Metanet Forums

Discuss.

I'm actually doing a course at sixth form college where you can do it on anything you want - as long as it's linked to citizenship in some way, and piracy was allowed.

Side against:

Piracy is /wrong/.

It loses jobs, it hurts the industry that makes that which we spend so much of our time on. What would we do without it? It causes a loss in creation because piracy persuades people to not release (games). A good example of this is Gear of War 2 - the up and coming 3rd person shooter. A high up exec. said that rampant piracy on the PC has forced them to not release a PC port, but to keep it exclusive to the XBOX 360. Obviously this hurts the consumers (PC gamers).

Side for:

So piracy is killing the industry (music/film/software) then? So why is it that 'Sins of a Solar Empire' a game released without any sort of copy protection on it, becomes a financial explosion? Surely, it would be pirated percentage-wise far more than other games? But nope, a low-publicized game managed to break the best selling game list of many sites for a long time. Surely this disproves their argument?

Side against:

But what if that is an isolated case? 'Titan Quest' Was as a game brilliant - it sought to be an action RPG in the vein of Diablo II, and succeeded extremely well.

So why is it that it gets low sales and low scores?

Piracy.

A pre-gold release was leaked out onto the internet, leading various reviewers getting their hands on it, and judging it badly, calling it a buggy mess that should not have been released [yet]. Even worse, this led to the closure of this brand new developer that had much promise (albeit there was another reason, but not as critical).


side for: Now *that* was an isolated issue, and a shame at that . Especially when reviewers don't change their scores after releasing their own error of way. But onto another important issue. Demos. You see a game coming out in a few weeks, but you aren't quite sure whether you want to splash out your £30 or whatever on it. So you decided to get the demo. This is where the fun starts. After crawling through the flash-laden bloatfest that is typical for a game website, you may or may not find a link to download it. But not from the developer or publisher's website. No. It'll redirect you to a 3rd party website - something like gamershell, or the infamous fileplanet.

One word.

Eww.

Slow download speeds, queues, various confusing versions plus more headaches make demos a pain in the ass to get hold of. So great, you have your demo. Then you try the demo. It may well have fallen into one of these categories:

- too short
- unfair/clear representation of the game

The second being the worst of the two. What if this is the best that the game has to offer, and it just goes downhill from here? What if this entertaining 20 minutes (or in the case of a certain game on XBLA 40 seconds) turns out to be dreadfully boring after 2 hours in the full game.

A combination of bad access and just plain bad demos /encourages/ people to pirate games, so they can make their own, fair, judgment.

side against: So you don't get hold of the demo, or you still aren't convinced? OMGNOES!!!!111 You may have missed out on a great game. So what? If you are unsure on the game, then just don't buy it *hoping* that it will be decent. There are plenty of other great games that you know of out there, that's for sure. It is up to the developer to choose how they want the demo to end up as. As the saying goes: 'take it or leave it'.

side for: Chosen by developers? That's interesting. A recent game known as Braid is hailed by many as one of the most innovative platformers in several years, and yet the developer had big issues with Microsoft over the demo. he wanted it to be longer, they didn't. Guess who won? The indie developer with the content, or the big corporation with all the power? And surely, if we are 'iffy' on our decision then getting the full copy to make our mind up is only GOOD for the makers.

A) We don't like it, and so stick with our reasoning of unsure = no buy
B) We like it, we buy it.
c) We buy it, and don't buy it.

Okay, so A is the same, c is just plain immoral, but B is an outcome that is positive and only came into being because of the piracy. But A would of happened anyway, C isn't a lost sale so makes no difference to the developer, and B is good.

Then there is cd copying protection, and to detect cds in your drive.

Firstly: cd copy protection is broken. Any half-baked 'pirate' can use software that can get around such measures, meaning that all it does is be an inconvenience to the real buyers. Making it so that you need the cd in the drive? WTF? What if you are using a laptop and want to play more than one game? I don't to lug around my game folder (certainly not my one!). It's impractical and useless considering that you can just google for a no-cd patch off a perfectly safe website, and there you go. So cd protection doesn't stop piracy, either through cd copying or cd checking. Wow. What a waste of money and stupid inconvenience.
So what do you think? Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it wrong but brought upon those it effects because of what they have done? etc.

I'm watching this extra carefully.

I think it's wrong, but I don't think it's much to worry about. People who do it are doing so at their own risk. My only problem with it is that it makes it a pain in the neck to do some things that are legal, but the tight security on stuff makes it nearly impossible.

What's funny is that all the bitching about PC piracy and Fallout 3 has already been leaked for the 360.

Luminaflare wrote:What's funny is that all the bitching about PC piracy and Fallout 3 has already been leaked for the 360.

And that Spore, the most DRM laden pc game ever, has become the most pirated game ever. (not tp mention the amazon ratings (see http://www.indoorheroes.com/index.php?s=250 for a funny comic on that issue))

Hafling wrote:I think it's wrong, but I don't think it's much to worry about. People who do it are doing so at their own risk. My only problem with it is that it makes it a pain in the neck to do some things that are legal, but the tight security on stuff makes it nearly impossible.

Do you stand by your decision after seeing my finished type up? Just interested.

To me, it comes down to "I don't want to pay, so I'm going to take it instead for free!" There's no justification for it. As for DRM protection, like I said in the other thread, there's no excuse for that, either. Pirates get around it anyway. I don't understand the developers' decisions to try and stop pirates on a base level, as it's not doing a thing - It's only raising costs further, and only causing more pirating. I could go into a rant on how developers should be investing money on curing the actual problems that we have with the internet and with the global economy as a whole, but I'm feeling exhausted today, so perhaps another time.

As an argument against the pirating to try the game thing, there is such thing as rentals.

That said I used to pirate games for that exact reason (Hell I pirated and bought unreal anthology within a week). But now I rent games, the only issue with this is that there is no good way to try PC games.

Didn't I tell you not to admit to pirating shit just yesterday? Good gods, it's not that hard. Sometimes I manage to go for hours without implicating myself in criminal activity. Have a warn for making me say it again, because I'm getting sick of it.

Don't admit to piracy. Discuss it in general terms only.

---

Also, I agree with Kablizzy. Yeah, sometimes game companies make decisions which cause them to lose sales or even hurt the consumer. That doesn't justify piracy. I sometimes think that a store's service is bad, and that I would be more likely to buy stuff if they had better service. However, I don't think shoplifting is a good idea. If the sales pitch (in this case, the demo) isn't enough to make you want the product, then - by definition - you should be willing to go without it.

I don't understand the developers' decisions to try and stop pirates on a base level

Of course you need to remember as I said before - more often than not it's the publishers that insist on the DRM / cd protection, not the developers. Which leads to the problems of publishers, but that's another issue.

Also, what is peoples opinion on buying say Spore, then downloading the DRM-less pirate version to use?

faemir wrote: Also, what is peoples opinion on buying say Spore, then downloading the DRM-less pirate version to use?

I'd say it isn't that immoral. You've already given the money to the company, and are just in search of an easier to mess with version. Sounds similiar to when my entire music collection (That I paid for, mind you) was changed into an inconvenient format, and there was no way I could change it back. So I had to get the files back by other means...

I speak of course, of simply buying them again.

To word carefully...

Blatant piracy is wrong. End discussion. But downloading games (and other forms of media) has its uses that are entirely justifiable.

Primarily downloading to see if you like the game. If you do, go buy it. If not, delete it from the HD, no harm done (its like a demo, except it isn't ridiculously limiting and actually gives you a full view of the game, rather then the best 20 minutes).

And rentals don't really work out on the PC side (especially for anything from Valve).

Spore brought on one more use of piracy that is justifiable. EA as a company is a dick, this isn't exactly uncommon knowledge. There are probably thousands of people that bought Spore, left it unopened, and DL'd the DRM free copy. If I actually wanted to play Spore I might do the same.

IMO, companies need to start adapting DRM in the form of Valve or Blizzard, the former requires you to be online (and registers your product with their servers so multiple people can't use the same install) and the later requires your CD key to play online, and if more then 1 person with the same CD key comes online, you get kicked (or can't even join rather). Both these work very well and don't piss the user off (some people hate Steam because you can't rent/sell games back, there is a reason for this people, the developers/publishers don't see any of the cash exchanged in rentals/used games, it is in their best interest to prevent people selling games back, I agree with them, but this is going on to an entirely other issue).

/rant

Atilla wrote:Didn't I tell you not to admit to pirating shit just yesterday? Good gods, it's not that hard. Sometimes I manage to go for hours without implicating myself in criminal activity. Have a warn for making me say it again, because I'm getting sick of it.

Don't admit to piracy. Discuss it in general terms only.

Why such heavy handed modding? What will come of him admitting to occasional piracy?

I personally don't pirate games, I don't buy enough games to really stretch my budget. Although there is a slight moral aversion, I do like to support the games I like.

wolfgang wrote:

Atilla wrote:Didn't I tell you not to admit to pirating shit just yesterday? Good gods, it's not that hard. Sometimes I manage to go for hours without implicating myself in criminal activity. Have a warn for making me say it again, because I'm getting sick of it.

Don't admit to piracy. Discuss it in general terms only.

Why such heavy handed modding? What will come of him admitting to occasional piracy?

Rules wrote:No talking about or engaging in file-sharing, piracy, or other forms of intellectual property infringement.

Fair enough ^

Although, seeing as this threads existence seems to violate the rule I assumed personal discretion was used in its application. What is it about personal experience that suddenly makes the topic taboo?

Eh, whatever I'm just a pedantic wanker haha.

wolfgang wrote:Fair enough ^

Although, seeing as this threads existence seems to violate the rule I assumed personal discretion was used in its application. What is it about personal experience that suddenly makes the topic taboo?

Eh, whatever I'm just a pedantic wanker haha.

I think it implies that it's perfectly fine to discuss the issue, but admitting to or encouraging piracy is frowned upon. Perhaps the rule may need to be revised for clarity...

To put an end to the controversy, rules have been amended a bit.

You can talk about file-sharing, until that conversation becomes file-sharing. The purpose of the rule is to protect this forum and its members. If you cite all-too-specific instances of programs that you have downloaded illegally and a corporation subpoenas us for your IP, whois information, and e-mail, then TheRealN will give them that information. We're not going to protect you, so we may occasionally use warns to curb that behavior.

I don't want to hear any more on this subject.

My personal view is this:

The digital imprints of these products aren't actual physical product. They don't really exist. I don't see anything wrong with downloading a game/film/piece of music that's floating in the digital ether. to me it's just the same as borrowing (downloading) a copy of a game/film/piece of music from a friend and enjoying it until I'm bored then returning (deleting) it.

If, however, the game/flim/piece of music is enjoyed so much that it's wanted to be kept indefinitely and/or used repeatidly for long(er) periods, it should be paid for via an official medium.

I am generally okay with pirating yet I must say that some elements of pirating are indeed akin to stealing. I suppose that's the reason why it's such a complicated issue. For one thing, the file was created by and/or is owned by a company or individual who has rights to that product, digital or no. However, it is difficult to see pirating the file as theft because no one is deprived of anything by the crime. (assuming the person pirating would not have shelled out the cash for the files.) Therefor it is difficult to equate piracy with regular theft.

Anyway, whether piracy is right or wrong, trying to catch and penalize people for piracy just doesn't make sense to me. Millions of people must pirate stuff all the time. and most of their identities are completely secret. So why bother trying to individually punish them, when the various entertainment industries could be working on a system where it is preferable to pay rather than steal?

Plus those advertisements that say, "Would you steal music from a store? It's the same thing!" are just stupid. If the store had an unlimited fountain of music which spilled the cds out on the street, where any passerby could grab them, it would be the same thing. Otherwise no, it's completely different.