Videogames piracy - Why so much hate?

[John V]

Uh, yeah, I'm done. Did you even read any of those articles?

Yes, it was basically a couple game developers that use piracy like shareware. If they're claiming that piracy doesn't result in any lost sales, they're wrong. It does.

[Napoléon]

Yes, it was basically a couple game developers that use piracy like shareware.

No you didn't read them.

“We were expecting to see the GOG.com version pirated right after it was released, as it was a real no-brainer,” added Iwinski. “Practically anyone could have downloaded it from GOG.com and released it on the illegal sites right away, but this did not happen.

This is a company intentionally releasing a game with NO DRM. And they're saying it wasn't even pirated before other versions with DRM. If they were using it like shareware then this wouldn't have happened.

If they're claiming that piracy doesn't result in any lost sales, they're wrong. It does.

Prove it.

[John V]

“We were expecting to see the GOG.com version pirated right after it was released, as it was a real no-brainer,” added Iwinski. “Practically anyone could have downloaded it from GOG.com and released it on the illegal sites right away, but this did not happen.

This is a company intentionally releasing a game with NO DRM. And they're saying it wasn't even pirated before other versions with DRM. If they were using it like shareware then this wouldn't have happened.

They say they expected it to happen, so yes, they were using it as shareware, it just didn't work out as they expected.

Prove it.

I already gave you the account of my friend. Don't you believe it? I'm not making it up. Some people who can afford to pay for something will illegally take it for free if they think they can get away with it. I'm surprised that this concept is controversial in the slightest.

[FifthElement]

Some people who can afford to pay for something will illegally take it for free if they think they can get away with it.

Exactly.

There is plenty of people who can actually afford to buy stuff, they just choose to get it for free just because they can.

I know few who earn $100000 per year and they are still doing it ...

People who are doing that are the ones who are defending it.

Sounds too apologetic IMO.

"I'm all for science, but if contradicts what I believe in, I'll call it pseudoscience ..."

They have no proof

Why would companies (who can afford it) invest money in protection systems if online sharing is "harmless" ??? Just for the hell of it ?

[John V]

If those companies linked to really believe that no harm is done, they should put up their games for free download, and give a link for people to pay if they like it. That way people get a copy with the most recent updates, and without the risk of added viruses. And everyone who would have bought it will pay their 50 bucks just the same...right???

[Chas]

It's called intellectual property law. You need to read a fucking book.

Maybe you should read one on better put downs, that's twice you've used that line bro, and it wasn't exactly great the first time.

No, the first time was 'read a book', the second was modified for emphasis.

Reading books helps counter ignorance. Alice needs to read some books.

[Aractus]

Chas, there are some industries that are certainly affected negatively by piracy: gaming and also magic, and there are others as well.

When it comes to TV, movies and music I think it's another story. I can show you my DVD collection, I have a LOT of DVDs. I downloaded "illegally" the new Robocop (1987) transfer from a torrent, and I liked it so much that I bought the BD (currently waiting for it from Amazon). I was really, really impressed by the new transfer of that film.

[Napoléon]

They say they expected it to happen, so yes, they were using it as shareware, it just didn't work out as they expected.

Game of Thrones creators expected to get pirated online, does that mean they created the series as shareware?

Ofcourse not, idiot. If it was shareware they wouldn't have released two versions, one with DRM and one without.

I already gave you the account of my friend. Don't you believe it? I'm not making it up. Some people who can afford to pay for something will illegally take it for free if they think they can get away with it. I'm surprised that this concept is controversial in the slightest.

That doesn't mean piracy equals lost sales. There could be an equal number who end up buying the product after pirating resulting in "gained sales". Just because you've told me about one instance where it didn't happen, doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things, nor does it prove anything.

So again, prove it (pro-tip, you can't, it's conjecture).

There is plenty of people who can actually afford to buy stuff, they just choose to get it for free just because they can.

I know few who earn $100000 per year and they are still doing it ...

People who are doing that are the ones who are defending it.

Does it make a difference though? The multimillion dollar corporations aren't losing anything, and even if they are, it's negligible. At the very least there's not enough evidence to be shown it has affected the successes of games that deserve to be successful.

"I'm all for science, but if contradicts what I believe in, I'll call it pseudoscience ..."

They have no proof

What's this supposed to be parodying? Yourself? You're the one ignoring all evidence contrary to your own opinion. You're the one who won't even give the articles or other points I've made any actual thought. At this point I don't actually care what responses you give unless you address my previous points, constantly going "piracy is stealing and bad mmmmkay" which is pretty much all anyone else here in this discussion has really given is getting kinda boring.

Why would companies (who can afford it) invest money in protection systems if online sharing is "harmless" ??? Just for the hell of it ?

Argument from ignorance much?

If those companies linked to really believe that no harm is done, they should put up their games for free download, and give a link for people to pay if they like it. That way people get a copy with the most recent updates, and without the risk of added viruses. And everyone who would have bought it will pay their 50 bucks just the same...right???

Now you really are being silly.

Obviously this would result in lost sales, because they wouldn't be making sales at all. They'd be relying on donations. Totally different scenario and a frankly, ridiculous comparison.

But it is funny you bring it up.

Ever heard of humble bundle? Yeah, maybe you should look into that.

[John V]

Now you really are being silly.

Obviously this would result in lost sales, because they wouldn't be making sales at all. They'd be relying on donations. Totally different scenario and a frankly, ridiculous comparison.

What's the difference between a sale and a donation in this scenario?

[Napoléon]

What's the difference between a sale and a donation in this scenario?

Definitions.