Will torrent websites ruin PC gaming?

[seanpull]

I feel discouraged when I go to a torrent website, and I see 15,000 seeders, and 12,000 leechers on Borderlands 2. And that's just one site, at one time. Now my point is that game developers may soon find it unprofitable to make PC games, or at least, less profitable than making Xbox games because of how many copies are stolen. Let's assume 300,000 copies of Borderlands 2 were torrented. That's gotta be at least 10% of their sales? Maybe less. But still a significant amount. And, although it's possible to torrent Xbox games, it's much more difficult. I just want to hear what you guys think.

 

[sscultima]

Clearly some companies are doing quite well making and selling PC games, so you have to think the companies that blame piracy for their failure are probably just poorly managed and were making crappy games in the first place. Success isn't guaranteed in any industry. Games like Bastion and Torchlight have shown that when you don't have a bloated marketing campaign or huge corporate infrastructure that your game has to support that you don't have to charge 60 bucks and include an intrusive DRM system to make your game profitable.

i was going to mention this but figured id leave it to someone else to mention, some companies can take example from torchlight and bastion.

 

[casualcolors]

Clearly some companies are doing quite well making and selling PC games, so you have to think the companies that blame piracy for their failure are probably just poorly managed and were making crappy games in the first place. Success isn't guaranteed in any industry. Games like Bastion and Torchlight have shown that when you don't have a bloated marketing campaign or huge corporate infrastructure that your game has to support that you don't have to charge 60 bucks and include an intrusive DRM system to make your game profitable.

At the same time, Bastion and Torchlight are widely pirated and if you want to think a bit abstractly, perhaps you can look to some measurable amount of lost income as an explanation for no Bastion 2 in sight and the 3 year development time and 1 year delay on Torchlight 2 which utilizes many of the same assets as the first.

Now you won't find a bigger fan of TL2 or Bastion on this forum than myself, and I don't think it's really fair to invoke the success of either game as somehow being proof of concept for a theory revolving around quality undermining piracy. Witcher 2 having been pirated more times than it was purchased by account of CD Projekt RED (who do not adopt a hard line against piracy and actually ascribe to the theory that quality will prevail over pirates commercially) is proof of the complete opposite. Witcher 2's perceived commercial success is underlined and more importantly marred to any investor in the industry when the company admits that its philosophy to combating piracy by trusting in the good nature of gamers was literally ineffective.

Unveiled reality is that for most people, the strongest defense against theft is the high risk of confrontation, which is considerably less likely when it comes to digital piracy. That's why it's easier for people to pull the trigger on a torrent than on pocketing a Snickers bar.

 

[bystander]

If there wasn't some profits being made, there wouldn't be an industry, but due to the massive piracy problem, what we get is much more limited. Because of the Piracy problem, 80%-85% of the games sold are sold for a loss. There are hits, and the hits are all you guys seem to remember, but when the majority of games are losses, that forces game companies to be very choosy on what they make for us. Have you noticed that PC gaming has made a huge shift from single player games to online games? This is because piracy.

You used to see a lot of innovation, we see a lot less because of piracy. They can't afford to take a risk, so they stick to what they know will make a profit and even then, most the time they lose, but I assume the successes make up for the losses.

 

[casualcolors]

If there wasn't some profits being made, there wouldn't be an industry, but due to the massive piracy problem, what we get is much more limited. Because of the Piracy problem, 80%-85% of the games sold are sold for a loss. There are hits, and the hits are all you guys seem to remember, but when the majority of games are losses, that forces game companies to be very choosy on what they make for us. Have you noticed that PC gaming has made a huge shift from single player games to online games? This is because piracy.

You used to see a lot of innovation, we see a lot less because of piracy. They can't afford to take a risk, so they stick to what they know will make a profit and even then, most the time they lose, but I assume the successes make up for the losses.

Well said.

 

[benski]

I think some of you are seeing the past through rose colored glasses. I've been buying PC games for 20 years and remember no such golden age of innovation before piracy. IMO the quality, value and selection you get in PC games through steam and the like these days is better than it has ever been.

 

[AntiZig]

I take offense with the whole compare past to present, because comparing 20 years ago when video gaming industry was in its infancy to the massive behemoth it is now isn't a fair comparison. But, that wasn't the topic of this thread.

 

[jcb94]

I have both consoles and PCs and have zero issue torrenting a game I bought for my console. Skyrim is a prime example. I love the console version but the modding capability is too good for me to pass up so yes I plan on downloading it soon. Bethesda has my money for it, its DLC and in other games like Fallout 3 but I'm sure it'll show up in some statistic somewhere and used to say how they're losing money somehow.

I agree completely. If you've already paid for the game, the i don't think there's anythin wrong in DLing to PC. Companies don't complain about other ways that they've potentially lost money. e.g. if you have a family with 3 kids and a parent all sharing 1 copy that they paid for, it could be argued that the publisher has lost 3 sales because 1 copy is being shared amongst several people; now surely paying for 1 game and "sharing" it with other platforms is no worse.
I would also add that there is nothing stopping you from buying a game (e.g. for PS3) and taking that game to play on multiple Ps3's (e.g. if you live with one parent in the week but then live with the other at weekends and take the game to play on another PS3). Publishers have no problem (at least i haven't heard of any) in you sharing 1 game on multiple consoles as long as it's the same platform. Surely, sharing 1 game on multiple consoles that are different platforms should be no different.

I also have no problem with people torrenting just to try out the game for half an hour so that they know it's worth the purchase and runs smoothly on their PC. I don't approve of people torrenting the game without paying for it all as this will affect the publishers and developers sales and revenue (even if it's not as much as they say).

 

[davidzanemason]

Every time there has been an advance in communcation and recording (audio tape, video tape, dvd, blue ray, etc.), there has been an increase in 'pirates'. Fears that audio tape would end the recording industry sales did not happen. Video tape did not end movie sales. Computers will not end PC gaming sales. Torrent 'pirates' will not end PC gaming.

The fact is: the cat is out of the bag. For many years, people have been easily able to digitize information (songs, pictures, movies, text), and easily transfer these items to each other via the internet, cell phones, & media like recordable cd's / dvd's / blue-ray). This technology is not going to be stuffed back into a bottle, but is going to grow. Debating whether this technology is right or wrong is certainly academic. Railing against the people that take advantage of easily accessible technologies is short-sighted. The question is how purveyors and customers deal with these new economies in an age where people that really want to can easily obtain these things for free.

Are the guys that make good games now poor? The ones I know certainly are NOT. Are the musical artists that make good music now poverty-stricken? I doubt that too. Do they not make as much money as they used too? I do not know - maybe - maybe not.

Now is NOT the time to condemn software pirates. Those ranks are simply going to grow due to tecnological availablilty. Now IS the time for companies to more boldly embrace this tecnology through increased and innovative on-line distribution - like STEAM. It is the time for companies to incorporate value-added packages (like DLC content, pre-order content, and collectable content) to their games to encourage sales over torrenting. I'm sure that there are additional solutions - and these are things are a good step that innovative companies ARE doing. Just some opinions.

 

[nocturnal7x]

What was the last AAA game made for PC? crysis, maybe Arma 2 if you count that. Piracy pretty much destroyed PC gaming, not because it necessarily affected sales but publishers bought into the BS that it did. This is only one of the many reasons why we shouldn't support big publishers, not only aren't they making games for our platform but they are not even open to the idea.

 

[bystander]

What was the last AAA game made for PC? crysis, maybe Arma 2 if you count that. Piracy pretty much destroyed PC gaming, not because it necessarily affected sales but publishers bought into the BS that it did. This is only one of the many reasons why we shouldn't support big publishers, not only aren't they making games for our platform but they are not even open to the idea.

I find it funny how all those defending piracy and possibly others like yourself if you don't, seem to think piracy isn't a problem. I'd like to think those who see the actual sales figures would know better than someone that doesn't.

 

[casualcolors]

I'd like to think those who see the actual sales figures would know better than someone that doesn't.

Not on MY internet...!

 

[nocturnal7x]

I find it funny how all those defending piracy and possibly others like yourself if you don't, seem to think piracy isn't a problem. I'd like to think those who see the actual sales figures would know better than someone that doesn't.

Maybe read what I wrote again... The premise of my post was that piracy has already destroyed PC gaming. I was stating its not as big of an issue as some developers and publishers make it sound, but piracy did kill PC gaming, whether it affected sales or not.

 

[nocturnal7x]

*double post*

 

[bystander]

Maybe read what I wrote again... The premise of my post was that piracy has already destroyed PC gaming. I was stating its not as big of an issue as some developers and publishers make it sound, but piracy did kill PC gaming, whether it affected sales or not.

I understood that point, that is why I highlighted the part I did. I simply am making the point that some how these people who defend piracy, and yourself, seem to believe that the publishers are lying.

I've also known a few developers, and these guys do not make good money doing what they do. If games made more money, they may actually make what they deserve. As it is, no one in their right mind would ever be a game developer unless they loved making games. They work over a 100 hours a week for a modest salary (they don't get paid by the hour, so all that overtime does not pay). If games made more money, they wouldn't have to be slaves.

 

[casualcolors]

I understood that point, that is why I highlighted the part I did. I simply am making the point that some how these people who defend piracy, and yourself, seem to believe that the publishers are lying.

I've also known a few developers, and these guys do not make good money doing what they do. If games made more money, they may actually make what they deserve. As it is, no one in their right mind would ever be a game developer unless they loved making games. They work over a 100 hours a week for a modest salary (they don't get paid by the hour, so all that overtime does not pay). If games made more money, they wouldn't have to be slaves.

At the end of the day, you both meet the same conclusion more or less, regardless of what evidence you choose to cite as proof thereof. And really it's not a matter of what evidence, but during what time period as the primary point of differentiation between you two.

 

[nocturnal7x]

I find it hard to believe publishers yes. Ubisoft says 93-95% of PC games are pirated and not bought. Cevat Yerli of crytek has said a game like crysis would have sold 4 to 5 times more on consoles.

93-95% of PC games are not pirated, thats a number pulled out of an asshole. Crysis would not have sold 10+ million copies on consoles.

No I don't believe the devs or the publishers (EA and Ubi complaining more than anyone else ive seen). Console games are easier to make, console games are cheaper to make, console gamers are less demanding. Console is seen as a safer bet by investors and thus publishers and devs toe the overlords line. This has led to the stagnation we see in gaming today.

 

[nocturnal7x]

At the end of the day, you both meet the same conclusion more or less, regardless of what evidence you choose to cite as proof thereof. And really it's not a matter of what evidence, but during what time period as the primary point of differentiation between you two.

Hey now you 😛

 

[bystander]

I find it hard to believe publishers yes. Ubisoft says 93-95% of PC games are pirated and not bought. Cevat Yerli of crytek has said a game like crysis would have sold 4 to 5 times more on consoles.

93-95% of PC games are not pirated, thats a number pulled out of an asshole. Crysis would not have sold 10+ million copies on consoles.

No I don't believe the devs or the publishers (EA and Ubi complaining more than anyone else ive seen). Console games are easier to make, console games are cheaper to make, console gamers are less demanding. Console is seen as a safer bet by investors and thus publishers and devs toe the overlords line. This has led to the stagnation we see in gaming today.

Well, I think you may be connecting the dots and thinking they said something different than they did. Althouth I've never seen 93-95%. I have seen 83-85% said by some publishers. That said, they didn't say that they would have sold all those pirated copies. They said how many copies are pirated copies. The percent of those they would otherwise sold can only be guessed at.

 

[casualcolors]

I find it hard to believe publishers yes. Ubisoft says 93-95% of PC games are pirated and not bought. Cevat Yerli of crytek has said a game like crysis would have sold 4 to 5 times more on consoles.

93-95% of PC games are not pirated, thats a number pulled out of an asshole. Crysis would not have sold 10+ million copies on consoles.

No I don't believe the devs or the publishers (EA and Ubi complaining more than anyone else ive seen). Console games are easier to make, console games are cheaper to make, console gamers are less demanding. Console is seen as a safer bet by investors and thus publishers and devs toe the overlords line. This has led to the stagnation we see in gaming today.

As I've mentioned in the thread, it's not just EA or Ubisoft. It's CDProjekt RED as well. A lot of publishers and development teams cite piracy for tangible lost sales (less than 100% but certainly a fair amount can be counted as such). It's easy to demonize the big bad publishers (although EA's consumption of Westwood studios is getting further and further in the past and personally I've let it go), but it's not hard for a reasonably intelligent person to read between the dramatic overtures about the evil pirates, and see that there is also a lot of truth there behind the theater.

 

[majestic1805]

I do think publishers overstate things to draw attention no different than a politician or anyone else trying to gain a favorable public opinion on something.

The 93-95 figure is accurate. http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/22/ubisoft-pc-has-piracy-rate-of-93-95-f2p-the-future?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ign%2Farticles+%28IGN+All+Articles%29

There is certainly a lot of nuance to the issue. For example, one game, can't remember which, put in DRM such that you only ever get a single play through then the game locks you out. These kinds of things are basically taunting the hacker community. This is only one example, sure, but I'm not going to do an exhaustive research on the topic. Other things are done like locking down content to only new copies of the game. While this might make sense in a piracy world, it screws over resell venues like GameStop that sell used games which is a completely legitimate practice.

Ubisoft has actually done a 180 on this. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-scrapping-always-on-drm-for-pc-games/

If they firmly believe piracy is fleecing them so badly, why 'give up' essentially?

The problem with piracy is entirely perceptual. If data was public that could correlate sales and piracy downloads I'm confident the data would show the actual thieves to be in the minority, the degree of which is debatable. This has actually been looked into a bit. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

In either case, there is no concrete data saying it is an actual problem. But, because it's such a huge gray area, it's easy to paint it as a boogeyman.

 

[casualcolors]

For example, one game, can't remember which, put in DRM such that you only ever get a single play through then the game locks you out. These kinds of things are basically taunting the hacker community.

That wasn't a form of DRM. That was a developer troll in a now urban-legendary game that I doubt anyone on this forum has even played. Perhaps you're injecting a bit too much "nuance" into the debate.

When you're developing and releasing a product you always account for various forms of loss when determining a projection for profit, and theft is one of those forms of loss. The issue is that digital theft is much easier and more conscionable to an average person than stealing an actual Sega cartridge was 17 years ago.

Just look at this thread on a forum that strictly prohibits piracy. I'm not saying that it is full of pirates, but the amount of people willing to act as apologists for what simply boils down to theft is so pathetic that it begins to feel humorous and exasperating.

 

[bystander]

That wasn't a form of DRM. That was a developer troll in a now urban-legendary game that I doubt anyone on this forum has even played. Perhaps you're injecting a bit too much "nuance" into the debate.

When you're developing and releasing a product you always account for various forms of loss when determining a projection for profit, and theft is one of those forms of loss. The issue is that digital theft is much easier and more conscionable to an average person than stealing an actual Sega cartridge was 17 years ago.

Just look at this thread on a forum that strictly prohibits piracy. I'm not saying that it is full of pirates, but the amount of people willing to act as apologists for what simply boils down to theft is so pathetic that it begins to feel humorous and exasperating.

I find that pretty interesting as well.

 

[majestic1805]

That wasn't a form of DRM. That was a developer troll in a now urban-legendary game that I doubt anyone on this forum has even played. Perhaps you're injecting a bit too much "nuance" into the debate.

No, I'm not. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110627/17311614875/capcoms-resident-evil-drm-is-evil-you-get-to-play-game-once-thats-it.shtml

 

[casualcolors]

No, I'm not. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110627/17311614875/capcoms-resident-evil-drm-is-evil-you-get-to-play-game-once-thats-it.shtml

The game I'm referring to is much older than this. This article isn't about PC gaming and in the end didn't this not go live? If you want to have a discussion about how Capcom conceives to scam console gamers, you should make a thread about it (it would be a long ass thread at that). But this thread is about PC Piracy. Stick to the issue AND the platform, ffs.

Not to spend too much time on this side topic btw, but you didn't research this particular topic very far either. It limited the save file but you could play the game again with all of your unlocks, and the game could in fact be resold. You should probably just avoid this line of argument all together.

The only semi-relevant (in that it at least pertained to PC) game and the one that I was referencing was an urban legend game called Killswitch.

 

[majestic1805]

It did go live.

The point is that publishers take the fight too far, "ffs," over something as ambiguous and unverifiable as the claim that what is commonly referred to as piracy represents actual lost sales. I've shown they are willing to make outrageous claims (95% of the market is pirated copies, ya right), react too far (arbitrary restrictions on games that serve no tangible purpose as far as game content is concerned), and those claims can in fact be directly false ("pirates" in fact drive the market in some cases). Thus, as I would have hoped you would be able to conclude, piracy in general isn't a real issue.

It's blown out of proportion and is merely a scapegoat for an industry to try to milk more money out of their customers. All industries do this. Piracy is simply the tactic used for gaming and PC gaming since you want to be sooo specific. There are legitimate reasons to download things. Replacing damaged game discs is one. What I do, which is arguably shady, doesn't leave the publisher up the creek as I do pay for the games I play.