Time for some contra opinion in this debate. I've seen a lot people stating that they are such loyal customers and that they buy all their games and that they feel screwed by DRM. My take on this: if we were all loyal paying customers this whole discussion would not be happening in the first place. The point a lot of you are making is that the problem is blown out of proportions by the industry. What would they have to gain by that?
The whole issue is one of price levels driven by supply and demand. With a digital product, once the product has been developed, the supply is basically endless. There cannot be a shortage as producing another copy is hideously cheap. This is the main reason why the industry wants to shift to a pay per use model, instead of ownership (to cover their development costs and make a nice profit). The position the industry takes is that the intellectual property cannot be owned by the customers, they can only consume it. Joe average Consumer still thinks that he has bought the full package (even if the licensing agreement states otherwise) and feels morally justified to do as he pleases with it. Of course I'm not talking to you here, as you all know what licensing agreements are and as loyal customers feel bound by those.
I think it is up to the industry to come up with a business model that feels right to the customer as well as to the industry and where a balance can be restored between supply and demand. Having said that, I think it is up to the consumer to realize that if you're not paying for something like a game or music (whatever business model is used by the provider) that you are stealing. Reproducing something with content value (whatever the author, programmer, movie director, script writer, actor, etc put in as effort) without reimbursing them in some way (and with that I mean pay them what they ask for it, not what you think it is worth) and selling it or giving it away should be recognized as stealing, that is a moral issue that should be clear, just as it is clear to almost all of us that you don't kill/murder someone. I think on both fronts (industry and consumer) we still have ways to go.
I feel ok with having to pay each time I want to see a certain movie (regardless of where I watch it). Obviously I would like to be able to get discounts when I want to see it more often, or even a "watch for life" deal if the price is right. What I would not want to pay for is once I have my "watch for life" license, pay for it again when it is reproduced on the latest and greatest new format (from VHS to DVD, from DVD to BlueRay, and whatever comes next). It all boils down to making sure that the consumer knows what he is buying at the time of purchase.
With the above in mind, hopefully my comments on one of the previous posts makes sense.
triggersix :
This entire discussion makes me sick. People defending how messed up the games industry has gotten just because they lose some tiny percentage of their revenue to some undefinable piracy 'epidemic'.
If piracy was completely stopped tomorrow, if no one could borrow or lend games in any fashion, does anyone actually think sales would increase by more than a small fraction for any company? NO! why not? Because people who pirate are not going to go out and spend money on stuff they don't need unless its worth actually buying.
I do not think the scale of piracy should be the crux of the discussion. If the industry thinks they are missing out on a large part of it, they are entitled to think of ways on how to catch that revenue. I fully agree with any of you here that they should not do that at the costs of the customers that already pay. But again, please realize what you pay for: the gaming experience, not to do with the content as you please. And this is what the industry should provide, the gaming experience. The fact that pirates won't pay any way is a non argument, they do not have the moral right on experiencing the content then. How is normal supply and demand mechanisms going to work when people think they have the "moral right" to experience it for free? It just does not fly and it spoils it all for Joe average Consumer who is ok with paying for it. I see noone applauding those that sneak into movie theaters to see movies for free. Sure it happens, but there is no cult for it like there seems to be for pirating content. Whether something is worth buying can only be determined with normal supply and demand mechanisms in place.
triggersix :
I think its very similar to the mp3 thing. It's completely legal in Canada to download music because every ipod has a tax put on it at the point of sale, but do you see all the HMV's and Virgins going out of business in Canada? HELL NO, because those who buy music and movies, still buy them. Those who do not buy them, wouldn't be buying them if they were denied mp3s, they simply wouldn't listen to music bought from a store.
The fact that companies don't go out of business make it feel (morally) right to you that you can download stuf for free of which the content should be reimbursed some way to those that made the product?
The fact that media and content carriers are taxed to make up for loss of revenues is just part of another business model, which is fine in principle but at the moment those taxes are not helping the supply and demand chain. I would be perfectly OK with any form of taxing mechanism as long as it takes into account that when you do not consume, you should not have to pay for it, and when the revenues of those taxes are distributed to the content creators, that very popular content is rewarded and content that nobody is interested in is not reimbursed. If you do not have that in place, supply and demand mechanisms still don't operate as they should.
triggersix :
I've always considered the 'ownership' of digital content to be a sketchy subject and this discussion is proving that people are just letting this crap wash over them like so much raw sewage and lapping it up like a kitten to cream.
There is nothing sketchy about it, as long as everybody understands what it is they own.
All of the above is obfuscated by those that are/were benefitting from old(er) business models that are now becoming obsolete. That is something that we can entirely blame on the industry. The industry must look for opportunities, not try to save their old business models as if those are holy. However, consumers should be able to understand these drivers because they are basic human responses and we all have them. Doesn't make them right but they are there and we have to deal with them, all of us.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram