Piracy Megathread: Do you object to piracy, and if so, why?

[Oh Snap]

I don't have some right. I simply have the ability to do so. I'm able to exploit the system right now. You find doing so morally objectionable, but I don't. This is where we differ. I'm not arrogant, I'm honest. I have no problem infringing upon copyright to determine whether or not a game is worthwhile.

Anyway, I appreciate everyones comments and answers, I'm going to start putting the thing together fairly soon (when time permits), and I'll share the survey with you guys. Should be fun.

 

[purplerat]

I never said my objections were based on morals, nor am I trying to force my morals on others. I think what you're doing and advocating is damaging to the gaming industry. Then again I'm not one to go around complaining about the poor state of PC gaming or DRM.

 

[BigMac]

quality of the games that will hit the shelves will definitely improve and the money will return

Why would quality improve?

I'm rather short in time today so I'll go the easy way:

What people like you and Oh Snap advocate is to work outside the market for your own personal gain. Just wanting to try a game is a demand. What you are doing is to create a false demand that does not meet the supply (playing games but not actually buying them). This breaks the market which like I said before is what's supposed to determine things like the volume of games, price and quality. Game producers see a demand but at the same time are skeptical as to whether even a good game will actually sell. They're not going to abandon the market as if there was no demand because there is still money to be made. So what do you get? A lot of low quality games at a much higher price.

That pretty much sums it up. In addition: if you get your games for free, that will bias your opinion on what you think is "good" (whether it's consciously or unconsciously) because you have to pay for it if you consider it "good", which makes what you are looking for are "really really good" games and only those get your money while there was a lot of effort put into those "good" games that are not getting any (resulting in even more crappy games to be marketed).

 

[ordinatorr]

From an econ standpoint, (Having taken Econ this past year at my U) piracy is a sunk cost. What is a sunk cost? Its something that already will take some of your economic profict once you start producing that product.

I agree that most pirates do not download and then go pay to play if the game is good. This holds true for singleplayer. Not so for multiplayer.

Multiplayer level piracy steps up from simple .iso burning and crack installation. It steps up to actually finding a working CD key that's not in use. Yes there are keygens widely available but the point is that multiplayer pirating takes more time. (This is where anti-piracy protection actually works, to an extent). So this is where (if the game is good) a pirate will go and purchase the game. (I'm talking average level pirate not pirate provider).

To specify there are maybe three pirate levels.

Leecher Pirate: Only goes to download, doesn't even seed because it affects his download rate. Once the torrent is dled then he's done.
Leechers also can transfer between software savvy leechers who can work with various file extensions to further their piracy and unskilled leechers who only download in a file format that they are familiar with.
This level of pirate makes up the majority, and so this pirate is unfamiliar with the process of multiplayer pirating and therefore must actually go buy the game if he wants to play multiplayer.

Mid-Level Pirate: Possibly a member of exclusive torrent members only sites, may contribute to uploading actual torrents but mainly differs by having a decent upload/download ratio which means he seeds even after download is done. Has the ability to go through with multiplayer pirating but may or may not because of time consumption.

Provider Pirate: This is the pirate that actually provides the material, be it Cam screens of premiere movies, advanced copies of games, etc etc. Spends most of his time uploading and providing the material that pirates thrive on.

So what am I saying here? There is a pyramid among pirates, and that affects the amount of buying of actual retail games. Providers will most likely never buy, mid level and leechers will buy dependent on ease of piracy.

Purists say that all piracy is bad (it is), but they target the wrong approach for stopping it. Realize that you can't stop piracy, you just can't. Just like crime will never go away neither will piracy. Mainly because its faceless and impossible to track. ISP's will do what they can to throttle torrents/p2p but the tech savvy will find their way around and the pirate mass will follow. So here we are back to my sunk cost comparison. The pirates who won't pay will never pay, so their actual affect on economic profit is 0$ from the individuals themselves but overall it is thousands of dollars because they provide the lifeblood of piracy to those who would actually pay for the material.

Piracy is a crime of convenience, its like when on Halloween you'd see the house that left a bowl out with a sign that said take one. There are those who would do just that, obey the sign. Others would take some but not all; feeling guilty but not enough to prevent their desire to satisfy their need for candy. And there would be the ones that would see that and dump the whole bowl in their bag and think nothing of it.

So you want to curb piracy, target the top level providers. That's what companies are really (I think) trying to do. For the purists, don't focus on condemning piracy in general, at heart most pirates would never think of shoplifting. Aim for the one that really would, the ones that provide the material, who want to take everything for nothing and have the know how to do so.

And for the developers, pirates are the hardcore consumer. If you make the game good enough, most will come. Sure there will be some who would rather pirate, but I think that most of them, faced with a spectacular game would find it easier to buy. Because in the end all, it is easier to buy (from a time perspective) than it is to pirate. Especially in the era of D2D and other pay download services.

All this aside, not to say pirating provides benefits, but from an economic standpoint piracy dooms games that are sub-par. This is because the amount of copies that would be sold before demand fell is reduced because piracy buys or obtains only one of those copies which then spreads to the pirate community where demand falls sooner than it would if piracy were out of the picture.

And it may seem like i'm contradicting my self when comparing to my second statement, but I'm aiming towards the argument that pirates will pay to play even after downloading because of good extension of a game. Multiplayer content and the like will draw them if the game is good enough.

 

[BigMac]

That is to say, having disdain for someone who only selectively supports an industry you want to thrive and telling them to stop supporting the industry entirely seems counter-productive. Saying "buy more games!" would be better advice than spitefully saying "Just get a new hobby!" Is that pretty clear? I've tried explaining it a few different ways but somehow it feels like that point is lost in the next reply 🙁

Giving you the "buy more games!" advice would be pointless because you have no moral objections to violating copyright for your own personal gains:

I don't have some right. I simply have the ability to do so. I'm able to exploit the system right now. You find doing so morally objectionable, but I don't. This is where we differ. I'm not arrogant, I'm honest. I have no problem infringing upon copyright to determine whether or not a game is worthwhile.

But, if it helps...here is my advice to you: "Buy more games!" 😀

 

[Oh Snap]

I'm rather short in time today so I'll go the easy way:


That pretty much sums it up. In addition: if you get your games for free, that will bias your opinion on what you think is "good" (whether it's consciously or unconsciously) because you have to pay for it if you consider it "good", which makes what you are looking for are "really really good" games and only those get your money while there was a lot of effort put into those "good" games that are not getting any (resulting in even more crappy games to be marketed).

So if piracy raises peoples' expectations, you're saying that the market wouldn't necessarily have better games in terms of actual quality, but our standards would go down and in turn games would become "better"? I just have difficulty understanding how piracy could simultaneously serve as a means of weeding out the games that aren't amazing, and yet in its absence game quality would somehow improve.

Giving you the "buy more games!" advice would be pointless because you have no moral objections to violating copyright for your own personal gains:

Still better than telling someone who kinda supports the industry to stop supporting it entirely, right?

 

[radnor]

Excelent post ordinatorr. Shame more people didnt read it.

I think it wraps the thread/topic right here, right now.

Kudos

/thread

 

[purplerat]

All this aside, not to say pirating provides benefits, but from an economic standpoint piracy dooms games that are sub-par. This is because the amount of copies that would be sold before demand fell is reduced because piracy buys or obtains only one of those copies which then spreads to the pirate community where demand falls sooner than it would if piracy were out of the picture.

Actually I would argue the exact opposite, that in fact piracy elevates poor quality games to a more equal level (sales wise) with better games and thus makes it harder to weed them out of the market.

First of all let me define what I mean buy a "poor quality" game. I'm talking about games that you can tell almost no effort beyond just making it install and run was put into it. Perfect examples of these types of games are many of the movie tie-in types. Just because you don't like a game that doesn't mean that it necessarily "suckz", no matter how highly you think of your own opinion. I will never play Halo 3 but I still understand it's a good game. I also don't have to ever play any Tycoon game to know they are all generally bad.

With that said understand that people who pirate tend to be somewhat computer savvy and fairly avid gamers because with either of these why/how would they be pirating games. Pirating isn't some simple thing where you just snap your fingers and *poof* you have a free game. For their efforts they are not going to download games that are obvious crap. They're going after games that are most likely pretty good, although it may come down to personal preference just how good. They're not downloading the real crap ones that they wouldn't ever play anyways.

What it then comes down to is how many games are bought due to piracy - ie people saying "Wow this game I got for free is so good I think I'll pay $50 for almost no reason"- versus how many games are not bought because of piracy because either they don't like it enough or do like it but to quote the movie Idiocracy "Wow you like money too!".

Since I believe more game sales are lost to piracy than gained my conclusion is this: Really bad games will continue to sale at the same rate as they did before because the only people buying them are casual/non gamers and people without the capability of pirating while good games will lose sales due to piracy. This will draw the sales of bad games and good games closer together. Since game producers are not dumb they will realize that a crappy game cost less to make and is less affected by piracy. Good games cost more and are more affected by piracy. So there's actually incentive to making worse games. It's kind of like The Producers; you can make more from a complete bust than you can from a relatively decent success.

 

[Flakes]

Pirating isn't some simple thing where you just snap your fingers and *poof* you have a free game.

yes it is, ive been in 3 different jobs and in each one you can find someone selling pirate stuff... i myself have access to newzgroups and follow a methodology of buying games i like, this lets me put more money into good developers and actively weed out the bad ones.

i still will stand against my fellow gamer though, i will not be buying or pirating Spore or anything else that uses securom.

 

[purplerat]

yes it is, ive been in 3 different jobs and in each one you can find someone selling pirate stuff

umm, maybe you don't understand the definition of FREE? Even if it's only like $5-$10 I doubt you would be buying a pirated copy of "Ratatouille: The Game", nor do I think the person selling these games would even bother to download that title.

 

[Flakes]

depends how well you get to know the person

 

[purplerat]

depends how well you get to know the person

I still doubt he's selling Ratatouille.

 

[Dawgz83944]

I believe Piracy is wrong and I had not participated in it until 4 or 5 years ago. I have finally given up on paying for bad software/games without being given the chance to return them if they suck/don't work.

If a developer makes a great game then they deserve $45-60 the game costs. If the gameplay is bad, stupid storyline, or a generally bad game (crashing, incompatabilities) the deserve to loose their shirts on the game not screw the consumer. Currently I use torrents or other to download games that I think I may like for PC/XBOX360/XBOX and play them. If the game is GOOD I go and spend my hard earned $$$ everytime. If the game sucks I microwave the .33c cd or $1 DVD-DL and count my $59 I didn't give to a lazy or stupid developer.

Piracy on a whole would probably be cut to a minimum if developers would do 2 things: 1) Allow customers to call them directly to return games and actually listen to issues with the games and/or allow retailers to return them. 2) Charge $35-$45 for games, what the heck!!! $60 for a bad game is enough to majorly p--s you off. There is my .02

BTW: I do not consider what I'm doing Piracy. If I don't buy the games or continue to play them without purchasing then yes!!!

 

[llama_man]

Demos and/or time limited trials are available for many games.

This is true, and when they're easily obtainable I'll play them. However, not all games have demos or time trials.

I don't think that this effects the argument - if there's no trial then skip over the game.

Put it this way; if I go to a car showroom and the salesman won't let me take a test drive, do I;

a) Think "the car is a lemon: avoid"
b) Break in that night and take it for a joyride

Pirating games as a trial is the same as (b). Even if you intend to pay if you like it, you are violating the saleperson's right to determine how their product is sold. And that, to my mind, is morally wrong.

If a publisher doesn't offer a trial, does that not make you suspicious as to the quality of the game?

 

[Oh Snap]

I don't think that this effects the argument - if there's no trial then skip over the game.

Which leads me right back to what I was talking about.

Say a game is released, we'll call it Schmallout 3, and there are no demos available for download.
1. The legit gamer: bases their decisions on whatever they're given. "Hey, that gameplay video for Schmallout 3 looks neato," says the legit gamer, "I'm going down to my local game store to purchase this game post haste!"
Developers get paid.

2. The skeptical gamer: doesn't trust anything the developers say. Oh, there was a time when they would pre-order the special collector's edition box set with matching t-shirt and free in-game horse goggles, but not anymore. They've been burned one too many times, and as such, they don't trust a damn thing anyone says. Since there isn't a demo available, though, and the skeptical gamer doesn't pirate games, he simply doesn't buy it.
Developer doesn't get paid.

3. The morally ambiguous pirate: has a lot in common with the skeptical gamer. There was a time when he blindly supported the industry and would throw money at companies based on title alone. But not anymore. He doesn't trust the developers of Schmallout 3, but owned 1 and 2 (made by another developer that sold the IP) and thought they were awesome. Since there isn't a demo available, he just pirates Schmallout 3. It turns out it's actually pretty awesome, so he buys it (just cause he's a nice guy ).
Developer gets paid.

The morally ambiguous pirate doesn't like Schmallout 3. At least he gave it a chance.
Developer doesn't get paid.

If you argue that you want the industry to be supported, your only objection to the morally ambiguous pirate is that he's looking over the potential purchase against the developer's will. Much like an older man demanding that he open a packaged product in the store first so he can take a look at it. Maybe it's not totally necessary, and he's just a paranoid old crazy, but it's not like his intentions are bad and if they did a good job of delivering a solid product, he'll buy it.

Then again, if you find it morally wrong to purchase something on your own terms rather than allow the developer to call the shot, that's a totally acceptable argument to make. I just completely disagree

 

[onebrokendownhorse]

To reasons that I would pirate a game, one no demo, and second to get a better feel for the game. If I like the game I buy. If I do not I delete the pirated game. I believe that pirating is wrong and I am not impressed by those who will not buy the game or pirate the game before it is released.

Spending $60.00 Canadian for a game that turns out to be not my style of game or is bugging is extremely annoying. (Once owed there is nothing you can do.)

PS Pirating is something that I extremely rarely do.

 

[purplerat]

Oh Snap, you seem to have forgotten about another group. Those who will pirate the game with no intent of ever purchasing it no matter how much they may like it. Or do you think that these people do not exist?

 

[Oh Snap]

Oh Snap, you seem to have forgotten about another group. Those who will pirate the game with no intent of ever purchasing it no matter how much they may like it. Or do you think that these people do not exist?

No, because they're simply not relevant. We were talking about someone who, like myself and many others on these forums, pirates games and pays for the ones that don't suck. We all know some people pirate games and have no intent on buying the game, and some people pirate games INSTEAD of buying the game, but that wasn't what we were even talking about.

The discussion obviously went into whether or not it's alright to pirate a game in order to "preview" it. The group you mentioned wouldn't be doing that, so they wouldn't even need to be mentioned, right? Does that make sense?

 

[purplerat]

I think it's necessary to mention that group because you're diluted if you do not think it dwarfs the group you claim to be in. I would say it's probably very generous to your group to say the ratio is 10:1 (although this number is completely arbitrary). Not only that but I'm pretty confident that most of the people who claim to be in your group actually fall into the other group at least some (though probably most) of the time. Take the people in this thread who claim to pirate but ALWAYS support the games they feel deserve it. You guys remind me of the majority of gamblers who claim to be winners. They over emphasize their winnings while all but ignoring their loses. The truth is most gamblers lose, it's how the system works, but most will always tell you that they win more than they lose.
Even by your groupings what you claim isn't even close to realistic. First of all you've taken the vast majority of honest people and placed them into groups 1. or 2.; those who either buy it or don't. So I'm supposed to believe the people you call "morally ambiguous" are at the same time honest enough to support every game they like or not lie about what they actually do on an online forum? That doesn't even make sense.
The sole reasoning you give behind why they would pay for a game they like (supporting the industry) is also conflicted by your pirating in the first place. A lot of what I hear from your group (or those who claim to be in it) is that game companies are generally corrupt, greedy, lazy and mostly push over hyped, over priced and very poor quality games with the intent of swindling you out of your hard earned money. Basically you demonize them to justify doing something you would otherwise find objectable. But at the same time you want me to believe that you are supportive, or even selectively supportive of the same industry you so often like/need to demonize.
What about a game that's decent but not great. Say had you paid for it you might be inclined to continue playing, but since you got to try it out first you decide to save your money. Do you send the developer a check for $15 for a good effort? No you don't. For your system to work every game must either be great or extremely awful.
That's the difference between how I buy games and how you do. The system I go by (the legit one) has a certain risk/reward to. Some games will be crap and some will be great. Most will fall somewhere in between. The bad games however have a floor to how worthless they can be (ie all money spent was wasted) where as good games can theoretically have an infinite upside (worth many times more than they cost). So with some smart shopping I can both get good value for my games and support the industry in a way that is mutually beneficial. No, this system is not perfect, but it works. The major problem with your system on any large scale is that it only works if it's perfect; meaning everybody fairly evaluates games and always pays to support them. Since that will never happen I choose my system.

 

[Oh Snap]

I think it's necessary to mention that group because you're diluted if you do not think it dwarfs the group you claim to be in. I would say it's probably very generous to your group to say the ratio is 10:1 (although this number is completely arbitrary). Not only that but I'm pretty confident that most of the people who claim to be in your group actually fall into the other group at least some (though probably most) of the time. Take the people in this thread who claim to pirate but ALWAYS support the games they feel deserve it. You guys remind me of the majority of gamblers who claim to be winners. They over emphasize their winnings while all but ignoring their loses. The truth is most gamblers lose, it's how the system works, but most will always tell you that they win more than they lose.

I just read the first sentence of your post and felt a horrible sinking feeling deep inside my soul again. We were discussing whether or not it's right for someone to pirate for the sake of making a more informed purchase. Whether or not that's 1% of pirates or 100%, that's irrelevant as we weren't even talking about piracy as a whole, and you chose to come in and give your 2 cents on something that was completely unrelated as if you brought up some sort of an irrefutable argument. Seriously, man, read before you reply. I'm begging you at this point.

Even by your groupings what you claim isn't even close to realistic. First of all you've taken the vast majority of honest people and placed them into groups 1. or 2.; those who either buy it or don't. So I'm supposed to believe the people you call "morally ambiguous" are at the same time honest enough to support every game they like or not lie about what they actually do on an online forum? That doesn't even make sense.

If I start talking about taxis and how some of them are yellow, would you butt into the conversation and say "BUT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CARS ARE YELLOW, DID YOU FORGET ABOUT THAT?" Holy ****. This is getting ridiculous purplerat.

The sole reasoning you give behind why they would pay for a game they like (supporting the industry) is also conflicted by your pirating in the first place. A lot of what I hear from your group (or those who claim to be in it) is that game companies are generally corrupt, greedy, lazy and mostly push over hyped, over priced and very poor quality games with the intent of swindling you out of your hard earned money. Basically you demonize them to justify doing something you would otherwise find objectable. But at the same time you want me to believe that you are supportive, or even selectively supportive of the same industry you so often like/need to demonize.

You do realize that if you support one company, technically you'd be supporting an industry without necessarily supporting another company. I might buy a blizzard game, and I'm support the PC gaming industry (in creating additional incentive to create quality games for the PC platform), and let EA go out of business. In fact, I think very highly of Blizzard, while I think Flagship Studios is full of some of the most inept developers I've ever seen. I support one, not the other. Get it? Because of all the douchebag companies out there, it's hard to tell who's out to make good games and who's out for a quick buck.

Here's an idea, developers. Be like Blizzard. I've never had the urge nor need to pirate a game from Blizzard, always bought them on release, because they're always amazing and I know I'm getting my money's worth.

What about a game that's decent but not great. Say had you paid for it you might be inclined to continue playing, but since you got to try it out first you decide to save your money. Do you send the developer a check for $15 for a good effort? No you don't. For your system to work every game must either be great or extremely awful.

Which is the system of any consumer. They either buy it or they don't. That's how business works. What's so hard to understand? Why don't you just imagine that my computer is like one of those consoles they have setup at Gamestop with a full game loaded up on it. You can play it without paying for it, and you might think it was even entertaining enough for that 20 minutes or so you played it, but you really aren't interested in buying it. Does that work for you?

That's the difference between how I buy games and how you do. The system I go by (the legit one) has a certain risk/reward to. Some games will be crap and some will be great. Most will fall somewhere in between. The bad games however have a floor to how worthless they can be (ie all money spent was wasted) where as good games can theoretically have an infinite upside (worth many times more than they cost). So with some smart shopping I can both get good value for my games and support the industry in a way that is mutually beneficial. No, this system is not perfect, but it works. The major problem with your system on any large scale is that it only works if it's perfect; meaning everybody fairly evaluates games and always pays to support them. Since that will never happen I choose my system.

It's entirely subjective I know what I would spend money on, and I know what I wouldn't. No consumer is going to be completely fair, regardless of piracy. Someone might see lame game box art and think "NO THANKS!" even if there's a fully playable demo online that they might totally enjoy. Your system relies on reviews, screenshots, gameplay videos, and box art. Mine relies on my own personal experience of the game. Just a thought, but what if your system just isn't fair for the consumer?

 

[purplerat]

What it comes down to Oh Snap is that I generally do not believe people who claim to use your system of evaluating games. Here's why I think it's important to keep in mind how many people who pirate either never pay for a game or only sometimes will actually buy a game they like:
(keep in mind these numbers are purely arbitrary to illustrate my point)

Out of 100 people who illegally download a game only one is always going to buy it if they like it (maybe that's you). However probably 40-60 will tell you they are going to. Maybe they will only play it for a week and then delete, others may play it much longer, some will probably redistribute some may only play it for 5min. Anyways the reason I keep on bringing it up is that say in a thread like this where 5 people claim to pirate games in the same manner you do. If 1 of you were completely honest it would be in my opinion above average. I'm not meaning this to personally call you a liar, maybe you are the rare honest one. But when you talk about "The morally ambiguous pirate" but simultaniously claiming them to be honest you have to also mention all the dishonest ones.

 

[Oh Snap]

You're arguing against a hypothetical with generalizations. Not sure how else to get that point across.

I get that you object to piracy as a whole, that's fine. But I was talking about whether or not, in a particular circumstance, it would actually be harmful to give the advice RobWright had given instead of, say, telling the pirate to buy the games instead. Instead of actually responding to that particular situation, you keep coming out with responses where you just say essentially that you doubt most pirates do that. That's great, I'm sure that's probably a valid statement, but that's really avoiding the actual discussion. The frequency was not a part of the discussion, only whether or not, in that specific case, if the pirate stopped playing games altogether and got "a new hobby", it would harm the industry. That's it. If you can't understand what it is I've just said, and you have to come in with some more irrelevant facts that everyone's already aware of, then I just don't know what else to tell you.

Out of 100 people who illegally download a game only one is always going to buy it if they like it (maybe that's you). However probably 40-60 will tell you they are going to

Also, can we please stop making up statistics? Have enough respect for the people reading your posts to either avoid using statistics, or provide some sort of source to try and back-up whatever point it is you're trying to make.

 

[purplerat]

Also, can we please stop making up statistics? Have enough respect for the people reading your posts to either avoid using statistics, or provide some sort of source to try and back-up whatever point it is you're trying to make.

Nice selective quoting. Or did you not just see:

(keep in mind these numbers are purely arbitrary to illustrate my point)

or

(although this number is completely arbitrary).

And while I hate getting to the point of the thread where it turns into I said/you said, but I did ask:

I'm not really sure what question you want me to answer. You've posed quite a few in this thread and I've tried to give my input.

And it took you several more post to specify what you were refering to. I really don't have any more time to discuss this at the moment, so later.

 

[Oh Snap]

No, I read your post, which is why I was left wondering why you even posted that. Whether or not you apologize for coming up with "arbitrary" numbers (which are then used at points which would be the foundation of a real argument, if you had one), I don't see a point in using them in the first place. It brings nothing to the conversation. It's just speculation. No, it's not even speculation, you may as well just spin a wheel with random numbers all over and put your finger down somewhere and say "THERE! 12 pirates! If only 1 of them bought the game after pirating it, I think that's still a larger ratio than the real world!" My question is what makes you think that? Surely you have some real numbers to back that up? Or do you just feel it deep down?

And while I hate getting to the point of the thread where it turns into I said/you said, but I did ask: ....And it took you several more post to specify what you were refering to. I really don't have any more time to discuss this at the moment, so later.

Go back a few posts and I already said you weren't addressing my question, and then said:

Would it not be just as destructive for the industry, if not more so, for every person who pirates games to simply stop playing games entirely? I mention my own situation as an example of someone who may not be supporting the industry as well as someone who buys every game they see, but to some extent, even as a pirate, still supports companies that make solid games. RobWright was saying that if you're going to pirate games, just don't play them at all. I pirate games, and buy the ones I like. If I stopped playing games entirely, well, then I'd no longer be buying any games. Is this a good recommendation to make for pirates, when your main argument against piracy is that it hurts the industry?

Pretty clear? If even 1 pirate is supporting the industry by buying even a couple games a year that he pirates, then if every pirate stopped playing games entirely, the industry would have the same number of people not purchase their game, PLUS that 1 pirate also wouldn't buy a couple games a year from pirating. There was some discussion relating to this, you continued to ignore this question, and we all moved on.

Then, llama made a post about why he thought that sort of piracy didn't fly in his eyes because it was like stealing a car from the dealership for a joyride in the middle of the night. So I directly replied to him giving a specific example, and you replied to that specific example going back to why you think most pirates don't do that for some reason. If you have something to add to the general discussion, by all means do so. If you think more pirates steal games than they do try then buy, that's fine too, but don't quote one of my posts and act like you're somehow refuting it when in actuality you're coming into it with no sense of what we're actually talking about.

Here, let me summarize it for you:
Oh Snap: "If there isn't a demo I pirate games"

llama_man: (quoting Oh Snap) "If there isn't a demo, just skip over the game"

Oh Snap: (quote llama_man) "But isn't that bad advice (specific example comparing and contrasting 3 different people, 1 who pirates games without demos to test them out, 1 who relies only on demos to buy games and won't buy games without a demo, and 1 who buys every game, in order to support the idea that someone who pirates games to preview them when there isn't a demo is still more supportive of the industry than someone who takes llama_man's advice)"

purplerat: (quote Oh Snap) "BUT YOU MISSED SOME PEOPLE IN YOUR EXAMPLE, ALSO I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE PIRATE GAMES JUST CAUSE THEY LIKE FREE STUFF"

Do you see why this is so frustrating?

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

I guess I object to it.

See I do not mind paying for a game that took a couple of years to create. Stealing is stealing.