The Issue of Piracy

[PresidentEden]

The thread died a bit, so here's an interesting piece from Wired.com regarding piracy that I think is insightful and informative. Apologies for the imminent double post; no one would have noticed had I edited it into my last post from over a week ago.

On 'Copyright' at Wired.com

edit: mistitled link; it's about copyright not piracy, got the terms mixed up. still relevant to the thread though

Edited March 18, 2013 by PresidentEden

[Constable Reggie]

So if anyone hasn't already seen, SimCity requires you to always be online when playing. This of course led to an absolute shitstorm of a backlash when the game had a miserable launch. Then it turns out that the whole excuse Maxis used for justifying always-online drm (our servers process most of the info for your game) was a lie, EA is trying to completely censor the whole fiasco on their forums (to the point of censoring their own customer service number), and now, other people can hack into your city and destroy it specifically because of the online drm. Damn, sign me up!

The last game to try something like this was Diablo III, and there's already a pirated (but somewhat flawed) version floating out there, so I wonder how long it'll take before a pirated version of this game will come out.

Really, this kind of draconian drm is, personally, one of the reasons I feel that piracy is justified. I bought Arkham City on Steam (through amazon) a while back, and after realizing it had SecuROM, I immediately uninstalled it and ran a registry to get rid of all the permanent shit it tried to put on my computer, and I'm seriously contemplating just downloading a cracked version of the game.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720

Relevant.

[Marksman18v]

Up to now I have only pirated games and movies I already own, which have somehow been damaged or otherwise unplayable (Pokemon Red Battery), as well as games that weren't released outside of Japan (Pokemon TCG2) and games that are unobtainable or only for ridiculous amounts of cash. (Mother)

I believe I am not a bad person for doing this.

[Dragrath]

So if anyone hasn't already seen, SimCity requires you to always be online when playing. This of course led to an absolute shitstorm of a backlash when the game had a miserable launch. Then it turns out that the whole excuse Maxis used for justifying always-online drm (our servers process most of the info for your game) was a lie, EA is trying to completely censor the whole fiasco on their forums (to the point of censoring their own customer service number), and now, other people can hack into your city and destroy it specifically because of the online drm. Damn, sign me up!

The last game to try something like this was Diablo III, and there's already a pirated (but somewhat flawed) version floating out there, so I wonder how long it'll take before a pirated version of this game will come out.

Really, this kind of draconian drm is, personally, one of the reasons I feel that piracy is justified. I bought Arkham City on Steam (through amazon) a while back, and after realizing it had SecuROM, I immediately uninstalled it and ran a registry to get rid of all the permanent shit it tried to put on my computer, and I'm seriously contemplating just downloading a cracked version of the game.

This is a major issue which I think is quite a bit ridiculous as a person who likes to play offline I'm appalled by this ridiculous approach and truthfully will not buy anything that pulls this trap...

In its current form the copyright restrictions have gotten out of hand as no matter how hard they want to restrict things they will loose, thus all that happens is the paying customers are the ones to suffer. This in turn has been documented to actually increase the rate of piracy thus creating a runaway loop effect. ANd on the convese piracy can in some intests lead to new buisnuss they would not have gotten otherwise as some people who mught never have bought a product decide to support say an artist who they liked their music.

It seems to be ingrained by our survival instincts to take the easy road out and this concept has been the driving force of evolution on earth. If this had never developed there would be no animals, no predator and no parasites thus we could never have appeared on the Earth as there would have been no driving force for evolution...

Thus acts of parasitism will never stop unless we alter the very code that drives us to survive which means that companies must balance between protecting a source of revenue, and pleasing their customers. Unfortunately the companies seem to fail to grasp that it is a balance that must be maintained.

[Constable Reggie]

Tommy Refenes (of Super Meat Boy) recently made a very well written post about piracy and countermeasures, and his main driving point is something so ridiculously obvious, but seemingly incomprehensible to most publishers/developers. You can't equate every pirated copy to a lost sale, so all those drm methods is inherently misguided because of that first assumption. Most decisions with harsh drm only look at the short term picture.

So you go back to SimCity and think, hey, it's sold a million (or so) copies in a few weeks, but how many potential customers of future SimCity games (or hell, any online-only EA game) do you lose because of the awful release of SimCity? How many customers will you lose due to demanded refunds?

[Vorena]

I am going to take a guess and say that the majority of people who are on this site have played FE1-6 having not owned the original Japanese copy nor dumped the contents of the game they own into a compatible format and used that to emulate the game. So, general consensus from people here should overwhelmingly be they do not care.

[Constable Reggie]

Pirating games that are (basically) physically impossible to obtain hurts absolutely no one. If the companies don't want our money by porting over the games, then there's no reason for us not to play them any way we can. This is exacerbated by the fact that Nintendo usually region locks their consoles.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Cookies]

I personally have pirated games and music. For games, my general rule is either outdated (which includes early ds era and before) or non NA (FE12 and FE6 come to mind) games. Seeing that my computer can only handle handheld systems' emulators (trying to run a N64 emulator was a joke) my pirated game library is rather slim.

As for music, the only stuff I have pirated we're a couple of albums from a band that I liked whose record label refused to let released overseas. (And when their latest album came overseas a year after it was released in Europe, I did purchase it.) I also have pirated single songs from YouTube if I can't find it on iTunes, and I usually continue searching for it afterwards.

I mean, back in middle school I did a lot worse pirating my music, but part of that was familial censorship keeping me from legally accessing the music I actually listened to. (My family is extremely religious, and thought metal was satanic until I opened up their eyes that it wasn't as bad as they thought it was.)

Does any of that make me a horrible person? Or are my reasons agreeable enough?

Piracy is an issue, but in the gaming industry it seems like they're trying to tackle piracy and kill used gaming as the same thing. I mean, I wasn't thrilled with Civilization V needing Steam when I got it, because at the time I was in a place that had no wifi, and I was staying there that entire summer. But at the same time, once installed, I only ever need to be online if I want my achievements. Meanwhile with the SimCity debacle, if I were to live another summer at the place I did, I'd have a useless game the entire time I would be there.

At least Nintendo hasn't had a notorious attack on piracy yet. They seem to do it a classy way: for example, in black and white, your Pokemon would not gain experience if the game was pirated. This didn't render the game unplayable, but did make it more difficult for people playing the pirated copies.

[Dwalin2010]

I understand the logic about copyright, but it doesn't always make sense: for example, there are many interesting documentaries shown only in the USA, but never sold on DVD or VHS. So how can people who live in other countries like me watch them if not by downloading rips from internet or watching on Youtube? But for some reason they get deleted from Youtube because of copyright complaints. Why not just start selling them, if they don't want people to get them illegally?

[Espinosa]

If a business/person claims to be against internet piracy, then how about you stop using the internet to promote yourselves? Hypocritical if you ask me.

[Knight]

I'm pretty sure the majority of us are guilty for downloading FE ROMs.

[Espinosa]

I'm pretty sure the majority of us are guilty for downloading FE ROMs.

[Chiki]

I think it's acceptable in cases where it's been long after the release date and the games are obscenely expensive. Isn't a new copy of FE9 like 200-250 bucks?

[shadykid]

"fighting piracy" seems to be bringing us the bullshit that is always-online nextbox and no used games and all that

oh ofc we've already seen the BS that was Diablo 3 and SimCity

At least Nintendo hasn't had a notorious attack on piracy yet. They seem to do it a classy way: for example, in black and white, your Pokemon would not gain experience if the game was pirated. This didn't render the game unplayable, but did make it more difficult for people playing the pirated copies.

wait, how would they even notice if your copy of pokemon black/white was pirated in the first place

besides, dondon and others have shown you can beat it anyway

Edited April 9, 2013 by shadykid

[Rapier]

I don't exactly thing it's the right thing to do- But I do it myself. I only do it because I live in a country where the kind of things you'll find cheap (a video console, games, music, etc.) are pretty damn expensive due to the costs of importing them. Add to that the fact that the Dollar is x5 our own money, and yeah...the fun part is that even when the Dollar being x5, the products tend to cost twice as much as their original prize.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the president doesn't allow most people to import products from abrod, so...yeah. :x

Of course, if I did happen to live in the U.S, I'd buy the things I want without having to download them. They're pretty damn cheap over there.

Basically this. If I have the chance to buy a game I will do so, though I hardly ever buy one because they're very expensive (just imagine a game for 150 bucks. FE13 is 135 bucks here, honestly. Yeah, I deal with this absurdity with every damn game and console. If games were around 30 bucks like in the USA, I'd buy them without even thinking about pirating). You guys complaining because the PS4 will cost more than 400 bucks? Well, the estimated prices in my country are around 2000-3000 bucks. There's no way I'll buy it until 3 years later.

At least Steam is friendly toward people like me.

[Saint of Games]

Basically this. If I have the chance to buy a game I will do so, though I hardly ever buy one because they're very expensive (just imagine a game for 150 bucks. FE13 is 135 bucks here, honestly. Yeah, I deal with this absurdity with every damn game and console. If games were around 30 bucks like in the USA, I'd buy them without even thinking about pirating). You guys complaining because the PS4 will cost more than 400 bucks? Well, the estimated prices in my country are around 2000-3000 bucks. There's no way I'll buy it until 3 years later.

At least Steam is friendly toward people like me.

In dollars or in your country`s currency? If it is the later then I envy you. I am lucky if I find a game that costs less than 300

[Snowy_One]

My thoughts on the issue of piracy.

1) No matter how protective DRM gets, there will ALWAYS be people who play games, listen to music, read books, and everything else for free. This cannot be changed. Some will outright break laws while others will simply want to listen to good music or play good games. Trying to punish people for the 'crime' of simply wanting to watch a movie with their friend who hasn't seen it before is going to accomplish nothing beyond making people mad.

2) The whole point of any form of art is the passion and love. There is a reason why focus groups and corporations can't just churn out the perfect movies and stories from giant machines. Artists should care more that their work is making an impact and releasing new and exciting content more than the money it brings.

3) Some games are simply not available in any means that is not piracy. This is especially true for older games which have long-since been out of production.

4) Piracy is, indeed, theft. Leaving money, A.K.A.: buying it afterwards, does not change that it was taken without permission. It is not just a lack of payment that makes something theft, it is the willful ignorance of another persons right to his own property.

5) Many pirates do NOT pay for what they have obtained. Why would they? They have a full copy of the game now on their PC. Even if they want 'portable' versions laptops exist. While some people are, at least, honest enough to buy a legit copy, they are by far in the minority.

6) Piracy hurts EVERYONE. Companies loose money. Less money means lower budgets for newer games. Less money means fewer games and fewer risks taken. This means there are fewer games to pirate and they are of lower quality. Companies will develop invasive DRM and other such devices to try and cut down on piracy for the reason that it is theft. This hurts consumers who are less willing to buy products as a result. Everyone looses.

Result: Though designers shouldn't care so much about the money, piracy is, by far and away, the greater of the two evils as it hurts everyone immensely.

[Constable Reggie]

4) Piracy is, indeed, theft

This isn't entirely true. Piracy doesn't result in lost profits, since there's an infinite supply of digital games. It's really more like copyright infringement.

6) Piracy hurts EVERYONE. Companies loose money. Less money means lower budgets for newer games. Less money means fewer games and fewer risks taken. This means there are fewer games to pirate and they are of lower quality. Companies will develop invasive DRM and other such devices to try and cut down on piracy for the reason that it is theft. This hurts consumers who are less willing to buy products as a result. Everyone looses.

You can't definitively say that every pirated copy results in lost profits, because, a) unlike physical property, there's an infinite supply of digital games, meaning there's no lost profit from being unable to sell them, and b) there's no indication that the pirate would have even bought the game in the first place. The only thing you lose is potential sales, which is always twisted by companies in order to make a bigger deal out if it than it really is.

Hypothetically, would you have a bigger problem with the developer/publisher of Simcity for selling a legitimately broken game, or someone who pirates the game because his retail copy doesn't work?

I honestly find the methods used to attempt to prevent piracy to be far, far worse than piracy itself. If I want to play Arkham City, I sure as hell don't want fucking SecuROM permanently and secretly on my computer.

[Phoenix Wright]

Music is much too expensive for me to purchase everything, but I purchase as much as I can. Bands like Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden have had their run, and definitely don't require people to buy their albums as much as artists like Andy McKee and Seasick Steve do. So, for newer artists, I purchase most, if not all, of the music I get from them, while most of the old heavy metal/rock and roll stuff is usually acquired through other means.

Old games that are no longer in print, or are NoJ only are definitely pirated (it's impossible for the company to lose money from a transaction that can't happen). Basically retro consoles + GBA games. I don't pirate anything else.

I don't care about movies or books, so I purchase them usually (it's rare that I come across a movie that I want to own or a book that I can't afford).

Now, as for textbooks, fuck 'em, man. Too expensive.

Note: For those that care, I will be buying Black Sabbath's new album, despite what I said above.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Snowy_One]

This isn't entirely true. Piracy doesn't result in lost profits, since there's an infinite supply of digital games. It's really more like copyright infringement.

What insane sort of warped logic is this? Your logic for the reason why it's not theft is because there is no loss of a physical copy? Never mind that the company has now lost out on an entire sale, potentially more, while you have a copy acquired illegally, and are claiming that it's an entirely DIFFERENT crime? What?

You can't definitively say that every pirated copy results in lost profits, because, a) unlike physical property, there's an infinite supply of digital games, meaning there's no lost profit from being unable to sell them,

If you hadn't pirated you would have paid them money to buy the game. They spent time and money building the game up from scratch and paying employees to make it a functioning game, and now you have a copy of the game, one you did not pay ANYONE for I might add (not even a distributor like Gamestop), and you're claiming there is no profit loss because no PHYSICAL copy was stolen?

News flash: It doesn't cost a lot at ALL to make a physical copy. The game CD is fairly cheap and can be bought in bulk, the DVD casing doesn't cost a lot, and the manual is, literally, a small booklet that can be produced en-mass. The major loss in finances when making a game doesn't come from the physical copy, it comes from *gasp* MAKING THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE!

and b) there's no indication that the pirate would have even bought the game in the first place. The only thing you lose is potential sales, which is always twisted by companies in order to make a bigger deal out if it than it really is.

So, best case scenario is that someone who would not have bought the game (ergo, likely held no interest in it anyways) now has the game? Never mind that there are people out there who would have bought the game but now haven't because they've pirated it. Sounds like delusional thinking at best.

Hypothetically, would you have a bigger problem with the developer/publisher of Simcity for selling a legitimately broken game, or someone who pirates the game because his retail copy doesn't work?

Developer. Even assuming for a moment I'm willing to pirate a game, why would I want to pirate a broken game?

I honestly find the methods used to attempt to prevent piracy to be far, far worse than piracy itself. If I want to play Arkham City, I sure as hell don't want fucking SecuROM permanently and secretly on my computer.

I don't disagree that the anti-piracy measures suck ass huge time. However, remember why they even exist in the first place. They exist because of pirates and to deter/stop them. Even the horrible, invasive, ones that people claim makes them stop playing exist only because the company thinks that, by including them, they can increase the number of sales. Now, use your brain for this. These piracy measures clearly cut into the number of sales they get (even entering CD keys can be a pain if you end up losing the CD key itself and want to install on a new machine). So, in order to make up for the loss of sales they must be expecting/attempting to get an increase from somewhere else, or else they wouldn't bother with the funding to develop such things as well as the loss in sales they would generate if all deals were above the table. So... Where do you think they're expecting an influx of sales to come from that makes using these methods worth-while?

If you answered 'people who are getting pirated copies who would have bought the game if the option to pirate didn't exist' you get a gold star.

I'm not going to claim that this makes these things right. That would be stupid, especially since they cut into the sale of used games which is something I highly approve of as I see it as healthy for the industry and a matter of property rights (it is my property). However, if you're gonna complain about piracy security, remember the reason why it even exists in the first place. If something is truly invasive, DON'T GET THE GAME AT ALL! Don't even pirate it. Seeing their game get only 1,000 sales sends a much bigger message than 1,000 sales and 9,000 pirated copies running about. The first tells them that something is wrong. The latter tells them they need better security.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't disagree that the anti-piracy measures suck ass huge time. However, remember why they even exist in the first place. They exist because of pirates and to deter/stop them. Even the horrible, invasive, ones that people claim makes them stop playing exist only because the company thinks that, by including them, they can increase the number of sales. Now, use your brain for this. These piracy measures clearly cut into the number of sales they get (even entering CD keys can be a pain if you end up losing the CD key itself and want to install on a new machine). So, in order to make up for the loss of sales they must be expecting/attempting to get an increase from somewhere else, or else they wouldn't bother with the funding to develop such things as well as the loss in sales they would generate if all deals were above the table. So... Where do you think they're expecting an influx of sales to come from that makes using these methods worth-while?

While I agree with your conclusion that piracy can have a negative impact on the industry, I find it questionable to pin the blame solely at piracy's feet when corporations enact harmful DRM. You can't ignore the human factor in this industry. It may be said, since projections of lost sales on account of piracy are very, very nebulous at best, that the blame for DRM is more because of corporations' perception of loss rather than their actual loss.

Consider for example Spore: It was the most pirated game of 2008. with well over a million and half confirmed downloaded copies. This statistic may lead corporations to assume that all of these were lost sales that they would have otherwise received. They may fail to consider that an unknown amount --majority or minority-- were from downloaders that did not buy the game because the utility (fun in this case) they believed they would receive was not worth the retail price, or indeed users that refused to buy on account of intrusive DRM. It's a potentially downward spiral, and it can't all be blamed on pirates in my eyes. Many of them are undoubtedly those who would have conceivably bought the game but did not simply for profit on their part, but I personally believe it is far overblown by the industry. It seems to me an awful attempt on their part to play the part of the victim and seek profit through sympathy more often than not.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

What insane sort of warped logic is this? Your logic for the reason why it's not theft is because there is no loss of a physical copy? Never mind that the company has now lost out on an entire sale, potentially more, while you have a copy acquired illegally, and are claiming that it's an entirely DIFFERENT crime? What?

Merriam-Webster definition:

a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

USLegal definition:

1. Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
2. Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;

How can I deprive something that's in infinite supply? By the way, you just ignored the entire point of my post in that a pirated copy does not equal a lost sale.

If you hadn't pirated you would have paid them money to buy the game. They spent time and money building the game up from scratch and paying employees to make it a functioning game, and now you have a copy of the game, one you did not pay ANYONE for I might add (not even a distributor like Gamestop), and you're claiming there is no profit loss because no PHYSICAL copy was stolen?

Where's this proof that everyone would have paid for their copy of the game if they didn't pirate it? How can you prove that every single pirated copy equates to a lost sale, that everyone would have willingly paid for it? You seem to ignore that there's a third choice: not buying/acknowledging the game in the first place.

And yes, there's no direct profit loss because you can't ever prove that the game would have been bought in the first place if it wasn't for piracy. Since digital copies can not be deprived, this results only in lost potential sales. Did you even read my post?

News flash: It doesn't cost a lot at ALL to make a physical copy. The game CD is fairly cheap and can be bought in bulk, the DVD casing doesn't cost a lot, and the manual is, literally, a small booklet that can be produced en-mass. The major loss in finances when making a game doesn't come from the physical copy, it comes from *gasp* MAKING THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE!

How can I sell a physical copy of a video game if it's stolen? If my last 10 copies of Fire Emblem Awakening were all stolen, how can I make future profit off that game? Nintendo doesn't have that problem with their digital copies of the game. Neither does any publisher with a direct store. You don't lose anything except a potential sale from a pirated copy.

Really, your condescending manner is pretty hypocritical when you can't even understand this.

So, best case scenario is that someone who would not have bought the game (ergo, likely held no interest in it anyways) now has the game? Never mind that there are people out there who would have bought the game but now haven't because they've pirated it. Sounds like delusional thinking at best.

If I were part of the game industry and I wasn't a complete moron, I'd rather someone pirate the game, like it, and possibly buy it/spread the news than not care about the game at all. Instead, all they think about is the fact that they could have bought the game in the first place. Ergo, they make their future games WORSE than pirated copies, with drm, which only exacerbates the problem. How do you know that those people would have bought the game if it weren't for piracy?

That's right, you don't know. You go straight to the generalization that video game companeis use to justify their drm.

Developer. Even assuming for a moment I'm willing to pirate a game, why would I want to pirate a broken game?

You didn't understand my question. SimCity, when it came out, was literally unplayable for a good majority of it's buyers for the first one or two weeks or so. If you could choose between buying that game and having to go through that, or simply pirating an offline copy that works fine, which would you do?

If you still say developer, then how can you blame pirates for pirating the game instead of buying it?

I don't disagree that the anti-piracy measures suck ass huge time. However, remember why they even exist in the first place. They exist because of pirates and to deter/stop them. Even the horrible, invasive, ones that people claim makes them stop playing exist only because the company thinks that, by including them, they can increase the number of sales. Now, use your brain for this. These piracy measures clearly cut into the number of sales they get (even entering CD keys can be a pain if you end up losing the CD key itself and want to install on a new machine). So, in order to make up for the loss of sales they must be expecting/attempting to get an increase from somewhere else, or else they wouldn't bother with the funding to develop such things as well as the loss in sales they would generate if all deals were above the table. So... Where do you think they're expecting an influx of sales to come from that makes using these methods worth-while?

If you answered 'people who are getting pirated copies who would have bought the game if the option to pirate didn't exist' you get a gold star.

I'm not going to claim that this makes these things right. That would be stupid, especially since they cut into the sale of used games which is something I highly approve of as I see it as healthy for the industry and a matter of property rights (it is my property). However, if you're gonna complain about piracy security, remember the reason why it even exists in the first place. If something is truly invasive, DON'T GET THE GAME AT ALL! Don't even pirate it.

I don't give a shit if they think that adding horribly invasive drm will increase sales (which it definitely doesn't do, since more often than not they're easily cracked anyway), because the bottom line is that my retail copy is worse than the copy that pirates are seeding. Just because their intentions are honest doesn't make it just. Time and again pirates have proven that most of the game industries' attempts to curb piracy don't work, because they almost always circumvent the drm and make clean cracked versions. Why would I buy a product that is much more inferior than the free version? What incentive is there for me to screw myself?

Again, take SimCity for example. Think of how many refunds had to be given out because the game didn't work due to it's drm. Think of how much bad publicity it's gotten. So while EA may have initially gotten tons of money from a deceptive tactic, think of how the awful reception will hurt future sales for both Simcity and future EA titles. Not only does this hurt the customers by them selling a broken product, it hurts EA from terrible reception. And for what? A few dozen thousand lost potential sales? How the hell is that fair for legitimate buyers?

Seeing their game get only 1,000 sales sends a much bigger message than 1,000 sales and 9,000 pirated copies running about. The first tells them that something is wrong. The latter tells them they need better security.

It's not my fault that they misinterpret statistics. How do you know that the first example would tell them that "something is wrong"? In fact, it could tell them that a legitimately great game laden with horrible drm failed to sell because it's not mainstream enough, resulting in worse future games due to more assertion by publishers (see: Dead Space 3). They might even just put the blame on developers themselves for making an unpopular product. How can you prove that they would believe otherwise?

Are you also going to argue that a lot of used sales on a video game means that they're justified in implementing more and more terrible practices to curb these sales?

Edited May 3, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

It's not my fault that they misinterpret statistics. Are you also going to argue that a lot of used sales on a video game means that they're justified in implementing more and more terrible practices to curb these sales?

In all likelihood, the piracy angle was likely played up to allow for such restrictive DRM to come into existence, when the actual reason was because of a more definable loss of profit from retailers like Gamestop. Note how over the years the focus has indeed shifted from one of piracy to a similarly, if not yet widely agreed upon-- "immoral" practice of used sales. More damning evidence can indeed be found in the use of restrictive keys allowing only a finite number of installs before need to request for more at the mercy of the company (which of course costs money). Not to mention the existence of season passes.

It's hard to say whether it's a move based on ignorance or awesome bastardry. In the business world it's safest to lean towards the latter, but a combination of the two isn't impossible I guess.

I don't give a shit if they think that adding horribly invasive drm will increase sales (which it definitely doesn't do, since more often than not they're easily cracked anyway), because the bottom line is that my retail copy is worse than the copy that pirates are seeding. Just because their intentions are honest doesn't make it just. Time and again pirates have proven that most of the game industries' attempts to curb piracy don't work, because they almost always circumvent the drm and make clean cracked versions. Why would I buy a product that is much more inferior than the free version? What incentive is there for me to screw myself?

Well, the primary incentivization is the imminent existence of a sequel in the case of a financially successful title, or a title of similar quality from the same developer.

Again, take SimCity for example. Think of how many refunds had to be given out because the game didn't work due to it's drm. Think of how much bad publicity it's gotten. So while EA may have initially gotten tons of money from a deceptive tactic, think of how the awful reception will hurt future sales for both Simcity and future EA titles. Not only does this hurt the customers by them selling a broken product, it hurts EA from terrible reception. And for what? A few dozen thousand lost potential sales? How the hell is that fair for legitimate buyers?

The irony is that they're still doing it and they're still making mad money. And they probably will continue to, because those customers you're referring to are not on the whole as savvy to the corporate situation as you or I. I mean I guess it will eventually come to bite them in the ass, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't right there hollering for it to happen, but for the moment EA's not going anywhere.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

In all likelihood, the piracy angle was likely played up to allow for such restrictive DRM to come into existence, when the actual reason was because of a more definable loss of profit from retailers like Gamestop. Note how over the years the focus has indeed shifted from one of piracy to a similarly, if not yet widely agreed upon-- "immoral" practice of used sales. More damning evidence can indeed be found in the use of restrictive keys allowing only a finite number of installs before need to request for more at the mercy of the company (which of course costs money). Not to mention the existence of season passes.

It's hard to say whether it's a move based on ignorance or awesome bastardry. In the business world it's safest to lean towards the latter, but a combination of the two isn't impossible I guess.

I don't necessarily think this is true. When talking about piracy, companies are usually focusing on pc games (companies don't really use drm in handheld games, so that's not really an issue), while the used games issue is focused on the console market (it's relatively difficult to pirate console games). Used games have never really been an issue for pc games in any recent year, due to registration keys and other similar methods.

Well, the primary incentivization is the imminent existence of a sequel in the case of a financially successful title, or a title of similar quality from the same developer.

I'm pretty sure the majority of people buy games primarily to enjoy them, not hope for future titles due to the success of the current game. Sure, there may be dedicated fans who care about that, but they're usually the minority. I honestly couldn't give two shits if Arkham City or Grand Theft Auto 4 get sequels, for example.

The irony is that they're still doing it and they're still making mad money. And they probably will continue to, because those customers you're referring to are not on the whole as savvy to the corporate situation as you or I. I mean I guess it will eventually come to bite them in the ass, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't right there hollering for it to happen, but for the moment EA's not going anywhere.

In the short-term, sure, they may be making the moneys, but what do you think all the awful publicity might do in the future? How many people are going to seriously contemplate paying for the next online-only game EA spits out due to their experience with SimCity?

And while EA's still holding for now, they're definitely on a downhill slope profits-wise. When's the last time a CEO of a major video game company had to resign due to failing profit expectations?

Edited May 3, 2013 by Constable Reggie