Fenrakk101 wrote:
I've never had that problem with Gamestop before. I got a 3-month Gold card as a gift once ($20) and traded it in for Left 4 Dead 2 ($20) and I believe I only had to pay the tax out of pocket.

I've also not had problems with DRM, mainly because I buy all of my games through Steam so I don't have to deal with install caps, and always-online isn't that big of a bother to me.

Personal notes aside, you can see why people would pirate for more reasons than economic issues or simple ignorance.

Oh, but of course. I never really claimed that the problem is purely because of ignorance. It was not my intention for my argument to come off that way, so it's my fault if you understood differently.



However, you have demonstrated part of my point: That people don't really outright consider it "stealing." If your neighbor pissed you off for....whatever reason....you wouldn't go over to their yard to steal something of theirs. At least, I hope not. Now, most people are not theives, even when someone does piss them off, or if they feel they have been ripped off. I think there is definitely a disconnect between stealing software, and stealing an actual physical object, though in reality, the two are actually no different.



Although, it IS easier to get away with stealing software than it is stealing physical objects. Particularly with an entity, such as a large business, that you feel as though ripped you off. It aint exactly "easy" to go into a mall, for instance, and shoplift. And you cannot defend against it when caught, as no amount of injsutice in your mind is a defense against the crime you have committed.



However, I still think there are many pirates out there who wouldn't steal physical objects, because they have in their conscience that it is just "wrong," even if they could get away with it.

I've never had that problem with Gamestop before. I got a 3-month Gold card as a gift once ($20) and traded it in for Left 4 Dead 2 ($20) and I believe I only had to pay the tax out of pocket.

I've also not had problems with DRM, mainly because I buy all of my games through Steam so I don't have to deal with install caps, and always-online isn't that big of a bother to me.

Personal notes aside, you can see why people would pirate for more reasons than economic issues or simple ignorance.

Well, I must admit, that my classes are a pretty small sample size. And they are young, their expenses still governed by their parents as it isn't even legal for them to even have jobs yet. Which further contributes to piracy by young teenagers.



I have to admit, that I took part in a little bit of piracy against EA myself for the very reasons you stated. They came out with an abomination of a game called "Sim City Societies," that I figured wouldn't be worth even a single penny to drop on that title: I was right! Then I was really ticked with the DRM policy governing Civilization 5. I bought a hard copy of the game from Gamestop while I was in school, and didn't have the internet. I bought the game from a physical store, urposely BECAUSE I didn't have the internet.



Much to my chagrin, when I went to install it, I couldn't because an internet connection was required! I instantly went back to Gamestop, where they told me I was pretty much "shit out of luck," and that the warning "Inernet connection is required" was printed at the bottom of the box, where I was further lectured by the store clerk that I should have read that label! Yeah. Right. It was all of about a 3 point font, barely even legible as it was white text overflowing into a light part of the background. They told me they could exchange the game....for $5 store credit! After I spent 30 bucks on the thing!



Man, I was PISSED. From there on out, I vowed I would never spend another dime of my money either at Gamestop, nor with Firaxis. (I even went to their website to complain. The admins were less than gracious.)

nihilianth wrote:
The problem is, many pirates....the vast majority of them....have no idea they are even stealing and thereby hurting the very industry they love.

I admire your anecdote, but I don't think you can apply the knowledge base of a high school class to the vast majority of pirates, especially those contributing to the 95% piracy rate. Nowadays, most people who pirate games are probably fully aware of the impact of their piracies, and many of them pirate due to personal grievances with the publisher/developer. If you read through the thread, most people here seem to agree that Ubisoft was basically begging for piracy, mainly due to their DRM system, making pirated copies of games far more convenient than legitimate copies - and aren't you supposed to pay for convenience, not the other way around?



Like I said, I admire what you've done with your classroom, but piracy is more complicated than you or those students seem to believe, and you can't take what you learned about the class and apply it to all of society. Some of it, yes, but only a very small part of it.

This is just a phase the world is going through due to new digital media and the internet. I say don't worry about it, society will adapt.

Sorry didn't read through the thread completely. I just wanted to respond to the OP.



Pirating is a social issue. The problem is, many pirates....the vast majority of them....have no idea they are even stealing and thereby hurting the very industry they love. As a high school teacher, I believe that education can go a long ways to reducing piracy. At the beginning of this new school year, I asked several of my classes if they obtain any software....music, movies, tv shows, video games....for free off the internet. Most of them raised their hands. One kid told me they use UTorrent. I then asked him: "What do you think about it?" He looked at me confused, and asked "what do you mean?"



I rephrased it. I asked him if he thinks what he is doing is right or wrong. He didn't understand WHY it could be wrong. I said: "Well, for one, you are pirating software." I then asked the class if they know what "pirating" means. They said it is when you download something for free. I asked them: Would anyone in this classroom consider stealing....say....some money off my desk if I left it there? I asked my class for a show of hands if they believe it is right. Nobody, in any of my classes, raised their hand. I asked who thinks it would be wrong. They all raised their hands, with the exception of about two or three.



I then proceeded to explain the concept of piracy, that it is stealing from someone.....or several someones....who worked extremely hard for that product you now enjoy without having paid for it. I have assigned a year-long project, using the honor system, for the kids record what they pirate at home or elsewhere off the internet throughout the school year. Meanwhile, the first two months of my classes are about intellectual property rights, and the copyright system. I am tying it in with what they are learning in English class (most of my kids are in the 9th grade) about works-cited pages and plagiarism. There are also a few case-studies I will present about college students being expelled and put on probation for plagiarism. For my upperclassmen, later in the year, I will reinforce the concept of plagiarism and piracy as they go off to college and perhaps into the professional world. Once they leave high school, it is no joke any longer. The point is, pirating software from the comfort of your own home is easy and painless. There is a disconnect between the harsh reality of outright thievery, and seemingly innocently obtaining something which you desire to possess. Therefore, I believe most people do not see it as thievery, who otherwise wouldn't feel right about stealing a physical object.



In the end, I am making a concerted effort on my part to teach the young kids of my classroom about piracy. If high schools (and even middle schools) everywhere were to institute the concept, I believe it could be an effective means to combat piracy. Obviously, such education will not end the problem. And probably not by a long shot. It is just one approach that could be utilized in hopefully reducing the problem.

Games like Hearts of Iron III gross less than 1% of the likes of MW3, and MW48 will probably still outstrip anything Paradox do by a similar margin. Also, Paradox isn’t a particularly great example of indie developer mass appeal because their games tend to have a pretty high skill cap. (For a very long time HoI3 was broken to the point of being unplayable – anyone who invests in a Paradox game understands that it might be a year or so before the thing works as intended.)



Games like MW are designed to be deliberately obsoleted with each iteration as it generates continual income; look at the Football games for a good example of yearly cash-cow games making. Games that have long lasting appeal through replayability and user modding are the enemy of the bean-counters at the big publishing houses, and this isn’t just true of the games industry.



I like a well made game as much as the next guy and such games exist today in pretty much similar proportion to those of yesteryear. I’m all for a nice, big splodge of nostalgia to go with my apple crumble from time to time but only when it doesn’t attempt to repaint history as being some sort of forgotten utopia.

TheFrozenOne wrote:
Pirates are not potential customers. They pirate the game either because they do not want to support the company or the game is not worth the cost.

There are people who avoid buying a game to avoid DRM or always-online; if these 'features' were excluded, they would become customers. There are some people who won't buy a game due to price; if the game price were lowered, they would also be customers (which is how Steam's logic works). And if the developer respected its customers and was respected (like Endless Space) they would also find more people buying the game instead of pirating it. Depending on how you look at it, pirates are potential customers; developers/publishers just aren't appealing to them the way they should.

TheFrozenOne wrote:
95% piracy (which is most likely a made up number) does not hurt Ubisoft's sales, because the vast majority of pirates weren't going to buy the game either way.

Personally, I believe it isn't made up. Ubisoft has some good games, but they've also often found themselves on the community's bad side.

Although, I would still like to see their qualifications for considering the game pirated. It would be interesting to hear something like they grouped Steam sales into their pirated games count.

Tredecim wrote:
Well, digital copys (on steam, e.g.) should be easier to track, no?

Arguably, there are still difficulties. Firs thing that comes to mind is the steam sales, which could distort any revenue estimates you try to make.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Ubisoft distributes a large chunk of their games digitally, through their website or through Steam, so manufacturing costs won't give you an accurate number.

Well, digital copys (on steam, e.g.) should be easier to track, no?

Ubisoft distributes a large chunk of their games digitally, through their website or through Steam, so manufacturing costs won't give you an accurate number.

The reason I think Ubisoft made up that number is because if they have a 95% piracy rate, that means they only make a profit on 5% of their games. Assuming each game costs $50 (I have no idea what the average price is or if there are any popular games with in-game purchases), it would have to cost less than $2.5 to make each copy of the game for them to even break even. This isn't taking into account the development and marketing costs of the game, which I'm pretty sure are sky-high.



As I can tell from a quick search, discs cost about $0.50 to manufacture, but most/all pirates (and many gamers) get their games through a computer, so that's not really relevant.



Does anyone have any estimations of how much any particular Ubisoft game cost to make as well as the number of copies sold (preferably separated into disc and non-disc)?

The real world catches up with everyone eventually. Even Guillemot.

defekt wrote:
The easy litmus test for a 'working' F2P model is whether or not you can pay to win (and buying special units in RTS games often counts as pay to win). Ironically, I'd put money on EA fooking that part up on a grand scale.

Even if I don't play the multiplayer at all I'll probably end up going through the singeplayer campaign (if there is one).

The easy litmus test for a 'working' F2P model is whether or not you can pay to win (and buying special units in RTS games often counts as pay to win). Ironically, I'd put money on EA fooking that part up on a grand scale.

I think the problem is that publishers will always assume that piracy = lost sales. This is especially true for the music industry; at one dollar a song, it would cost thousands of dollars to fill an iPod, and I don't think ANYONE feels good about that. Anyway, I'm going to change focus before I risk getting in trouble.



I do feel that "good games" DO avoid piracy, and this is one reason why that's true: If a game has a fun multiplayer system, people will enjoy it and are more likely to pay for it, mainly because it's more convenient for them (they run less risk of getting caught and they don't have to bother with redownloading the game every update). If there is no multiplayer, or if the multiplayer isn't that good anyway, they're more likely to pirate it.

Igncom1 wrote:
Well that some one can live of there art I feel is to kinda abuse it, but each their own.



Art should mean something, and I feel that meaning gets tarnished when you demand money for it or to experience it.



(wow I just wrote that? Must be one of these days.)

Art does mean something, often to the people who have created it. And a lot of times the money asked for it mostly doesn't make it to the artists.



Using music as a primary example: Of the costs we pay for a CD, the band/artist gets such a small amount of that. Most of the money goes to pay the guy who recorded it, the people who made and burned the CDs, the truckers that delivered the CDs to the stores, the stores for their own profits...Or, if you're buying a ticket to see a live performance, you're actually paying for them to rent the stadium, paying security, vendors who are selling food/drink, etc etc...



This has been true for a long, long time. Sure, in the "good old days" the painter would paint his piece, and someone who liked it would buy it, or someone would know a particular artist did good stuff and commission them to create something. For the most part, that part of art is the same. Music has changed, definitely, and become more corporate. And there are kinds that can't be considered art, as it's the constant, same idea over and over (pop music, for example).



Just know most of the time the money you pay isn't demanded by or going to the performer, but the people who keep him or her going.

Nasarog wrote:
I am guessing you aren't an artist. Nothing wrong with that. By the way, art isn't necessarily a painting or a song. Just clearing that up.

Bingo!



Ha ha!

People have a right to demand price for art. I think that you're right and wrong, though. You're absolutely correct in saying that people shouldn't make video games because of the money; that publishers shouldn't make a game because it seems profitable, but make a game because it's what they want to be made and/or what the community wants to play. But making a game itself isn't free; often times you have to pay for tools and resources, and also, you frequently have to outsource aspects of the game (most commonly voice acting) and that's not free. It costs money to make a game, and especially in the case where it's the community that wants the game, the developer has all the right in the world to demand payment in return. You could debate how much payment they deserve to ask for, but it's still their right.