Bethesda Tired Of Spending Money Supporting Software Pirates

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/bethesda-deals-with-pirates/

"Piracy remains one of the biggest issues facing PC gaming these days.

Last week, "Fallout 3″product managerPete Hines told me that some development studios now calculate that up to half of their customer support calls involve dealing with people who have pirated copies of the game.

That's bad.

Hines discussed the problem of piracy with MTV Multiplayer just days before, ironically, the Xbox 360 version of "Fallout 3″ leaked. Piracy is still far more prevalent on the PC side, which has serious implications for studios like Bethesda Softworks, whose development bread-and-butter has been PCs.

"It is probably the most...[long pause]...probably the most difficult issue specifically facing PC gaming right now," said somberly-toned "Fallout 3″product manager Pete Hines to me after playing four hours of his new game a few weeks ago. "How are we gonna walk that line?"

With this kind of concern at Bethesda, you'd never guess what kind of copy-protection they're putting on "Fallout 3"...

Since our talk, circumstances have changed. "Fallout 3″ has leaked. But the problems remain the same. The biggest obstacle, explained Hines, is figuring out who actually is a pirate.

There will be no "Spore"-like digital rights management (DRM) in "Fallout 3." There wasn't in "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" and Bethesda has seen no reason to make sweeping changes to their approach with "Fallout 3."

"The amount of money we spend supporting people who didn't pay us for the game in the first place...it's f-ing ludicrous"

"It's pretty mild," said Hines of the DRM. "Much like 'Oblivion,' we want there to be some level of protection there so people aren't just randomly pirating games and passing it around, but we're very sensitive to the end-user experience, particularly for the person who has bought a legitimate copy and not doing something that is too intrusive, invasive. You bought your game, you put it in your PC, you start playing it."

Hines is sympathetic to the complaints of legitimate gamers. That's why there isn't anything particularly intrusive in Bethesda's PC products.

"You know, I saw the Penny Arcade guys did a number of guest editorials from guys like [Kotaku's Brian] Crecente and [Gamasutra's] Chris Remo," said Hines. "It's not easy. Being a consumer, I totally see it from the consumer side. You know, get out of my way and let me play the game, right? I paid you money for this, I deserve to play the game with no barriers to entry and no frustrations."

Attempting to treat their players as legitimate consumers as widely as possible has its drawbacks, however. It becomes difficult for Bethesda to determine who is and isn't someone who paid for their game. This becomes especially distressing for the studio's customer support division.

"The amount of times we see stuff coming through where it's like, the resolution to the problem was [the] guy had a pirated copy of the game..." said a visibly frustrated Hines. "The amount of money we spend supporting people who didn't pay us for the game in the first place...it's f-ing ludicrous. We talk to other developers, guys who are [like] 'Yeah, it's a third, it's 50% of our [customer] support.'"

But there's a careful line for all parties. If someone calls in for support and seems to be experiencing a problem isolated to an illegitimate copy of the game, it's not in Bethesda's best interest to take a gamble and call them out.

"The worst possible thing you can do...is put them in a position where you're making them feeling like they better prove they have a legitimate copy"

"The worst possible thing you can do when someone calls and they're having a problem with the game is put them in a position where you're making them feeling like they better prove they have a legitimate copy," said Hines. "Really bad response."

That doesn't mean they won't call someone out, thought.

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

Readers, can you see both sides to this complicated issue? As gamers yourselves, what recommendations do you have for Bethesda's next game?"

I think that they should go to the pc gaming alliance or only make online games that way you can have people protecting your soft ware.

I'd say thier next game should do this. Have no DRM and use steam. It will save them the money of usign DRM that pirates are going to hack anyway and probably get them a few more sales, because steam is nice.

As for the x360 problem? Well it's the same as the PC problem.. nothing you can do.

If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you stating the reason for pirating games is because they believe the quality is so low that is does not warrant a purchase? And that if the quality was better, they would somehow give up their pirating ways and start buying game instead?

If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.JLF1

Or 5 people pirating it :S

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.lespaul00

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you stating the reason for pirating games is because they believe the quality is so low that is does not warrant a purchase? And that if the quality was better, they would somehow give up their pirating ways and start buying game instead?

Believe it or not people actually do that. I know of people who pirated crysis just to see if it would run decently on thier PCs, I've known people who couldn't wait for games and pirated them then bought them on release. It's strange but it happens.

Oblivion was a great game and so will Fallout 3 be.JLF1

But what if I found Oblivion to be stale and boring? And shiny graphix and lots of gore won't change that. I appreciate, however, Bethesda's consideration of both sides on this issue.

If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

I wouldn't agree with your statement. Oblivion wasn't the prime example of what Bethesda represented once before, but it was a damn good game. And Fallout 3 looks pretty good also.

Piracy is a problem. It may not be that huge problem like Crytek, Epic, id and Molyneux like to put it out, but it is the problem.

Stardock, Blizzard and Valve know which types of customers buy their games. That one is THE answer to every studio out there. I guess that around of 70% of studios are still finding themselves on the market.

Why don't they just include a code for customer support with each game ? They could put it in the manual, not on the disc itself, so it can't be hacked.Gamer4Iife

They used to do that ages ago on the PC...oh man how badly that idea ended up failing.

besides, the code would just be posted online.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]Oblivion was a great game and so will Fallout 3 be.organic_machine

But what if I found Oblivion to be stale and boring? And shiny graphix and lots of gore won't change that. I appreciate, however, Bethesda's consideration of both sides on this issue.

[QUOTE="lespaul00"]

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.Espada12

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you stating the reason for pirating games is because they believe the quality is so low that is does not warrant a purchase? And that if the quality was better, they would somehow give up their pirating ways and start buying game instead?

Believe it or not people actually do that. I know of people who pirated crysis just to see if it would run decently on thier PCs, I've known people who couldn't wait for games and pirated them then bought them on release. It's strange but it happens.

Oh I am sure that it does happen as odd as it sounds. That post sounded more like a Fallout 3 hate post to be honest.

If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

Translation: "Your game's not good enough for me to pay money on it, so it's fine to just steal it."

Lol the excuses Hermits come up with to delegitimize the massive amount of piracy PC has is always hilarious!

I'm not saying it was an amazing game but it was a very solid WRPG title. It's no way near "broken mess", crap or worst game ever as some people claims it to be.JLF1

It was a broken mess that was smooth around the edges. What I mean by that is that any and I mean ANY "RPG" that has the level scaling that Oblivion has forfeits it's right to be called an RPG. In that sense, Oblivion was broken. It however, was a GREAT action-adventure game. Absolutely.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.lespaul00

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you stating the reason for pirating games is because they believe the quality is so low that is does not warrant a purchase? And that if the quality was better, they would somehow give up their pirating ways and start buying game instead?

The reason people pirate rather than buy is because they are unsure of the game's quality. They hear the marketing buzz, but for whatever reason, they don't have faith in the developer, so they don't want to risk money on a full-price purchase. The console equivalent to piracy is game rental or used game purchases.

Now, CryTek suffered from piracy because they are unknown. They made only one game before Crysis, and even now people who haven't played it still see Crysis as a marketing figurehead rather than the truly great game that it is. It's unfortunate for CryTek, because they actually did put some gameplay heft in their game to live up to their marketing department's claims. Bethesda does not bother to do that. They rely on marketing buzz to propel their sales. They always have, since at least the turn of the century.

Blizzard, Valve, Relic, Stardock, Massive, etc., all use minimal DRM and still they never complain about piracy, because they know that focusing on gameplay is all the promotion they need.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.lantus

Translation: "Your game's not good enough for me to pay money on it, so it's fine to just steal it."

You don't seem to understand that the vast majority of pirates only pirate a game to try it out, like a demo or a free rental. And the vast majority of the time, the games they pirate (like Bethesda's games) aren't worth even playing for free, so they never get around to buying it.

Crysis was supposedly "heavily pirated," yet it still managed to outsell Oblivion on the PC and achieved 2 million sales in six months. I'll bet a good number (not a majority, but a large number) of those "2 million sales" were people who had pirated Crysis, but liked it enough to buy it for real.

OMG there is a seriously easy solution. If you want support then you register an account with them, and when you register you have to enter a valid cd key.

No account no support. HOW HARD CAN THAT BE. :(

If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.speedsix

Isn't it strange that the companies with the best games also have the least restrictive DRM and complain the least about piracy?

I always found that strange given all these consolites' arguments that PC piracy is a problem.

[QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

Isn't it strange that the companies with the best games also have the least restrictive DRM and complain the least about piracy?

I always found that strange given all these consolites' arguments that PC piracy is a problem.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.JLF1

Isn't it strange that the companies with the best games also have the least restrictive DRM and complain the least about piracy?

I always found that strange given all these consolites' arguments that PC piracy is a problem.

Will Wright works for EA. If he was his own boss, maybe he'd sing a different tune about piracy and DRM.

[QUOTE="lespaul00"]

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you stating the reason for pirating games is because they believe the quality is so low that is does not warrant a purchase? And that if the quality was better, they would somehow give up their pirating ways and start buying game instead?

The reason people pirate rather than buy is because they are unsure of the game's quality. They hear the marketing buzz, but for whatever reason, they don't have faith in the developer, so they don't want to risk money on a full-price purchase. The console equivalent to piracy is game rental or used game purchases.

I'm sure people only burgle car steroes because they wish to know of the sound quality of the specific stereo before they want to purchase it. Your reasoning is misleading because you're generalising to a level which you shouldn't be. No doubt there are people out there who pirate to see a games quality, no doubt there are people who pirate because they honestly believe in freedom of intellectual property etc. But most pirates will pirate because they don't or can't afford to pay for the retail game, or after purchasing expensive hardware feel vindicated of their purchase by recouping on cheap software.

Game rental and used purchases are NOT piracy. Legally they are not the same, whether you agree with the law or not. Economically games rentals from most companies use a system whereby they purchase the "right" to rent the game out. This is obtained from the publisher so they do get a certain amount of money from it.

Used sales are a tricky area, but one in which the PC also factors in, you can buy used PC games too. Legally speaking once you have purchased the original copy you own the actual piece of good, not necessarily the code within it. So in this respect you are entitled to re-sell the copy, since the games creators have received their fees for the game. In an open economy you are free to buy and sell such a product as many times as you like. So yes it may hinder a genuine purchase of a new copy of the game and thus reduce fees which the creators might receive, but it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners.

The only economic argument you could put forward to genuinely counteract against piracy is the one that states that each individual has a different 'buying' price, differentbuyers attach different opportunity costs to the product. So a pirate downloading a pirated copy isn't necessarily hindering a sale, since they may never have wanted to or could be able to purchase a copy of the game at full retail price. In this respect piracy in absolute terms, that x number of individuals downloaded a game and thus x copies were lost from a genuine sale to piracy is misleading. In simple terms it would be overstating the issue.

Pc gamers pirate because it's easy to do.

Blizzard games are piratable too....people pirate starcraft, diablo and warcraft then realise that the multiplayer is worth paying 50 bucks for. Unfortunately, single player games should rely on console sales to boost revenue.

you really can not stop piracy. it is always going to exist. I mean I even know people that have cracked copies of spore for crying out loud. there is a way around every security feature. I know people that ever few months they have to break open their 360's and wii's to updated there firmware so they can play burned disks. I really feel the amount of people that do this is pretty small however and does not take too large a bite out of actual sales (not that it makes it right.)

also i think adding good mulitplayer function negates pirating. I know one person that has two 360's one for trying out games before he buys them and then one for playing online multiplayer (so he has to buy a new disk because his other system has been blocked from live)

although i do no think mulitplayer is always the best part of a game it sure is a great way to get more people to have to buy a real disk.

peopel need to stop pirating... i think most people pirate because they don't feel like spending the money.. they need to find a way to stop it. not by DRM because that just increases pirating. (look at spore) that is pritty much spyware on the computer.

they should make it was the serial numbr is around don't make it so u have to register the game.... that takes to much time i just want to play the game instead of registering.

I'm sure people only burgle car steroes because they wish to know of the sound quality of the specific stereo before they want to purchase it. Your reasoning is misleading because you're generalising to a level which you shouldn't be.Hoobinator

No, I'm not. This is exactly the level at which the generalization should be made, because it's the only level that affects the developers/publishers. Trying to specify further subsets of the software pirate population takes us out of the justifiable scope of the developers' arguments.

No doubt there are people out there who pirate to see a games quality, no doubt there are people who pirate because they honestly believe in freedom of intellectual property etc. But most pirates will pirate because they don't or can't afford to pay for the retail game, or after purchasing expensive hardware feel vindicated of their purchase by recouping on cheap software.Hoobinator

If that was the case, then those pirates wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. So why should they be a factor in determining the detrimental financial effects of piracy?

Game rental and used purchases are NOT piracy. Legally they are not the same, whether you agree with the law or not. Economically games rentals from most companies use a system whereby they purchase the "right" to rent the game out. This is obtained from the publisher so they do get a certain amount of money from it.Hoobinator

The same can be said for pirates who buy the original game and distribute it via P2P. Legally it's not the same thing, but financially it's similar, particularly when you start talking of high volumes where the initial purchase cost for both rentals and pirated games becomes negligible compared to the potentially lost returns of a sale.

Used sales are a tricky area, but one in which the PC also factors in, you can buy used PC games too. Legally speaking once you have purchased the original copy you own the actual piece of good, not necessarily the code within it. So in this respect you are entitled to re-sell the copy, since the games creators have received their fees for the game. In an open economy you are free to buy and sell such a product as many times as you like. So yes it may hinder a genuine purchase of a new copy of the game and thus reduce fees which the creators might receive, but it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners.Hoobinator

That is all that matters. You're adding issues of legality and legitimacy into an argument that does not include it. From a purely financial standpoint (the only empirically justifiable standpoint for objecting to piracy), used games and rentals have the same detrimental effect, if not an even stronger effect, on actual game purchases as piracy does.

[QUOTE="JLF1"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="speedsix"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla

Isn't it strange that the companies with the best games also have the least restrictive DRM and complain the least about piracy?

I always found that strange given all these consolites' arguments that PC piracy is a problem.

Will Wright works for EA. If he was his own boss, maybe he'd sing a different tune about piracy and DRM.

Actually I belive it was Maxis and Bioware's decision to put SecurROM on there games.

I'm sure people only burgle car steroes because they wish to know of the sound quality of the specific stereo before they want to purchase it. Your reasoning is misleading because you're generalising to a level which you shouldn't be. No doubt there are people out there who pirate to see a games quality, no doubt there are people who pirate because they honestly believe in freedom of intellectual property etc. But most pirates will pirate because they don't or can't afford to pay for the retail game, or after purchasing expensive hardware feel vindicated of their purchase by recouping on cheap software.

Game rental and used purchases are NOT piracy. Legally they are not the same, whether you agree with the law or not. Economically games rentals from most companies use a system whereby they purchase the "right" to rent the game out. This is obtained from the publisher so they do get a certain amount of money from it.

Used sales are a tricky area, but one in which the PC also factors in, you can buy used PC games too. Legally speaking once you have purchased the original copy you own the actual piece of good, not necessarily the code within it. So in this respect you are entitled to re-sell the copy, since the games creators have received their fees for the game. In an open economy you are free to buy and sell such a product as many times as you like. So yes it may hinder a genuine purchase of a new copy of the game and thus reduce fees which the creators might receive, but it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners.

The only economic argument you could put forward to genuinely counteract against piracy is the one that states that each individual has a different 'buying' price, differentbuyers attach different opportunity costs to the product. So a pirate downloading a pirated copy isn't necessarily hindering a sale, since they may never have wanted to or could be able to purchase a copy of the game at full retail price. In this respect piracy in absolute terms, that x number of individuals downloaded a game and thus x copies were lost from a genuine sale to piracy is misleading. In simple terms it would be overstating the issue.

Hoobinator

Hey, how'd you get inside my head?

That's probably the best explaination of my own views on piracy I've read (including the explainations I've written myself).

Kudos for thinking like me! ... or something.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="JLF1"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Isn't it strange that the companies with the best games also have the least restrictive DRM and complain the least about piracy?

I always found that strange given all these consolites' arguments that PC piracy is a problem.

insanejedi

Will Wright works for EA. If he was his own boss, maybe he'd sing a different tune about piracy and DRM.

Actually I belive it was Maxis and Bioware's decision to put SecurROM on there games.

Yeah, right.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

I'm sure people only burgle car steroes because they wish to know of the sound quality of the specific stereo before they want to purchase it. Your reasoning is misleading because you're generalising to a level which you shouldn't be. No doubt there are people out there who pirate to see a games quality, no doubt there are people who pirate because they honestly believe in freedom of intellectual property etc. But most pirates will pirate because they don't or can't afford to pay for the retail game, or after purchasing expensive hardware feel vindicated of their purchase by recouping on cheap software.

Game rental and used purchases are NOT piracy. Legally they are not the same, whether you agree with the law or not. Economically games rentals from most companies use a system whereby they purchase the "right" to rent the game out. This is obtained from the publisher so they do get a certain amount of money from it.

Used sales are a tricky area, but one in which the PC also factors in, you can buy used PC games too. Legally speaking once you have purchased the original copy you own the actual piece of good, not necessarily the code within it. So in this respect you are entitled to re-sell the copy, since the games creators have received their fees for the game. In an open economy you are free to buy and sell such a product as many times as you like. So yes it may hinder a genuine purchase of a new copy of the game and thus reduce fees which the creators might receive, but it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners.

The only economic argument you could put forward to genuinely counteract against piracy is the one that states that each individual has a different 'buying' price, differentbuyers attach different opportunity costs to the product. So a pirate downloading a pirated copy isn't necessarily hindering a sale, since they may never have wanted to or could be able to purchase a copy of the game at full retail price. In this respect piracy in absolute terms, that x number of individuals downloaded a game and thus x copies were lost from a genuine sale to piracy is misleading. In simple terms it would be overstating the issue.

gonzalezj1

Hey, how'd you get inside my head?

That's probably the best explaination of my own views on piracy I've read (including the explainations I've written myself).

Kudos for thinking like me! ... or something.

You both think the wrong way, then. Or rather, you think the right way, but for a different situation. Hoob's reasoning is largely irrelevant.

Put the serial number on the discs and then have the customers repeat the serial numbers for customer support. If the number shows up in the database, then it's a legitimate copy. If not, then customer support will not provide the support.Zhengi

About the only way to defeat this kind of piracy is to make each and every disc unique. But that's impossible to achieve in a disc press (which is essential to achieve economies of scale and keep down the publishing costs).

I dont understand the arguments some of you have given to why people pirate games. "PC users pirate games because they want to try it out, like a video game rental or buying a used game, etc." Isnt that why devs release demos, so that the PC gamer can "try out" the game?" I think that whole excuse of "pirating a game to try it out" is kind of lame, I'm sure there are those that do pirate to try it out and then actually buy a legit copy because they enjoyed the game. But to say that the majority of people who pirate do that, is just naive.

Also, someone earlier pointed out the success of Blizzard and the lack of DRM on their games. IMO, the excellent multiplayer is what people use to justify buying the game instead of merely pirating it. I can totallly understand Bethesda's frustration to finding a solution for their games that have no or very little multiplayer. I think digital distribution is a good idea, might curb the number of games pirated but wont completely solve the problem. Just my two cents.

No, I'm not. This is exactly the level at which the generalization should be made, because it's the only level that affects the developers/publishers. Trying to specify further subsets of the software pirate population takes us out of the justifiable scope of the developers' arguments. mjarantilla

The generalisation is unwarranted because you're expanding it to a level that it does NOT apply to. You're basically saying all pirates are only pirating because they wish to test the game out, when clearly this is wholly wrong. Clearly some may do this, but not everyone will, as you were stating in your original post.

If that was the case, then those pirates wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. So why should they be a factor in determining the detrimental financial effects of piracy? mjarantilla

I'm not talking about the pirates who bought the game, I'm talking about the pirates who did NOT buy the game because either 1) They don't want to.
2) They are unable to.

The same can be said for pirates who buy the original game and distribute it via P2P. Legally it's not the same thing, but financially it's similar, particularly when you start talking of high volumes where the initial purchase cost for both rentals and pirated games becomes negligible compared to the potentially lost returns of a sale. mjarantilla

How can a store issuing a game rental whereby the original publisher and creator is remunerated handsomely be compared to a game which is bought once, without the right to distribution and allowed to be copied over a P2P network. Again your whole reasoning is completely off, you're comparing to things which have no direct relevancy. The legality of the two is completely separate as well. And yes this is as much a legal separation as it is an economic one. Even if a store buys a rental right and rents that game to 10,000 different individuals the initial remuneration is still far more than one pirated copy on a P2P network. Legally they are worlds apart.

That is all that matters. You're adding issues of legality and legitimacy into an argument that does not include it. From a purely financial standpoint (the only empirically justifiable standpoint for objecting to piracy), used games and rentals have the same detrimental effect, if not an even stronger effect, on actual game purchases as piracy does. mjarantilla

Nope. Complete objection, I viewed this argument both from a legal and economic perspective, and both are just as applicable to the argument. If a publisher accents to letting stores rent its games out the fact that it has allowed permission means it can not ever be in the realm of piracy or ever be compared to piracy from a legal perspective. This is much the same as copyright laws, permission must always be sought fist. You're reducing the argument to a simple financial one, which is too reductionist to take into account the full breadth of the implications and complications of piracy.

And as I explained in my last post rentals do not have the same impact economically as piracy, the right to 'rent' a game is a big cost to the stores doing the renting, and the publisher is remunerated handsomely. Even on a large rental basis, the diminishing returns for the publisher from each rental, if it happens to be a one-off payment contract and not per-rental is still much greater than a copy put on a P2P network for others to download.

Used games are a separate issue and it's borderline as I stated before. "it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners."

Again if I was to leave the legal argument out of this I could not explain to you why used games are allowed in the economy. It is legally very difficult to enforce a ban on a re-sale of a product which you legally own. I'm sure publishers would love only new games to be sold, but this would in effect be shutting down a standard of free market economies. Buying one copy of a game and putting it up on a P2P network is not the same, first because you have no permission to do so, and secondly it is much more detrimental to the economy at large. Used games are part of the 'second-hand economy' of any nation they're part of, they keep businesses profits up and hence keep them running. It is one of the most profitable sectors of any game retailer. How does a P2P pirated distribution effect the economy at large? I'll answer it for you and that is negatively not positively as second hand games do.

i loathe people that pirate. you have no backbone, and no valid excuses. people will say 'but i can't afford, so gaming isn't for the poor?'

i say hell yes. entertainment is something you pay for, if you can't afford it you seek out other means of entertainment or heaven forbid, get a minimum wage job that will earn you more than enough to get a game a month in addition to your expenses for rent / food. if you say it won't then you're living beyond your means.

i see people riding in fancy cars that im sure as **** are having a better time than me sometimes. does that give me the right to steel a car like theirs?

seriously not one valid excuse in the world other than laziness, and a complete lack of ethics or respect for the people that work to entertain you.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Used sales are a tricky area, but one in which the PC also factors in, you can buy used PC games too. Legally speaking once you have purchased the original copy you own the actual piece of good, not necessarily the code within it. So in this respect you are entitled to re-sell the copy, since the games creators have received their fees for the game. In an open economy you are free to buy and sell such a product as many times as you like. So yes it may hinder a genuine purchase of a new copy of the game and thus reduce fees which the creators might receive, but it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners.mjarantilla

That is all that matters. You're adding issues of legality and legitimacy into an argument that does not include it. From a purely financial standpoint (the only empirically justifiable standpoint for objecting to piracy), used games and rentals have the same detrimental effect, if not an even stronger effect, on actual game purchases as piracy does.

Despite you meticulous picking apart of Hoobinator's argument, it seems as though you didn't really read what he posted.

If publishers are indeed paid a royalty by rental companies - I'm not sure if they do, but you didn't deny it - then rentals are nothing like piracy. Even if they're not paid a royalty, rentals are not like piracy because there is a net gain to the economy as a whole. With piracy there is no gain to anyone or anything.

That net gain to the economy from rentals and used games purchases is why they are legal - their financial benefit affects their legality. Piracy is illegal because there is no financial benefit and, in many cases, there is financial detriment. The legal standing of piracy, rentals, and used games are tied to the finacial/economic effect they have. That's why legality is relevent to the conversation. You can't just brush it off - the two topics are intertwined.

Hey, how'd you get inside my head?

That's probably the best explaination of my own views on piracy I've read (including the explainations I've written myself).

Kudos for thinking like me! ... or something.

gonzalezj1

Thanks. Mjarantilla is reducing the argument to a simple economic one, and only from the narrow position of the publisher and their remuneration payments.

I'm taking into account the full breadth of the complication, which is exactly what is done in any real world discussion of piracy.

If publishers are indeed paid a royalty by rental companies - I'm not sure if they do

gonzalezj1

i loathe people that pirate. you have no backbone, and no valid excuses. people will say 'but i can't afford, so gaming isn't for the poor?'

i say hell yes. entertainment is something you pay for, if you can't afford it you seek out other means of entertainment or heaven forbid, get a minimum wage job that will earn you more than enough to get a game a month in addition to your expenses for rent / food. if you say it won't then you're living beyond your means.

i see people riding in fancy cars that im sure as **** are having a better time than me sometimes. does that give me the right to steel a car like theirs?

seriously not one valid excuse in the world other than laziness, and a complete lack of ethics or respect for the people that work to entertain you.

3picuri3

Evil capitalist:cry:!!!! I actually completely agree. I have never pirated a game ever. I never ever plan to. If I want to try out a game, I buy the demo. If the devs are dumb enough to not make a demo, there is little chance I'll buy the game.

i loathe people that pirate. you have no backbone, and no valid excuses. people will say 'but i can't afford, so gaming isn't for the poor?'

i say hell yes. entertainment is something you pay for, if you can't afford it you seek out other means of entertainment or heaven forbid, get a minimum wage job that will earn you more than enough to get a game a month in addition to your expenses for rent / food. if you say it won't then you're living beyond your means.

i see people riding in fancy cars that im sure as **** are having a better time than me sometimes. does that give me the right to steel a car like theirs?

seriously not one valid excuse in the world other than laziness, and a complete lack of ethics or respect for the people that work to entertain you.

3picuri3

I agree with you 100%. Very well put, sir.

Used games are a separate issue and it's borderline as I stated before. "it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners."

Hoobinator

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Used sales are a tricky area, but one in which the PC also factors in, you can buy used PC games too. Legally speaking once you have purchased the original copy you own the actual piece of good, not necessarily the code within it. So in this respect you are entitled to re-sell the copy, since the games creators have received their fees for the game. In an open economy you are free to buy and sell such a product as many times as you like. So yes it may hinder a genuine purchase of a new copy of the game and thus reduce fees which the creators might receive, but it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners.gonzalezj1

That is all that matters. You're adding issues of legality and legitimacy into an argument that does not include it. From a purely financial standpoint (the only empirically justifiable standpoint for objecting to piracy), used games and rentals have the same detrimental effect, if not an even stronger effect, on actual game purchases as piracy does.

Despite you meticulous picking apart of Hoobinator's argument, it seems as though you didn't really read what he posted.

If publishers are indeed paid a royalty by rental companies - I'm not sure if they do, but you didn't deny it - then rentals are nothing like piracy. Even if they're not paid a royalty, rentals are not like piracy because there is a net gain to the economy as a whole. With piracy there is no gain to anyone or anything.

That net gain to the economy from rentals and used games purchases is why they are legal - their financial benefit affects their legality. Piracy is illegal because there is no financial benefit and, in many cases, there is financial detriment. The legal standing of piracy, rentals, and used games are tied to the finacial/economic effect they have. That's why legality is relevent to the conversation. You can't just brush it off - the two topics are intertwined.

I did read what he posted. I just dismissed it as irrelevant.

The "net gain" you're talking about (assuming no royalties are paid) is on the scale of nickels and dimes compared to what could be gained through retail sales. I'm not concerned in minutiae that wouldn't affect the developers' or publishers' decision to implement DRM or condemn piracy.

Thanks. Mjarantilla is reducing the argument to a simple economic one, and only from the narrow position of the publisher and their remuneration payments.

I'm taking into account the full breadth of the complication, which is exactly what is done in any real world discussion of piracy.Hoobinator

Only among theorists, not practicalists.

They definitely are. Hoobinator

Even if they are, rentals form only a small part of my argument.

If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.mjarantilla