Warning: Wall of text:
@Ricky_Mason Thanks, I like to look at piracy as an act of nature, and quite frankly eventually you just study and prepare for it rather than trying to fight the tide of the ocean. The more we understand human nature and it’s effect on the digital market, the more we will be able to know about the impact of Piracy and how to reduce that impact. There’s no reducing piracy, only it’s impact. You can increase piracy though by making bad decisions like Sim City 4 though.
I watch Extra Credits each week and I recommend watching the video @Manak posted too. Just because I’m ocean-centric doesn’t mean I’m pro-ocean.
What’s to keep them from buying it?
Same argument, same answer. Only difference is the question.
Your question implies that they must put some sort of restriction into the game.
My question implies what does the game/company do to keep or push away people.
It depends on the technological know-how of the person you are recommending the game to, and their outlooks as well as precautions they want to take. Quite frankly the most accurate answer is that the majority of people will pay for it if they want it (especially if on sale). It’s a human nature thing studied before for ages.
Sites dedicated towards piracy are full of bad things that could mess up your computer, you might get an infected file, etc. People stay away from these sites and I refuse to give out anything unless they specifically ask for the same file I used, in which I only do it if they know about the dangers. I’d rather them ask me then look themselves and infect their computers.
Console piracy is another ballgame of magic voodoo that even I don’t participate in because that’s a $200 piece of machinery I could break forever. Well, except for my Dreamcast that’s having laser issues, just gotta burn and play with that thing.
Another argument is that the legitimate version has features that even the pirated version cannot support without a hassle. You might have the stones for the super linux double hack, but in that case it’s just easier for everybody to have them buy the game.
Supply of product remains at: ∞-n where n= "number of pirated copies"
Sales are lost when supplies are removed from circulation not via payment transactions (aka via theift)
By that logic, the universe owes every company that distributed digitally every money ever.
But you are forced to pay $60 for something you’ll never get the full $60 back. (A reason for demos or intensive gameplay preview from video demos or a letsplay demo <- good idea for marketing btw)
That’s not the reason. The reason is that the supply can be created ad infinitum. Because there is no sustainable loss of product, even if someone does take it the company does not lose a sale. (They lose a sale if you remove from their possession 1 physical object that could have been the object of transaction)
One cannot judge the nature of the action towards an infinite item based on laws originating from a world of finite supply.
Wow, this is the most dangerous argument for any sort of authority ever. If I wouldn’t ever accept this line of reasoning for my government, why would I accept it to be a good argument for anything else?
The easiest way to answer this is just look back on the Xbox One debacle and figure out the reasoning behind their decisions. (Protip: They obviously didn’t expect that backlash, go from there.)
Those are services, and expenses are used. The taxi is limited in the number of vehicles, time, gas cost, payment for the active time used, these things are finite, there’s a finite supply of taxis and taxis availability. Sneaking into movies is trespassing, taking up a seat/room (finite supply), and due to copyright laws, the theater has to manage viewcount, because of the security, it’s easier to buy a ticket than sneak in. Plus they usually just kick people out for sneaking in.
A video game is a finished product that the acquisition of such in a manner that it does not prevent others from acquiring or using the service, nor does it’s acquisition cost the origin company anything. Theft deprives, you can’t deprive an infinite supply
[quote=“Maverick, post:58, topic:2172”]
DRM and it’s associated evils become a self-fulfilling prophecy and I made that point. The difference here is that large publishing houses have the power to bring the change.
[/quote]They may have the power, but while the business world is still used to interacting with a physical finite supply, they’ll continue using the same measures that ensured the safety of those finite physical products. Not to generalize, but basically they’re old and don’t understand today’s world (Same kind of people who are in the government.) This is especially true even if they have a young board and management, as if they’re a public company their shareholders (shares are a finite supply) would demand these counter-productive security measures.
[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
But in answer, yes they might change. No, they shouldn’t need to. This “digital environment” you speak of is not a sudden new phenomena. Software has been pirated since it was on 5 1/4 floppy disks. It’s just easier now due to torrent etc. It was not legal then and is not legal now. It was theft then, it is still theft now.
[/quote]Yes and no. Back then data storage was a finite supply, and distribution of data was harder. Software modifications were harder too and DRM required physical copies of manuals and such. (a hassle, but nothing too major due to the nature of software/gaming back then). Piracy back then, due to the finite supply, usually also sold the product they copied, which is a big nono for 2 reasons: 1) Profiting 2) Distributing. (while most piracy nowadays is don via torrent and thus 90% of the people upload (distribute), obtaining in itself isn’t the violation of copyright law.)
Just because something has technically been out for 20-30 years doesn’t make it not new. For an environment that is different than the physical environment, it’s still at it’s infancy. Infancy means recently born/created, thus new.
[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
Simply because the theft does not have a direct and attributable cost, it’s now being trumpeted as “OK theft”.
[/quote]Well the only thing here is, how does one modify the punishment for distributing a product that it’s illicit distribution does not provide any solid sort of loss towards the copyright owner? They could sue them based on violation of copyright law, but what if 1000s of people do it at once, all for personal use?
Direct download sites, downloading from then is not a crime, however them hosting illicit goods and copying them to you when you request is against copyright law, especially so since the hosting service itself profits from the traffic, users that upload these files are also subject to this (although they do not profit from it and anyone can make an account, still violation of copyright law and their IPs are logged by the server). Torrent sites the same thing, but the users of the torrent sites are a different matter as it’s entirely anonymous other than IP address which is not stored by any central server
It’s not that’s it’s “OK theft” but “No viable actions of recourse” (other than shutting down the sites which they do in the most viable way already anyway)
[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
Yes piracy will happen. No it shouldn’t and if the models you’re suggesting were the only option then the gaming community will be the poorer for it.
[/quote]Piracy will happen and it will always happen. Human nature. Businesses need to change to use human nature better, not fight against it. The reason everything is up in the air is because this is a new reaction businesses don’t know how to deal with. It’s a new reaction because human nature has not come across something so useful that is easily attainable and has infinite supply.
[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
So in short, business does NOT and SHOULD not modify THEIR behaviour, they didn’t cause the problem. When they DO attempt to stop the issue they are slammed by the community for draconian measures etc.
[/quote]Businesses that fail to adapt fall
Businesses that treat and restrict their paying customers fail (while pirates remove and play the game unhindered)
If you knew anything about business you would NEVER suggest a business should stay stagnant and refuse the change. That is the #1 reason why big companies lose their place in the market. It’s also the #1 reasons why governments fall.
Stop piracy or the government will make out games
What.
Both of those are not measurable, yet companies don’t seem to be fixing the latter.
Quite frankly, those two are also linked. They’re 60% or more the same issue. If you could measure “sales lost” due to piracy, and have a god-given measure of “sales lost” due to your product being shit, you’d see a huge overlap.
But those will never be measured ever because piracy relies on human nature, while a shit product is their fault. Easier to blame human nature while forgetting that human nature is also the reason people like their products and buy it.
The only lesson from the statement you made there is that “sales lost” for people pirating games are less if you make a not-shit product.
In the end it’s a debate on your personal morals. It’s not about recourse for something that is illegal or not as individually not viable, but more of a philosophy of right and wrong.
From the business standpoint, this means that the whole issue isn’t an issue of someone stealing something as you can go “That’s a lost sale” and it be true. It means you have to look at the bigger picture and understand human nature and it’s reaction towards the digital environment.
This means: Make you way the easiest and most satisfying.
Easiest way: Provide services for paying customers that pirates would not have access to.
Steam Games and Minecraft. They provide reasons to use their product legitimately, and their DRM is completely non-intrustive (but still DRM).
The biggest surprise: They both are insanely easy to pirate.
They’re both centrally controlled call home DRM styles, but they don’t require constant connections and they provide an auxiliary experience that enhances the core product.
Due to the finite nature of the material world, Products are the main source of trade.
Due to the infinite nature of the digital world, Products are essentially costless to reproduce and distribute.
So for the digital world, you have to supply something that is limited and satisfactory, a service. This means the digital world is service driven because there are still a few limited resources they can use: Time, Money, People.
The material world uses this too, but the best way to explain it is: A Service is a Product (Warranty), but a Product isn’t a Service(the car you have the warranty for).
I don’t advocate piracy, but I will not condemn it.
I really do recommend reading my above posts, and if you haven’t, watch the Extra-Credits video. (Watch all their other videos too, they’re great)
