Opinions - Should we destroy the last bit of the smallpox disease?

[DrenDran]

Depends.

I helped my friends pirate minecraft so we could play together

and then they bought it. Notch wrote about that on his blog, saying that you cannot prevent piracy, but only increase the incentive to purchase a game.

Touching story, but you'll probably get banned for admitting you pirated.

[Ad Bot]

[Fredulus]

Touching story, but you'll probably get banned for admitting you pirated.

actually i've seen a few other people admitting to pirating lately. you only get banned for saying "go to X website and download Y game ololol". but, you know, it all depends on baddie's mood.

[Skip]

Are you a fascist?

According to that political compass, I believe he was.

Touching story, but you'll probably get banned for admitting you pirated.

Like you haven't pirated anything before.
You don't seem like the one to lie.

[*Magick* Mage]

Piracy is horrible. We don't need pirates sailing the high seas and seizing cruise liners in this day an age. :c

[Skip]

Piracy is horrible. We don't need pirates sailing the high seas and seizing cruise liners in this day an age. :c

Remind you of the good ol' days, Mage?

[*Magick* Mage]

Remind you of the good ol' days, Mage?

Aye, matey.

[Menen]

If the game is like, 15 years old and no copy of it exists, then Piracy really wont be that bad.


If you pirate to try a game before you buy it, and you BUY the game, it is ok, but still bad.

[Qwepir]

Yes. It is wrong. I can't think of a single way to justify it other than what Menen said about no copy existing.

[Marcem]

Yes. It is wrong. I can't think of a single way to justify it other than what Menen said about no copy existing.

This, but adding a "demo" of a game to try a game with no demo.

[Iban]

I don't see how anyone can think of pirating as "bad."

There are a few scenarios as to why someone would pirate a game:

• The person has no money and would not purchase the game anyways. There is no lost revenue for the company.
• The person has money to buy, but would not buy a game he did not know was good, either by strong word of mouth (minecraft, team fortress 2), or through playing it personally (any game with a demo, like Crysis 2 or Blockland). If the game did not provide a demo, they're pirating it to see if it is any good. This can increase income by attracting customers that would not typically buy the game.
• The person has money to buy, but would never spend the money. This is the villianized pirater. Someone who would pirate a legitimately good game like Fallout: New Vegas that has no online "perks" that one would get from, say, Spore or Left 4 Dead. However, since this person would not spend the money he has anyways, there is still no lost revenue for the company.
• The person who has money to buy, but would never spend money for a game unless he thought the developers deserved it. This is the mystical, magical pirater that everyone always uses as an excuse for the legitimacy of piracy. I've never met anyone who actually does this practice of pirate first, pay later out of sympathy, but whatever. It can't be excluded.

In all cases, piracy either would not result in a loss of money (only theoretical money). Some instances increase developer income.


As a super-commie, I firmly believe in the idea that, the freer the people, the better the society. The government telling people they can't download software (which is distinct in "theft" as there are no goods actually stolen in the process) does not rub with me.


That being said, I'd really like to hear Badspot's opinion, seeing how he is actually a game developer.

[JAW959]

The bottom line for me is that if a company spends time and money to develop a piece of software that is good getting it for free is theft from the company, being a super-capitalist I always suck the roosters of corporations.

[Qwepir]

The person has no money and would not purchase the game anyways. There is no lost revenue for the company.

I don't want to pay for this game so I'll just take it. Since it's not a physical product, it's not stealing!

[Marcem]

As a super-commie, I firmly believe in the idea that, the freer the people, the better the society. The government telling people they can't download software (which is distinct in "theft" as there are no goods actually stolen in the process) does not rub with me.

So what's the point of developing the game if you can't get the money for servers, licenses, and all that jazz?  Wouldn't most AAA games be losing money?  Sure, you could accept donations, but most games wouldn't even be able to get off the ground.  Look at Half-Life.  Where would valve be if everyone just pirated the game?  I doubt they'd still be here today.  I don't think it would work so well.

[ultimamax]

I think Piracy is wrong. The developers put hard work and effort into a game and then they lose $50 cause you want to pay it, but are being a greedy little bitch. Not to mention, they won't be able to pay for future games should you like the one you pirated.
Also, don't copy that floppy!

[Iban]

The bottom line for me is that if a company spends time and money to develop a piece of software that is good getting it for free is theft from the company, being a super-capitalist I always suck the roosters of corporations.

The only thing stolen from a company by piracy is their peace of mind. It's like when a little brother points a finger and you say "MOM HE'S TOUCHING ME" and he goes "NUH-UH!!"

Even though there's no real contact going on, the mere idea that the finger (or, loss of revenue) is even there is a poignant enough problem to summon in authority (or, a multi-million dollar transcontinental anti-piracy campaign).

I don't want to pay for this game so I'll just take it. Since it's not a physical product, it's not stealing!

Correct.

If you want a morbid brown townogy, lets say I wan't to rape Qwepir to death. I really, really want to bend him over and forget him in the ass until his colon wall tears and he bleeds out on my richard. However, instead of doing this in real life, I just masturbate while imagining him slowly dying from blood loss as I rape him. Even though I don't actually do it, it's still really satisfying, and Qwepir lives another day to stuffpost.

So what's the point of developing the game if you can't get the money for servers, licenses, and all that jazz?  Wouldn't most AAA games be losing money?  Sure, you could accept donations, but most games wouldn't even be able to get off the ground.  Look at Half-Life.  Where would valve be if everyone just pirated the game?  I doubt they'd still be here today.  I don't think it would work so well.

This is a really good question. My theory works firmly for games with online components, but Bethesda Softworks and the Half-Life series would not really mesh correctly with it. Although I don't have an answer for this, I do still stick to my philosophy that people should not be arrested for a theoretical loss of dollar. That's just not right.

We live in a technological age, though. We are all on the Internet. If I play through an HL2 campaign through a pirated version, my achievements are not posted to the Steam Cloud. Nobody knows I've played it. There isn't this share and tell thing going on. Having single-player games be more entwined to an online fabric is the solution to this problem.