Bethesda tires of spending money to support pirates

[Matt K]

It's a circular argument. DRM exists because of pirates and now pirates pirate because of DRM.

Chicken or the egg!

Well, in this case we know it was the pirates that came first. LPs and cassettes had no DRM and in fact every home stereo system came set-up capable of copying them.

The problem is that you can never get rid of pirates. DRM does encourage people to pirate and it also encourages those who bought the game to get the pirated version with has no DRM. I personally will never get a Steam game because you don't own it. If the servers go down you cannot reinstall your game. And even Steam doesn't prevent piracy since there are plenty of torrents and such out there with removes the Steam check or whatever.

And while I can go on a long rant about what contributes to piracy and what steps can be taken to prevent it (demos, no DRM, interactions with the community for starters). In the end there will always be pirates. At the same time if your game is good and has a nice play life (i.e. lots of replayability) then a developer can at least hope to convert some pirates over to paying customers just by guilt or at least use the word of mouth generated by these non-paying customers to get paying ones and generate buzz for a sequel.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

@ UncannyGarlic

I said thye know about money. That doesn't mean they understand the market. I never meant it's enough to know about money to be successfull in the gaming business. You have to know a lot more stuff. In most cases that happens, at least.

I thought that might have been what you meant but since you didn't explicitly state it, I figured that I would and see if we agree .

 

[Wasteland Stories]

I just wanna say to all of PC developers - shut up! Stop crying and gives interviews.

 

[Mord_Sith]

As I mentioned before, the minority of pirates tend to be the gimme gimme knobs, a lot of times you'll find either it's people who don't trust the companies / reviewers and are testing it for themselves or it's those that just can't bloody well afford it (the tweens / below poverty liners usually.)

I know people who use downloads en lieu of demos due to the best face forward scenario, however when they find something really decent they actually pick it up, Sins of a Solar Empire is a good example, they pulled it in and within a week purchased their own copy with their next paycheck.

Does that make them a criminal?

Do they deserve shackles and a Jamie Thomas Treatment? (which was overturned mind you because 'making available' does not equate to an actual download.)

They want a quality game to spend their money on, not to get burned by the hype and garbage that exists amidst the myriad of gaming sites and worthless gaming rags, would you trust a stranger to blindfold you promising you cake down a dark alley, even if he was well dressed and smiled with a picture of a gorgeous cake in his hand?

With most products today, you can return them to the store if you are unsatisfied, however in PC gaming, that's not feasible, because pf the encryption keys that you could have written down, it's the only thing you can't return if you aren't satisfied within 30 days, I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that it's just ludicrous to buy games WWII bombardier style, with a wing and a prayer?

What gives these gaming companies the right to burn the consumer with crap product while they charge premium price for it? You go to the dollar store, you know the quality is crap, but it will do for a while, plus it's cheap so who cares if it busts, a game you can't tell from the outwards packaging, not until you crack the wrapper then BLAM you can't return it when you're ripped off like a tinfoil yogurt lid.

Anti-pirate zealots, if you honestly believe that the majority of folks who dl are of the same caliber of human as a cut-purse then you really disappoint me, expecting all of the gaming community to bow down to snake oil salesmen because they try to maximize their profit margins by sacrificing the game quality for monetary increase.

It's an effing mod for Oblivion to look like Fallout, so I'm sorry but I don't often pay for mods, I ain't even going to glance at this abomination in any way shape or form, simply because I know it's crap-tastic, and the only thing they lost from this is hype-sales, which is what Beth was betting on.

Until gaming shops start showing some corporate integrity again, why should the population show integrity towards them?

 

[Brother None]

As I mentioned before, the minority of pirates tend to be the gimme gimme knobs, a lot of times you'll find either it's people who don't trust the companies / reviewers and are testing it for themselves or it's those that just can't bloody well afford it (the tweens / below poverty liners usually.)

Remarks like these are as bad as the numbers publishers pull out of their ass. You have no way of knowing what percentage of pirates has what motives. And in lieu of statistical analysis that is not available, I think it's fair to assume that people that steal are thieves.

expecting all of the gaming community to bow down to snake oil salesmen because they try to maximize their profit margins by sacrificing the game quality for monetary increase.

Don't like the game industry? Then don't buy from them. Or buy secondhand. EA had a rant a while back about how they hate secondhand selling because they don't get any money for it. It's not stealing, but it still shafts publishers: perfect.

But don't pretend dislike is a good excuse for theft. That is just dumb.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Remarks like these are as bad as the numbers publishers pull out of their ass. You have no way of knowing what percentage of pirates has what motives. And in lieu of statistical analysis that is not available, I think it's fair to assume that people that steal are thieves.

Numbers like pirates making up 50% of customer support? I agree, it's BS which is why it's not a subject that can be properly discussed in lieu of data of which there is very little, certainly not enough to make any sort of definitive statement about it.

 

[Brother None]

If statistics don't bring resolution, it's the principle that matters.

And one of the principles our society is based on is that if you do not pay for something you do not - by default - have the right to use it.

Makes sense, no?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

If statistics don't bring resolution, it's the principle that matters.

And one of the principles our society is based on is that if you do not pay for something you do not - by default - have the right to use it.

Makes sense, no?

Sure, but let's not make assumptions about what the principle behind Pete's comments are when he clearly states it, “[Piracy] is probably the most…[long pause]…probably the most difficult issue specifically facing PC gaming right now.” Keep in mind that his number is complete bs as he initially wanted to say that piracy accounted for a third of their customer support and decided to switch to half (50% in his words) which indicates that it's either significantly less or that they have no damn clue (this is Pete, he isn't exactly Mr. Honest). Sure it's wrong that pirates use customer support but when you say that half of your support is for pirates, that's a hell of an accusation which may or may not have financial repercussions (all depends on how they staff and fund their customer support).

“You have to try and resolve their problem,” he explained. “If, in the course of doing that, you can determine that there’s something else going on there, then clearly you could call a spade a spade. But…you gotta be really sure before you imply that because people, rightfully so, get really pissed.”

Sounds like they have experience with false accusations, something which could be easily solved by providing CD keys or asking for serial numbers (one printed on the CD/DVD preferably).

And one of the principles our society is based on is that if you do not pay for something you do not - by default - have the right to use it.

Actually that's not entirely true. Not everyone pays taxes and not everyone pays an equal amount in taxes and yet the people that pay the most tend to (directly speaking) use the facilities funded the least and those who pay smaller amounts tend to use it the most. At the very least, those who pay the most don't get the most benefit (directly speaking) than those who pay less, for example in libraries.

 

[Mane]

One out of every two pirates agree, it was the other guy.

 

[Sorrow]

If statistics don't bring resolution, it's the principle that matters.

And one of the principles our society is based on is that if you do not pay for something you do not - by default - have the right to use it.

False.

1. What society? Are you speaking of imaginary society composed of minority of anti-"pirates"?

2. One of the principles of the enlightened society I was brought up is that it that everyone, even poor people should have access to works of culture. Which is why long time ago in dark times before internet was created the society started gathering books in libraries to allow everyone to read them for free - yes for free, which means without buying which in the anti-sharing newspeak means stealing.
This allows our glorious society to shine as a lighthouse of culture and knowledge on the ocean of barbarism and ignorance.
It is a great honour to live in such beautiful times and for example be able to read 6-9 books a month thanks to book-sharing networks, a.k.a. libraries, including books of both low and high culture and useful knowledge.
Sadly, efforts to continue this good tradition are hindered by an alien oligarchy.

 

[Tagaziel]

If statistics don't bring resolution, it's the principle that matters.

And one of the principles our society is based on is that if you do not pay for something you do not - by default - have the right to use it.

False.

1. What society? Are you speaking of imaginary society composed of minority of anti-"pirates"?

2. One of the principles of the enlightened society I was brought up is that it that everyone, even poor people should have access to works of culture. Which is why long time ago in dark times before internet was created the society started gathering books in libraries to allow everyone to read them for free - yes for free, which means without buying which in the anti-sharing newspeak means stealing.
This allows our glorious society to shine as a lighthouse of culture and knowledge on the ocean of barbarism and ignorance.
It is a great honour to live in such beautiful times and for example be able to read 6-9 books a month thanks to book-sharing networks, a.k.a. libraries, including books of both low and high culture and useful knowledge.
Sadly, efforts to continue this good tradition are hindered by an alien oligarchy.

FFS, you're a complete moron Sorrow.

Libraries gather books through buying them or receiving them from people who bought them. Either way, someone pays and gains the right to use it. Libraries simply choose to make them available to people for free or a nominal fee.

 

[Arash]

Libraries gather books through buying them or receiving them from people who bought them. Either way, someone pays and gains the right to use it. Libraries simply choose to make them available to people for free or a nominal fee.

Grizzly,Sorrow also mentioned.

Which is why long time ago in dark times before internet was created the society started gathering books in libraries to allow everyone to read them for free - yes for free, which means without buying which in the anti-sharing newspeak means stealing.

 

[Ausir]

I know one author who thinks that borrowing books from library is stealing.

 

[Sander]

Calling pirates thieves is highly inaccurate, though, since pirating a game doesn't directly harm the producer (or shopkeeper). Pirating also doesn't prevent a copy from being sold, which is what does happen with theft.

A game pirated isn't the same as a lost sale.

2. One of the principles of the enlightened society I was brought up is that it that everyone, even poor people should have access to works of culture. Which is why long time ago in dark times before internet was created the society started gathering books in libraries to allow everyone to read them for free - yes for free, which means without buying which in the anti-sharing newspeak means stealing.
This allows our glorious society to shine as a lighthouse of culture and knowledge on the ocean of barbarism and ignorance.
It is a great honour to live in such beautiful times and for example be able to read 6-9 books a month thanks to book-sharing networks, a.k.a. libraries, including books of both low and high culture and useful knowledge.
Sadly, efforts to continue this good tradition are hindered by an alien oligarchy.

Oh god, you're so funny Sorrow.
There are always efforts to make 'culture' (a very ill-defined concept, bu the way) available to a broad audience.
But it isn't a 'principle' of almost any society that all culture should be free for everyone.

 

[ookami]

I know one author who thinks that borrowing books from library is stealing.

There probably are also car dealers and people in the oil industry who think regular car-pooling (or even letting someone borrow your car) is stealing and that HOV lanes are for pirates and thieves.

Public transportation is probably to them what public libraries are to that author you know.

 

[Sorrow]

Libraries gather books through buying them or receiving them from people who bought them. Either way, someone pays and gains the right to use it. Libraries simply choose to make them available to people for free or a nominal fee.

Notice that libraries can't borrow games and movies, at least not in Poland. Also, Stephen King thinks that borrowing books from library is stealing. If libraries were a new thing, they would probably quickly get banned. Especially that novels tend to lose their attractiveness much more quickly than games and music.

Also, it's not like things on torrents magically appear out of nowhere.

Calling pirates thieves is highly inaccurate, though, since pirating a game doesn't directly harm the producer (or shopkeeper). Pirating also doesn't prevent a copy from being sold, which is what does happen with theft.

A game pirated isn't the same as a lost sale.

Actually I know a few people that wouldn't buy a lot of things that they have bought (like music CDs, movies, manga's, books, comics, games, etc.) if they wouldn't "pirate" them first. Mainly because otherwise they would buy something else that they are familiar with. For example I have a friend who has a big collection of music CDs and 3/4 of these are things that he downloaded first and that he wouldn't find attractive enough to buy them without listening them a few times.

But it isn't a 'principle' of almost any society that all culture should be free for everyone.

Of course not all forms of culture - things like theatre, concerts, etc. have limited amount of places and require constant effort.

 

[Silencer]

Stephen King thinks that borrowing books from library is stealing.

Quote lest we tremble before your awesome telepathic capabilities!

 

[Sorrow]

He wrote in On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft about how he started to hate libraries when he became a professional writer because each lent book is a lost sale for him.

 

[Brother None]

I'm mostly going to stay out of this because I hate piracy debates, but:

1. "Stephen King thinks libraries are stealing" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Stephen King thinks about libraries any more than it does what EA thinks about second hand games. What matters is what is legal, and by what morals you judge yourself.

Piracy has long become this circle-jerk, "everyone does it" thing, where mass action means people find it excusable. It disgusts me, to be honest. If you want to pirate, do so, but to see people prancing around defending it just sickens me.

Anyway, on to...

2. In regards to UncannyGarlic's "not everyone pays taxes but everyone gets benefits from street lights", I think you need to follow a course in Economics 101.

Stuff like street lights or roads or dykes are known as "common goods". An important element of these things is not just that they are paid for from collective funds (not the case for games), but that there is no conceivable way to limit their usage: I can't tell someone he can't be protected by a dyke because he didn't pay for it. It serves everyone by default.

And this is where you shoot yourself in your own foot: the whole issue with these common goods is that they can never be handed over from the government to particular means because no industry would take them. This is because you can not make a profit on a good that has unlimited usage, no industry will ever want to produce them, and the government has to do it instead.

That's what's so hilarious about people who think that because games can be reproduced infinitely there is no harm in pirating them. Wrong. Reproduction is not the same production, just because reproduction is free does not mean that stealing one of those free reproductions does not end up hurting the production costs (obviously this is not the case for people who steal a free reproduction only to later buy it, but nobody can seriously claim that is the case for all pirates*). Infinite free reproduction is meaningless in economic terms because someone is still going to have to produce it, and piracy is strangling just that.

Also, comparing libraries to piracy is just plain dumb. Libraries are legal and profitable, using a revenue model based on monthly subscriptions on one hand and paying the publishers fees on the other. A comparable principle for gaming would be renting a game (including from a library, but this is generally cost-prohibitive so libraries won't do it while video rental stores will), not pirating it.

* And note that this is a key point: the question of piracy is not just whether it hurts net profits of the industry or not, the question is also if an individual pirate who steals a game and then never buys it is wrong in doing so, and the question is indubitably yes. He's a thief like any thief and should go to jail. There is no conceivably excuse for stealing a product you don't need to survive, nobody has any right to anything they don't pay for - including cultural goods (try walking into a museum without paying why don't you, Sorrow?), unless the proprietor opts to offers his goods for free (like the London Museum). But that's the decision of the owner, not you.

 

[Silencer]

r dykes are known as "common goods".

Wait, I thought only other dykes benefit from dykes?

That, and sometimes also my aesthetic sense.