In short, build up the economy, piracy is less rampant to some degree. I don't know that degree, and I've never seen a study about piracy that I would trust further than I could shove it up my ass after it had been printed on metric ton wrecking balls.
They talk about bittorrent download rates. I wonder, have they broken those statistics down into US, Europe, Australia vs anywhere else? It seems to me that those stats would be rather valuable. It is one thing if 90% of those downloads are purely American. It would be another if 90% of those downloads are, say, Chinese or Russian....
This is just my view on the whole issue, so it may be different for other people.
In college, I pirated virtually every game I played. That included any console games that I could play on my modded playstation.
Now, I pirate no games whatsoever, for PC or otherwise.
What changed between then and now? No, not some stupid sense of moral responsibility. For me, it was simple economics. I have a job, and I can afford to buy my games. In college, if I couldn't pirate a game, I didn't play it. I simply didn't have the money. Now I can buy virtually whatever game I want, and thus I do.
The same is true of every single one of my college friends that I still keep in contact with. It is exactly the same scenario for that particular group of 30-40 people. Heavy piracy when they couldn't afford it, no piracy now.
I'm sure that others aren't as morally scrupulous as I am (hahahahahahah), but I do know that some fairly significant value (of Americans) that pirate do so because they can't afford the games. In short, build up the economy, piracy is less rampant to some degree. I don't know that degree, and I've never seen a study about piracy that I would trust further than I could shove it up my ass after it had been printed on metric ton wrecking balls.
They talk about bittorrent download rates. I wonder, have they broken those statistics down into US, Europe, Australia vs anywhere else? It seems to me that those stats would be rather valuable. It is one thing if 90% of those downloads are purely American. It would be another if 90% of those downloads are, say, Chinese or Russian....
Did you read the article? They have a tasty chart showing general piracy rates by world region...
I got this article off RPS and was thinking of posting it to see what debate it would spark. :^: sanstodo for taking the initiative.
I think the main thing to take away from this article is that there is a major glorification of piracy all over the internet. People have started to use DRM as an excuse to justify piracy. There needs to be a greater awareness that pirates aren't sticking it to the man, they're only sticking it to themselves.
Now, I have a question, Fallout 3 wasn't released in India on any platform. If I get it off the internet, is that justified? The developers weren't trying to sell it to me, so how's it a lost sale?
The DRM is a footnote to the article's main point, and a terminally stupid debate. The only point worth making have recognized that the .02% of people negatively affected by DRM are less significant than the sales lost from being cracked on day one. If Starforce buys you even six extra hours uncracked (and it often does), its paid for itself with dividends.
DRM aside - when you hear devs bemoaning the death of PC gaming, they're not referring to some ephemeral idea, but the simple mathematical reality. When publishers green-light a new project, they're doing a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether the project is worth the risk. Piracy's main effect is changing the relative risk of loss on a PC title against a console title. At the low end (mediocre titles), it's the difference between losing your shirt on the PC and breaking even on the console. At the high end (successful triple A titles), the PC platform kicks you in the crotch unless you go multi-platform. So we get 5:1 sales on Bioshock (console vs PC) and 10:1 sales on CoD4.
The problem that matters in the piracy discussion is that developers cannot secure funding from publishers to fund a non-crossplatform PC title. Publishers see PC games as too big a risk and an unattractive investment at this time, because PC games are pirated to hell and sell poorly as a result. Pirating is minimal (<5%) on consoles, so console games sell significantly better with a similar install base.
That's the issue. You can't get funding for a PC-only game because of piracy. Publishers fund console development instead. It's the only sound business decision for them to make, given the numbers.
MMOs are still effective, since the nature of those games already functions as a pretty effective form of copy protection. Companies like Valve and Blizzard have a vested interest in the PC platform, and deep enough pockets to continue development even when console games are more successful. Sequels to popular franchises, some cross-platform titles, and the indie game scene continue to do reasonably well.
But other than that? Forget about it. The dev money just isn't there. If you're a new developer looking to keep the lights on after your first project, you build for consoles because that's where people will pay you for your work.
Unfortunately for PC gaming, it really is that simple.
The DRM is a footnote to the article's main point, and a terminally stupid debate. The only point worth making have recognized that the .02% of people negatively affected by DRM are less significant than the sales lost from being cracked on day one. If Starforce buys you even six extra hours uncracked (and it often does), its paid for itself with dividends.
DRM aside - when you hear devs bemoaning the death of PC gaming, they're not referring to some ephemeral idea, but the simple mathematical reality. When publishers green-light a new project, they're doing a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether the project is worth the risk. Piracy's main effect is changing the relative risk of loss on a PC title against a console title. At the low end (mediocre titles), it's the difference between losing your shirt on the PC and breaking even on the console. At the high end (successful triple A titles), the PC platform kicks you in the crotch unless you go multi-platform. So we get 5:1 sales on Bioshock (console vs PC) and 10:1 sales on CoD4.
The problem that matters in the piracy discussion is that developers cannot secure funding from publishers to fund a non-crossplatform PC title. Publishers see PC games as too big a risk and an unattractive investment at this time, because PC games are pirated to hell and sell poorly as a result. Pirating is minimal (<5%) on consoles, so console games sell significantly better with a similar install base.
That's the issue. You can't get funding for a PC-only game because of piracy. Publishers fund console development instead. It's the only sound business decision for them to make, given the numbers.
MMOs are still effective, since the nature of those games already functions as a pretty effective form of copy protection. Companies like Valve and Blizzard have a vested interest in the PC platform, and deep enough pockets to continue development even when console games are more successful. Sequels to popular franchises, some cross-platform titles, and the indie game scene continue to do reasonably well.
But other than that? Forget about it. The dev money just isn't there. If you're a new developer looking to keep the lights on after your first project, you build for consoles because that's where people will pay you for your work.
Unfortunately for PC gaming, it really is that simple.
Multi-platform titles sell much much better on console than on PC. Here are sources for my Bioshock and CoD4, and that trend continues for almost every cross-platform title throughout the industry. Are you disputing that games sell significantly better on consoles than they do on PC?
The consistently huge download numbers on pirated copies clearly shows that there are more than enough gamers to make the PC platform as profitable as the 360 or PS3. The difference in sales isn't because console games are inherently better, and it isn't because there are more console gamers. It's because people have to pay for your game on the console platform, and they can get it for free on the PC.
Multi-platform titles sell much much better on console than on PC. Here are sources for my Bioshock and CoD4, and that trend continues for almost every cross-platform title throughout the industry. Are you disputing that games sell significantly better on consoles than they do on PC?
The consistently huge download numbers on pirated copies clearly shows that there are more than enough gamers to make the PC platform as profitable as the 360 or PS3. The difference in sales isn't because console games are inherently better, and it isn't because there are more console gamers. It's because people have to pay for your game on the console platform, and they can get it for free on the PC.
You've still give zero evidence that PC sales are lower due to piracy.
Why else would they be? There's as many gaming PCs out there as there are consoles, but consoles games still outsell their counterparts by five times. Even if you go by the 1:1000 ratio, that's a lot of sales lost. I'm not sure of this myself though. I'm sure not all pirated copies of a game equate to a lost sale, but even if they did and you added them, PC games' sales still wouldn't reach the halfway mark compared to consoles.
Lower demand, first of all. Console games reach a much wider market. Parents overall are more wiling to shell out 300 for an Xbox, rather than 800 or more for a decent computer to play ostensibly the same games.
More than that, the casual gaming market in its entirety exists almost exclusively on consoles.
Let's not forget that Consoles games receive far more advertising (shown to be by far the biggest determinant of game sales) and are also plug-and-play (making them a far more attractive purchase to most people).
shryke on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Multi-platform titles sell much much better on console than on PC. Here are sources for my Bioshock and CoD4, and that trend continues for almost every cross-platform title throughout the industry. Are you disputing that games sell significantly better on consoles than they do on PC?
The consistently huge download numbers on pirated copies clearly shows that there are more than enough gamers to make the PC platform as profitable as the 360 or PS3. The difference in sales isn't because console games are inherently better, and it isn't because there are more console gamers. It's because people have to pay for your game on the console platform, and they can get it for free on the PC.
You've still give zero evidence that PC sales are lower due to piracy.
Hahaha sure thing. You don't know what evidence means.
It's a strong enough correlation, especially considering regardless of quality, pricing or identical nature of the game itself, there is still more piracy on the pc copy than the console copy.
He's given plenty of evidence, it's not his fault you wont accept it.
I don't accept you telling him he has no evidence when he does. What do you say about that.
James Keenan: The article in the op outlines that evidence. There's your citation.
It's also shrykes citation.
Really showing you didn't read it aren't ya.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
-Console games continue to outsell PC games, even PC games have an excellent hardware base. That is, there are significantly more people with PCs capable of running the latest games than there are people with current gen consoles.
-The piracy sites, and the install base of games without much piracy (such as MMOs) demonstrates that there a huge number of gamers on the PC platform. Nevermind that most of them aren't actually buying your games. The installed base, and the interest, is there. Remember, people who pirate face the same quality and technical issues as the people who don't (ignoring DRM, which represents a tiny percentage of technical issues on the PC.) In other words, PC users don't avoid buying games because of low quality or poor hardware, they avoid buying games because they can play the games for free.
-Console games outsell their PC counterparts 5:1.
Connect the dots. Or don't, if you prefer. Fortunately for the business of game development, the people posting in this thread do not get a vote. The people who get a vote are publishers, deciding which projects to fund. And they have decided, almost unanimously, that the PC platform is not worth the risk, when the same games can be so much more profitable if developed for a console.
Who can blame them? They want to stay in business, after all. No one wants to end up like Atari.
well the RIAA just stopped issuing new law suits for minor offenders of music/movie downloaders prefering to instead send form letters to ISP providers who then throttle your bandwidth.... or something like that. the article i read mentioned something about eventually using your ISP bill to itemize the cost of any pirated songs/movies. basically getting you regardless.
this seems like the way most big game designers will want to go with PC games. in a few years i wouldnt be surprised if piracy was mostly impossible for the masses.
well the RIAA just stopped issuing new law suits for minor offenders of music/movie downloaders prefering to instead send form letters to ISP providers who then throttle your bandwidth.... or something like that. the article i read mentioned something about eventually using your ISP bill to itemize the cost of any pirated songs/movies. basically getting you regardless.
I know a lot of ISPs do throttle torrent clients, but it's more of a cost-benefit analysis for them. People who constantly have torrent clients running take up a disproportionate percentage of their bandwidth, and that both increases costs and slows the service for other customers.
Pressure from the RIAA provides a convenient excuse, but at its core, it's a business decision.
James Keenan: The article in the op outlines that evidence. There's your citation.
It's also shrykes citation.
Really showing you didn't read it aren't ya.
I was more responding to "why else would they be".
I'm not at all questioning that piracy has cost sales. But it's not the only thing. And I am one of the opinion that it probably hasn't cost as many sales as would be immediately apparent.
JamesKeenan on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
James Keenan: The article in the op outlines that evidence. There's your citation.
It's also shrykes citation.
Really showing you didn't read it aren't ya.
I was more responding to "why else would they be".
I'm not at all questioning that piracy has cost sales. But it's not the only thing. And I am one of the opinion that it probably hasn't cost as many sales as would be immediately apparent.
You know me. I'm going to ask you to outline your reasoning clearly.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't just cough it up in the first place.
Doooo itttttt.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Multi-platform titles sell much much better on console than on PC. Here are sources for my Bioshock and CoD4, and that trend continues for almost every cross-platform title throughout the industry. Are you disputing that games sell significantly better on consoles than they do on PC?
The consistently huge download numbers on pirated copies clearly shows that there are more than enough gamers to make the PC platform as profitable as the 360 or PS3. The difference in sales isn't because console games are inherently better, and it isn't because there are more console gamers. It's because people have to pay for your game on the console platform, and they can get it for free on the PC.
You've still give zero evidence that PC sales are lower due to piracy.
Hahaha sure thing. You don't know what evidence means.
It's a strong enough correlation, especially considering regardless of quality, pricing or identical nature of the game itself, there is still more piracy on the pc copy than the console copy.
He's given plenty of evidence, it's not his fault you wont accept it.
I don't accept you telling him he has no evidence when he does. What do you say about that.
James Keenan: The article in the op outlines that evidence. There's your citation.
It's also shrykes citation.
Really showing you didn't read it aren't ya.
No, he's given evidence that PC sales are less then Console Sales. He's given evidence that piracy is rampant on the PC platform.
What he hasn't done is shown any sort of correlation between the 2, beyond "Well, it seems like it would".
"Why else would they be?" is not a valid argument. Ever.
James Keenan: The article in the op outlines that evidence. There's your citation.
It's also shrykes citation.
Really showing you didn't read it aren't ya.
I was more responding to "why else would they be".
I'm not at all questioning that piracy has cost sales. But it's not the only thing. And I am one of the opinion that it probably hasn't cost as many sales as would be immediately apparent.
You know me. I'm going to ask you to outline your reasoning clearly.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't just cough it up in the first place.
Doooo itttttt.
It's not as though I'd like my motives and reasonings to be so murky.
What reasoning for what thought are you asking for specifically, however?
JamesKeenan on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
James Keenan: The article in the op outlines that evidence. There's your citation.
It's also shrykes citation.
Really showing you didn't read it aren't ya.
I was more responding to "why else would they be".
I'm not at all questioning that piracy has cost sales. But it's not the only thing. And I am one of the opinion that it probably hasn't cost as many sales as would be immediately apparent.
You know me. I'm going to ask you to outline your reasoning clearly.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't just cough it up in the first place.
Doooo itttttt.
It's not as though I'd like my motives and reasonings to be so murky.
What reasoning for what thought are you asking for specifically, however?
The last line.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
Very true. Just keep in mind that most games lose money (just like most record labels lose money) on about 85% of releases. They stay in the black thanks to big hits like COD4, the GTA franchise, the Diablo franchise, etc. Sales loss of even 5-10% on those hit titles can be the difference between staying in business and going under.
It is also interesting how many people who pirate games call customer service when their pirated copies don't work. In the article, they estimated that between 30-50% of customer service calls came from people with illegitimate copies of the game. Even taking those with a grain of salt (maybe 15-25%?), that's a lot of cost to the companies.
And I liked my theme park analogy.
Why are you dragging morals into this? Everyone else is talking finances.
Go make a morals of piracy thread if you want to talk about it so badly.
Google Price elasticity.
Read on.
Answer me do you believe that all the people who "have demand" for the game @ 0$ would have the same demand @ 40?
Thank you.
So you want us to argue without using the fact that proves you're wrong?
Why can't you just accept that if one party doesn't loose something, the act isn't classifies as theft?
I don't think they care about borrowing. It doesn't happen on a large enough scale to matter. The ratio of games bought to games borrowed can't approach what we're seeing with digital piracy.
Even with a larger grain of salt, the developers eat a non-zero cost for each pirated copy thanks to those customer service calls. I worked with a consultancy firm to try to increase customer service efficiency at a large company by about 8%, That would have saved them millions. Customer service is damn expensive.
Dear fucking god man. What the fuck are you saying? Yes, they are participating in an illegal activity which is virtually unpunished percentage-wise so costs are indeed as close to zero as it gets.
It doesn't fucking matter if the 0$ price tag seems unrealistic, it is what they pay.
Entertainment is elastic and I'm absolutely certain you realize that.
That should probably be classified as a sepparate crime, though. Probably fraud, as well as criminal hubris.
I wonder how many people call the butterball hotline for help with store-bought turkey.
Heh, I wonder too. Even if it's a separate crime, the two are still related. It's just another thing to consider when trying to figure out the overall impact of piracy on the health of game developers.
You have to supply a valid serial number when calling the Butterball hotline.
My girlfriend's response was "Butterball has a hotline?"
I solved this shit people.
Case fucking closed. He admits they're the same thing he's just suffering from massive cognitive dissonance combined with blind outrage.
They're only the same thing if you go down to the barest level. When you actually add the little complexities that life adds, like the fact that one occurs due to a legally protected consumer right while the other occurs through the violation of the law, someone might be inclined to think that perhaps they really aren't equal in an actual, practical sense. Which is what I fucking said.
Or, Quid, in your mind, a woman killing her rapist, a cuckold killing his wife in a jealous rage, and a hitman eliminating his target are all the same thing - the taking of a human life. Right?
If you were talking about the raw numbers of people who killed one another, yes, they'd be the same thing. Which is exactly the case here. We're talking about the numbers, not what causes those god damned numbers. Statistics don't include morals for a reason.
But when the FBI tracks homicide numbers, they usually don't include justifiable homicide by reason of self-defense, which was example 1. Which is the point. Has Quid shown any evidence that "losses due to first sale" have been lumped into the piracy losses numbers? No. Is there reason that the two should be kept separate? Yes, because they have different sources. And yes, good statistics do make sure to break down causes, because that's sort of important information.
The whole point is that game developers won't provide these essential breakdowns.
No one is saying pirating games is acceptable, but we're not discussing magical happy fairy land where everyone does what is morally and legally right.
We're talking about reality. And in reality it is possible to pirate games. And some people don't practice ethical behavior and they do pirate games. We're discussing how this reality affects PC game developers' behavior, especially in regards to justifying DRM.
The subject of lost sales came up because some developers have pointed at the millions of copies torrented and said "Look! We lost $[retail price of pirated copies] in sales!", which is incorrect if even ONE of the people that downloaded a copy wouldn't have bought it. It doesn't matter if it's hypothetically off by one or one thousand, the statement is ignoring reality and is inaccurate.
Using that number as a justification to pay for DRM to stop piracy is a logical fallacy, because you are not guaranteed that being unable to pirate the game will equal a sale.
To make it less abstract, if a company says they will lose $2 million to piracy, and they buy DRM for $1 million that claims to stop all pirating of the game. Using the logic of 1 pirated copy = 1 sale, they would make $1 million more than without DRM. That's magical happy land. Reality will most likely proceed to kick that company in the balls.
For more fun, here's a logically accurate analogy to play with (it works okay if you throw DRM in, too):
Now suppose you have the book and also have a completely free photocopier. No ink or paper to buy, it just magically works (to make it comparable with digital copying). You can read the book, and also create another instance of the information inside. The book is not damaged by this, and you and your friend can now read it at the same time. This results in both of you having the information as well, and only one sale. (This is copyright infringement, someone took the time to create the ideas in the book, but are limiting access to it by making you pay for the method of communicating it.)
Then there's the scenario where you read the book, and then someone steals the book. You still know the information in the book, but don't have the physical object anymore. (This is stealing, note the differences and similarities. Technically, you could classify it as a $0 sale that one party didn't agree to.)
DRM in this scenario would be trying to prevent the photocopying. There are a few ways you could try to do it, all exceedingly expensive, such as using a special ink that the copier can't see, using paper that will crumble after the page is turned, or making it so the book bursts into flame when it senses a strong light source.
Seriously though, are we still debating this proven to be incorrect point?
In college, I pirated virtually every game I played. That included any console games that I could play on my modded playstation.
Now, I pirate no games whatsoever, for PC or otherwise.
What changed between then and now? No, not some stupid sense of moral responsibility. For me, it was simple economics. I have a job, and I can afford to buy my games. In college, if I couldn't pirate a game, I didn't play it. I simply didn't have the money. Now I can buy virtually whatever game I want, and thus I do.
The same is true of every single one of my college friends that I still keep in contact with. It is exactly the same scenario for that particular group of 30-40 people. Heavy piracy when they couldn't afford it, no piracy now.
I'm sure that others aren't as morally scrupulous as I am (hahahahahahah), but I do know that some fairly significant value (of Americans) that pirate do so because they can't afford the games. In short, build up the economy, piracy is less rampant to some degree. I don't know that degree, and I've never seen a study about piracy that I would trust further than I could shove it up my ass after it had been printed on metric ton wrecking balls.
They talk about bittorrent download rates. I wonder, have they broken those statistics down into US, Europe, Australia vs anywhere else? It seems to me that those stats would be rather valuable. It is one thing if 90% of those downloads are purely American. It would be another if 90% of those downloads are, say, Chinese or Russian....
Did you read the article? They have a tasty chart showing general piracy rates by world region...
I think the main thing to take away from this article is that there is a major glorification of piracy all over the internet. People have started to use DRM as an excuse to justify piracy. There needs to be a greater awareness that pirates aren't sticking it to the man, they're only sticking it to themselves.
Now, I have a question, Fallout 3 wasn't released in India on any platform. If I get it off the internet, is that justified? The developers weren't trying to sell it to me, so how's it a lost sale?
DRM aside - when you hear devs bemoaning the death of PC gaming, they're not referring to some ephemeral idea, but the simple mathematical reality. When publishers green-light a new project, they're doing a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether the project is worth the risk. Piracy's main effect is changing the relative risk of loss on a PC title against a console title. At the low end (mediocre titles), it's the difference between losing your shirt on the PC and breaking even on the console. At the high end (successful triple A titles), the PC platform kicks you in the crotch unless you go multi-platform. So we get 5:1 sales on Bioshock (console vs PC) and 10:1 sales on CoD4.
The problem that matters in the piracy discussion is that developers cannot secure funding from publishers to fund a non-crossplatform PC title. Publishers see PC games as too big a risk and an unattractive investment at this time, because PC games are pirated to hell and sell poorly as a result. Pirating is minimal (<5%) on consoles, so console games sell significantly better with a similar install base.
That's the issue. You can't get funding for a PC-only game because of piracy. Publishers fund console development instead. It's the only sound business decision for them to make, given the numbers.
MMOs are still effective, since the nature of those games already functions as a pretty effective form of copy protection. Companies like Valve and Blizzard have a vested interest in the PC platform, and deep enough pockets to continue development even when console games are more successful. Sequels to popular franchises, some cross-platform titles, and the indie game scene continue to do reasonably well.
But other than that? Forget about it. The dev money just isn't there. If you're a new developer looking to keep the lights on after your first project, you build for consoles because that's where people will pay you for your work.
Unfortunately for PC gaming, it really is that simple.
Ooh, I love unsubstantiated claims!!
The consistently huge download numbers on pirated copies clearly shows that there are more than enough gamers to make the PC platform as profitable as the 360 or PS3. The difference in sales isn't because console games are inherently better, and it isn't because there are more console gamers. It's because people have to pay for your game on the console platform, and they can get it for free on the PC.
You've still give zero evidence that PC sales are lower due to piracy.
Lower demand, first of all. Console games reach a much wider market. Parents overall are more wiling to shell out 300 for an Xbox, rather than 800 or more for a decent computer to play ostensibly the same games.
More than that, the casual gaming market in its entirety exists almost exclusively on consoles.
[Citation needed]
And it is fact that not every pirated copy is a lost sale, because it is true that they would not have bought the game anyway.
How many pirated copies of a game would not have been sales anyway? Who knows.
It's in the pirates' interest to report that number as very high.
It's in the game companies' business to report that number as very low.
And we really don't know right now, so... who the fuck knows?
The shadow knows.
Hahaha sure thing. You don't know what evidence means.
It's a strong enough correlation, especially considering regardless of quality, pricing or identical nature of the game itself, there is still more piracy on the pc copy than the console copy.
He's given plenty of evidence, it's not his fault you wont accept it.
I don't accept you telling him he has no evidence when he does. What do you say about that.
James Keenan: The article in the op outlines that evidence. There's your citation.
It's also shrykes citation.
Really showing you didn't read it aren't ya.
-The piracy sites, and the install base of games without much piracy (such as MMOs) demonstrates that there a huge number of gamers on the PC platform. Nevermind that most of them aren't actually buying your games. The installed base, and the interest, is there. Remember, people who pirate face the same quality and technical issues as the people who don't (ignoring DRM, which represents a tiny percentage of technical issues on the PC.) In other words, PC users don't avoid buying games because of low quality or poor hardware, they avoid buying games because they can play the games for free.
-Console games outsell their PC counterparts 5:1.
Connect the dots. Or don't, if you prefer. Fortunately for the business of game development, the people posting in this thread do not get a vote. The people who get a vote are publishers, deciding which projects to fund. And they have decided, almost unanimously, that the PC platform is not worth the risk, when the same games can be so much more profitable if developed for a console.
Who can blame them? They want to stay in business, after all. No one wants to end up like Atari.
this seems like the way most big game designers will want to go with PC games. in a few years i wouldnt be surprised if piracy was mostly impossible for the masses.
I know a lot of ISPs do throttle torrent clients, but it's more of a cost-benefit analysis for them. People who constantly have torrent clients running take up a disproportionate percentage of their bandwidth, and that both increases costs and slows the service for other customers.
Pressure from the RIAA provides a convenient excuse, but at its core, it's a business decision.
I was more responding to "why else would they be".
I'm not at all questioning that piracy has cost sales. But it's not the only thing. And I am one of the opinion that it probably hasn't cost as many sales as would be immediately apparent.
You know me. I'm going to ask you to outline your reasoning clearly.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't just cough it up in the first place.
Doooo itttttt.
No, he's given evidence that PC sales are less then Console Sales. He's given evidence that piracy is rampant on the PC platform.
What he hasn't done is shown any sort of correlation between the 2, beyond "Well, it seems like it would".
Exactly.
It's not as though I'd like my motives and reasonings to be so murky.
What reasoning for what thought are you asking for specifically, however?
The last line.