The distinction between piracy and theft is subtle, but it is an important one. It's not theft, but it is not justifiable either. It is its own thing, just as slander and libel are different.
So why does piracy and used games NOT hurt devs?
- Thread starter sn00zer
- Start date
The distinction between piracy and theft is subtle, but it is an important one. It's not theft, but it is not justifiable either. It is its own thing, just as slander and libel are different.
Yep. You can't force purchases, you have to incentivise them. Otherwise you're just going to end up with [more] piracy, people buying used or people not buying at all. Create a product people want, set it at a price people are willing to pay, and don't spend more on making your product than you can reasonably expect for selling it.
You can't defy all this and then scratch your head and blame consumers. That's being entitled.
As an aside; so many artists tour because that is where the money is for an artist.
Unless you are literally at the very top, you are probably getting totally screwed on cd royalites.
What motivates pirates? lack of money or simply not wanting to spend their money on a game they could otherwise get for free, in most cases it's the latter, if piracy wasn't an option, sure a lot of the people that pirate games wouldn't buy them, but sales of a title would overall increase quite a bit.
also the argument of 'piracy is not thieft, piracy makes a copy and doesnt take a copy away from sale' hasnt really worked since digital distribution began.
Lets say you make a living selling posters, posters featuring artwork you have drawn, someone walks in with a huge scanner and starts scanning all of your posters so they can go home and print their own, and in some cases print some for friends too. is this okay? really?
also the argument of 'piracy is not thieft, piracy makes a copy and doesnt take a copy away from sale' hasnt really worked since digital distribution began.
Lets say you make a living selling posters, posters featuring artwork you have drawn, someone walks in with a huge scanner and starts scanning all of your posters so they can go home and print their own, and in some cases print some for friends too. is this okay? really?
I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but as a whole, the game industry is bigger(just less appreciated). As for AAA selling hardware? Well, we have 2 examples of AAA not being the main selling point of the hardware, but the size of the library, and that was the PSX and the PS2. So I'm not sure what exactly spurs console sales, but I don't think the industry really knows either. The movie business wouldn't survive if everyone did Avatar like numbers, and if you are going by historic numbers, Movie budgets are more under control then game budgets by a long shot.
We are seeing, I think, with the huge growth of the PC and indy markets that "system sellers" are more ambiguous, then the big publishers think and dont think it is directly tied to AAA.
The basic logic of piracy hurting sales to any significant degree is flawed. The industry is growing by the billions every. single. year, by a massive amount. It's set to become the highest grossing entertainment industry in the history. Publishers complaining about piracy is the equivalent of finding a thousand dollar bill that has a 5 dollar bill lying ontop of it in the middle of the road, then freaking out about losing the 5 dollar bill when you take the 1000 dollar bill, then spending 2$ and slowing down traffic to find it.
CaptainGyro
Banned
Yeah I already addressed that in an earlier post, but thanks for your answer. That sounds like sarcasm, but really it's not. I seriously appreciate the answer
No, you did get your answer. Pirates would buy some games if they had no other option, but not nearly as many as publishers would apparently like to believe - certainly not one sale for every pirated copy downloaded, since there's good reason to believe that pirates download a lot more than they could ever afford to buy. Publishers could potentially squeeze a little more profit out of the market with sophisticated enough anti-piracy measures, but that's a temporary fix at best, since I think their practices on the development side are unsustainable in the long run. Meanwhile, it's the legitimate customer that suffers as a result of their ever more vigorous efforts to squeeze blood from a stone.
I was non-quotingly responding to someone who did indeed think that it didn't affect sales.
front page:
Basically sounds like "a little piracy doesnt hurt" and some even saying it helps. hmm
Because they aren't supposed to make money on used copies. They have no right to that money. It's not theirs, it's never been theirs, it's not supposed to be theirs.
And Gamestop "contributes" the same thing during used game sales as they do during new game sales: connecting sellers to buyers.
Content control and misinforming your stock holders by having a scapegoat, so you can go chasing after windmills all the while increasing stock holder confidence because you are fighting against what really is the cause for the contraction. These large publicly traded companies would sacrifice the game industry if it meant higher stock prices and dividends, even if it is on the short term. If you can essentially create an oligopoly or monopoly by contracting the market enough, you bet your ass MS, Sony, and the major AAA publishers(The guys at the top of the company anyways) would jump at the chance.
Unless you pay 59.99 never sell it and buy all the DLC you are part of the problem according to the publishers. That is exactly what they are pushing for by killing used games/rentals/trading.
Used games sales aren't conplete losses for publishers and developers as the new owner would need to pay for additional dlc regardless of if the original owner did.
Even if the game is bought new at a discount, the retailer that sold you the game still bought that stock from the supplier at a set price to begin with, discounts set by stores do not negatively effect publishers, if anything the increase of sales provides more potential dlc purchasers.
Even if the game is bought new at a discount, the retailer that sold you the game still bought that stock from the supplier at a set price to begin with, discounts set by stores do not negatively effect publishers, if anything the increase of sales provides more potential dlc purchasers.
None of them said piracy was fine. They argued its impact, but no one defended it as jaffe claims.
Frankly it doesn't matter if used games "hurt" devs (and they don't).
This is like complaining that developers are hurt by having to pay salaries, they're hurt by having to pay for marketing, they're hurt by having to send their games to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo for certification etc.
These are all expenses that you're supposed to budget for, and if you can't manage to make a profitable product then you need to find out how you can improve your business model rather than bitching about how unfair it is that you have to follow the rules and regulations set by the industry.
This is like complaining that developers are hurt by having to pay salaries, they're hurt by having to pay for marketing, they're hurt by having to send their games to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo for certification etc.
These are all expenses that you're supposed to budget for, and if you can't manage to make a profitable product then you need to find out how you can improve your business model rather than bitching about how unfair it is that you have to follow the rules and regulations set by the industry.
jaffe claims gaf said "piracy is ok cuz pirates wud not have bought a copy newai"
which is incredibly close to what they are saying
they are not arguing intelligently about the impact - they are almost categorically saying that pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and thus piracy represents a 0 loss to publishers and following that conclusion, doesn't hurt them.
it is "ok" in the sense that it causes no loss.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Boohoo
It is not theft: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Notice it says with the intent to deprice the rightful owner of it. That is why people are saying it is not theft. Piracy: the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.
There is a difference and that is whay people are trying to get you to see. With theft you have taken something of value from someone that they can not replace. Theft actually removes something of value from someone, causing them to directly lose money. Piracy allows someone to enjoy something without depriving anyone else from it. It is not the same as taking it.
Your example is the equivalent of piracy. Yes, I would be upset, but I would still be able to sell those posters you got scans of. Would I allow you to do that, no. If you did though I wouldn't claim a loss of $X.XX on my taxes due to theft. I would just make sure you don't get a chance to scan them anymore.
As an aside, it looks like cell phone cameras caused Disneyland to not care about their rollercoaster pictures anymore. We went there and the stands to purchase them were empty and the monitors mostly were broken. Why? People would take pictures of the screen with them on it and not even think about buying it. It wasn't theft, but it was wrong and could be seen as piracy.
vpance
Member
Retailer already paid $59.99. So if there's a price reduction to clear stock, or if there's a significant amount of product left over, the store will try to get back some money back by working out a deal with either the platform holder or publisher, I think.
So you buying it at $20 is better for the pub than having the copy sit there on the shelf.
I buy all my games, and I can't stand this attitude. When the industry is more concerned about the people who pirate than the people who pay for their products, we end up with awful DRM-riddled pieces of trash. When you put DRM in your games that inconveniences me, the paying customer, how you treat pirates becomes my business. It's not acceptable to screw me over just because you can't handle the fact that someone is getting something they weren't entitled to.Posted? Jaffe:
It doesn't matter how many people pirate the game. It matters how many copies you sell. If you want to be like EA or Ubisoft and institute draconian policies just because you hate the thought of people playing your games for free, I'm not buying them. If you expect me to praise you while you do something that moronic, you're going to be surprised.
Publishers like EA and Ubisoft have an unhealthy obsession with piracy. They would cut off their nose to spite their face. And have, on occasion.
I wouldn't worry about him too much, there is a reason he is hiding behind 140 characters. He wants to act like Fox News/CNN/MSNBC, with drive by comments that distort the lions share of the topic.
You're attributing an entirely different angle on the discussion to jaffe's post, and those front page posts.
Jaffe didn't say anything wrong or incorrect in that post. A lot of people here have been supporting piracy through roundabout arguments (many similar to used game arguments). But he makes clear in his Twitter feed that, without a doubt, he isn't talking about used games.
chicko1983
Member
I've always maintained that some of the PS2's success was because it was easy to play pirated games on.
It wasnt illegal in Australia to buy pirated games overseas and play in their consoles, it was a weird rule which was brought in as the ACCC didnt think it was unfair for someone to buy a cheap game in Asia and bring it back to play for themself.
It wasnt illegal in Australia to buy pirated games overseas and play in their consoles, it was a weird rule which was brought in as the ACCC didnt think it was unfair for someone to buy a cheap game in Asia and bring it back to play for themself.
vpance
Member
A source of revenue to buy both new and old.
Used sales hurts new retail sales during the launch window the most. Get rid of that and I think the problem is mostly solved. Whatever solution there is it's gonna have to hurt Gamestop a bit.
care to point out what ive done wrongly then?
because afaik, he is talking about how people were saying that piracy doesnt hurt publishers because pirates arent worth any money
ie, "piracy is ok because it doesnt hurt anybody"
i think you misinterpreted the result of the case here
in australian law, it is illegal to circumvent a copyright protection device. the device in question was the region protection measures in the PS1 - the court concluded that such a protection doesnt actually serve to make it more difficult for people to create a pirate copy and so wasnt protected by anti-circumvention provisions. (so modchips are ok because they circumvented stuff that isnt protected)
I didn't say he's wrong. I was trying to show why his statement is irrelevant.
That is technically impossible, unless the relative value of that new game is considered terrible. The only way used can depreciate demand is if the value of the new good is lower then then the available stock of a good, otherwise it would be impossible to supply the used game sales, because the new version wasn't selling enough.
Mr. Protagonist
Neo Member
Your argument seems to be more in favor of game demos rather than game piracy. Trying before you buy is one thing. Having a full copy of the game is another. I hate to raise the spectre of the "You wouldn't download a car" argument, but it really is the same principle. When you are test driving a car, you are presented with the car for a limited amount of time. After a test drive, you're done. You can't drive that vehicle to work everyday until you buy it. You can't reasonably expect videogames to present you any different opportunities. If a developer feels a demo is necessary, they'll release one. If they do, it's a limited experience to entice you to buy their game (not unlike how a test drive is to entice you to buy a car). Punishing devs for not releasing a demo by pirating their games outright is just silly.
Indeed.
while i agree in a way the term for theft was concocted in a time when virtual items, property and so on didnt exist, as such its obly logical it wont directly line up with todays situations.
in the instance of scanning the posters, it is classed as thieft, both copyright thieft and intellectual property theft, something piracy does both of too. when a game is sold new profits go to the publisher and developer, as do profits from additional dlc and content, when a game is sold and enters the used game market more often than not that regained money is then used to buy a new game, in a sense the revenue stream continues - the owner of the used game can then benefit the publishers and developers by purchasing dlc and extra content - in most cases piracy of titles includes the piracy of additional content, dlc and map packs, in most cases the games cannot be played online so even without availability of the additional content online the pirated copy cannot purchase this content, if developers allowed these pirated copies to access online features the legitimate purchasers would be impactes as server load for online play increases.
but again, the definition of theft has not changed since before the says of virtual content, just because you arent taking a physical object does not mean it isnt theft, if you connected to a steam server and downloaded all of the games without paying, regardless of the fact those games are just digital virtual things its still theft.
That isn't what the inference is. If the relative cost of going after pirates is higher then allowing pirates to exist, then it would be financially dumb for companies to actively go after pirates(which is the argument). That isn't to say that you dont try and go after pirates when they get caught in the act, but beyond that, I'm not seeing the value add from focusing on them vs your legitimate customers.
DragonSworne
Banned
Jk Rowling is a pirate because she reads her books to kids for free. Think of all those lost book sales.
I am surprised that nobody mentioned this so far. Used games may actually lead to more money to the developers. The basic idea is the money multiplier from economics 101. It goes like this: suppose I have a new copy of the game. I trade it on for half its value, so I get 30 dollars back. I spend half of it, 15 bucks on new games. Each time I do this, I spend 25 percent of the value of the game goes back into the industry. Extrapolating this by trading in many times, it is easy to calculate that in the end 1/0.75=1.33 which is more money than the initial value of the single game! 33% more in fact. Let me repeat this, in this scenario, it leads to 33% more money spent on new games.
Therefore the claim that used games hurt the industry is dubious at best.
Therefore the claim that used games hurt the industry is dubious at best.
I love how you refer to a hive mind in a thread full of contention.
Agreed, should have made it more on an individual level...fixed it
DragonSworne
Banned
Publishers aren't complaining about not making money from used games, they are complaining about not making money directly from each transaction taking place.
They basically want a cut of the money GameStop makes, like crime lords.
This thread is not about that , even though that is true, and I agree with you. I am merely explaining that used games CAN benefit developers in the long run.
I don't care how much experience someone has in the video game market, that doesn't make them an expert in economics. Most of us over 21, went to college, chances are we all have jobs, some of us good jobs, that doesn't make us experts, even if we work in the financial field. You are not an expert with video game economics simply because you are in game industry; just like I'm not a macro economics expert in the financial industry, simply because I work in it. Good points are good points, and market norms are market norms, after that as long as you have a strong argument, you don't have less of a leg to stand on, then someone who uses a short twitter blurb to disagree.
I've been saying it. Increased Liquidity+disposable income in an industry is a good thing, the only way it wouldn't be is if they were selling air, instead of a finite amount of goods.
Slightly off topic but i would be very much in favor of the following solution.
remove DRM and copy protection from games and impliment a universal online pass system for used games where you can buy them at any game store and they work for any game, and developers get a cut based on what games theyre used on, meaning unless the game is new both used game owners and pirates would need to use said passe to play the game online, then simply add additional incentives for buying new such as exclusive content unlocked by retail codes that cannot be unlocked by the universal codes.
i believe that would solve a lot of the industrys problems while satisfying customers, developers and share holders and creating the potential for making money off of pirated game owners too. while you could say 'but then nobody would buy the games' technically right now anyone could pirate just about any game anyway, the only difference is pirates copies are currently almost entirely a lost cause revenue wise.
remove DRM and copy protection from games and impliment a universal online pass system for used games where you can buy them at any game store and they work for any game, and developers get a cut based on what games theyre used on, meaning unless the game is new both used game owners and pirates would need to use said passe to play the game online, then simply add additional incentives for buying new such as exclusive content unlocked by retail codes that cannot be unlocked by the universal codes.
i believe that would solve a lot of the industrys problems while satisfying customers, developers and share holders and creating the potential for making money off of pirated game owners too. while you could say 'but then nobody would buy the games' technically right now anyone could pirate just about any game anyway, the only difference is pirates copies are currently almost entirely a lost cause revenue wise.
DigitalRicket
Member
I know this is a little bit late into the thread but I'd like to explain the difference between piracy and used games sales:
When it comes to PIRACY it's all about intellectual property. Intellectual property is an idea, or a work of art that someone has created who then assumes ownership of that idea. To be able to enjoy that intellectual property you have to pay to for it.
For instance, when you listen to the radio you think you're listening to a song for free. What's the difference between this and pirating that song? Well, the fact that someone paid for that specific type of license. A broadcasting license.
Philosophically and quite literally in the terms of the law, you cannot listen to, watch, or enjoy intellectual property that someone created for profit without paying for the right to do so first.
Now when it comes down to USED GAMES we're talking about the literal ownership of that physical good and then privately selling it. Now that is not at all any different than buying a piece of art from an artist and then turning around and selling it to your friend or neighbor.
However, when it comes to digital media there is now a divide of what is lawfully yours and what isn't. For instance: you own a copy of Windows 7. The disc is a physical good but the contents of it is digital media, or an idea, i.e. intellectual property. Without the activation key you cannot enjoy the OS locked on the disk because this is the means to protect that work from being unlawfully copied and enjoyed by many.
See unlike that piece of art that an artist drew or painted up there is only one of them, when it comes to digital media there is an endless amount of it. So to help protect the value of that product there needs to be a limit on who can enjoy it. Under the law, the first person who bought it has rights to the number of activation keys.
Pirating games is illegal because you are sidestepping the law of having to buy a license to enjoy that game. Companies like EA and now probably Microsoft and Sony are hoping to battle against this by making sure that games haven't been illegally copied for mass consumption by those who haven't paid for the license by instituting a verification process to make sure they are legit and the person who is playing it has indeed paid for the license, or the right to the play it.
The above is what I feel Phil Harrison screwed up on. He said that gamers would now have "permission" to play the games they paid for as soon as their game had been verified online. "Permissions" is a technical term used in computing and it is the same wordage that can be applied to "having the right".
When it comes to PIRACY it's all about intellectual property. Intellectual property is an idea, or a work of art that someone has created who then assumes ownership of that idea. To be able to enjoy that intellectual property you have to pay to for it.
For instance, when you listen to the radio you think you're listening to a song for free. What's the difference between this and pirating that song? Well, the fact that someone paid for that specific type of license. A broadcasting license.
Philosophically and quite literally in the terms of the law, you cannot listen to, watch, or enjoy intellectual property that someone created for profit without paying for the right to do so first.
Now when it comes down to USED GAMES we're talking about the literal ownership of that physical good and then privately selling it. Now that is not at all any different than buying a piece of art from an artist and then turning around and selling it to your friend or neighbor.
However, when it comes to digital media there is now a divide of what is lawfully yours and what isn't. For instance: you own a copy of Windows 7. The disc is a physical good but the contents of it is digital media, or an idea, i.e. intellectual property. Without the activation key you cannot enjoy the OS locked on the disk because this is the means to protect that work from being unlawfully copied and enjoyed by many.
See unlike that piece of art that an artist drew or painted up there is only one of them, when it comes to digital media there is an endless amount of it. So to help protect the value of that product there needs to be a limit on who can enjoy it. Under the law, the first person who bought it has rights to the number of activation keys.
Pirating games is illegal because you are sidestepping the law of having to buy a license to enjoy that game. Companies like EA and now probably Microsoft and Sony are hoping to battle against this by making sure that games haven't been illegally copied for mass consumption by those who haven't paid for the license by instituting a verification process to make sure they are legit and the person who is playing it has indeed paid for the license, or the right to the play it.
The above is what I feel Phil Harrison screwed up on. He said that gamers would now have "permission" to play the games they paid for as soon as their game had been verified online. "Permissions" is a technical term used in computing and it is the same wordage that can be applied to "having the right".
vpance
Member
The other part of the equation is the people that don't or rarely buy new games, and only buy the copies you traded in.
Point i'm trying to make is legitimate consumers are always the ones to suffer even if its piracy or used games.