Is PC piracy a lie? Why non cracked games dont break sales records?

Lol. Worst fucking example ever.

@True_Gamer_: You keep referencing Fifa over and over again. Who plays soccer games on PC? A single game can't be isolated to prove a point about an entire industry.

The pirates on /r/CrackStatus/ are now spending more time sharing referral links to key seller sites and coupon codes than waiting for ROTR & Just Cause 3 cracks, and many claim that they indeed simply caved in and bought the game(s).

I think it's indisputable that piracy would have caused these lost sales, and prevention of that piracy made these sales happen. I don't think nobody has been trying to claim 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale for well over a decade. It's an old concept even the publishers have long since dropped.

Is this a troll thread?

1 size doesn't fit all

but there are cases where piracy has deliberately affect initial sales aka Witcher 2 so a bit ignorant to think it does absolutely no harm.

If you looked at the millions of downloads at the easy to crack times you would be surprised how many people do...

@MirkoS77:[You don't have to say entitled explicitly, because it permeates throughout every word you type. It doesn't MATTER that "nobody would buy it". They're using something they've not paid for regardless. Using my example with you and your boss: does the fact that he was never going to pay you for your work mean that the work you have done (and he is now using) is worthless to you? You'd agree (by your...."logic") that you'd be willing to work for free, correct? Why shouldn't your boss get a free sniff of your labor? You'd get nothing out of it, but hey, at least you'd be standing up against that crony capitalism, while not punishing your poor, poor boss from the responsibility of actually having to pay for services. Do you even understand the meaning of the term punitive? The only thing that bothers me is the thought of people who have worked not getting paid because someone believes they're allowed access to things for free because (*insert whatever pathetic excuse here*). As for human decency....give me a break. Sorry pal, the business and commercial world is generally not altruistic in nature. You are the one who holds no respect for other peoples' work, not me.]

Your example with the boss is a shameless fallacy and you know it, you work at that place to get paid and your boss's job is to pay you (especially if your boss is the head of a fucking major multi billion corporation) I'm talking about the cake your boss told you to throw out, you are getting paid for the labor and for the cakes you have already sold, you are not gonna get anything out of the ones he told you to throw out, "so why not give that away?" was my question, and yet you some how managed to jump from that to "boss demands you work for free"? you are trying way too hard to win an argument.

[THE PERSON WHO UPLOADED IT IS DOING SO WITH A PRICE TAG ATTACHED, OR IS A PIRATE THAT IS DOING SO AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE CREATOR'S DEMAND FOR $$$, YOU DUNCE! You think the creator is intending to share it? No, to SELL it, for PAYMENT.]

I do agree with you that people who sell pirated games are thieves because they ARE literally stealing from the content creators by diverting money towards them instead of the original creators and they should be punished for it, but for those that don't have the money, can't afford or don't care about games at all? yeah so far you failed to make any case against those kinds of pirates, besides blindly demonizing them like they are criminals and arguing with shitty fallacies to defend your weak arguments.

[As for this new dumb yacht analogy, if a person wishes to share their yacht....again....that's consent on their part towards their guests.]

You obviously missed the point of my analogy so let me clear as best as I can:

Yacht = Game

Yacht company = game creator/publishers

Owner of yacht = owner of game

Owner of yacht shares his yacht = pirated game

Yacht company don't like it when yacht owners share yacht instead of others buying their own yacht because they want more money = content creators (actually more like publishers) don't like it when others share their game contents.

You = Yacht owner and guests are evil thieves with no morals and should ALL pay for the privilege

I can't make it any more simple than that.

[It is not the same in principle at all. To hold piracy in contrast to the argument, you're arguing people should have the ability to take yachts for their own permanent use without the builder's consent instead of just sharing a day on it with the owner's consent. It's a world apart.]

Eerrr not really, its EXACTLY the same principle, devs hate it when gamers share their content in every single angle and not just piracy, they hate it when gamers show game play footages on youtube, they hate it when gamers share physical copies of games via second hand market, and they also hate it when people criticize products released in poor conditions and want people to accept it, why? because they want to get money from every single fucking angle, and don't you fucking giving me the whole "hard working middle men" bullshit, they are big companies with huge incomes, they don't need that extra cash, they just want it, and to top it off they see ideas that increases their income but not necessarily improve the quality of games and they take it, like cutting out parts of games and selling them as dlcs, or season passes or micro transactions, game developers want to really lock down the industry because they want more money and this is what DRM is about, its about controlling consumers, not pirates (I mean how could they ever control pirates? they NEVER will, denuvo has already been partially cracked)

they are the yacht company that want people to buy yachts and only buy yachts (and not necessarily an entire yacht, you will have to pay extra to get lamps, carpets, etc), no sharing, no window shopping, you either buy or get the **** out, of course its their company and they have the right to be assholes, but are you really gonna sit there and tell me the person that was kind enough to share a yacht is the bad guy? piss off.

If you shared a yacht instead of locking it down and making it exclusive you are closing yourself to the opportunity of attracting a wider audience, if you let people give it a shot then there will be people who will eventually get their own yacht because they want their own yacht, same for fucking games, long term pirates eventually buy games because there are appealing benefits to owning games.

[You are incapable of even delineating these very rudimentary differences,]

No you are, and to top it off you are narrow minded and rejects any notion that you could be wrong, you are exactly what big publishers want, a cheerleader that blindly supports their malice practices.

"Piracy is not theft. If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world." -Markus Persson, Minecraft Developer

............ The greater problem in the industry is not piracy, it's unrealistic expectations and basically a bottom line mentality.. Where we have these devs and publishers thinking they have to pull massive day one sales and hype to even consider making sequels.. Most of these bigger games don't flop, even when they say they flop, it's just that their hilariously unrealistic sales were not met..

This is why we are basically seeing series like Megaman, for instance drop out.. A solid series that sold well, that was profitable, it just didn't compete with the mega blockbuster series.. So they were just abandoned for the greater $, which has been shown to be getting more and more unstable.... The explosion of the Indie scene is a direct consequence to this kind of business strategy..

.................. Diablo 3 was one of the worse releases ever in my memory.. That was basically lambasted from the entire community for months.. It was considered widely one of the biggest disappointments ever to grace the PC scene at release.. This only changed over months to years of them patching it and releasing a expansion that turned around almost all the complaints the game released with..

This is really a example of how a developer should support their game over anything else.. All too often we have these devs release absolute dog shit and quickly abandon it afterwards.. Blizzard instead, stuck with it and radically changed the game to the point where it is right now.. You rarely ever see that in the AAA business.

Your opinion aside and even my opinion, it still sold over 30 million.

He mentions Fifa in all of his threads. True story. It seems to be some kind of unhealthy obsession.

If you are running a company, you will always hate piracy, and as an executive you will get a lot of credit and prominence if you figure out ways to weed out piracy or reduce it. Boosts in sales will be attributed to your efforts, whether it is the cause or not. It's also a factor that's hard to gauge. It's something that just feels wrong in principle, like you don't have full control over your own product.

Also just because a game with bad sales isn't pirated doesn't show that piracy's effect is overstated. That just means people don't want to play that particular game by any means available.

Person who pirate game end up person more want to buy next game from same developer

This reason PC is success today more than console

@Dark_sageX:

"Your example with the boss is a shameless fallacy and you know it, you work at that place to get paid and your boss's job is to pay you (especially if your boss is the head of a fucking major multi billion corporation) I'm talking about the cake your boss told you to throw out, you are getting paid for the labor and for the cakes you have already sold, you are not gonna get anything out of the ones he told you to throw out, "so why not give that away?" was my question, and yet you some how managed to jump from that to "boss demands you work for free"? you are trying way too hard to win an argument."

.....and since when is a game, still asked to be paid for, analogous to a piece of cake to be thrown out? Who says it's to be thrown out? You? These developers and publishers don't see it that way. They're asking for money. And what difference does it make if they're the head of a multi-million dollar corporation?? I jumped from "give away" to "boss demands that you work for free" because the cake never was to be given away and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that that's how you viewed your work.

"I do agree with you that people who sell pirated games are thieves because they ARE literally stealing from the content creators by diverting money towards them instead of the original creators and they should be punished for it, but for those that don't have the money, can't afford or don't care about games at all? yeah so far you failed to make any case against those kinds of pirates, besides blindly demonizing them like they are criminals and arguing with shitty fallacies to defend your weak arguments."

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You believe that the creators are only losing money if someone else is profiting off their work sans their consent. I believe the creators are losing out on money, not only when others profit off of it, but also when people simply enjoy their work without paying for it. It's not required to profit off of someone else's back to deny them profit in the first place. Even if they never would've paid, it is still immoral to gain that enjoyment through the act of piracy, because (unlike hearing music on the street/watching a movie at a friend's house, etc), you are actively and intentionally taking that enjoyment as a right to be used in the future permanently at your discretion without payment. That's the major distinction. Pirates love to hide behind, "they wouldn't have bought it anyway" because they know a negative can't be proven (talk about an argument based on a fallacy), even if it may be true to whatever degree. That does not mean these negatives wouldn't turn into some profit if legitimate means were the only option to attain the software.

"You obviously missed the point of my analogy so let me clear as best as I can: Yacht = Game. Yacht company = game creator/publishers. Owner of yacht = owner of game. Owner of yacht shares his yacht = pirated game.Yacht company don't like it when yacht owners share yacht instead of others buying their own yacht because they want more money = content creators (actually more like publishers) don't like it when others share their game contents. You = Yacht owner and guests are evil thieves with no morals and should ALL pay for the privilege. I can't make it any more simple than that."

It doesn't at all surprise me that you can't make it any simpler, as this is a simpleton's view.

The purchaser of a yacht is not the owner of it in terms of an intellectual property. When someone buys a yacht, they are buying a product. Which is to say, they are paying for the materials, the labor, and also to the company that holds the IP rights (i.e.-publisher's rights). Those are worth much more. I don't know the specifics of yacht ownership, but I suspect there's a clause in the seller/client contract that doesn't forbid guests--yachts are usually designed to be enjoyed by many. When you pirate and share with millions, you are saying, "I'm not the owner of the game, I'm the owner of the property" even not profiting off of it, because the publishers are being denied payment for its usage. People profiting on it doesn't change that, it only adds onto the pirate's fortunes at the expense of others' work while also denying them that initial gain.

"Eerrr not really, its EXACTLY the same principle, devs hate it when gamers share their content in every single angle and not just piracy, they hate it when gamers show game play footage on youtube, they hate it when gamers share physical copies of games via second hand market, and they also hate it when people criticize products released in poor conditions and want people to accept it, why? because they want to get money from every single fucking angle, and don't you fucking giving me the whole "hard working middle men" bullshit, they are big companies with huge incomes, they don't need that extra cash, they just want it, and to top it off they see ideas that increases their income but not necessarily improve the quality of games and they take it, like cutting out parts of games and selling them as dlcs, or season passes or micro transactions, game developers want to really lock down the industry because they want more money and this is what DRM is about, its about controlling consumers, not pirates (I mean how could they ever control pirates? they NEVER will, denuvo has already been partially cracked)."

Devs hate it when footage of their game's shown on YT? Nintendo's really the only one that's done that, mostly because of ad revenue. As far as I'm aware, if you're not monetizing it, they're fine with it. There's something known as fair use and free advertisement. As for the second hand market? Rightly so, I'd argue. Release in poor conditions? DLC? MTs? It's very simple: don't like it, don't buy it. It's capitalism. Who are you to say they don't need the money because they already have tons? That's not the point. They are entitled to your dollar, in principle, when you use their product. You have power in capitalism also (your wallet), but you do not hold inherent rights to take freely when you view some company's behavior as ethically deplorable or monetarily superfluous.

"they are the yacht company that want people to buy yachts and only buy yachts (and not necessarily an entire yacht, you will have to pay extra to get lamps, carpets, etc), no sharing, no window shopping, you either buy or get the **** out, of course its their company and they have the right to be assholes, but are you really gonna sit there and tell me the person that was kind enough to share a yacht is the bad guy? piss off."

No, those who share their yachts are very generous people. They've paid in full for what I (and others) am privy to temporarily enjoy. But at the end of the day, they sail the yacht home to keep, and I (and everyone else) don't. You're really going to sit there and say that people who haven't paid for a yacht at all hold the rights to use it whenever and however they see fit, for as long as they want, because "they would never have bought it anyway/the yacht creator is a douche who doesn't need the money"? Yea, I think it's you who needs to piss off.

"If you shared a yacht instead of locking it down and making it exclusive you are closing yourself to the opportunity of attracting a wider audience, if you let people give it a shot then there will be people who will eventually get their own yacht because they want their own yacht, same for fucking games, long term pirates eventually buy games because there are appealing benefits to owning games."

Don't shovel me this. Yachts are (last I checked) millions and millions of dollars, software is $60 unless you can't wait 6-12 months for a drop (also with Steam refunds..."but onlytwo hours to try!" Boo-hoo). Yachts are available to be shown to their customers before they purchase them, given that the prospective client demonstrates they hold the means to follow through and is not some bum that is wasting the seller's time. Onceagain, you are using analogies with disparities so large the Titanic could steam right through them.

"No you are, and to top it off you are narrow minded and rejects any notion that you could be wrong, you are exactly what big publishers want, a cheerleader that blindly supports their malice practices.

I'm a cheerleader for shit practices because I don't throw a tantrum like a child and then take as my own in disagreement? No, I'm not blind at all (I'm very open minded) but I have to be convinced and you're failing miserably as you've no argument and your analogies are laughable. I'd honestly hold more respect for you if you'd cease all these mental gymnastics and simply admit to being proud to pirate.

Annnd... From Gamespots front page: "Rise of the Tomb Raider First-Month PC Sales Almost Triple Xbox One Debut - Report". http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-first-month-pc-sales-almos/1100-6435094/

Given that Rise of the Tomb Raider is still uncracked, that does seem to point to sales spiking when game sales doesn't have to compete with a pirated copy.

I really don't get the idea that people pirate games because they can't afford them. If you can afford a PC or console, you can afford a game. They are easy to find for $10 or less.

"Superdata said initial Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox One digital sales were "soft," due in part to the fact that the game launched on the same day as Fallout 4 and was exclusive to Xbox One. The PC edition, meanwhile, arrived at the end of January and benefited from a "seasonal lull of AAA games," according to Superdata."

DIGITAL SALES!!

Fake clickbait title....how low....

I wanna seriously see the RETAIL comparison...

In any case I seriously doubt to see PC sales scoring the double digit millions of the torrent downloads.

You really like piracy don't you?

It baffles me how u can infer that from what i write

You should have copied @uninspiredcup into this (I'll do it for you), seeing as how he seems to believe that all PC gamers are filthy thieves, that don't buy games (this month anyway).

Incidentally Fallout 4 (number 3) and Grand Theft Auto V (number 5) have been cracked and are available on torrent sites. RotTR has obviously had good digital sales on PC in its first month, comparatively though Fallout 4 (a cracked game) must have sold more than RotTR in its 3rd month, meaning that the non cracking of a popular I.P. is not indicative of zero piracy affecting sales. it's just a popular and anticipated title.

Deus Ex and Mass Effect will likely have similar success.

Pirate for no money, no available in country, demo, no risk lose $60, and more. Many reason.

Benefit when play pirate game, encourage to buy game when available. Big reduction of people become potential fan with zero piracy.

Same why used game and rent game also benefit.

This video good

@MirkoS77:[.....and since when is a game, still asked to be paid for, analogous to a piece of cake to be thrown out? Who says it's to be thrown out? You?These developers and publishers don't see it that way. They're asking for money. And what difference does it make if they're the head of a multi-million dollar corporation??I jumped from "give away" to "boss demands that you work for free" because the cake never was to be given away and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that that's how you viewed your work.]

I could have said copied and pasted a cake but you'd probably take it less seriously, so I constructed this analogy to be as realistic and as relevant as possible, the used up thrown away cakes represents the game that nobody would have paid for, and the difference clarifies intent, they say piracy is a problem because it prevents workers from getting income (a sympathy generating tactic), yet their games still sell and their companies are still big, which leads me to believe that they are lying, and lairs don't have the grounds to argue "morality", it just tells me they are greedy and stingy and deserve less sympathy. There is a difference between pirating from honest devs that treat their costumers right and fair, and those that not only treat their costumers like they are criminals but use every opportunity to squeeze more money out of them like cows and expect compliance from it, basically don't tell me to feel bad for martin shkreli or the koch brothers losing out on a few hyperbolic sales that would have most definitely never happened even if there were no other alternatives.

[this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You believe that the creators are only losing money if someone else is profiting off their work sans their consent. I believe the creators are losing out on money, not only when others profit off of it, but also when people simply enjoy their work without paying for it. It's not required to profit off of someone else's back to deny them profit in the first place. Even if they never would've paid, it is still immoral to gain that enjoyment through the act of piracy, because (unlike hearing music on the street/watching a movie at a friend's house, etc), you are actively and intentionally taking that enjoyment as a right to be used in the future permanently at your discretion without payment. That's the major distinction. Pirates love to hide behind, "they wouldn't have bought it anyway" because they know a negative can't be proven (talk about an argument based on a fallacy), even if it may be true to whatever degree. That does not mean these negatives wouldn't turn into some profit if legitimate means were the only option to attain the software.]

So now we are arguing that enjoyment (human emotions) can be monetized? yeah sorry, not buying it, thats something that someone who is lobotomized by major corporate success would say.

[Devs hate it when footage of their game's shown on YT? Nintendo's really the only one that's done that, mostly because of ad revenue. As far as I'm aware, if you're not monetizing it, they're fine with it.There's something known as fair use and free advertisement.]

and capcom, and square enix, and konami and a few indie devs that wanted to make a quick buck (I believe Jim Sterling had a case) and bullshit they are OK with not monetizing, if it didn't happen then it just means they didn't win whatever case they tried to throw at youtube, if another opportunity comes they WILL try again.

As for the second hand market? Rightly so, I'd argue. Release in poor conditions? DLC? MTs? It's very simple: don't like it, don't buy it. It's capitalism.

Agreed, so pirates don't pay the full sum and get a lesser experience in return, can we agree on that and leave the whole morality argument aside? or does this argument only apply for the second hand market? can I call them dirty thieves for not directly contributing to the developers and having the audacity to enjoy their games? or again is that argument only reserved for pirates?

Who are you to say they don't need the money because they already have tons? That's not the point. They are entitled to your dollar, in principle, when you use their product. You have power in capitalism also (your wallet), but you do not hold inherent rights to take freely when you view some company's behavior as ethically deplorable or monetarily superfluous.]

Of course not, nobody holds the right to pirate products and I don't believe i ever argued otherwise, but why should I demonize them for it and sympathize with the greedy companies though? because a few measly "potential" dollars slipped away from their hands? yeah cry me a river.

[No, those who share their yachts are very generous people. They've paid in full for what I (and others) am privy to temporarily enjoy.

No, you'd call them thieves, based on our exchange.

But at the end of the day, they sail the yacht home to keep, and I (and everyone else) don't.

and pirates do not get the full experience of the games they downloaded, no mp, no updates, compatibility issues, the list goes on.

[You're really going to sit there and say that people who haven't paid for a yacht at all hold the rights to use it whenever and however they see fit,]

I don't know about rights but I certainly wouldn't call them criminals just because they didn't pay the yacht companies for the "experience and enjoyment they got out of it".

[Don't shovel me this. Yachts are (last I checked) millions and millions of dollars, software is $60 unless you can't wait 6-12 months for a drop (also with Steam refunds..."but only two hours to try!" Boo-hoo). Yachts are available to be shown to their customers before they purchase them, given that the prospective client demonstrates they hold the means to follow through and is not some bum that is wasting the seller's time. Once again,]

Its all relative Richy, just because you think $60 is nothing doesn't mean it is, like I said before, they would have never bought it or would have bought it at a later point, either way the company would have gained nothing, and if you even dare bring up piracy = lost sale again I will assume you are a broken record,

and how many game demos do you know of on steam? in fact where can I get a demo of Dark Souls? I pirated the game last week to give it a shot (shitty game btw) and deleted after that, but I'm probably an immoral criminal in your eyes right now, so point to me where I can try out Dark Souls without feeling like a sinner? and also Rise of the Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Solid V?

[I'm a cheerleader for shit practices because I don't throw a tantrum like a child and then take as my own in disagreement? No, I'm not blind at all (I'm very open minded) but I have to be convinced and you're failing miserably as you've no argument and your analogies are laughable. I'd honestly hold more respect for you if you'd cease all these mental gymnastics and simply admit to being proud to pirate.]

LOL if anyone is throwing a tantrum its the big devs that bitch about hypothetical money lost! (and genuine consumers who get fucked in the ass because of DRM but thats besides the point) what do you think pirates have to lose from this besides time? some group will eventually figure out denuvo and then devs will go back to bitching and wining about not being able to control consumers like sheeps and then brainwash some (like you) into thinking they are the victims, and no you are not open minded and the "proud pirate" bit proves it, you already set a conclusion and are just looking for arguments to support it, there is no point in me telling you that I buy my games, everything with you is binary capitalism, you pay = you good, you not pay = you bad, its really pathetic.

@Dark_sageX:"So now we are arguing that enjoyment (human emotions) can be monetized? yeah sorry, not buying it, thats something that someone who is lobotomized by major corporate success would say."

Is this an honest question? What do you think Disneyland and amusement parks sell themselves on? Or movies? Music? Art? Tons of things you run into in daily life are either expressions of emotion that have been made into tangible products and sold, or services that are intended to evoke emotion and are then charged for. It's all around you, open your eyes. Capitalism feeds upon exploiting a variety of emotions to financial gain.

Of course not, nobody holds the right to pirate products and I don't believe i ever argued otherwise, but why should I demonize them for it and sympathize with the greedy companies though? because a few measly "potential" dollars slipped away from their hands? yeah cry me a river.

It's not required to argue it's a right, as the implication resides and is intrinsic to the action. When you pirate, that's an act of entitlement, i.e.--a right. I've never said you should sympathize with the greedy companies at all, but to understand that when you want something, it's to be paid for. Period. No "if they're a scummy company", no "they don't need the money", no "they treat me like shit". If those bother you, close your wallet and move on. Funny that you see this money as measly, yet below argue $60 is all of a sudden a lot. Relativism's a wonderful perspective to hold when the world revolves around you, no doubt.

and pirates do not get the full experience of the games they downloaded, no mp, no updates, compatibility issues, the list goes on.

Man.....such a unjust punishment, isn't it? As if being deprived of games for free wasn't bad enough! The world's just not fair. :'(

Its all relative Richy, just because you think $60 is nothing doesn't mean it is, like I said before, they would have never bought it or would have bought it at a later point, either way the company would have gained nothing, and if you even dare bring up piracy = lost sale again I will assume you are a broken record.

I never said $60 was nothing, I contrasted the price to that of a yacht which is millions. This is the second time you've misrepresented what I've said. If I'm a broken record it's because what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears and bears repeating. But I do love how you can say with certainty nobody would've bought it anyway. I'm not convinced, sorry.

and how many game demos do you know of on steam? in fact where can I get a demo of Dark Souls? I pirated the game last week to give it a shot (shitty game btw) and deleted after that, but I'm probably an immoral criminal in your eyes right now, so point to me where I can try out Dark Souls without feeling like a sinner? and also Rise of the Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Solid V?

Every game on Steam is a demo with the new refund policy. Yea it's only two hours of play (personally I think they should make it five), nevertheless, despite what some would argue, is sufficient time to get the general gist of the mechanics and flavor of the game to make a decision to keep it or not. You can even ask Steam for an exception past this if your reasoning is legitimate. Buy Tomb Raider and MGS V, then return them if you don't like them.

LOL if anyone is throwing a tantrum its the big devs that bitch about hypothetical money lost! (and genuine consumers who get fucked in the ass because of DRM but thats besides the point) what do you think pirates have to lose from this besides time? some group will eventually figure out denuvo and then devs will go back to bitching and wining about not being able to control consumers like sheeps and then brainwash some (like you) into thinking they are the victims, and no you are not open minded and the "proud pirate" bit proves it, you already set a conclusion and are just looking for arguments to support it, there is no point in me telling you that I buy my games, everything with you is binary capitalism, you pay = you good, you not pay = you bad, its really pathetic.

Sure everything's binary capitalism with me because it sure as hell isn't arbitrary when a price is set. You want a product=you pay for it. You don't=you don't and don't get it. You keep labeling me a corporate slave/sheep who's advocating their contemptible practices just because I'm underscoring this very basic rule of economics. Truthfully, they have been a minimal consideration in my mind throughout this entire debate, and sorry to disappoint, I'm not controlled nor a sheep. I'm arguing solely on the principle of paying for what you want and enjoy. That's not an corporate apologist's view....it's an economic reality (along with what I'd argue is a moral obligation). No pathetic excuse will change that.

Anyway. I'm not going to continue this further as I've said all I need to and some of your replies make me question whether you've fully thought this through, although it does strike me odd you'd put so much effort into defending something you view as so commercially and morally inconsequential. It sounds to me like you are the one trying to convince yourself of a position ill-considered, not me.

I wonder how surprised EA and othe Denuvo clients must have been to see such a low increase in sales in comparison to the millions of torrent downloads they heard and saw in the past...

@Heil68:

Over years buddy... The Diablo 3 of today, is completely different than it was on release.. At release the entire community hated the game.. From the RMAH, to the always online play, to the forcing a player to grind countless hours to get gold because legendaries were so rare you had to use the AH.. To the stupid ass difficulty curve that ended up you kiting a champion group for 10 minutes to finally kill them.. The game was a diseaster at release.. Much of those pre sales were due to hype and expectations of the game, not that the game was actually good..

it sold well even on release...

Diablo 3 sells 6.3 million, 3.5 million in first day

http://www.pcgamer.com/diablo-3-sells-6-3-million-3-5-million-in-first-day/

... Yet again I told you due to hype, when every one realized how bad the game really was.. The game took a nose dive..

@sSubZerOo:

Well yeah my only point is some PC games sell well. I'm glad Blizzard patched up D3 and listened to fans. I love the game now and play it every so often.

What a silly obviously wrong theory, there are insane amounts of games cracked on the pc and almost all don't sell well or break sales records.

As always most video games don't sell insane amounts, record breaking games, great selling, and good are all in minority, most games don't sell enough to break even.

@MirkoS77:

You did not argue about paying for what you want and enjoy. Because if you did practice what you said you believed in, you would have to pay a hell lot more in your life. And I wonder what if you were in the position of a person who went bankrupt and became jobless at the same time, what would you do, huh? I doubt you would have any friend who would consider lending you a hand because all of them expect to get paid LOL.

There is nothing wrong with setting a price and expecting people to pay for what the price you set out to be. But I don't see how going through all the effort just to bar those who would not be buying the game from accessing it at all is worth all the hassle. The world has way more other concerns that require attention right now, not their own selfishness. Not to mention it only makes the consumers (their cash cows) angry, oh maybe except the right wing extremists, leading to lost sales, counteracting(My English is poor :/ ) all the sales gain from potential lost sales from people who really just want take something for free despite having the money.

And regarding steam refund policy, you're not supposed to use that test out games. They actually tell you not to abuse the system if you try out that thing too many times.

This is so false, it's not even funny.

almost as a big of a lie as "1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale " that some publishers and some fanboys used to say though even game publishers dropped that excuse lately considering video game piracy is decling

Oh good. I thought OP was making yet another thread about his piracy obsession, didn't know it was a necro.

Pirates will always be pirates, and developers will always be overly blaming piracy.

Lords of the Fallen was considered a third rate Souls game by many.

Anyhow, people who pirate games wanna play free games, they'll go down the avenue of least resistance. Can't play one game, go to the next best thing they can play. That simple.

Yeah, or they could wait a few months/years for the game to become affordable. Or wait for it to hit a Humble Bundle and pay $1 for it. Or...whatever.

The price argument is a terrible excuse for piracy.

Then again, I don't think I've ever seen a good argument in support of piracy. There's no good justification for saying "I know everyone else pays for it, but I should get it for free". It's selfishness, pure and simple.

A lot of it has to do with the age of gamers now. As we all know given that thread asking about ages a few months back. Most of us are adults now most likely with some sort of decent paying job, we can afford to pay for games now so we don't resort to piracy. Lets face it, the majority who pirated games in the past only did it because we couldn't afford to go out and actually buy it legitimately. Not saying this right but thats how it was. I would hazard a guess that people here can at least buy one game every month, some even a game a week at full price so whats the point of piracy now? Its so easy to buy games now, hell you don't even need to leave the house or wait for the mail anymore, its all instant. Steam and its brethren on PC, XBL and PSN on the consoles making buying games so dam easy. Just input your card details and just click a button and it downloads straight to your machine.

Who dragged this thread out of the grave?

It's interesting how Piracy affects pricing. People only seem to focus on sale numbers, but it's reasnable to think that one of the reason for the price dump on PC is a way to combat piracy. I would guess Steam sales for example have reduced piracy a lot. So piracy is costing devs by driving prices down, not only by lost sales.

All those demonizing people that pirate games..... please..... you have never borrowed someone's copy of game and played it and or beat it? to the devs that's a lost sale you should have went out and bought your own copy. Hell, even renting games can be considered a lost sale to them since one copy can pass through multiple people. Fact is anyone that used things like VCR's to record movies from HBO etc back in the day, or dvd/bluray recorders, youtube, borrowed someone elses copy of whatever have no right to judge.

Long live piracy!

http://www.technologizer.com/2012/01/23/why-history-needs-software-piracy/

Why blame PC for this? I see a crapton of console gamers pirate crap all my friends had modded 360's wii's and psp's

BLAME THE CONSOLE MARKET and the handheld market!

They pirate a lot more than a few pc gamers doing it.

Also some PC gamers might pirate game but buy other stuff from that company to support them like shirts or physical goods and support that company in other ways so I really don't have a problem with this as long as people support that company in some other way.

i had a ps3 in the time there was no pirate games for it, and i never bought a single player game, never played a single player game on ps3, now on pc i still only buy full priced multiplayer games and many very cheap and very good steam games, the only difference is that i can play single player pirate games if i want, for the developers it make no difference if i pirate or not, for me its a big difference

there is more pirates on console than on pc, in 3rd world countries 95% of consoles run pirate games only, a huge chumk of US sales are in fact exported consoles to places like brazil so dont say 3rd world countries are irrelevant

an easy way to compare pc vs console piracy is searchng for people offering denuvo protected games and ps4/xbox one games on sites like ebay or what we have on brazil (mercadolivre.com), for each "seller" of a denuvo protected game, that is offering to share his legitimate copy with you for a fee, there is 5 or 6 "sellers" of the same game on ps4 and xbone offering the same service

i live in the land of pirates aka a third world country, have been a pirate for a long time and it's only been three years since i've started paying for some games (since the time i started to have income), the reason for piracy is simple, ppl in a third world country can't just afford buying games ....on consoles, they use hacked accounts , majority of ppl use hacked accounts since they're so cheap or they buy second-hand copy, on PC they've exploited the sharing feature of Steam for the games that use Denovu.

Point being, those who pirate are the ones who can't afford buying games so not a significant change in sales would happen with Denovo or other anti-piracy measures.

It's actually debatable right now whether piracy effects sales in any meaningful way. I know there's been times where I've downloaded a game to try it out and ended up buying it after liking my time with it.

Said perfectly. Like many things in life that are disputed between 2 sides, the truth is probably is the middle.

@True_Gamer_:

I never thought piracy hurt sales in the first place. But the hurt sales are evidence enough that it's not enough to only sell games on pc especially the expensive AAA projects. We want great looking games but we also want them to sell too.