Dissapointed with TH's attitude about game piracy

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


arg... i don't even really want to know where this is going. But think about this... THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR CENTURIES! think about the first published books? Get a history lesson before you start saying stupid crap because if you were at butt buy or circuit ****, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a real copy and a pirated copy... don't think it happens? It does. There are a lot of people that don't think you can own the rights to any given idea, and based on that, so you're telling me that If i have 1000's of mp3's pulled off my cd's that I own and someone breaks into my car and steals them all, then I should be punished more so then they are? Think about it genius. it's like the old saying goes, put a bunch of monkies in a room together long enough and they'll write Shakespeare.



I agree, support the work of the person who created it, you like games, buy games, that = better games for all of us. But the stranglehold that the government and these companies are trying to impose upon people is ridiculous. There honestly should be a class action lawsuit against every company that's implemented DRM for lost time, ill performing or non performing products, and if you really think about it, bait and switch could be considered as well (for advertising any given product yet not stating anywhere on the product or in the advertisement for the product that it is DRM modified and may render the product unusable).

Needless to say, drm is a waste of time... I would SERIOUSLY buy more games if it were not for drm. I spent 2 days on the phone with blizzard when my cd key faded on the case I offered them everything including a receipt... I got nothing. They didn't give a ****, they said "go buy a new game". But I do like their non drm WOW policy.
 
oh, and ps: if you want to pay for a pointless 'service' (drm)... then be my guest. I personally would rather see that x amount of dollars that goes to drm go to another team member on ANY given game development team. Having said that. I can count on one hand how many job openings there are in the entire united states for doing that type of work. And of all the colleges across the 4 states i've lived in in the past 2 years, there was ONE that had ONE opening for an internship at a game development company, and you had to move to a different state to take advantage of it. SO this means out of the thousands of people in the tech fields in all of the colleges in my current state, ONE PERSON gets a rare opportunity to get their foot in the door for building games. It's sad really... take out the drm add the to the development... it's a simple industry shift with a complicated problem.
 



i think this is the best thing that has been said so far in this thread!
 
Since I have already given my 5 cents on privacy, let me move onto DRM.

I bought Bioshock without knowing the DRM restriction. It runs beautifully in my PC. I don't reinstall my OS often and I very seldom will replay games that I purchase. Hence, even if I was to know about DRM on Bioshock, I would still buy Bioshock to experience the action.

I would look at DRM technology as the entire package of a game. If you are not agreeable to that part of the technology, just don't buy and play the game. Period.

Use it as an excuse to illegally download games? Nah. Like I said, go alternative. Play boardgame instead.
 





ummmmmmmm....are you paying more for the game then I am? I know you make up a larger portion of the sales/profits for Intel/Nvidia high end products but there is no high/low end in video games unless you are referring to the discounted prices after several months. FYI, the initial price and length it stays at that price are the product of supply/demand and the time it takes to recover the cost of develpment. Everything after is gravy.

Please don't misunderstand, I understand (I would hope the game publishers would as well) the targeted audience vs. those who can kill a game. In the long run you (high end users) are the most important to the long term success of a game. Case in point, I was about 6 hours away from buying Bioshock for my son before reading the comments regarding DRM. I decided to hold off and over the past few days I have been asked several times whether or not I got the game. When I explained why I didn't get the game it caused several other people to hold off as well.

The only thing I would add to your ideas above is that publishers should get a much better distribution network for downloading games/patches. The last time I downloaded a game (add-on to current game) or major patch my choices were fairly limited and the only way I could get the download was at a slow as hell free site or pay for a not quite as slow site. That, to me, is the most annoying part of PC games. I have never had to download a patch for a console game and when I need to for a PC game my choices are 100k download speed at free sites or 500k at pay sites.
 
A couple of points:

I have to agree with Rob - most people that DL games won't pay for them - ever. The posters here that do, assuming that they are telling the truth, are the micro-minority.

If I can't afford a license to play a game (which is what you are actually buying), then I just can't afford it. I can't afford a 1969 DeTomaso Mangusta, but that does not give me any right to steal one. And I really, really love vintage mid-mount italian styling. It sucks - I know. $50 is too much, but that's the price the man has set. That price-point definitely keeps me from buying all the titles that I might otherwise.

Even if the ditributors lowered the price to $25, I'm not sure that DLers would steal less. People DL movies like mad and Netflix is dirt cheap. Take the last radiohead album - you could DL it for free from the official site and people still pirated it. Still I would be happy as hell if they cut the price - maybe it would do major damage to piracy. I just suspect that the lowest common denominator would rather steal if they think they won't get caught.

I kind of don't understand why you would need to DL a game to figure out if it is worth buying. For any title there are demos, in-game clips, and fifty in-depth reviews. The one sensible justification for this (made by a poster above) is the relative DL speed of usenet - I can definitely see how it would be much faster to DL a full game over usenet vs. a demo over many of the crummy public servers. Of course, usenet is the serious pirate's portal for just this reason.

Finally, in reference to the "theft" definition above. First, if the crime is theft, then you need to look to the statutory language to determine if you are breaking the law. A dictionary definition will not even be considered by the court. Here, though the crime is copyright violation, and possibly violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Under the laws of copyright, you are liable even if you only DL copyrighted material to your RAM.
 
Buying PC games supports the PC industry?

DRM probably encourages the shift to the console market more than it does pirating. $10 and its guaranteed not to have DRM ****?

I remember Buying 3 C&C: Red Alert 2 games and 2 Yuri's Revenge Expansions to them. (over time)

Two of the RA2 discs randomly cracked during the game. No more six player LANS for me (each game comes with 2 discs, one for each side of the campaign).

When playing Yuri's Revenge, each computer requires its own CD key. 2 Player LANs? Yeah right! I got some ILLEGAL CD keys and had a 6 player LAN with 2 LEGALLY PAID FOR keys and 4 ILLEGAL keys.

It was fun while it lasted, but they never released any patches that fixed the ****ty network code so the game crashed anyways. Why the hell did I buy 5 versions of the game if the people who made it won't even fix the bugs?

Anyways, I supported the PC industry, and got kicked in the balls for it.

I'd like to give a big F U to those of you who think we should be paying for games or not playing them. I could start a related windows rant about now, but thats offtopic.
 


this doesnt actually change any of my points, i kno that you pay for the license not the disk or actual game.

its a moot point. i would rather download games try them out then buy them if there good as i stated earlier, why should i waste money on a crap game... i cant return the game to the shop (DRM made sure of that)... and if anyone wants proof that i do buy games i will gladly post a pic of my game drawer...

one of the recent games i can think of, i downloaded sins of a solar empire, and played it through one full skirmish (it doesnt have a campaign) and IMO it was really slow paced for my tastes and i didnt like it, due to some of the reviews i would of went and bout that game wasting £30 of my money, money of which i would much rather put towards a better game, infact it did i also downloaded NWN2 and decided to buy it i found NWN & expansions & NWN2 for £20 in my local game store, so my money went towards a game which in my opinion is better.
 

Let me present you with a similar situation to illustrate the absurdity of your position;

I have never tried a bottle of Chateau Petrus. I would very much like to try it, but I don't want to spend £3,000 on a bottle of wine I might not like.

By your logic, I can go into my local wine merchant and demand that they open a bottle and let me try it. If I like it, then I'll buy the bottle, but if I don't then I walk out, leaving them to foot the bill for the wine.

Does that sound fair? No, of course not. Would the wine merchant agree to this deal? I doubt it.

BUT they do, on occassion, offer tasting evenings where they let me try a selection of wines (of their choosing) at no cost and with no obligation to buy.


Where am I going with this? Here's the conclusion:
As long as the product is not misdescribed (and that's where Trading Standards will come to your rescue if you need them to), or faulty (warranty) it is up to the consumer to take the risk of buying products they may not like - UNLESS the seller CHOOSES to allow a trial. This applies to computer games as much as a book, a movie or a bottle of wine.

By your admission, Sins of a Solar Empire wasn't to your taste. It wasn't misdescribed, it wasn't faulty (buggy) - you just didn't like it. But you got away without paying by employing your odd logic that for some reason computer game publishers aren't entitled to the same rights as any other retailer.

Trying to make computer games a special case is desperate logic to justify your behaviour. Why not just admit that you're a cheapskate?
 



Irrelevant.

Its not stealing, as that implies you are taking something from someone. Piracy does not meet legal definitions of stealing.

If you **copied** that 1969 DeTomaso Mangusta, 100% your own creation, without stealing it at all, that would be a more accurate comparison.

If you then sold it for profit, it would be morally wrong, but copying the car it for your own use? Not really imho.
 
Darkstar - You'd be in violation of various patent and intellectual property laws, though. Civil, rather than criminal offences - but still punishable.

What you're suggesting is no different to buying a CD, copying it, and then taking the original back to the shop for a refund. Is this morally acceptable? Of course it isn't.
 
i am a cheapskate no denying that.

however if you wanted to try that wine you would go to a wine tasting session, that wine that you taste is out of the same kind of bottle and made in exactly the same way, so you know exactly what you are getting.

game demos are different to the actual game a great example being F.E.A.R, or there are certain things that run better/worse in a demo than the actual game itself... by downloading the full game you bypass this problem, and therefore get a much better idea of the actual game.

it just comes down to this for me.

if you d/l a game and like it you should buy it therefore funding the developers to make better games.

if your rich and can afford to buy all the games you fancy does that mean you should just waste money on games that you potentially wont like? therefore funding the development of bad games, a game will naturally do well if its good enough.

you should not however pirate games and never pay for them that is just wrong and doesnt help anybody but yourself.
 
Actually, DLing software places you in violation of copyright laws and subjects you to both civil liability and criminal penalties. There is absolutely no disputing that point.

Is it theft? Well, you take the product of someone else's hard work - their property in the John Locke sense - and don't give them anything in exchange for it.
 
no its not theft as ive already stated, the our uk law says that theft is removing something permantly and preventing the original creator/person from using it, by making a copy you do neither of those things.
 


I've heard this argument before, and I think it's absurd almost to the point of laughter. If people need to justify piracy by saying, "hey, it's okay because I'm not depriving anyone else of this game," then fine. But you'd be singing a different tune if you were on the other side of the equation. If you were actually creating something, be it music, movies or software, and watching people obtain your hard work without paying for it (which is known as stealing) then you'd be pretty pissed off. And if you deny that, then you're either a communist, an anarchist or liar.

Darkstar, I suggest you spend three years with an small indie developer and see what these guys go through after struggling to produce a PC game only to watch people download the game illegal, and as a result, watch their hard-earned money go down the drain. And we wonder why game developers either go bankrupt or get eaten by the likes of EA....
 


Fixed. I don't you can call copyright theft "honest". 😀
 
<QR>
I just wanted to add my perspective to this as well. I stopped playing pirated games probably 5 or 6 years ago. I also purchase a lot fewer titles now too. I refuse to get into any sort of console gaming, even though there are plenty of titles that are console exclusives that I've really wanted to play over the last couple years.
I always used to download noCD cracks for games, just because of the convenience. I've since gravitated my purchasing habits towards games that do not require the CD/DVD to be in the drive. For instance I purposefully chose to buy the download version of Test Drive Unlimited specifically because it didn't require the disk to play.
I was very interested in playing BioShock until I heard about the DRM issues. I may pay for it in the future should I happen to find it in the bargain bin, but I'm at the point where I don't want to put up with any hassles, I just want it to work.
I bought a copy of GT Legends last year, and was having a great time playing it. Then I upgraded to a 64-bit operating system. The game does work (according to some user forums I read), the Starforce driver it installs does not, and crashed my OS. There are some ways around it, some hoops you can jump through to get it to install. I haven't done it yet, probably won't.
I also bought a copy of Half-life with all the expansions last year for around $10, and got to installing it and playing through it recently. It uses Steam. I like it, and I hope this new PC gaming council/group backs it. It'd be nice to know that it has a long and stable future. If it does, I might consider actually buying some games through Steam.
 
Irrelevant eh?

Pirates need to stop relying on irrelevant legal definitions to justify their actions. It is ironic that Flakes cites UK law to defend his position. You know where Copyright law came from? England! Oh, and it has been around since about 1700. What happened around that time again? Oh yeah, the advent of the use of the printing press in England.

Let's go back in time...

The year is 1709. Scruffy Twist, a scruffy hooligan, is bragging to a shopkeeper about his newest scam.

ST: "'Ello Guv'na. No, don't worry 'bout hidin' your wares from me. I don' need ta steal them no-more. No, I have a new plan. Me and me fellow hooligans have procured ourselves a printing press and we're gonna be makin copies of the great works of some of the great writers of the day, for a little profit."

Shopkeep: "But is that not illegal, my young ragamuffin? Is that not theft? It seems that the great writers to whom you refer will be destined for the poorhouse. And that place is disgusting."

ST: "No. And that's the best bit. Our law says that it is not theft! Great Innit? This printin' press is the grea'est invention ever."

Shopkeep: "Not theft eh? What about the second part - what about the writers?"

ST: "What was that Guv, couldn't make it out. Anyhow, tell ya what. 'cause I've been lifting yer goods for so long, you get all the copies fer yer reading pleasure at no cost! Heck, no skin off my teeth - I can make copies all day!"

Shopkeep: "Free eh? Well sign me up. I suppose it is not theft, after all! I mean, you're not even making any money off of my copies!"

Hiding in the shadows was Queen Anne, disguised as a commoner and totally disgusted by the base rationalization that she just overhead. She understood the point that the shopkeep was making - every copy of the works of these authors that was distributed without their authorization (sold or taken freely) was depriving the authors of the fruits of their labor. But that hooligan was right - the common-law definition of theft did not seem to apply. Thank goodness, she was Queen and could make new laws to deal with this new printing press technology. So, she marched off and got the ball rolling on the Statute of Anne (1709), the first real copyright law.

Back to the present:

So, if you attempt to invoke a statute of theft in defense of pirating software, you are about 300 years off in your legal analysis.

Irrelevant indeed....
 


I disagree. I am completely against DRM but I wouldn't buy a game just because the company has the same views as I do.

To be honest, I am for downloading games just to try them out and then buy the game if you like them (sure, there are demos but think about them as what the publisher wants you to see and play. Polish a turd and it looks nice... maybe... but it's still a turd.) but downloading games without intention of buying and continuing to play... that's BS. Why should one invest in a bad game and encourage the developer to create similar games when that cash can be put to good use? View is as testing the market without any influence from the producers because demos never reflect the real game.

If a game developer makes a game that is really good I will always support them buy buying the game. It's just not fair for the customer to buy something that turns out to be utter crap. Comparing games with wine or cars or etcetera is just wrong. When you go to a tasting you drink that wine, on a test drive you drive the actual car, you don't play a DEMO. Would you buy a car from me if I showed you only the motor?
 


I understand your point, Betzibu. And to a certain extent, I understand why Flakes downloaded Sins of a Solar Empire -- from what I can tell, no official demo of the game was released prior to the game's launch. And yes, demos are frequently misleading.

Still, where do you draw the line? If you download a copy of a Title A, play through the entire thing, and decide "hey, it's pretty good, probably worth the money, but it's got no replay value," then what? Are you really going to buy the game after you've already played the entire thing? What if the game is simply good? And how do you decide what's worth purchasing? And how many games do you end up buying after you've already downloaded a copy? I'm just trying to understand the process.
 


good thing the queen signed everything over to our parliment eh, now we wait 4 years for a law to pass. Our law imo needs completly rewrote theres still silly things in there like its not illegal to shoot a welsh man with a bow and arrow as long as your on england soil and there in wales(or is it england/scotland, ill have to look it up but I cant be arsed..)

queen = useless bag of bones spends all our tax money on going to events and keeping up appearances, we should remove our royle family imo, but thats another topic.

oh and go re-read what i said.
 



if i download a game and play it all the way through i admit i have done that, i still go out and buy it, mainly because i feel guilty if i dont, but also because many downloaded games just wont work online, Doom3, NWN2, COD4.... if i feel that there is no replay value i still want to try the multiplayer and in most cases the only way to do that is to go buy the game.

if punkbuster thinks you have an illegal copy it doesnt just ban you from one game, but all games that use punkbuster - thats a big enough deterrent for me to play d/l games online, id rather buy them. rather than be banned from all my games.

i know that there are hardcore hackers out there that use hacked servers to play multiplayer, but lets face it if your one of those people your not going to buy any game for any price, and also i would hate the fact that the servers would probably be full of cheating hackers.

we posted at the same time, i would of edited my other post but that feature doesnt seem to work for me, lets me hit the button and edit the text but tells me i dont have permission to save it.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom