Excellent post on Quarter To Three

[Horace2]

Stardock "replies": http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303 ... _PC_Gaming

Now that was a great post.

[elstyr]

Believe or not, but pirates often simply deliver better service than the publishers

Surely a seldom case, but it reminds me of what happened to a well known audio application a few years ago: The cracked version took about 10-20% less CPU time - the crackers removed all the highly (runtime) encrypted, dongle based copy protection stuff out of it. I think, that was when this particular tool lost it's reputation. That coming out was a killer, especially 'cos in the audio scene every bit of CPU power is needed for production.

Cheers,
Elstyr

[Dr. G]

This is a very complicated matter indeed.

Let me show you another point of view.

I Do agree that piracy is basicallky another form of theft, and pirates are thieves.

But let me eplain something to you guys... In Bolivia (the country where I am from) the basic salary (the lowest) is 600 Bs. at a 7,5 USD exchange rate that makes like a bit less than a hundred box.... yes, that is the lowest salary, and lots of people make that here.

The average salary among professionals is 2.400 Bs about 300 USD, if you ask someone with that income to purchase a 35 USD game, you are asking that person to give their 10% income....

I konow things are very different for you guys in the States, but come on, not only people in the States enjoy good games... In Bolivia only 20% of the population (about 9 million) own a PC, let me tell you, you can still find Pentium I computers on sale (at 100 USD). So imagine that. I played most of my computer games on a PI because I could not afford an upgrade, and let me tell you, my PI with 1MB video card 64 MB ram could run games like Starcraft, Diablo and so without any problems... untl I fell in love of Stronghold..... the i had to change my computer.

So you can imagine the situation down here, there are people who make a living of renting console games, yes, they rent them, but not the kind of take home rental, you go to their place, play like an hour and pay 2 Bs. (0.3 USD) they rent games for PS1, PS2, PS3 is not available in Bolivia yet, you ca go to internet cafes and play PC games for 2 Bs. an hour, and believe me they are full of people.

So asking somebody to buy a 35 USD game is really hard, only collectors buy originals, and besides, no body sells originals anyway, so a game like this (No ofense because I really believe this is a great game) that does not get so much publicity, made by an independent producer, you can't even find a pirate version...

So how did I get the game ........???????

My cousin sent it from the US as a birthday gift, and let me tell you it is one of the best birthday gifts I got, at least it is the one I most use jejejeje.

I hope you guys understand this situation, and one day come up with a great idea, such as diferential prices for other third world countries.... but as i read in the external post about Solar Empire... If you are targeting market, and consumers, and so on.... I don`t think that is gonna happen soon.....

On the mean time, people in third world countries will have to wait until games become abandonware, or pirate copies come out.

[realmzmaster]

Interesting Dr. G,

Let me give you another scenario. Say I was the programmer who work on Titan Quest and Titan Quest: The Immortal Throne. My pay depends on the royalities that are derived from the sales of the games. After development and production costs, I hope to clear enough to feed my family and enjoy a comfortable life.

Unfortunately even though sales are great it is not enough to cover the costs. The effect ,company goes out of business. I lose my job. I am not saying all of this is due to piracy. But, if there was no pirate copy people would either have to buy the game or do without. Now , if a percentage of those people who would have pirated the game actually bought it, that can mean the difference between life and death of a company. Between me keeping my job or losing it. (By the way what happen to the creators of Titan Quest?)

99% of all game programmers, designers et al are not millionaries. They work to feed their families just like the rest of us. Yes, some of them do hit it big, but that is in any business. They are far and few. It is easy to justify piracy, when it does not affect your livelihood.
Also, games are a luxury, not a necessity! Games are normally bought from discretionary income after the necessities are bought!

[Dr. G]

Last coment about this matter (at least on my behalf).

I am not saying that piracy is good, on the contrary, I myself (when I was younger) had to play D&D on The Arcade Versions Only (And some of them were in Chinese and probablywere pirate versions of the original ones), and had to download my games from abandonware web sites.

But I would like there to be some consideration (until now no one has shown any)on companies that produce these great games (I consider this one to be a great game honestly), for people that live in third world countries... We cant afford to pay too much, our internet speeds are extremely slow compared to your speeds (right now I am on a phone conection at 56Kbps, on an internet cafe the best you get is 256Kbps) I know we are not a profitable market, but at least some of us, would like to have the oportunity to buy a great game somewhere else than e-bay... and to have it new (cause on e-bay you usually find used ones, but still they are great).

So if some company would take these into consideration I think it would be a great option for south american costumers....

I got mine as a gift of a relative I have in the States, and I really enjoy it, i wanted to copy it to some of my friends that also enjoy these kind of games, but nop, couldn't do it, and borrowing and lending the CD is just too tireing (sorry for miss spellings)

Kind Regards to all

[CobraEye]

The comments on piracy and gaming software reflect some of the key challenges to game development. I may be way off mark here, but I think Basilisk is doing the right thing by offering a truncated version of the game as a free demo. That obviates the argument "I want a pirated copy to play so I can see if it's any good before I buy it." I played the demo and knew immediately that I wanted the game, and bought it right away. I have played other demos and been either unimpressed or negatively impressed, deleted the demo to avoid the wasted disk space, and never looked back.

When I first started playing Wizardry on my Apple ][+ I bought the original game and each of the subsequent editions. There just weren't a lot of Apple ][ users where I lived, so access to pirated copies was practically nil. Besides, I wanted the handbooks, the manuals, and even the box (I am an inveterate collector), so that meant buying the game or software. That set a standard where I would always buy games or other software and not have anything on my computer that I didn't legally own.

When I first began playing Fool's Errand on my Mac SE (which is why I bought the SE to begin with) I used a pirated (stolen) copy from a friend, because I started playing the game on his SE and was too impatient to wait for my copy to arrive in Alaska where I lived. But I did buy it, as I have all of CLiFF's other games, including his newest.

Overall I think piracy is a problem in software as in music, but as many other posters have suggested, there is a two-edged sword in this equation, defined by a single word: greed.

Pirates are greedy because they want the game without buying it. There are no other excuses for piracy. Period.

SOME developers or vendors are greedy because they want prices that are too high (for whatever reasons such as exchange rate or poor market planning or just unbridled capitalism). To protect this high price point some developers copy protect their goods to avoid loss due to theft by users who will not pay the MSRP, a consumer mechanism that has existed as long as commerce has existed. This ultimately creates a vicious cycle.

No doubt there are iconoclasts out there who thrill to cracking encryption, who seek to have everything but own nothing, and may genuinely believe they are engaged in a form of civil disobedience by "sticking it to the man" in pirating software or music or other forms of property. Any way one looks at it, this is still theft and it is contemptible.

I hope Basilisk and others look at pirates as the irrelevant market segment that they are and continue to produce great games at fair prices without copy protection, knowing that quality sells.

[realmzmaster]

I agree with CobraEye. Greed is always a consideration. Pirates are greedy and developers can also so be greedy. But let face it, companies like EA, Bioware, Blizzard are answerable to stockholders and their employees. Each group wants a return on their investment. Employees want raises and benefits. Stockholders want a return on their money. Every game a company makes is not going to be a hit or a moneymaker.

The company hopes it will be a hit and a moneymaker. But you and I know a lot of garbage gets released. A lot of the time it is because the development team has underestimated how long it will take to get the game ready for market. The company has invested money in the production. Advertising has to be paid for months in advance of release. Missed deadlines means lost revenues and higher costs. The company has a decision to make push the product out on the market in a half baked form or eat the costs. This is where greed can seep in. Instead of eating the costs or inability to eat the costs the company rushes the product to market in hope of selling enough copies to recoup their costs.

The public get a half-baked bug ridden product which takes numerous patches to fix and creates ill will for the company. If the company eats the costs and keeps developing the game they may go out of business before the game reaches the market. The game could reach the market and barely break even. Unfortuately, for every success there are many more failures.

Sometimes the prices are jack up because the company has to pay for the name. If you want NFL, Madden, Middle Earth, NBA, NHL, Star Trek, Star Wars etc on your game you have to pay. Most of that cost will be passed right to the consumer. But, the consumer is to blame here also. How many of us will buy a football game that is not endorsed by the NFL and has the stats and pictures of our favorite players?

The pirate does not have to worry about any of these factors. I want the game. I do not have the money (or have the money and do not care to spend it). I can get a pirated copy. My problem is solved. Too bad for the company. I got mine, let them get theirs if they can.

If I am a company whose product consistently keeps getting ripped off, what do I do?
I can channel my resources into areas that make me money. I may abandon game development or only develop online content. I use copy protection to protect my investment. (It will not stop the pirate, but make it harder for the casual thief to steal.) The problem is complex, but the bottom line is if I cannot make money doing what I love, I will have to look elsewhere. We all have to eat, have shelter and want to enjoy life.

[b0rsuk]

Once and for all:
Copyright infringement is not theft.

Therefore, it's perfectly ok to pirate something if you can't afford it, and won't be able in near future. Either way the copyright holder gets no money. It can only be an issue when it prevents from paying for legal copy. Even then it's quite tricky. What about lost sales caused by movie critics ? Should critics go to jail ?

Anyone saying copyright infringement is theft is confused at best and retarded at worst. Theft is depriving someone of his physical property. Copyright, on the other hand, is not physical property. It's a government-granted monopoly intended to foster creation of valuable works. There are no convincing examples that no valuable works are created in absence of copyright. On the other hand, it can be shown that copyright occasionally halts progress.

I'm going to quote almost the entire post. I doubt you'll bother reading it if I just link to it.
English is not my primary language, and this guy worded it better than I could.

Joan Besen is so unbelievably confused about this. The claim that there is “absolutely no difference” between unauthorized copying of a digital audio file and the theft of a physical good is flawed right at the core. There is one very important difference. When you copy a file, you do not deprive the owner of their copy. When you take a physical item from someone, that someone no longer has that item in their possession.

Theft is universally considered to be wrong because you are taking something away from someone else. Copying a file is fundamentally different. It’s duplicating, not depriving. Far from “plain and simple” as Joan suggests, the issue of what kinds of copying should be considered infringement and what constitutes fair use is a complex legal question.

The analogy to manufactured goods just doesn’t hold. At the very least, it’s impossible to claim there is “absolutely no difference.” With manufactured goods, you need to recoup costs for every particular physical item because each particular item must be individually manufactured. With digital goods, the “manufacturing” process happens once. Once the original copy is created, manufacturing costs do not change whether the file is never shared with another or whether every person on earth has 20 copies of it.

In this important way, Joan, there is a difference between theft and file sharing. For this reason, theft is widely considered to be wrong (thou shalt not steal), but the act of file sharing is only wrong insofar as it is unauthorized or illegal. Distinguishing between fair use and infringement is often a difficult legal question, especially in our rapidly changing digital landscape.

Joan is right that artists need a way to recoup the costs of produce their art. That is what copyright was originally intended for, to provide an incentive through creating artificial monopolies for these artists, insofar as it increased the promotion of art for the public. But Joan is wrong that these costs need to be recouped through sales of songs. She is stuck with pre-digital economic thinking.

Traditionally, economics have been about scarcity. You have scarce resources (CDs), there is a demand for them (music fans) so you supply them with the product for a fee. In the digital world, we are dealing with abundance, not scarcity. Digital audio files are abundant, so the supply and demand model just isn’t the same unless you create artificial scarcity through copy protection schemes. Rather, you can leverage the abundant goods to provide extra value to the scarce goods. Through file sharing, artists grow their fan base as more people can listen to their music. Having a larger fan base creates a higher demand for scarce goods, such as concert tickets or merchandise, or even physical copies of the music (as in the case of Radiohead’s In Rainbows discbox). And you can still charge for the service of distributing abundant goods, like Radiohead’s pay-what-you-can model, or through an online store that makes music easily available.

There are ways to recover the costs of manufacturing without making the ridiculous assertion that there is actually no difference between theft and file sharing. In fact, that seems to be the only way to go as we enter further and further into the digital age.

http://blaise.ca/blog/2007/12/31/the-di ... ringement/

Have you heard about Thomas Jefferson or James Madison ? Well, those two guys were pretty skeptical about copyright:

Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.

[acoustibop]

Quoting people out of context proves nothing. Reading the quote from Thomas Jefferson, my impression was that, if he was talking about anything mentioned here, it would be patents rather than publications: many patents could be described as "ideas," but creations and publications meriting copyright? I see no way that a comment on the rights or wrongs of copyright can be inferred form this statement.

James Madison is simply talking about monopolies. Certainly monopolies can be a bad thing, and most governments have laws (whether or not properly enforced) against the misuse of monopoly. But inferring that Madison was talking about copyright - ludicrous!

And the "Blaise" (who?) quotation is quite specious. It's so flawed, it would be a waste of time to go through it just to discredit it: anyone reading it with any sort of critical facility will discount it as rubbish.

It's just like that Homer bit: "it must be true because it's on TV." Just because you quote someone (and especially if you don't identify them properly or state their credentials) proves nothing.

Similarly with your quotes from more well known people: apart from the fact that quoting someone, even someone prestigious, proves nothing, when that quote doesn't really even refer to the subject being discussed it all becomes meaningless.

I think that I would like to see better limits on copyright, particularly as regards time limits and the passing of copyright to others, but I see copyright as being a sound principle in itself. It's only since the rights of artistic and published materials have been given legal validity that most creators of such have been able to receive any real reward for what they do.

And it's really immaterial whether copyright violation is theft. It's undeniably illegal. More extreme copyright violations, such as the sale of copyrighted material without a legal right to do so, certainly is theft: it's stealing income that would otherwise have gone to the copyright holder.

[realmzmaster]

Once and for all:
Copyright infringement is not theft.

Technically under the law it is not theft, but it is still an illegal activity under the law. But, I consider it theft because you are depriving the artist, programmer etc from making money off the copy you just made. That b0rsuk is theft. You are taking money out of the artist pockets with your illegal copy. Criminal law will apply if you take that illegal copy and try to sell it. Criminal law can also apply if the federal government makes it a criminal offense, not a civil offense.

Even, if it is a civil offense, if you are sued by the copyright holder I guarantee you will lose.

It is not ok to copy something because you cannot afford. If you cannot afford it , you do without. I cannot afford a Lexus, so it is ok if I go out acquire one without paying (Not!) You say well a Lexus is a physical item and taking it is stealing. Well all the work and time that is put into making that program, recording etc is a physical, tangible item. The artist has the reasonable expectation that he/she will be able to make money off all that effort. I assume they would like to feed their families and have a comfortable life. So you are stealing from the artist b0rsuk.

b0rsuk, please quit taking quotes out of context, because you have absolutely no idea what Madison and Jefferson are talking about. Please read the full context, you may just get a clue.
And do not quote someone (Blaise) who is giving their opinion, not facts about a subject. Because Blaise argument has no validity, IMHO.

Also, I assume you were looking in the mirror, when you said

is confused at best and retarded at worst

See how easy is it to take a quote or part of a quote out of context.

[Rollor]

I cannot afford a Lexus, so it is ok if I go out acquire one without paying (Not!)

I'm pretty sure the lexus guy will be furious because now he can't sell his lexus .. The programmer will be furious because he didn't sell his program, it's not like he can't sell it anyway .. (hopefully i didn't miss something here )

You pretty much said it. You bought many games because of the pirated copy you owned. Why not buy ALL the pirated games you owned?

No one in their right mind would be buy a bad game after they have played it :/ ..
Hopefully you don't say he should buy them anyway, so we can get even more crappy games ..

Sweet baby Jesus, you have to be the stupidest, most ignorant poster on these forums. I was going to try and argue this out, but you really are beyond help.

Lol no you weren't you haven't said anything besides he's stupid and you don't like him


edit: sorry i didn't know how to put names on the quotes

[acoustibop]

... edit: sorry i didn't know how to put names on the quotes

Click the Quote icon on the post you're responding to, Rollor. If you want to make multiple posts like this, copy each response as you complete it, then paste it into the next one until you've finished.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

b0rsuk,

What makes you feel that you have a right to be entertained? If you're going to go around quoting, completely out of context, the founding father's of the United States, you should at least understand what they're talking about. Both of those quotes are part of a long discussion on the "social contract", the tacit agreement between citizens that allow societies to survive and grow.

In terms of the Internet and electronic media, there is a developing social contract by which the creator of any particular content has the right to set the restrictions on access to that content. Some things are freeware, created by somebody for the love of it, and given freely to all who might find it useful. Some things are "shareware"; try it out, if you like it, here's how much to pay for it. If a shareware item is useful and fairly priced, the creator prospers. If not, that content goes away. Thirdly, there is purely commercial product. This is product for which the creator has said you can have no access unless you pay a set amount. Whining that you can't afford that amount doesn't make it right for you to take that content anyway. Try any ridiculous rationalizations you want, but you have no right to possess that content unless you meet the terms of the social contract. It's how societies work, even on the Internet. If you breech the contract, you are subject to the penalties there of, which can include jail sentences and fines well in excess of any cost. Those exist to ensure compliance in the social contract by persons such as yourself who feel that for whatever reason, rules shouldn't apply to you.

I deal with this every day. I've worked in publishing for my entire adult life. You look at Stephen King and think, he won't be hurt by me taking this one book, and you're right. However, most authors are not Stephen King. I presume that many, if not most of the people on this board read science fiction and/or fantasy. Most of the authors producing those books earn between $2,000 and $10,000 per book. That sounds like a lot, right? But it takes a year or more to write those books, often. Can you survive--much less raise a family and hopefully save for the future--on $10,000 a year?

Those are the people you hurt. And, in the end, piracy hurts everyone, as small developers are driven out of the business because they can much more easily support a family by selling shoes than by developing games.

Understand, in society we do have a mechanism for complete public access to information. It's called the library. Libraries buy the books (so the creators get paid) and then make them available to the public under an agreed set of terms. Many libraries even have video games in them, now. If you want to be useful, then start talking about how to set up a similar system whereby a game can be made available on some basis to those who can't afford it individually, without trampling on the creator's right to set access to his product.

[realmzmaster]

I fully agree with Kreador Freeaxe. I use Demos, past experience, reviews etc to decide whether to buy a game. For example, I played the orginal version of Pirates! when it came out on the C64. I enjoyed the game immensely. When I heard that Sid Meier was making Pirates! Live the Life!, I bought the game when it came out without looking at the demo or reviews or word of mouth. I knew from past experience the game would not disappoint. I loved the updated version .

I downloaded the demo for AvenCast, installed it and knew immediately it was not my type of game. I read reviews for Empire of Magic. I was intrigued. So I download the demo, and tried to install it on my PC with the NVidia graphics card. It would not install. I tried on my PC with the intergrated graphics. The game installed without a problem. This situation told me something about the game creator and lack of testing. I passed on the game.

If I cannot afford the price of a game, I wait for the price to go down. Neverwinter Nights II came out. I did not have the money to spare. I waited. I was able to buy it for $12.98 at Target and got Mask of the Betrayer for $9.98.

There is no justification for theft (piracy). The use of the word piracy for illegal downloading is nice and cute. The word piracy predates the electronic media, then and now it still means theft.

A game is not an idea. It springs from ideas. Once a person puts in time, money and effort to produce the game it is no longer an idea. It now a tangible item even if it is only in electronic form. If the game creator wishes to sell that game that is his/her right.

The agrument is that the programmer is not hurt because he still has the program to sell, whereas the apple seller will no longer have the apple if it is stolen. This agrument is fallacious. The game creator is still out the money that particular copy would have brought.

The apple seller can still get more apples from the farmer, if an apple is stolen. The apple farmer still has seeds to grow more apples. So, I steal a bushel or two of apples. All apple sellers and farmer are millionaires. So selling one little apple will not hurt. He can just grow some more. Right?

Oh, it takes time to grow apples! It takes time to write a game or a book. Some games or books take years. They still require someone to sell them. All games and books are not accepted for publication. People's lives depend on those that are.

The pirate will say, "Well I was not going to buy the program any way", so no harm done. A firend of the priate says I am going to buy the game. The pirate says, "you do not have to buy a copy. I have it and will burn a copy to DVD or CD for you." The game creator just lost a sale.

Now, if lots of people think this way where is the incentive for the game creator to keep making games.

One of the reasons a lot of game companies are going to console games is because most users do not think about pirating them and for the average person it is a pain to do so.

Another reason is that the market is bigger and it easier for my friends and I to gather round the TV with my Playstation and its four controllers.

So, if you want to continue to see less and less computer games keep on ripping off the game creators. If they cannot make money creating what they want to do. They will leave the field to make money elsewhere because they have lives and families to support.

There is no justification for theft except the one that is in the pirate's narrow little mind.

[Rollor]

... edit: sorry i didn't know how to put names on the quotes

Click the Quote icon on the post you're responding to, Rollor. If you want to make multiple posts like this, copy each response as you complete it, then paste it into the next one until you've finished.

Lol yeah I know I just couldn't find the button the other day

The pirate will say, "Well I was not going to buy the program any way", so no harm done. A firend of the priate says I am going to buy the game. The pirate says, "you do not have to buy a copy. I have it and will burn a copy to DVD or CD for you." The game creator just lost a sale.

Yep that's correct. He could also say, "don't buy that piece of crap". The author just lost a sale, but maybe that was the best thing. Have you ever bought a game which was so bad you only installed it, playd an hour and uninstalled? I know I have, and it sucks. Not only did I loose money I also gave them to someone who made a crappy game who may now have the money to make another one ;( ..

I'm not trying to justify anything. I just really hate being ripped off ;( .. That library with games sounds sweet, unfortunately we haven't got one (atleast I know of) around