The Issue of Piracy

[Snowy_One]

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.

Seems to me like, if that is true, developers need to start releasing better demos more than anything more as that's supposed to be the entire point of demos. For people to try a game for free and see if they like it and want to invest the money for it (Spore wasn't IMO). This is not, and should never be, the role piracy serves.

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

Because you've stolen their intellectual property without paying for it. You can argue that it becomes your property once you've paid their price and can do what you want, and I won't argue that, but pirating is not that. You're focused on the physical and care only for it. There is more to property than that.

Where's this proof that everyone would have paid for their copy of the game if they didn't buy 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?

If they didn't pirate they would have either not bought the game at all, or bought it. It's a pretty binary choice. Are you honestly going to claim that 100% of people who pirate would NOT have bought the game if they couldn't pirate? Because that's the only way their claim of not losing sales could not have truth to it.

You seem to forget that they have to distribute those games, and split the costs with distributors. Those high percentages that previously went towards Gamestop/Walmart/etc? It's all the publisher's now.

And your point is? What? Mine is that the big cost is in making the game, the intellectual input and design, which you are claiming is not stolen since no physical copy is taken. Ergo, the only value is in the physical copy. This is blatantly wrong in every sense of the word. Besides, if the publisher gets MORE from a digital copy, don't you think that they would care more about piracy of digital copies?

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.

This was tried a while back. Developers released small snippets of their game to the public for free to see if they would like it and, if they did, they could invest full-on in the game. It was called 'demos'. They are still around today in fact. You should try them!

Or do you mean developers should release entire games for FREE and hope that customers just happen to be willing to pay enough on average for them to continue making games? When Heavy Rain was released one of the developers went on record stating that 2 million copies had been sold, but they knew from achievements and trophies that 3 million people had played the game. That means a full third of the copies at LEAST were pirated or resold. Think about that for a moment.

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?

I was part of that group (not by choice) that had SimCity when the servers sucked. Same with Diablo III. I'd much rather wait. I'm not a selfish moron who only thinks of instant gratification. I want to play with my friends. I want to enjoy the product to it's fullest including DLC and patches. And I can live for a week or two without it. I think they should put more effort into it working fine, but considering I've dealt with WoW's Tuesday maintenance for a LONG time now, it's nothing.

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.

And this justifies theft in what demented mindset again? The pirates produce a 'better' product. That doesn't change that it's been stolen in the first place.

Just because their intentions are honest doesn't make it just.

So, it's wrong to trust honest people who aren't just, but it's okay to be dishonest and unjust? Not to mention the people who are honest and just getting lamblasted by pirates who don't discriminate and only steal from people who put invasive DRM on their product.

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?

How about 'continued development of new and innovative games?' One of the big reasons we see so many clones is because of the inherit risk in making any new product. If a product can not make a return developers will be unlikely to consider a sequel. Why would they? After all, they lost money on it. This risk is present with every new game and, in fact, is one of the main reasons behind console exclusives and the like. They're harder to pirate if only because of the fact that they are made for consoles instead of PC's. So, if you want to see more innovative games, you should stop pirating. Every little increase in the amount of sales that a company sees increases their chances of making newer and more games.

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?

It's not. EA's policy is horrible and I despise them for it. However, despite EA's draconic measures and poor business practices, EA only affects a small portion of games. They can be boycotted with ease and the only ones they hurt are themselves. Pirates hurt everyone. This is not Pirates of the Carribean. Pirates do not represent freedom and companies evil, greed-obseesed people. This is the old west where bandits pillage for their own gain and law-enforcers try to drive them back, often treading on the people they're trying to protect. But the thing is, though they step on you, you can survive it and law will be brought to the lawless. The people who are the future are not the bandits, but the innocents that they steal from. Without them there would be nothing. Without paying customers and developers willing to take the risk, we would be stuck at Pong. Without paying customers Nintendo would be an obscure and bankrupt playing card company. Without developers attempting to unleash new products and taking risks and getting rewarded for it none of the games we have today would exist.

If we didn't have pirates, things would be far better for everyone and, even at worse, the same they are NOW. Pirates are a pure negative. There is nothing redeeming about them. For every pirate who buys a game after pirating, there are five who would have bought it but didn't because they could pirate. For every evil EA, there are twenty indie and low-key developers struggling to find their footing and pirates do not discriminate.

The only reason I do not support bills like SOPA is because it hurts the innocent just as much as the guilty. If a bill could be made that would extinguish piracy while not hurting honest customers I would be behind it 100%. As a gamer there is no benefit to piracy beyond the delusional short-term gains some people desire.

[Constable Reggie]

Seems to me like, if that is true, developers need to start releasing better demos more than anything more as that's supposed to be the entire point of demos. For people to try a game for free and see if they like it and want to invest the money for it (Spore wasn't IMO). This is not, and should never be, the role piracy serves.

I'm all for it, but I doubt the developers of such wonderful hits like Duke Nuken Forever or Aliens: Colonial Marines would like that.

Because you've stolen their intellectual property without paying for it. You can argue that it becomes your property once you've paid their price and can do what you want, and I won't argue that, but pirating is not that. You're focused on the physical and care only for it. There is more to property than that.

How can it be theft when the original is still in the hands of so-and-so? All I'm doing is obtaining a copy of the file, hence copyright infringement. Are you seriously trying to argue that, for instance, copying someone's book material is theft, and not copyright infringement?

If they didn't pirate they would have either not bought the game at all, or bought it. It's a pretty binary choice. Are you honestly going to claim that 100% of people who pirate would NOT have bought the game if they couldn't pirate? Because that's the only way their claim of not losing sales could not have truth to it.

I've claimed nothing of the sort. You were the one who specifically said:

"If you hadn't pirated you would have paid them money to buy the game"

You were the one who claimed that they would have bought it 100% of the time if not for piracy, not me. Time and time again, I've said that they lose POTENTIAL sales. You do know what that means, right?

And your point is? What? Mine is that the big cost is in making the game, the intellectual input and design, which you are claiming is not stolen since no physical copy is taken. Ergo, the only value is in the physical copy. This is blatantly wrong in every sense of the word. Besides, if the publisher gets MORE from a digital copy, don't you think that they would care more about piracy of digital copies?

You should look up copyright infringement, because you apparently have no clue what it is.

No, the intellectual input and design is not being stolen, it's being used without permission. The publishers don't lose any money the second someone pirates a game, because a digital file has no real inherent value (again, because it's infinite in amount). The costs of physical games, no matter how small, is still a cost, and that cost is lost when a physical copy is stolen. They lose more from the theft of physical copies of a game (a quantifiable amount of money) than the piracy of it.

Digital copies have the potential to make more money, but physical copies have the potential to lose more money. It's fine if they want to prioritize the first, but that doesn't somehow make piracy theft, and it doesn't justify screwing over your potential customers to curb it.

This was tried a while back. Developers released small snippets of their game to the public for free to see if they would like it and, if they did, they could invest full-on in the game. It was called 'demos'. They are still around today in fact. You should try them!

Or do you mean developers should release entire games for FREE and hope that customers just happen to be willing to pay enough on average for them to continue making games? When Heavy Rain was released one of the developers went on record stating that 2 million copies had been sold, but they knew from achievements and trophies that 3 million people had played the game. That means a full third of the copies at LEAST were pirated or resold. Think about that for a moment.

Gee, you're right! Let me go download a demo of Aliens, Duke Nukem Forever, SimCity, and every other game in the universe!

Only a small percentage of most games actually have demos. I see less than 500 demos on Steam, in out of what could be several tens of thousands of games. Are you really this ignorant?

I'm not saying developers should release their games for free. I'm saying that if I had to choose between someone pirating my game, versus not acknowledging that it exists at all, then I'll choose the first, because at least then there's the likely possibility that they'll like it and pay for it, support me in the future, or spread the word about my game.

Also, lol@your dumb ass using second hand sales to signify the evils of piracy (I don't see a single mention of piracy in the announcement you're referring to, so you're clearly just making that part up). What happened to used games being all rainbows and butterflies for the video game market?

I was part of that group (not by choice) that had SimCity when the servers sucked. Same with Diablo III. I'd much rather wait. I'm not a selfish moron who only thinks of instant gratification. I want to play with my friends. I want to enjoy the product to it's fullest including DLC and patches. And I can live for a week or two without it. I think they should put more effort into it working fine, but considering I've dealt with WoW's Tuesday maintenance for a LONG time now, it's nothing.

Gee, if only everyone was as angelic and fortunate as you. Why would anyone wait to play a retail copy that's proven it's unreliable, when there's a version right there that's working completelyh fine?

WoW's (legitimately, lol@Simcity being an mmo) an mmo, maintenence patches are necessary to maintain the integrity of the game's infrastructure, and usually come with the added benefit of actually adding things to the game for free. SimCity seems to think that patches mean taking away crucial parts of the game just to attempt to keep it stable, or adding in blatant advertisement schemes to the game.

And this justifies theft in what demented mindset again? The pirates produce a 'better' product. That doesn't change that it's been stolen in the first place.

Misinformation awayyyyyyy!

So, it's wrong to trust honest people who aren't just, but it's okay to be dishonest and unjust? Not to mention the people who are honest and just getting lamblasted by pirates who don't discriminate and only steal from people who put invasive DRM on their product.

See: above. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what piracy actually is.

How about 'continued development of new and innovative games?' One of the big reasons we see so many clones is because of the inherit risk in making any new product. If a product can not make a return developers will be unlikely to consider a sequel. Why would they? After all, they lost money on it. This risk is present with every new game and, in fact, is one of the main reasons behind console exclusives and the like. They're harder to pirate if only because of the fact that they are made for consoles instead of PC's. So, if you want to see more innovative games, you should stop pirating. Every little increase in the amount of sales that a company sees increases their chances of making newer and more games.

Yep. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Exclusivity deals aren't done because developers are afraid of this nebulous monstrosity called pirates, they're done to get money contracts from the console's makers. If anything,the console market, due to used games, is a much riskier possibility to companies than the pc market is, since used games are much more prevalant to the average gamer in comparison to cracked torrents. Developers/Publishers don't get money from used games either, didya know? As a matter of fact, I'm going to use your reference to Heavy Rain to prove this. Do you really think the game would have been pirated even close to roughly a million times if it were released on PC? Because if you do, then you are horribly, horribly misinformed on this subject.

Your last response devolved into random drivel that has little to do with the topic and still seems to ignore that actual facts of piracy, so I'm not going to bother trying to respond to it.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Dwalin2010]

Still, I would like to ask: what do people who are against piracy think about pirating things that aren't available for sale? Does it make sense to denounce them if it's the ONLY way to watch the video?

[Snowy_One]

I'm all for it, but I doubt the developers of such wonderful hits like Duke Nuken Forever or Aliens: Colonial Marines would like that.

Firstly, just their names should have been a blatant flag that they would be horrible titles. Duke Nukem has been out of the running loop forever and people should have been very skeptical about the sudden release of the title. ACM should have told you right off the bat that you would either be fighting a bunch of weak aliens that weren't representative of the series or stuck fighting beings that would utterly destroy you turning the game into a stealth/horror game at BEST!

Secondly, if a game company refuses to release a demo... OH HEY! A flag that it might not be a good game! Especially if it's iffy material without a track record to back up its potential quality!

How can it be theft when the original is still in the hands of so-and-so? All I'm doing is obtaining a copy of the file, hence copyright infringement. Are you seriously trying to argue that, for instance, copying someone's book material is theft, and not copyright infringement?

Yes. If someone copied my finals papers for college I would certainly classify that as 'theft' even if I still held the original copy. Wouldn't you? And, hey, you know what? Copyright Infringement is considered to be theft! Just of a different sort than stealing a physical copy! So either you're stealing or... YOU'RE STEALING!

Kind of notice a theme here? Namely that piracy in every form happens to be theft no matter how it gets classified.

You were the one who claimed that they would have bought it 100% of the time if not for piracy, not me. Time and time again, I've said that they lose POTENTIAL sales. You do know what that means, right?

Clearly more-so than you. A potential sale isn't just a customer who *might* buy the game if they know more about it, it's also the customers who *don't* buy the game because they have a copy already. Either way, piracy prevents far more sales than it helps gain by your supposed notion of pirates only pirating to test games out before buying them legit. These are a select minority of pirates at best.

You should look up copyright infringement, because you apparently have no clue what it is.

No, the intellectual input and design is not being stolen, it's being used without permission.

Guess what that is? Stealing.

It's like you're saying 'No. I didn't take the apple and RAN with it, I took the apple and WALKED with it. Since I walked instead of running, I didn't actually 'steal' it.'

The publishers don't lose any money the second someone pirates a game, because a digital file has no real inherent value (again, because it's infinite in amount).

Ummm. Yes. It does. The digital file is the thing of actual value. If it wasn't, why don't digital releases just give away the game? After all, according to you, it holds no actual value.

See, here's the thing. Even if that digital file holds no monetary value and only personal value it's STILL stealing! Infringing on the personal property of another for self-gain. Why do you think raccoons are considered thieves? After all, garbage holds no value, so how can they be 'thieves' for stealing garbage?

The costs of physical games, no matter how small, is still a cost, and that cost is lost when a physical copy is stolen. They lose more from the theft of physical copies of a game (a quantifiable amount of money) than the piracy of it.

DVD casings: 100 casings for $27.00

http://www.supermediastore.com/category/u/cd-dvd-blu-ray-plastic-case-cases

DVD's: 200 for $70.00

http://www.mediasupply.com/dvdbulklowcost.html

Cost for producing 200 copies of the game with just a casing (not including labor and taxes): $124.00

Total material cost for one copy of a game: $0.89.

Potential income at $20.00 a game: 3,876 dollars.

Number of copies of Legendary (horrible game sold): 240,000

'Profit' that should have been gained assuming each copy sold for an average price of $20.00: $4, 651,200 dollars.

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/28744/legendary/

This should tip you off that something is wrong here since, if these numbers are accurate and the game file itself held no value game designers would be freaking millionaires and there would be no reason to make anything but low-end shlock as the data itself holds no value and the only thing of actual worth is in the physical material cost which, if true, would allow game developers to sell titles at less than a buck and STILL make income. Heck, even paying a penny with horrible sales with a horrible game would still result in Legendary having made 2,400 bucks, a 240,000% return on their investment.

Digital copies have the potential to make more money, but physical copies have the potential to lose more money. It's fine if they want to prioritize the first, but that doesn't somehow make piracy theft, and it doesn't justify screwing over your potential customers to curb it.

If digital copies make more or less money is irrelevant to the question as the material cost for a physical copy is only about one dollar and can be lowered. It's the same thing as asking if a game should cost 59 or 60 bucks.

Only a small percentage of most games actually have demos. I see less than 500 demos on Steam, in out of what could be several tens of thousands of games. Are you really this ignorant?

No. I don't care about demos. I almost never buy day 1 and do tons of research beforehand into a title before considering buying it. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that, if demos REALLY worked, developers would be releasing more of them. The fact is that they rarely do so. Most people who even have interest in demos would have bought the game anyways and a poor demo can ruin that regardless of game quality.

I'm not saying developers should release their games for free. I'm saying that if I had to choose between someone pirating my game, versus not acknowledging that it exists at all, then I'll choose the first, because at least then there's the likely possibility that they'll like it and pay for it, support me in the future, or spread the word about my game.

So you'd rather have a ton of people pirate your game and pay you nothing and pray you still, somehow, manage to get enough income to even consider making a sequel despite pirates taking your game, especially since, if you succeed, you'll have to deal with the fact that pirates are now outright taking your game and you're not receiving anything in return while you struggle to make a profit off of a likely larger investment of time and money.

Also, lol@your dumb ass using second hand sales to signify the evils of piracy (I don't see a single mention of piracy in the announcement you're referring to, so you're clearly just making that part up). What happened to used games being all rainbows and butterflies for the video game market?

They're NOT. But they have two HUGE redeeming qualities that piracy doesn't have. 1) They keep distributers afloat which is very important for the game market as they are still one of the primary distribution methods of games (though that is almost guarenteed to change in the near future). 2) They're actually LEGAL. When you buy a copy of the game it becomes your property. While people can debate where the line between 'my property' and 'the developers property' is (and are doing so with many bills) there is no denying that resale of games is still within property rights. Blockbuster had these same issues with movie companies and libraries and bookstores before them.

Regardless, used game sales are legal. Companies try to crack down on them as well for obvious reasons, but that doesn't change their legality and rights.

Gee, if only everyone was as angelic and fortunate as you. Why would anyone wait to play a retail copy that's proven it's unreliable, when there's a version right there that's working completelyh fine?

I was pressured into buying a game I don't like. I'd hardly call that 'fortunate'. Anyways, this is a stupid retaliation and it doesn't deal with the point that, even if the pirates offer better service, it's still stealing.

WoW's (legitimately, lol@Simcity being an mmo) an mmo, maintenence patches are necessary to maintain the integrity of the game's infrastructure, and usually come with the added benefit of actually adding things to the game for free. SimCity seems to think that patches mean taking away crucial parts of the game just to attempt to keep it stable, or adding in blatant advertisement schemes to the game.

I know. EA is a scumbag of a company that I hate having to deal with. Only reason I even associate with them is because ME3 is still that good despite it's horrific ending and my best friend wasn't keyed in to how bad they are and only realized how bad EA is after having his ME3 account wiped clean multiple times due to server problems.

Yep. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Piracy is the act of people taking the source-code of a game and uploading it to the internet or copying it onto physical files for redistribution without the permission of the company to do so.

Exclusivity deals aren't done because developers are afraid of this nebulous monstrosity called pirates, they're done to get money contracts from the console's makers. If anything,the console market, due to used games, is a much riskier possibility to companies than the pc market is, since used games are much more prevalant to the average gamer in comparison to cracked torrents. Developers/Publishers don't get money from used games either, didya know? As a matter of fact, I'm going to use your reference to Heavy Rain to prove this. Do you really think the game would have been pirated even close to roughly a million times if it were released on PC? Because if you do, then you are horribly, horribly misinformed on this subject.

Let me guess? You believe that the world would be a much better place if evil companies stopped trying to prevent pirates and, instead, distributed their product for free and asked for donations out of the kindness of peoples hearts. That, somehow, there is no such thing as intellectual property and theft only occurs when people grab a copy and run out of a store, likely with wanted stars appearing above their head. You pirate games without any regard to the companies, don't buy actual copies in any form, then demand that they make sequels, likely while pining for companies to stop creating tested titles and claiming DLC and pay-to-play are unfair regardless of prices. You have a file full of ripped music without having enough music CD's in your house to store even half of it and wonder why there seems to be so little variation in music.

You have no understanding of what piracy is. You have no understanding of the damage it causes. Your justification hinges entirely on the notion that piracy is copyright infringement instead of overt theft simply because no physical copy was stolen without understanding that copyright infringement IS theft too. You feel that the draconic DRM is evil and wrong, but fail to recognize that the primary reason why it exists and continues to get more invasive is the very thing you worship. Maybe used games will vanish away before long. Maybe everything will become digital, but DRM will still exist. It isn't because of used games. It is because of pirates.

You are a deluded fool. Can you even point to one instance where piracy has done any good? And I don't mean one personal time when you got into a series, but a time where a game would have faded away into nothing but pirates saved it? Can you point to one game where they've even been merely neutral?

[Constable Reggie]

Firstly, just their names should have been a blatant flag that they would be horrible titles. Duke Nukem has been out of the running loop forever and people should have been very skeptical about the sudden release of the title. ACM should have told you right off the bat that you would either be fighting a bunch of weak aliens that weren't representative of the series or stuck fighting beings that would utterly destroy you turning the game into a stealth/horror game at BEST!

Secondly, if a game company refuses to release a demo... OH HEY! A flag that it might not be a good game! Especially if it's iffy material without a track record to back up its potential quality!

*Whoooooooosh*

So apparently 95% of all video games are possibly not very good because they don't have demos. Gee, that'll help me pick out the good ones from the bad!

Yes. If someone copied my finals papers for college I would certainly classify that as 'theft' even if I still held the original copy. Wouldn't you? And, hey, you know what? Copyright Infringement is considered to be theft! Just of a different sort than stealing a physical copy! So either you're stealing or... YOU'RE STEALING!

Kind of notice a theme here? Namely that piracy in every form happens to be theft no matter how it gets classified.

Um, no. That's called plagiariasm. You know, unauthorized use of a work? Do you seriously not understand the difference between this and theft?

Clearly more-so than you. A potential sale isn't just a customer who *might* buy the game if they know more about it, it's also the customers who *don't* buy the game because they have a copy already. Either way, piracy prevents far more sales than it helps gain by your supposed notion of pirates only pirating to test games out before buying them legit. These are a select minority of pirates at best.

What the hell are you talking about? Because it sure doesn't sound like anything I'm talking about. Do you understand what I mean when I say "potential sales"?

Also, I'd like any form of proof that shows collaboration for your claim that piracy prevents more sales than not. Real proof, not video game company marketing announcements.

Ummm. Yes. It does. The digital file is the thing of actual value. If it wasn't, why don't digital releases just give away the game? After all, according to you, it holds no actual value.

See, here's the thing. Even if that digital file holds no monetary value and only personal value it's STILL stealing! Infringing on the personal property of another for self-gain. Why do you think raccoons are considered thieves? After all, garbage holds no value, so how can they be 'thieves' for stealing garbage?

It's becoming more and more apparent that you have an extremely juvenile understanding of what theft is and isn't.

DVD casings: 100 casings for $27.00

http://www.supermedi...stic-case-cases

DVD's: 200 for $70.00

http://www.mediasupp...ulklowcost.html

Cost for producing 200 copies of the game with just a casing (not including labor and taxes): $124.00

Total material cost for one copy of a game: $0.89.

Potential income at $20.00 a game: 3,876 dollars.

Number of copies of Legendary (horrible game sold): 240,000

'Profit' that should have been gained assuming each copy sold for an average price of $20.00: $4, 651,200 dollars.

http://www.vgchartz....8744/legendary/

This should tip you off that something is wrong here since, if these numbers are accurate and the game file itself held no value game designers would be freaking millionaires and there would be no reason to make anything but low-end shlock as the data itself holds no value and the only thing of actual worth is in the physical material cost which, if true, would allow game developers to sell titles at less than a buck and STILL make income. Heck, even paying a penny with horrible sales with a horrible game would still result in Legendary having made 2,400 bucks, a 240,000% return on their investment.

I can't even begin to explain how terrible this refutal and the logic behind it is.

If digital copies make more or less money is irrelevant to the question as the material cost for a physical copy is only about one dollar and can be lowered. It's the same thing as asking if a game should cost 59 or 60 bucks.

How about giving actual evidence that production of retail games is only a dollar each instead of using supermediastore.com links?

No. I don't care about demos. I almost never buy day 1 and do tons of research beforehand into a title before considering buying it. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that, if demos REALLY worked, developers would be releasing more of them. The fact is that they rarely do so. Most people who even have interest in demos would have bought the game anyways and a poor demo can ruin that regardless of game quality.

Why are you arguing against your own previous claim instead of actually refuting mine?

So you'd rather have a ton of people pirate your game and pay you nothing and pray you still, somehow, manage to get enough income to even consider making a sequel despite pirates taking your game, especially since, if you succeed, you'll have to deal with the fact that pirates are now outright taking your game and you're not receiving anything in return while you struggle to make a profit off of a likely larger investment of time and money.

*Strawman*

I said if I had to choose between someone not buying/acknowleding the game at all, and pirating it, I would choose for them to pirate it. Neither option is desirable when faced against someone choosing to buy the game, but the first option is still the less-bad of the two.

They're NOT. But they have two HUGE redeeming qualities that piracy doesn't have. 1) They keep distributers afloat which is very important for the game market as they are still one of the primary distribution methods of games (though that is almost guarenteed to change in the near future). 2) They're actually LEGAL. When you buy a copy of the game it becomes your property. While people can debate where the line between 'my property' and 'the developers property' is (and are doing so with many bills) there is no denying that resale of games is still within property rights. Blockbuster had these same issues with movie companies and libraries and bookstores before them.

Regardless, used game sales are legal. Companies try to crack down on them as well for obvious reasons, but that doesn't change their legality and rights.

"At least a million people bought Heavy Rain used, with all that money not being seen by the developers! That's awful!"

"Didn't you just say used games are great? Why are you bringing up an example that contradicts your belief?"

"Nonononono used games are great and wonderful and awesome and here's several paragraphs to show why!"

I was pressured into buying a game I don't like. I'd hardly call that 'fortunate'. Anyways, this is a stupid retaliation and it doesn't deal with the point that, even if the pirates offer better service, it's still stealing.

I take it you still haven't bothered to look up the difference between copyright infringement and theft.

Piracy is the act of people taking the source-code of a game and uploading it to the internet or copying it onto physical files for redistribution without the permission of the company to do so.

This is no way whatsoever refutes my claim that you had no idea what you were talking about in your last post.

Let me guess? You believe that the world would be a much better place if evil companies stopped trying to prevent pirates and, instead, distributed their product for free and asked for donations out of the kindness of peoples hearts. That, somehow, there is no such thing as intellectual property and theft only occurs when people grab a copy and run out of a store, likely with wanted stars appearing above their head. You pirate games without any regard to the companies, don't buy actual copies in any form, then demand that they make sequels, likely while pining for companies to stop creating tested titles and claiming DLC and pay-to-play are unfair regardless of prices. You have a file full of ripped music without having enough music CD's in your house to store even half of it and wonder why there seems to be so little variation in music.

You have no understanding of what piracy is. You have no understanding of the damage it causes. Your justification hinges entirely on the notion that piracy is copyright infringement instead of overt theft simply because no physical copy was stolen without understanding that copyright infringement IS theft too. You feel that the draconic DRM is evil and wrong, but fail to recognize that the primary reason why it exists and continues to get more invasive is the very thing you worship. Maybe used games will vanish away before long. Maybe everything will become digital, but DRM will still exist. It isn't because of used games. It is because of pirates.

You are a deluded fool. Can you even point to one instance where piracy has done any good? And I don't mean one personal time when you got into a series, but a time where a game would have faded away into nothing but pirates saved it? Can you point to one game where they've even been merely neutral?

"Here's your second helping of an incoherent mess, now with a huge slice of ad-hominem as dessert!"

You never fail to disappoint.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Snowy_One]

*Whoooooooosh*

So apparently 95% of all video games are possibly not very good because they don't have demos. Gee, that'll help me pick out the good ones from the bad!

It's like you hear only what you want to hear and ignore words right in front of your face. Here. I'll even bold the key word for you.

Secondly, if a game company refuses to release a demo... OH HEY! A flag that it might not be a good game! Especially if it's iffy material without a track record to back up its potential quality!

There is no one sure-fire way to detect good games from bad games beforehand. Reviews can be bought and may not give the information you need, demos can be doctored as can videos and screenshots, and even renting/borrowing the game can give a stilted view (Mass Effect 3 as a prime example as the big problem is all the way at the end. So unless you outright beat the entire game in one rental). This does not mean that there aren't signs that can indicate if a game is good or bad. If a game of questionable value comes out and does not release a demo it may be wise to at least bide your time and seek more information before deciding to purchase.

Um, no. That's called plagiariasm. You know, unauthorized use of a work? Do you seriously not understand the difference between this and theft?

There is no difference. Stealing is stealing is stealing. There are many different ways and manners in which to steal (such as tricking people into giving money) but that doesn't change what it is. Copyright infringement is, indeed, stealing in every sense of the word. There have been entire bills about this. And before you say it:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Go on. Go and educate yourself. You may enjoy the cases segment a lot.

Also, I'd like any form of proof that shows collaboration for your claim that piracy prevents more sales than not. Real proof, not video game company marketing announcements.

Do you also need proof that water makes you wet? That fire is hot? This isn't video game announcements. This is simple, common, logic.

Mary wants a ball. The market sells balls for five dollars a ball. Mary does not have 5 dollars. Mary goes out and finds a new ball in the park. Mary finds five dollars on the street. Mary can now afford the ball, but does not want one because she now has a ball. Mary does not buy the ball despite having the funds as the desire/need for a ball is now fulfilled.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that pirates help game sales, not on me to prove they hurt game sales. You can claim that the claims of them hurting sales are wrong, but you first have to provide proof and evidence to contradict the existing claim before other people have to disprove your prior claim.

It's becoming more and more apparent that you have an extremely juvenile understanding of what theft is and isn't.

Or, you know, actual understanding that isn't limited to word technicalities to try and slither from one net into another. Even if I were to accept that, somehow, theft and copyright infringement were as different as cows and horses, both are still against the law, both still hurt the game industry, and both still do so in similar ways.

I can't even begin to explain how terrible this refutal and the logic behind it is.

Because it finally called you on your load of crud argument involving the value of items? Look. It's REALLY simple. The major cost in producing ANY video game is NOT material. It's in paying people to create the game in the first place. Heck, you don't even need to go to school to understand this. What's the difference between Sonic 2006 and Bioshock Infinite? What makes the latter so much better than the former? Is it the casing? The quality of the disk? Do you line up your game disks by their value? Or is it because of the data on the disk?

The data is what has value. The physical cost is largely negligible. If the data did not hold value every game designer would be a millionaire as even horrible games would give amazing returns on investment.

How about giving actual evidence that production of retail games is only a dollar each instead of using supermediastore.com links?

...

...

The physical materials themselves are fairly cheap, as I showed with those links. What more are you looking for? The fiscal calculations of hitting the 'burn to disk' button? The wages of the gnomes that flip the 0's to 1's? The health benefits of pixies working for Nintendo?

Getting the data onto the game disk is not hard. It's simply a matter of burning the files onto a disk. I don't know what the wages are, but that's more of me not being able to see any game company hiring someone to only burn game data onto a disk without having them preform other tasks as well which would make determining the actual value of such a task difficult to determine.

"At least a million people bought Heavy Rain used, with all that money not being seen by the developers! That's awful!"

"Didn't you just say used games are great? Why are you bringing up an example that contradicts your belief?"

"Nonononono used games are great and wonderful and awesome and here's several paragraphs to show why!"

Except I did not say that in any sense of the word. I said that, while used games do hold a negative impact on sales, they serve to support distributes (which may be a thing of the past before long) and fall within the legal rights of 'property'. Removing used games from the market, at least at this current stage without requiring always-online, would require restrictions so draconic and difficult to enact that even EA would balk, not to mention infringing on personal property rights.

This is no way whatsoever refutes my claim that you had no idea what you were talking about in your last post.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy

The unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright.

In this case, taking the source code of a game and uploading it or copying it for redistribution without the permission of the company to do so.

The company holds the copyright to the game, thusly making them the copyright holder. You do not have permission to use their works in such a manner, making it unauthorized, and the came data certainly qualifies as a 'conception' if not 'production' as well. Oh. Gee. Looks like the dictionary agrees with me.

"Here's your second helping of an incoherent mess, now with a huge slice of ad-hominem as dessert!"

You never fail to disappoint.

And you have shown no understanding of what piracy is, it's impact, it's ramifications, or even it's definition in ANY way, shape, or form and, instead, insist that it is copyright infringement in a way that is, somehow, not involving the unauthorized use of anothers production, invention, or conception (I.E. Stealing/theft) which is the whole definition of piracy (in other words, piracy is not piracy). You insist that, somehow, in the face against all logic, piracy *helps* the game industry despite a failure to link, or even claim on anything more than a very generalized level that it helps by making people want to buy games. You claim that the data itself holds no value since it is not physical despite evidence to the contrary that it holds the greatest value of any one aspect of the game, not to mention ignoring digital copies which have no additional fees for physical production.

Edit: You may also want to go read this: http://www.screwattack.com/news/pirates-curse-greenheart-games-anti-piracy-strategy-hurts-pirates-game

Edited May 4, 2013 by Snowy_One

[Constable Reggie]

It's like you hear only what you want to hear and ignore words right in front of your face. Here. I'll even bold the key word for you.

Oh look, here's my bolded part that shows I didn't misunderstand your flawed claim:

So apparently 95% of all video games are possibly not very good because they don't have demos.

Sometimes you just have to read.

There is no difference. Stealing is stealing is stealing. There are many different ways and manners in which to steal (such as tricking people into giving money) but that doesn't change what it is. Copyright infringement is, indeed, stealing in every sense of the word. There have been entire bills about this. And before you say it:

http://www.copyright...efinitions.html

Go on. Go and educate yourself. You may enjoy the cases segment a lot.

Find: steal ---- phrase not found

Find: theft ---- phrase not found

Nowhere in that link does it indicate or even hint at the possibility that copyright infringement is theft in any way. Oh the delicious irony.

I'd also like to see these "entire bills" that define copyright infringement as theft.

Do you also need proof that water makes you wet? That fire is hot? This isn't video game announcements. This is simple, common, logic.

Mary wants a ball. The market sells balls for five dollars a ball. Mary does not have 5 dollars. Mary goes out and finds a new ball in the park. Mary finds five dollars on the street. Mary can now afford the ball, but does not want one because she now has a ball. Mary does not buy the ball despite having the funds as the desire/need for a ball is now fulfilled.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that pirates help game sales, not on me to prove they hurt game sales. You can claim that the claims of them hurting sales are wrong, but you first have to provide proof and evidence to contradict the existing claim before other people have to disprove your prior claim.

A lot of assumptions you're making on Mary's part. How do you know all pirates can afford the retail cost? How do you know all pirates aren't going to buy the retail copy of the game because they liked the free version?

here is an example of piracy having a minimal impact on dvd sales of Game of Thrones. The sheer ridiculous amount of publicity Game of Thrones got from piracy is arguably much, much more lucrative than the marginal lost of dvd sales.

game dev tycoon got a lot of publicity that it likely would have never had gotten if they hadn't cleverly utilized pirates to their advantage. Free positive publicity from pirates.

Examples like these likely aren't the norm, but it disputes your utterly baseless claim that piracy only hurts the industry and nothing more.

I can easily say it's common sense that all the publicity garnered from pirates, mass recommendations to fellow peers, investment in current/future projects due to positive reception, etc, publicity that never would have existed if the person didn't even care about the game in the first place, is much more valuable than a few potential lost sales. Prove me wrong.

Or, you know, actual understanding that isn't limited to word technicalities to try and slither from one net into another. Even if I were to accept that, somehow, theft and copyright infringement were as different as cows and horses, both are still against the law, both still hurt the game industry, and both still do so in similar ways.

Those "word technicalities" clearly define the difference between copyright infringement and theft. I can't emphasize this enough.

Because it finally called you on your load of crud argument involving the value of items? Look. It's REALLY simple. The major cost in producing ANY video game is NOT material. It's in paying people to create the game in the first place. Heck, you don't even need to go to school to understand this. What's the difference between Sonic 2006 and Bioshock Infinite? What makes the latter so much better than the former? Is it the casing? The quality of the disk? Do you line up your game disks by their value? Or is it because of the data on the disk?

The data is what has value. The physical cost is largely negligible. If the data did not hold value every game designer would be a millionaire as even horrible games would give amazing returns on investment.

I've made it clear that I'm arguing that physical copies are infinitely more costly to produce than digital copies. Development costs are not exclusive to only one of them, so quit bringing that up as if it's relevant. There's several other costs that you fail to acknowledge that tip the cost balance even further toward retail copies (shipping costs, packaging, disc burning, etc). It's not as easy as slapping together dvds and boxes and calling it a day.

I never said that game files don't have value. I said they have no inherent value, which retail copies do. Companies lose real money when retail copies are stolen or not sold. The only risk in not selling their digital copies is loss of projected value.

The physical materials themselves are fairly cheap, as I showed with those links. What more are you looking for? The fiscal calculations of hitting the 'burn to disk' button? The wages of the gnomes that flip the 0's to 1's? The health benefits of pixies working for Nintendo?

Getting the data onto the game disk is not hard. It's simply a matter of burning the files onto a disk. I don't know what the wages are, but that's more of me not being able to see any game company hiring someone to only burn game data onto a disk without having them preform other tasks as well which would make determining the actual value of such a task difficult to determine.

Everything. If you're so confident that the costs of making physical copies is so marginal, then it should be easy for you to find a source that references this is some way.

Except I did not say that in any sense of the word. I said that, while used games do hold a negative impact on sales, they serve to support distributes (which may be a thing of the past before long) and fall within the legal rights of 'property'. Removing used games from the market, at least at this current stage without requiring always-online, would require restrictions so draconic and difficult to enact that even EA would balk, not to mention infringing on personal property rights.

So, then, what? What was the point of bringing up the Heavy Rain example at all? Why are you wasting my time?

The unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright.

In this case, taking the source code of a game and uploading it or copying it for redistribution without the permission of the company to do so.

The company holds the copyright to the game, thusly making them the copyright holder. You do not have permission to use their works in such a manner, making it unauthorized, and the came data certainly qualifies as a 'conception' if not 'production' as well. Oh. Gee. Looks like the dictionary agrees with me.

This is no way whatsoever refutes my claim that you had no idea what you were talking about in your last post.

Edit: You may also want to go read this: http://www.screwatta...ts-pirates-game

Oh gee, piracy utilized in a way to gain publicity for the relatively-unknown creators of the game? An example of piracy helping the developers get a lot of attention, and consequently, a lot more potential buyers, proving my point? Fancy that.

Also, lol@the poster's main picture. The irony oozing from you, Snowy, is just too much.

And you have shown no understanding of what piracy is, it's impact, it's ramifications, or even it's definition in ANY way, shape, or form and, instead, insist that it is copyright infringement in a way that is, somehow, not involving the unauthorized use of anothers production, invention, or conception (I.E. Stealing/theft) which is the whole definition of piracy (in other words, piracy is not piracy). You insist that, somehow, in the face against all logic, piracy *helps* the game industry despite a failure to link, or even claim on anything more than a very generalized level that it helps by making people want to buy games. You claim that the data itself holds no value since it is not physical despite evidence to the contrary that it holds the greatest value of any one aspect of the game, not to mention ignoring digital copies which have no additional fees for physical production.

You've devolved to the point where no amount of rationality or fact can shake you from your extremist point of view. If all the endings of your posts are going to continue to be personal attacks with misinformation and heavy reluctance to have an intellectual conversation, then I have nothing more to say to you.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Snowy_One]

Sometimes you just have to read.

There is no one sure-fire way to detect good games from bad games beforehand. Reviews can be bought and may not give the information you need, demos can be doctored as can videos and screenshots, and even renting/borrowing the game can give a stilted view (Mass Effect 3 as a prime example as the big problem is all the way at the end. So unless you outright beat the entire game in one rental). This does not mean that there aren't signs that can indicate if a game is good or bad. If a game of questionable value comes out and does not release a demo it may be wise to at least bide your time and seek more information before deciding to purchase.

Nowhere in that link does it indicate or even hint at the possibility that copyright infringement is theft in any way. Oh the delicious irony.

I'd also like to see these "entire bills" that define copyright infringement as theft.

You can't possibly be this stupid. The whole point, the whole REASON this term even EXISTS is because it is dealing with instances where one person uses material that functions under a current copyright without seeking permission.

A lot of assumptions you're making on Mary's part. How do you know all pirates can afford the retail cost? How do you know all pirates aren't going to buy the retail copy of the game because they liked the free version?

Yes, you are this stupid.

It doesn't matter if Mary could or could not afford the ball when she first went to the store. What matters is that she did not get one. Being able to afford it only changing her motivation. Now, instead of wanting the ball and not having the money, she decided that five dollars was too much for a ball. Either way, because she found a ball later on, she did not return to the store and buy one, which is the whole point of the argument in the first place. Namely, in this case, that pirates do NOT buy titles they pirate or, at the least, pirates who do are the exception to the norm. This is basic logic and thought a child understands. I explained it to a five year old this morning and she grasped it despite caring more about her paper plate mask and glitterglue.

A lot of assumptions you're making on Mary's part. How do you know all pirates can afford the retail cost? How do you know all pirates aren't going to buy the retail copy of the game because they liked the free version?

here is an example of piracy having a minimal impact on dvd sales of Game of Thrones. The sheer ridiculous amount of publicity Game of Thrones got from piracy is arguably much, much more lucrative than the marginal lost of dvd sales.

It's freaking Game of Thrones. One of the most popular TV shows around to the point where I find multiple mods for it on Age of Empires II and Civ V without even trying and have to look past them as I haven't watched the show myself. There are so many people willing to buy it because it's already super-well known to the point where profit will be made from the common public no matter how much is pirated.

game dev tycoon got a lot of publicity that it likely would have never had gotten if they hadn't cleverly utilized pirates to their advantage. Free positive publicity from pirates.

It got that publicity from it's inventive way of dealing with pirates that turned the tables on them and made them have to deal with pirates in the very game that they had pirated. Even so 93% of the userbase used pirated copies! You claim they got tons of free publicity, but ignored THAT little tidbit? That less than 10% of the copies were bought legit?

If the game ends up succeeding it will do so because their inventive way of dealing with pirates will inspire non-pirates to want to buy the game to support the huge F-you to pirates. This generation alone tons of games have been released that have been pirated (practically every game ever) and will not have received such a boon. Can you really not see this? Is it any wonder why companies are insisting on always-online?

Those "word technicalities" clearly define the difference between copyright infringement and theft. I can't emphasize this enough.

You care more about the title of your crime than the fact that you are committing a crime and hurting the gaming industry on the whole. I hold no sympathy at all for you.

I never said that game files don't have value. I said they have no inherent value, which retail copies do. Companies lose real money when retail copies are stolen or not sold. The only risk in not selling their digital copies is loss of projected value.

Translation: It only matters when I steal a physical copy because the minor cost in making the physical copy is what has value, not the cost of paying people to develop the file in the first place and despite the fact that the production of a single copy costs less than a dollar on average and the only reason I'm even stealing it is because of the file. Losing customers isn't a bad thing, only the minor cost of the materials is a bad thing.

Everything. If you're so confident that the costs of making physical copies is so marginal, then it should be easy for you to find a source that references this is some way.

...

...

I did find a source you ignorant moron! I found the cost of the physical materials, bought in bulk, and even calculated how much profit would be gained for the sale of the game at an average price of $20 a game. And unless you're planning on having me hunt down someone whose only job is to click the 'burn to disk' button? You sir, are an idiot.

So, then, what? What was the point of bringing up the Heavy Rain example at all? Why are you wasting my time?

Oh dear god... Remind me again why I have to explain basic concepts again?

33% of the game copies were either pirated or resold copies. While the resold copies are legal and can fall under the definition of personal property resale, the pirated copies are not. If we assume that they were resold and pirated in equal amounts this means that roughly 500,000 copies were pirated. At $60 a game that's $30,000,000 in sales lost. In order to even get it down to $1,000,000 in sales lost the game would need to sell for $2 or have only about 16,000-17,000 copies pirated at the full $60 pricing. The game cost a LOT to make as well, so the loss in income is non-negligable.

Even if used games accounted for 70% of these 'non-new' copies, the remaining 30% was pirated and siphoned a lot of money from the companies.

Also, lol@the poster's main picture. The irony oozing from you, Snowy, is just too much.

[Constable Reggie]

You can't possibly be this stupid. The whole point, the whole REASON this term even EXISTS is because it is dealing with instances where one person uses material that functions under a current copyright without seeking permission.

Please go and educate yourself. How much more proof past a Supreme Court decision do you need before you finally realize that copyright infringement is not, and never will be, theft?

Yes, you are this stupid.

I aim to please.

It doesn't matter if Mary could or could not afford the ball when she first went to the store.

Of course it fucking does. Part of the incentive for piracy is inability to pay for the legitimate copy. Not all people are as privileged as you.

I explained it to a five year old this morning and she grasped it despite caring more about her paper plate mask and glitterglue.

You're only making yourself look worse with comments like these.

It's freaking Game of Thrones. One of the most popular TV shows around to the point where I find multiple mods for it on Age of Empires II and Civ V without even trying and have to look past them as I haven't watched the show myself. There are so many people willing to buy it because it's already super-well known to the point where profit will be made from the common public no matter how much is pirated.

"It's popular" doesn't refute the fact that piracy got it more publicity.

It got that publicity from it's inventive way of dealing with pirates that turned the tables on them and made them have to deal with pirates in the very game that they had pirated. Even so 93% of the userbase used pirated copies! You claim they got tons of free publicity, but ignored THAT little tidbit? That less than 10% of the copies were bought legit?

Publicity that would have never existed if no one had pirated the game.

93% out of what? A few thousand copies total? How many people now know of Game Dev Tycoon now that it's gotten major publicity on multiple, if not all, gaming websites?

If the game ends up succeeding it will do so because their inventive way of dealing with pirates will inspire non-pirates to want to buy the game to support the huge F-you to pirates. This generation alone tons of games have been released that have been pirated (practically every game ever) and will not have received such a boon. Can you really not see this? Is it any wonder why companies are insisting on always-online?

Um, no. It will end up succeeding because now everyone knows that the game actually exists thanks to piracy. How can you not understand this?

You care more about the title of your crime than the fact that you are committing a crime and hurting the gaming industry on the whole. I hold no sympathy at all for you.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/Davinatorman/games?tab=all

http://steamdb.info/calculator/?player=Davinatorman&currency=us

Yeah, I'm really hurting the industry.

Quit the personal attacks. You're only making yourself look even worse.

Translation: It only matters when I steal a physical copy because the minor cost in making the physical copy is what has value, not the cost of paying people to develop the file in the first place and despite the fact that the production of a single copy costs less than a dollar on average and the only reason I'm even stealing it is because of the file. Losing customers isn't a bad thing, only the minor cost of the materials is a bad thing.

Dem strawmen. You're not even trying to hide it anymore.

I did find a source you ignorant moron! I found the cost of the physical materials, bought in bulk, and even calculated how much profit would be gained for the sale of the game at an average price of $20 a game. And unless you're planning on having me hunt down someone whose only job is to click the 'burn to disk' button? You sir, are an idiot.

You seriously think a few walmart.com links are proof? Are you seriously suggesting to me that the only thing done from the finish of development to the beginning of retail sale is buying dvds and cases?

33% of the game copies were either pirated or resold copies. While the resold copies are legal and can fall under the definition of personal property resale, the pirated copies are not. If we assume that they were resold and pirated in equal amounts this means that roughly 500,000 copies were pirated. At $60 a game that's $30,000,000 in sales lost. In order to even get it down to $1,000,000 in sales lost the game would need to sell for $2 or have only about 16,000-17,000 copies pirated at the full $60 pricing. The game cost a LOT to make as well, so the loss in income is non-negligable.

Even if used games accounted for 70% of these 'non-new' copies, the remaining 30% was pirated and siphoned a lot of money from the companies.

"1 million copies of Heavy Rain was bought used! Piracy is bad!"

How do you not understand how stupid this assertion is? There isn't a single mention of piracy in any announcement on the Heavy Rain example. You can keep bringing bullshit statistics all you want, they don't mean anything because you can't find a single thing to back up your initial claim.

It'd be like me trying to argue that oranges are bad for you because apples can make you sick.

It's evident that you're deforming into a self-righteous, personal attacking bigot that puts emotion over any attempt at reasonable discussion. This is my last response to you regarding this topic.

Grow up.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[shadykid]

snowy linked to vgchartz, his argument is automatically invalid