Piracy versus PC Gaming [Mar 09, 2007, 8:23 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Next Generation recaps a GDC talk titled "The Videogame Piracy Problem:
Fifteen Men on a Dead Man’s Chest" by id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead about the
impact of piracy on the game industry. They outline how Mr. Hollenshead says the
estimated $3 billion economic loss caused by piracy in 2004 does not include
piracy that takes place on the Internet. There is also an article about this
talk on
Joystiq that focuses on the statement that piracy is a factor in id's
embrace of consoles, quoting Todd as saying "Piracy has pushed id as being
multiplatform." On a related note,
Can PC
Gaming Survive in a Console World (thanks
Digg) recaps a panel discussion on the topic that brought up a similar
point:
Part of the problem is piracy. Big titles get stolen by cyber thieves, and it hurts revenue. "The market," said Capps, "that would buy a $600 video card knows how Bittorrent works."
Does that mean casual games, which exponentially outsell what PC gaming traditionalists think of as A-list titles, will one day rule? Hilleman made a point: casual is a poor choice of words. The average player on EA's Pogo "casual" game network plays "for 24 hours a week. There's nothing casual about that."
There is some light in the PC gaming world. World of Warcraft, for instance, is a massive hit, and the upcoming Spore looks not only creative and different, but promising. The MMO and other social networking games could become the norm for PC gaming, with big-ticket titles growing rarer with each passing year. Johnson added that MMOs are "successful because you can't pirate WoW. You cannot pirate an MMO. Period." Therefore, he said, "game design on the PC is going to bend toward persistence."
Erm, why are none of the anti-piracy folks addressing my previous post (#31)? If there are no good reasons to pirate games, you should have no problem refuting my every point. But I digress...
Ah, yes, morality. The problem with morality is that it's so subjective. The first thing to ponder about is why stealing is usually described as "bad." Traditionally, stealing has hurt people by taking things away. If I steal someone's car, they no longer have a car and that hurts their mobility, which also hurts their career opportunities and general functionality. If they want to recover, they'll have to buy a new car, which causes them to lose money.
Now, if I copy someone's code, do they still have it? Well, yes. They can still sell copies of their code and profit from it. So what have they lost? A potential sale? "Potential" is the key word here. If I hadn't been able to copy their code, would I have bought it instead? Hardly. I have copied much, much code in my lifetime, including such gems as Rayman Raving Rabbids and Enter the Matrix. If I hadn't been able to pirate them, I simply wouldn't have played them. So no, copying the code in this case had no negative effect whatsoever on the publisher/developer. As such, this case of piracy is not bad in a moral sense because nobody suffered for it (unless you count me, for having wasted time and bandwidth on those games).
Now, if I copied the code for a good game and enjoyed it immensely, would that mean I'd buy it? In my case, yes, but I am not representative of all pirates. I'm sure there are some who would never buy anything they could get for free, regardless of the product's quality. But if that's the case, you have to ask yourself if they would have bought the products in the first place. If they are unwilling to shell out the cash for a product that has proven worthy of their money, aren't they even less likely to buy something that is completely unproven?
You should never let moral indignation get in the way of logic.
Perhaps there is a legal distinction between theft and piracy but most rational people (i.e. those over 15 not still getting an allowance from mommy) do not see much of a moral distinction between the two.
Ah, yes, morality. The problem with morality is that it's so subjective. The first thing to ponder about is why stealing is usually described as "bad." Traditionally, stealing has hurt people by taking things away. If I steal someone's car, they no longer have a car and that hurts their mobility, which also hurts their career opportunities and general functionality. If they want to recover, they'll have to buy a new car, which causes them to lose money.
Now, if I copy someone's code, do they still have it? Well, yes. They can still sell copies of their code and profit from it. So what have they lost? A potential sale? "Potential" is the key word here. If I hadn't been able to copy their code, would I have bought it instead? Hardly. I have copied much, much code in my lifetime, including such gems as Rayman Raving Rabbids and Enter the Matrix. If I hadn't been able to pirate them, I simply wouldn't have played them. So no, copying the code in this case had no negative effect whatsoever on the publisher/developer. As such, this case of piracy is not bad in a moral sense because nobody suffered for it (unless you count me, for having wasted time and bandwidth on those games).
Now, if I copied the code for a good game and enjoyed it immensely, would that mean I'd buy it? In my case, yes, but I am not representative of all pirates. I'm sure there are some who would never buy anything they could get for free, regardless of the product's quality. But if that's the case, you have to ask yourself if they would have bought the products in the first place. If they are unwilling to shell out the cash for a product that has proven worthy of their money, aren't they even less likely to buy something that is completely unproven?
You should never let moral indignation get in the way of logic.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2024 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2024 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 6 October 2024, 21:40.