Oh boy, super long rebuttal post coming right up.
If piracy did not exist then the majority of people that have played it wouldn't have been using the pirated version.
This is true. However, the number of people playing the game at all would be greatly decreased. Knowledge of the game's existence would also be greatly decreased, as the game wouldn't have headlined various gaming sites with the whole 90% piracy announcement.
It is up to the publisher to market the game, not pirates. Full stop.
Again with the ideals. As I said before, this isn't about what should
be. It isn't about right or wrong. It's about what is
. The fact is that piracy creates exposure, something which obscure games need. Ideally, everybody would know about every game, no matter how small or indie. Ideally, publishers would market all games equally. But that's not reality. The awareness that piracy creates is a reality.
What a lovely rosy picture you paint, a world where piracy leads to more sales and everyone benefits. Do you honestly believe the nonsense you type? I'd rather remain in the land of the non-glue sniffers.
Okay, let's look at the facts.
Fact: Piracy lets more people play more games.
Fact: Piracy let World of Goo get headlined on every major game site.
Fact: At one point, there were more people playing Tribes than copies sold.
Fact: Tribes was a new IP and an innovative game that lacked the marketing and mainstream exposure of its competitors.
Fact: Tribes received two sequels because it had a large and dedicated community.
Fact: Most people are more likely to buy a game that's familiar than a game that's not familiar.
So what can we derive from all these facts? Well, for one, piracy gave World of Goo far more exposure than it would have had otherwise. If more people know about your game, more people are likely to buy it. The sales of heavily marketed games compared to obscure games attest to this fact.
Secondly, piracy was the foundation of Tribes' community since most players had, at one point, pirated the game. I myself only played the game because a friend gave me a pirated copy. I eventually bought the game and its two sequels (though I sincerely regret buying the last one). In any case, this community created a demand for sequels. This demand would not exist were it not for piracy because the community would have been far smaller without it.
Once again, this isn't about morality or idealism. It is about reality and the reality is that piracy can lead to long-term profits by creating exposure and establishing a fanbase willing to buy future games.
I'm sorry but do you think it's more or less likely that someone that grows up pirating games will continue to do so?
It varies. Some people here have confessed to pirating in their younger days and no longer do so because they can afford to buy games. I myself grew up pirating games and I continue to do so to this day. However, I also end up buying many of the games I pirate if I think they're good. Pirates and customers are not mutually exclusive.
Either way, it doesn't really matter what you or I believe. It only matters what we know and we really don't know how many pirates buy games.
I would have, because I had seen an ad for it (you make out like there where none) and then I downloaded the demo, which I enjoyed, so I then purchesed the full game over Steam.
Call me old fashioned, but that now I thought I was sposed to do it.
Since their was (still is) a demo for World Of Goo, I fail to see why anyone should feel they need to pirate it to check it out? Maybe some people cant brake their habits.
Where did you see this ad? How often did you see it? Did you only see it in one place? I browse a lot of gaming sites but I don't recall ever seeing a World of Goo ad. Perhaps I did but I just forgot about it, which doesn't really speak well for the effectiveness of its marketing. In any case, the marketing for World of Goo was minimal at best and could hardly be considered mainstream. The exposure they received from piracy was far, far greater.
In a perfect world, where gamers would actually fairly reward developers for doing a good job, giving a game away for free in order to build a brand/franchise that might possibly work.
Every new IP is a risk. Most publishers are fully aware that sales of new IPs will likely not meet expectations. However, they are also aware that sequels tend to sell much better. That's why they take the risks necessary to start new franchises. Piracy isn't a risk, it's an inevitability. However, if you make a great game, there's a very good chance that piracy will expand your audience and make your fanbase grow.
On a side note, CS is a great example that refutes your logic. CS began as a free mod. Eventually, Valve started offering it as a retail product but even then, you could obtain it for free. However, people actually bought CS in spite of their ability to get it for free. Hell, people still buy WoW, even though you can download it for free. You still have to pay monthly fees but you can download the core game off Blizzard's site.
Great games that don't sell don't get sequels.
In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. Beyond Good & Evil sold like crap and it's getting a sequel. Why? Because it has a large fanbase, much of which likely consists of pirates. Tribes didn't sell well and it got two sequels. World of Goo will probably get a sequel.
Fact is, the vast majority of people who pirate games have no intention of ever paying for a game.
How did you discover this fact? Are you omniscient? Are you monitoring the buying habits of every pirate in existence? Or are you simply making an assumption based on limited anecdotal evidence?
That's something the pro-piracy people always seem to overlook. You're not entitled to a game.
This is something that always confounds me. Anti-piracy people constantly bring up notions of rights or entitlement when they very clearly are irrelevant. Piracy is illegal. This is a fact. Everybody knows that. No pirate claims that he has a legal right to copyright infringement. At least, no pirate in the U.S.