Support NeoGAF

[Schrödinger's cat]

Yes. Companies are greedy. No question.

Don't like it? Don't engage in their greed. Don't buy their products.

You want to not pay for their products, but still have them?

You're now the greedier and the more immoral of the two. And your greedy actions have justified that company's efforts to eke as much revenue and profit from legitimate paying consumers as possible.
You've made it worse for everyone - except yourself.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Okay awesome, piracy is greed, that's your root issue.

Not my issue, that's the issue.

There is a solution to that, eliminate greed.

That's one solution. I don't think that's ever likely to happen.
So other solutions are likely to get more traction.

I think that's why you jumped to your next step of "Keep the data out of pirates hands."

It's not my step. It's a proven step.
SaaS and GaaS do this.
Streaming will do this more effectively.

From my perspective, it seems odd you would go on about "Noise, distraction," etc and a root cause of greed. Aren't companies started on the ideal of greed? If entertainment companies really were out to do it for just entertainment stakes, why add DRM?

Companies are making a product that they want you to buy.
You want the product but don't want to pay the asking price.
You take their product anyway.

The company is the greedy party in this equation?
No.

In response to this heart-of-the-matter logic, a myriad of deflecting, obfuscating, poor signal-to-noise arguments get made over and over again.
But it always boils down to the same people acting greedy and trying to paint it as victimhood or, even worse, heroism ("Fuck capitalism!")

I pirate and it's because why the hell am I going to be on some moral high horse when a company is going to abuse the system they want me to be complacent in? If a company can save a buck doing what they do, you bet your ass I'm going to save a buck doing what I do. Morals are perspective and society based, so fuck 'em.

That's convenient. For you.
You are contributing to the problem, excusing yourself, and demonising those you're taking from.

I appreciate your honesty - but people who think like you raise the costs of my favourite hobby and jeopardise aspects of gaming I enjoy most.
So you'll understand why I don't sympathise with your position.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

Yes. Companies are greedy. No question.

Don't like it? Don't engage in their greed. Don't buy their products.

You want to not pay for their products, but still have them?

You're now the greedier and the more immoral of the two. And your greedy actions have justified that company's efforts to eke as much revenue and profit from legitimate paying consumers as possible.
You've made it worse for everyone - except yourself.

What your argument is tantamount to is "If you don't like capitalism, don't engage in capitalism."

That's not what the discussion is about, it's about piracy and how DRM provides significant sales/profit protection to a company.

I baited the greed/moral thing to show it's not going to be feasible to be a part of the conversation. Greed is going to be there, now we have to figure out how to deal with it.

Yes, just as anyone in the world, including a business, I would rather have the product and not pay for it, so I don't. As you said earlier, it isn't complicated. Companies do this every day, so...why don't I?

You're also not really answering any questions I have in depth and are not really expanding on your thought process and have now resorted to insulting my character; this leads me to believe you don't really have that portion figured out yet and are just passionate about the issue.

Anyways, I'm going back to lurking. At least I tried to have a decent discussion eh?

-=-=-

You did reply, but I'm going to leave this post here for posterity to show that if you logically and calmly reply to a person, they're more likely to understand you and be able to figure out an issue more.

 

[RedVIper]

1) This is an open discussion.
2) If you're against anti-piracy, then you're implicitly or explicitly pro-piracy. I explained this in my very first comment.
Your arguments have shown you to be very sympathetic to the pirate's side of the argument - demanding no evidence or substance, yet critical of the genuine victims who you refuse to accept any harm is being done to unless they show you their private financial data.
3) If you make morally unsound arguments, support immoral and unethical practices, and endorse those committing illegal activities I will regard you as morally bankrupt.

You are as entitled to my respect as much as a pirate is of a videogame they refuse to pay for.
I hope you appreciate the irony of your complaint given the context of your argument.

2) Can't you be in between? Can't I understand a companies desires to prevent piracy and disagree with the way they do so (And disagree with how much of an issue it actually is).If a company wants to claim they were financial hurt by piracy thats fine, but I'd like to see some evidence, because they can actually provide it. Pirates can't, it's not an company, it's a bunch of people from all over the world, how exactly would pirates provide evidence of anything whatsoever?

3)I'm kinda tired of this whole moral thing since this wasn't what i was arguing in the first place, but I'll entertain you, do you think anyone who was ever done something illegal, lets say smoke weed, is morally bankrupt?

A follow up question, do you believe there are no legitimate reasons for piracy? I'll give you a few examples of ones I deem understandable (But apparently I'm morally bankrupt so who knows)
.Unavailability of any game/movie/music in your country
.Unavailability of old games
.Trying to figure out if a game would run in your computer in your first place
.Trying to figure out if it's a game you'd like to spend money on ( I do this one a lot, ill pirate a game, play for a bit, if I like it i buy it, If I don't I delete it

You claim everyone who pirates does it out of greed when its clearly not the case, but you can keep making these blank statements if you really believe that's the case. (While ironically defending greedy multi billion dollar companies)

 

[hariseldon]

RedVIper Re figuring out if it'll run on your computer, Steam refunds pretty much solve that issue. Agree on unavailability etc though - see my previous post which took a few edits to get right.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Yes. All the same paper-thin excuses are being rolled out.

You're a hero, smashing capitalism
You're smart enough to work WinRAR etc but don't know what "Required Specifications" amount to.
You'll knowingly participate in immoral and illegal activities, but you'll totally pay up if you decide you should - later on.
"I'm anti DRM, but I'm not pro-piracy. Honest!"

None of these things entitle you to acquire someone else's goods through illegitimate means.

Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

 

[RedVIper]

RedVIper Re figuring out if it'll run on your computer, Steam refunds pretty much solve that issue. Agree on unavailability etc though - see my previous post which took a few edits to get right.

I definitly agree that steam refunds was a brilliant idea and it's a great way to combat piracy, it essentially brings back demos to a degree.

Yes. All the same paper-thin excuses are being rolled out.

You're a hero, smashing capitalism
You're smart enough to work WinRAR etc but don't know what "Required Specifications" amount to.
You'll knowingly participate in immoral and illegal activities, but you'll totally pay up if you decide you should - later on.
"I'm anti DRM, but I'm not pro-piracy. Honest!"

None of these things entitle you to acquire someone else's goods through illegitimate means.

Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

You refuse to adress any point I or hariseldon made and continue with the ad hominems, good luck.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

You refuse to adress any point I or hariseldon made and continue with the ad hominems, good luck.

No, I addressed your skewed points. You want to demonise victims unless they give you their private financial data, for example.
You want to make them look bad, but your demands are as unreasonable. And given that they are the wronged party, you're literally victim-blaming.
You are more upset about being robbed of the respect you assume you are entitled to, than people acting illegally.

And now, rather than address those points, you are playing the victim card.
This is pro-piracy copy+paste argument #1: I am the victim!

I have seen all these efforts to justify greed over and over and over and over again, hundreds of times.
They all unravel. Then the next straw is grasped. It unravels. Then the next straw is grasped. It unravels. Every time.

None of these things entitle you to acquire someone else's goods through illegitimate means.

Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

 

[bltn]

So the only ones who has to deal with the DRM are us paying customers, lovely.

 

[Zewp]

The game has already been released, though. Some users are blocked from playing for a few days because they didn't pay the full 100 $/€, but the game is certainly out.

It's a despicable practice, but it's pretty common nowadays.

I hate this "pay extra for an earlier release date" crap that suddenly popped up put of nowhere.

It used to only happen with a select few MP games and MMOs, now suddenly every second SP game does it.

 

[ultrazilla]

Good, whenever I possess the legal licence and they force these DRM shit on it, it's perfectly legal for me to crack it, which I do.

I know in the States that it's perfectly legal to make a "back up copy" of legally owned music and video games. Unless that has changed
which I don't think it has.

So getting back to your point, a very good argument can be made that DRM is prohibiting our right to a legal copy of purchased music
and/or games. It's basically why publishers and developers want you streaming their music and games.

I'm 46 and implore younger gamers to push back HARD on all the streaming bullshit and "digital only" future consoles they're
trying to push. It's only a "good thing" for them publishers and developers when they have all the control and
power over your purchased goods. Remember that.

You must always push for physical ownership. It should ALWAYS be an option. Sure, digital is part of the future but it'll never be MY ONLY FUTURE(if I have anything to say about it).I

P.S.-Screw DRM

 

[Zewp]

DRM is a response to piracy.
Anyone who argues that piracy is a legitimate response to DRM is actually justifying the existence of DRM in the first place.
DRM will stop after piracy stops, not before.

Worth noting:
DRM-free games get pirated. I've seen free games be pirated. I've seen games with demos pirated. I've yet to witness any pro-piracy argument that holds up to a degree of moral and logical scrutiny.

No, it won't. Because DRM is not only a response to piracy, it's also a means to prevent game sharing and resale. This is evidenced by the many games that used to allow limited activations per copy or DRM schemes that checks your hardware to ensure you're not running the game on a different system.

DRM single handedly killed used PC games during the PS3/360 era, even though it was pretty easy to mod your consoles to play pirated games. I knew a guy who only played pirated games on his 360.

 

[Clear]

The little thought experiment in my previous post I think pretty much completely dismantles the pro-piracy argument. Which isn't to say that piracy is the worst thing in the world, just that its completely indefensible on any grounds other than pure selfishness.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

No, I addressed your skewed points. You want to demonise victims unless they give you their private financial data, for example.
You want to make them look bad, but your demands are as unreasonable. And given that they are the wronged party, you're literally victim-blaming.
You are more upset about being robbed of the respect you assume you are entitled to, than people acting illegally.

And now, rather than address those points, you are playing the victim card.
This is pro-piracy copy+paste argument #1: I am the victim!

I have seen all these efforts to justify greed over and over and over and over again, hundreds of times.
They all unravel. Then the next straw is grasped. It unravels. Then the next straw is grasped. It unravels. Every time.

None of these things entitle you to acquire someone else's goods through illegitimate means.

Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

I don't think anyone here is saying they are entitled to these things; nor have I seen any reference to you possibly working at WinRAR or your intelligence in general??

You want to make them look bad, but your demands are as unreasonable. And given that they are the wronged party, you're literally victim-blaming.
You are more upset about being robbed of the respect you assume you are entitled to, than people acting illegally.

You seem very charged on this issue, maybe taking a breather might be good so you can reflect more on what people are saying? You also seem very hell bent on insulting people who are just trying to discuss the issue and ascertain what your points are. The more people that ask you about clarification, I would expect supports that claim.

On the converse, can you please provide a clear statement on why it's bad outside of the moral issue of theft and theft and greed? A great example of your point would be direct factual evidence where piracy has impacted a company/person in a major way, positively or negatively.

Personally I can not recall a video game developer/published directly stating to their consumers with direct numbers in a large way to show that their anti-piracy efforts are successful or not; not saying that hasn't been the case, just can't recall it. Could just be misinformed. It'd also be a good show to have that information verified by a 3rd party with no bias.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that theft is bad; I think the debate that was originally at hand was is DRM good for the industry and then the ramifications of acceptable theft came up.

You also make a lot of confirmations about how greed isn't the root issue, but constantly bring it back up as a point of attacking others and the root cause of why they're doing it. Just doesn't really add up.

None of these things entitle you to acquire someone else's goods through illegitimate means.

How would you view people who are starving stealing food from an illegitimate or tyrannical government who caused those people to starve?

 

[DeepEnigma]

How would you view people who are starving stealing food from an illegitimate or tyrannical government who caused those people to starve?

 

[Zewp]

A fair point.

Though in the case of GOG, they are doing the "Unlocked door" thing and being pirated to hell and back for it.
The fact that there is a website that is a practical clone of theirs in terms of content and appearance - minus the need to pay for anything - shows just how sincere these concerns of DRM are.

GOG remove the DRM. The piracy simply carries on just as it did before.

Still, GOG makes plenty of profit because they provide value to people. The Steam example of rolling out in Russia and striking gold is a great example. Just look at the WoW thing--Blizzard realised that people playing on vanilla private servers weren't all horrible, greedy pirates who refuse to spend a cent, but rather people looking for a service they couldn't get legally. Now they're releasing WoW Classic to address that gap in the market.

It's not about eliminating piracy. You're never going to be able to do that. It's about providing enough value so that people feel it's worth spending money over pirating it.

Piracy will continue as long as entertainment products are stored locally on hard drives (perhaps even when everything is in the cloud). For some, they simply refuse to pay. For others, it's simply not possible or they don't have the income for it. During my teens and university years I didn't have a lot of disposable income so I pirated a lot of games. It exposed me to a lot of things I wouldn't have played otherwise and made me a fan of those franchises. Minecraft, as an example. I didn't have any means of international payments in 2010, so I could only pirate it. Today I own it on PC, Xbox, PS4 and Switch. Same with Stardew Valley. I pirated it on a whim back in my final year of university, knowing nothing about it and ended buying I on PC, Xbox One and Switch.
God knows I wouldn't have been a stealth fan had I not pirated Thief 3 back in the day. I used to think "who wants to play a game where you have to hide" and after playing Thief 3, stealth is one of my favorite genres and I own dozens of them and buy games that have stealth as an option, even if it's not the main focus.
Growing up, someone gave me a pirated copy of Diablo 2. It was no longer for sale anywhere so I wouldn't have been exposed to it otherwise. Would I have bought Diablo 3 on day 1 if that guy didn't give me Diablo 2 all those years before and gotten me completely hooked on the franchise? I doubt it. Not to mention I probably wouldn't have bought Titan Quest to scratch that Diablo itch.

Is piracy moral? Probably not. Do I regret or feel bad about pirating games all those years? Not even a little. Now, in an average month I spend around €200 on games (September 2018 was over €300) and I probably wouldn't be spending that today if during my teenage years, I could only play games I could strictly afford.

Nothing in life is ever completely black and white. Piracy is no exception.

 

[LucidFeuer]

I know in the States that it's perfectly legal to make a "back up copy" of legally owned music and video games. Unless that has changed
which I don't think it has.

So getting back to your point, a very good argument can be made that DRM is prohibiting our right to a legal copy of purchased music
and/or games. It's basically why publishers and developers want you streaming their music and games.

I'm 46 and implore younger gamers to push back HARD on all the streaming bullshit and "digital only" future consoles they're
trying to push. It's only a "good thing" for them publishers and developers when they have all the control and
power over your purchased goods. Remember that.

You must always push for physical ownership. It should ALWAYS be an option. Sure, digital is part of the future but it'll never be MY ONLY FUTURE(if I have anything to say about it).I

P.S.-Screw DRM

I'd say screw DRM too, but I can understand publishers willingness to protect their products: what is unacceptable is the hindering of paying user's access and experience.

Had they really wanted to protect their sales while respecting customers, they would have long implemented some sort of micro-DRM directly inside apps that can validate login from one platform to the other without having to start or update any BS. They didn't, screw them.

But the incoming nightmare is indeed streaming, and I'm sorry but I think the younger generation are way too fucking stupid (by not fault of their own, we're all the product of the society and institutions at a given time) to even understand how much of loss it'll be once gaming switches to all-streaming.

 

[WaterAstro]

Denuvo? More like Done-uvo.

 

[LucidFeuer]

Yes. Companies are greedy. No question.

Don't like it? Don't engage in their greed. Don't buy their products.

You want to not pay for their products, but still have them?

You're now the greedier and the more immoral of the two. And your greedy actions have justified that company's efforts to eke as much revenue and profit from legitimate paying consumers as possible.
You've made it worse for everyone - except yourself.

I'm sure you think your simple post makes sense: it doesn't. And it's extremely complicated to explain yet most people seem to have either an innate or inherited intuition of why that is bullshit, which you seem to lack so I'll try.

For a society and it's economy to function, centuries mercantile laws have been established in such a way that you are the owner of your work/production, BUT the value of said production is to automatically decrease over time at the moment you release/sell it for so many reasons: so that old products can make way for new products, that competition is growing not being monopolised, that no-one is monopolising value by making a longer interest/annuity on work/production investment that has long passed, that smaller and smaller pockets and more and more can afford it which is your way to naturally expand profit etc...

And there are so many other profound reasons why you're wrong like the pricing per the value and digital cost of production/distribution (close to zero), the participation, broadcast and access of culture in a society where you did not invent all the technologies, skills, inspirations and platforms but are merely benefitting from centuries of other people working, inventing and creating so that you can produce your own game/music/movie etc....

 

[ThatGamingDude]

Just look at the WoW thing--Blizzard realised that people playing on vanilla private servers weren't all horrible, greedy pirates who refuse to spend a cent, but rather people looking for a service they couldn't get legally. Now they're releasing WoW Classic to address that gap in the market.

It's not about eliminating piracy. You're never going to be able to do that. It's about providing enough value so that people feel it's worth spending money over pirating it.

Piracy will continue as long as entertainment products are stored locally on hard drives (perhaps even when everything is in the cloud).

Nothing in life is ever completely black and white. Piracy is no exception.

All of this; I'm a current WoW subscriber and have also been active on many private server communities across many games. Private servers are...not the best managed, so yeah, perfect score for Blizzard.

Consumer applications will be brought to the cloud not for DRM purposes, but efficiency and ease of access purposes; before that can happen physical storage limitations and data bandwidth needs to be addressed. How long IT will think that will take can vary by what color shit you took that day.

On Blizzards note and speaking of acceptable theft and piracy...it could be possible that Blizzard "pirated their own data back," in a sense.

How they stated they "acquired the old data through tape back ups," for Classic is eh...after the fact they shut down Nostalrius and literally confiscated their data which Blizzard had stated in the past "We don't have it anymore to bring up Classic!" it just pops up? Weird how that timeline works; been in dev since before the Nostalrius take down but didn't have the data...then seemingly the production makes a jump and they can do it? I dunno.

 

[lukilladog]

Publishers look so dumb for paying for a system of protection that is evidently faulty, but believing the falacious BS that the Denuvo devs keep preaching (demonstrated false by the EU study on piracy) tells you that they aren´t doing their homework.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

No, it won't. Because DRM is not only a response to piracy, it's also a means to prevent game sharing and resale. This is evidenced by the many games that used to allow limited activations per copy or DRM schemes that checks your hardware to ensure you're not running the game on a different system.

DRM single handedly killed used PC games during the PS3/360 era, even though it was pretty easy to mod your consoles to play pirated games. I knew a guy who only played pirated games on his 360.

Well, you also need to understand what your money is paying for.
Most times people assume ownership or right of sale they don't actually have. (Know what is actually being sold before quoting those right-of-sale doctrines)
Rather than educate themselves on what their money is actually buying, they persist with their skewed rhetoric. That's a separate topic though.

There was no DRM before piracy.
DRM-free products are pirated as much as those with DRM.

I've pointed these things out, substantiating them earlier in this thread. But it proves that "I pirate because of DRM" is a false claim.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

You seem very charged on this issue, maybe taking a breather might be good so you can reflect more on what people are saying?

Pro-piracy copy+paste argument #37: Calm down whilst I show you my collection of strawmen.
Pro-piracy copy+paste argument #23: Beside it being morally and ethically indefensible, how is it wrong? (Somehow delivered with a straight face).
Followed of course by:
Pro-piracy copy+paste argument #24: Laws aren't always right. (I only care about the ones that benefit me, not the ones that benefit those I am targetting).

How would you view people who are starving stealing food from an illegitimate or tyrannical government who caused those people to starve?

I'd keep a sense of perspective and know how to distinguish luxury goods from basic life necessities.

It really says a lot that you could consider these two extreme opposites as being even remotely comparable.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

And it's extremely complicated to explain yet most people seem to have either an innate or inherited intuition of why that is bullshit, which you seem to lack so I'll try....

Yeah. No. I've already seen these arguments and the fall into the obfuscation/deflection/distortion/low-signal-to-noise rhetoric that gets wheeled out.

None of these things entitle you to acquire someone else's goods through illegitimate means.

It's actually extremely simple: Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

This isn't food and water.
This isn't human rights.
These are luxury goods. You don't need them. You aren't entitled to them. You merely desire them.

 

[Mithos]

I own.

Tomb Raider Anniversary, Tomb Raider Legends, Tomb Raider Underworld (Steam)
Tomb Raider Anniversary, Tomb Raider Legends, Tomb Raider Underworld (PS3 Trilogy Collection)
Tomb Raider Underworld (PS3)
Tomb Raider Anniversary, Tomb Raider Underworld (Wii)
-
Tomb Raider (2013) (Steam)
Tomb Raider (2013), Rise of the Tomb Raider (PS4)


But I do not own.

Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider (Steam)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (PS4)


Solve that equation.

Answer:

Spoiler

DENUVO on PC versions, and an extra reason on Shadow of the Tomb Raider not complete version out yet (7 month of DLC)

 

[ThatGamingDude]

Well, you also need to understand what your money is paying for.
Most times people assume ownership or right of sale they don't actually have.
Rather than educate themselves on what their money is actually buying, they persist with their skewed rhetoric. That's a separate topic though.

There was no DRM before piracy.
DRM-free products are pirated as much as those with DRM.

I've pointed these things out, substantiating them earlier in this thread. But it proves that "I pirate because of DRM" is a false claim.

Actually I think it fits the overall topic really well.

One of the things being brought up with the pirating discussion is what people are actually paying for; consumer rights have not been updated globally nor have matured in a social sense in any vastly amazing and efficient ways.

Some current single player only titles state you're technically only purchasing a limited copy of their data which can be retracted at any time; essentially your renting the product or paying access to their auth servers etc. That has some laws that come with it that that eula/tos and sales model tends to violate....plus there's a lot of debate of local storage vs. off hosted storage and which is better, etc.

There was no DRM before piracy.
DRM-free products are pirated as much as those with DRM.

Also, there was no locks before theft
There was no jails before crime
And there was no chicken without the egg
But where did the chicken come from then?

You stating DRM-free products are pirated just as much is also a point of contention for a lot of people; it makes DRM seem useless. Are there other benefits I am over/under stating or not aware of?

If you're working for WinRAR, I have a good hunch you're a smart person; do you have a creative way to make DRM more...I don't want to say palatable, more feature rich? I ~think~ the question I'm trying to ask: is there anything else we could add on to current DRM ideology/technology to make it a more positive in a viewlight to bring to more consumers?

Not as a challenge to just be obstinate to you; mentioning you work for a software company is some capacity makes me interested into your foresight about the overall discussion. You are a good source of knowledge on this discussion because of the fact.

-=-=-
Stop going from willing to discuss to sticking your fingers in your ears; it's confusing as shit lol.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

These are luxury goods. You don't need them. You aren't entitled to them. You merely desire them.

Good point; so if we don't need them, why jump up about piracy being bad?

No one needs it, sooo if it's not important, why care if it's being stolen?

Anyways; can we just ignore this guy and get back to talking like adults? The constant "THIS IS HOW IT IS I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU BLAHBLAHBLAH" with the fingers in his ears is starting to get old.

Constantly derailing a thread is rude, especially when only responding with your own thoughts and completely ignoring others.

Reminds me of being on the Speech and Debate team in high school....

 

[lukilladog]

Yeah. No.

None of these things entitle you to acquire someone else's goods through illegitimate means.

It's actually extremely simple: Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

This isn't food and water.
This isn't human rights.
These are luxury goods. You don't need them. You aren't entitled to them. You merely desire them.

Is anyone defending piracy at all?. If anything we are asking for the excretion of a system that demonstrably isn´t protecting any sales but obstructing us of having fun with our games, by the way of modding them, fixing them (frame rate fixes, resolution fixes, aspect ratio fixes, performance fixes, community patches), preserving them (so they can launch on new operating systems, gfx fixes for new cards, engine ports, middleware patching like Xlive-less). It would be so easy for some publishers to release a quick comparison that shows us how helfpul denuvo has been, but they wont do it because there is no such thing as hefpul denuvo, the EU study about piracy got it right, pirates don´t buy games, piracy helps sales (a bit).

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

OK: Here's what's not being sold: The software.
Which also means any assumed rights of sale and ownership do not apply. The software isn't what you bought, nor was it even up for sale.

I've never said DRM seemed useless. I've said those arguing it as the justification are provably false.
If you want to talk to people about what they regard as the benefits to DRM, ask the people that use it. I've already mentioned that I can't speak for those people.

As for your other strawmen, you are making unrelated nonsense allegories to dismiss the one can't address head on.

I also note you have completely side-stepped your stupendous lack of perspective in comparing access to necessities with luxury goods, though.

I will discuss this topic with reasonable people.
People that have no sense of perspective or say "I could* care less for morals" before demonising the parties they are knowingly targetting immorally are not reasonable. They are not using reason.
I have never seen a pro-piracy argument that stands up to reason other than: I'm greedy and I want my fun for free.


(*I'm quoting bad grammar verbatim.)

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Good point; so if we don't need them, why jump up about piracy being bad?

This is the same Pro-piracy copy+paste argument #23 you tried before, simply from a different angle.

No one needs it, sooo if it's not important, why care if it's being stolen?

I didn't say it wasn't important. I said it was luxury goods.
I also haven't used the term 'stolen' either. I've already explained why I use the terms I use.

This is not an honest way to discuss a topic - you are constantly misrepresenting what I've said, and asking questions about claims I've not made.
People employ this disingenuous method to force the other party to implicity acknowledge and agree to an earlier (or unspoken) point. This is an effort to manipulate.

That's before we even consider what incredible levels of self-entitlement must be in place for someone to even contemplate asking "If [disingenuous criteria] then why care if something is stolen?"
But coming from the same mindset that conflates luxuries like electronic games to essentials like food and water I cannot say I'm surprised.

 

[lukilladog]

There are several examples where courts haver ruled in favor of people trying to sell their licenses, and recently some institution acknowledge that you are entitled to modify it under some circumstances.

Ps.- We don´t need to ask the drm users how helpful it is, we know they are being sold placebo.

 

[Mithos]

Schrödinger's cat You can like my previous post if you want ofc, but it was actually a post against you (in a way) even though I didn't direct it to you.

The only way I ever going to play (on Steam/PC):
Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider (Steam)

Is if Square-Enix removes Denuvo, or by pirating them, there is no other option.

That was what that post was meant to convey.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

OK: Here's what's not being sold: The software.
Which also means any assumed rights of sale and ownership do not apply. The software isn't what you bought, nor was it even up for sale.

I've never said DRM seemed useless. I've said those arguing it as the justification are provably false.
If you want to talk to people about what they regard as the benefits to DRM, ask the people that use it. I've already mentioned that I can't speak for those people.

As for your other strawmen, you are making unrelated nonsense allegories to dismiss the one can't address head on.

I also note you have completely side-stepped your stupendous lack of perspective in comparing access to necessities with luxury goods, though.

I will discuss this topic with reasonable people.
People that have no sense of perspective or say "I could* care less for morals" before demonising the parties they are knowingly targetting immorally are not reasonable. They are not using reason.
I have never seen a pro-piracy argument that stands up to reason other than: I'm greedy and I want my fun for free.


(*I'm quoting bad grammar verbatim.)

If that's all you see in those posts, then I kindly point you to the fact that you do not have to participate in the discussion, rather than fully imposing your wills and morals on others while they discuss the topic.

If you do not agree with the topic being discussed because you dismiss any reasoning behind it, no one is forcing you into the discussion.

If discussing greed is circular, I'm pretty sure the thread is going to move into the direction of that non-circular logic. No reason to lead people to the plains which you see as the most green pastures in the land, they'll find their own.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Is anyone defending piracy at all?.

Indirectly, yes. A few are. They aren't being especially honest about it, but then that's part and parcel of the act. I've pointed out some of these fallacies and double-standards in earlier responses. They've notably not been addressed in favour of new straws being grasped.

If anything we are asking for the excretion of a system that demonstrably isn´t protecting any sales

Where has that been demonstrated, empirically?

And yes. I've heard the concerns about preservation and modding.
Again, your assumed rights to the software need correcting. And if you're concerned about things dying out then gutting the industry and increasing costs and risk for all legitimate parties (including paying consumers) is an odd way to show support for such a concern. Ironically, the people claiming to be the most concerned are typically the ones doing the most harm.

It would be so easy for some publishers to release a quick comparison that shows us how helfpul denuvo has been, but they wont do it because there is no such thing as hefpul denuvo, the EU study about piracy got it right, pirates don´t buy games, piracy helps sales (a bit).

I suggest you look into the economics of sales in the industry. An incredible array of factors determine sales trends. Also, publishers are not obligated to (non)consumers as to why your refusal to legimately purchase their goods must be supported by their private financials. Pirates have, literally, no right. The incredible sense of entitlement simply doesn't stop with taking what isn't there's to take, it seems.

 

[lukilladog]

You just want to conflate anti-denuvo arguments with pro-piracy ones.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Schrödinger's cat You can like my previous post if you want ofc, but it was actually a post against you (in a way) even though I didn't direct it to you.

The only way I ever going to play (on Steam/PC):
Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider (Steam)

Is if Square-Enix removes Denuvo, or by pirating them, there is no other option.

That was what that post was meant to convey.

I liked your post because you had an issue with DRM and it appears that you weren't deciding to help yourself illegitimately regardless.

If you think this runs contrary to anything I've said then either I've misunderstood you, or you've misunderstood me.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

You just want to conflate anti-denuvo arguments with pro-piracy ones.

DRM is a response to piracy.
Pirates don't care about DRM, because they pirate DRM-free products just as heavily as those with DRM.

As I've already made clear - and provided substance for - claiming to pirate due to DRM directly justifies DRM.

To re-use a previous allegory: "I broke into your room because it had a lock on the door".
Apart from being a nonsense piece of reasoning, the person in the room is increasingly likely to invest in more locks, not less.

There is no valid pro-piracy argument.
Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

DRM is a response to piracy.
Pirates don't care about DRM, because they pirate DRM-free products just as heavily as those with DRM.

As I've already made clear - and provided substance for - claiming to pirate due to DRM directly justifies DRM.

To re-use a previous allegory: "I broke into your room because it had a lock on the door".
Apart from being a nonsense piece of reasoning, the person in the room is increasingly likely to invest in more locks, not less.

There is no valid pro-piracy argument.
Piracy is greed. Nothing more.

Yo tell me your feelings on pay day loans

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

If that's all you see in those posts, then I kindly point you to the fact that you do not have to participate in the discussion, rather than fully imposing your wills and morals on others while they discuss the topic.

Your politely worded effort to tell me to fuck off has been noted but I'll decide whether I roll over so dishonest, unreasonable, greedy people can feel more comfortable about circling their unethical wagons.
I'm not imposing my will. If you've a good argument to make then make it. So far you haven't. I've pointed out fallacies and wildly improper perspectives.
I'm not putting my morals on anyone. A pirate knows what they are doing is immoral and dishonest. Maybe people under the age of 3 don't know right from wrong, but I'm going to make a wild assumption and believe that the overwhelming majority of piracy is conducted by people older than 3.

If you do not agree with the topic being discussed because you dismiss any reasoning behind it, no one is forcing you into the discussion.

I've pointed out where the fallacies are. Why arguments are wrong. What more needs to be considered.
People who somehow ask "What's the problem with stealing something?" aren't using reason or exercising perspective. It's not a crime to point that out. If the best response to that being pointed out is an effort to tell someone to fuck off then, again, they really need to work on their arguments.

I always bring it back to the one universal, uncomfortable truth though: Piracy is greed.

Nobody has ever demonstrated to me otherwise.

Yo tell me your feelings on pay day loans

I feel this is quite the curveball, but ok:
I think they're exploitative and hurt more than help.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

Your politely worded effort to tell me to fuck off has been noted but I'll decide whether I roll over so dishonest, unreasonable, greedy people can feel more comfortable about circling their unethical wagons.
I'm not imposing my will. If you've a good argument to make then make it. So far you haven't. I've pointed out fallacies and wildly improper perspectives.
I'm not putting my morals on anyone. A pirate knows what they are doing is immoral and dishonest. Maybe people under the age of 3 don't know right from wrong, but I'm going to make a wild assumption and believe that the overwhelming majority of piracy is conducted by people older than 3.

I mean if that's how you want to look at me politely asking you to leave a conversation, then sure? I feel as if you just admitted to taking my politeness aggressively.

I've pointed out where the fallacies are. Why arguments are wrong. What more needs to be considered.
People who somehow ask "What's the problem with stealing something?" aren't using reason or exercising perspective. It's not a crime to point that out. If the best response to that being pointed out is an effort to tell someone to fuck off then, again, they really need to work on their arguments.

I don't think I've told someone to "fuck off," verbatim yet; I might have alluded to immaturity and other statements. Issue on my part really, trying to learn the whole "large room social queues," thing. I'm not good with large groups, which is no excuse, so I apologize for not being more direct or not being better about that. PM me on how I can do better about that if you'd like.(No really, that's invited to everyone here, I'm not good with social things)

I always bring it back to the one universal, uncomfortable truth though: Piracy is greed.

Something people have kind of stated they're not wanting to discuss, and you keep bringing the conversation back to and not allowing the conversation to continue...self admitted...

I feel this is quite the curveball, but ok:
I think they're exploitative and hurt more than help.

I...yeah, was being an ass hole and it got missed. Oh well, 10 lashes to me then.

-=-=-
Anyways I'm removing my watch from this thread; it went from interesting news and discussion into a anti/pro piracy discussion, which has been played out time and time again. Kids these days....

 

[Zewp]

There was no DRM before piracy.

Well yeah. That's like saying there was no copyright law before plagiarism.

DRM went big in the second half of the 2000s. Tell me, how effective was it at preventing piracy? How many games were pirated on release day before Denuvo came around? I'll give you a hint: the overwhelming majority of them.
Now tell me, when did used PC games sales start dying? I'll give you another hint: in the second half of the 2000s.

So, why did videogame companies stick with DRM schemes that weren't effective, caused more problems for legit users and killed off the used games market on PC?

Sure, DRM was a response to piracy but it wasn't the only use for it. You're deluded if you think companies will stop implementing DRM if piracy goes away tomorrow.

You're never going to stop piracy as long as piracy is physically possible. Plenty of companies have realised this. The key to fighting it is to provide enough value and convenience to convert pirates. Just look at the music industry - when they removed DRM from their music and stopped treating legitimate customers like thieves, suddenly they saw an increase in sales. Why is iTunes so wildly successful if downloading the music illegally is a few clicks away? Why was Steam so successful in Russia, when previously it was a country known for mass piracy? Why is Netflix so successful when Popcorn Time is a thing?

People pay for convenience and value. If you want to combat piracy, that should be your first priority.

 

[bilderberg]

Hopefully they get their money back, and denuvo can go straight to hell.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Well yeah. That's like saying there was no copyright law before plagiarism.

Except here, people are claiming they have a right to plagiarise and that copyright law is why they plagiarise. Furthermore, plagiarists should be given a free pass but we need to condemn those that seek to protect their property through the legal means should be demonised unless they provide us their private data. We pretend we don't know right from wrong. And that two opposite things are exactly the same.

Madness. But it's here on these pages. In black and white.

DRM went big in the second half of the 2000s. Tell me, how effective was it at preventing piracy? How many games were pirated on release day before Denuvo came around? I'll give you a hint: the overwhelming majority of them.
Now tell me, when did used PC games sales start dying? I'll give you another hint: in the second half of the 2000s.

No. I'm not interested in hints for claims. Show me empirical evidence.
In particular show me the empirical evidence of the activities of pirates, their costs and overheads, exactly how much time they spent pirating and so on.
If this information of decades of activity covering hundreds of thousands of products curiously isn't readily available and transparent, ask yourself why that might be.

So, why did videogame companies stick with DRM schemes that weren't effective, caused more problems for legit users and killed off the used games market on PC?

Well, firstly, it's doubtful publishers care about used games as they get no revenue from them.
Why should publishers enable the interests of people seeking to do them harm?
Why shouldn't publishers employ means to prevent that harm from being done?

When the redundancy of DRM is talked about, it's always claimed, never actually proven. See #84.
Again, the injured party has no obligation to provide their private financial and business data to anyone but their investors and stakeholders.
Certainly the substance-free non-customers of theirs that are acting illegally and doing them (and legitimate consumers) harm have no leg to stand on when making such demands. They are not even customers. The assume far far far too much, thanks to self interest and dishonesty.
And not only do the relentlessly victim blame, they provide no empirical evidence for their own claims. Perhaps the fact that their actions are illegal is the reason they conduct them secretly and under false identities.

Seems legit.

Sure, DRM was a response to piracy but it wasn't the only use for it. You're deluded if you think companies will stop implementing DRM if piracy goes away tomorrow.

You have piracy to thank for that.
As I said: this is the result of piracy, not the other way around.
"That bastard who put more locks on their door after I broke in to his room has the temerity to start capitalising on the topic of locking doors? That's digusting. Who do they think they are?"

You're never going to stop piracy as long as piracy is physically possible.

Bingo. See #52.

The key to fighting it is to provide enough value and convenience to convert pirates.

Nope.
Free games are pirated.
Games with demos are pirated.
DRM-free games are pirated.
Steam games are pirated.

This is not a convenience issue. It's a greed issue.

The way it will be solved will be to embed more and more functionality server-side. Because you can make something as convenient and nice and ass-kissy as you like - it will still be pirated. There is decades of evidence of this.

 

[petran79]

With people so against piracy as a moral standpoint, how do you feel about small businesses using free versions/unlicensed copies of software instead of paying for the licensing?

If you found the company you worked for was incorrectly using the licensing for a software, would you report the company you work for to the provider with the evidence, or immediately leave your job based on the moral implications?

Reporting will not be necessery because things there are actually much worse. I've read stories where a company envoy from those companies, eg Autodesk, together with an attorney would visit those small businesses uninvited, would order the employees to leave their office and their PCs untouched and they'd insert a USB stick and would scan the computer for unlicensed copies of their software. If anything was found, they'd have to pay a hefty fine. Even in cases where a license was very old or was forgotten to be renewed. In other cases eg Foundry's Nuke, they'd even scan the IP of your PC whenever you logged the program to see if the license you use is valid. Illegally of course.

One of the problems I have with DRM, which I think others have alluded to, is the idea that someone else can turn off your access to the game you bought, and that applies doubly in games as a service and streaming. This has proven a problem in the world of streaming music where in fact it is impossible to maintain a proper collection of music, where things will disappear from your library at a whim - I got so pissed off with that and not being able to have my more obscure bits and live sessions due to amazon killing their cloud locker that I moved all my music to a plex server running on a raspi.

The other problem with this is preservation. We can go and play games from the early 80s reasonably easily now thanks to a range of emulators. That's a wonderful thing. I love being able to experience gaming history, understand how gaming has progressed over the decades, experience the evolution of Mario games for instance, or compare Mario vs Sonic to see two different approaches to platforming, etc. Further, old PC games can generally be played one way or another, via DOSBox, ScummVM, etc. Without the warez scene providing cracks we won't be able to do that. If I go back to the 90s, the Atari ST's catalogue of games is primarily playable today thanks to the work of the pirate groups (ironically the magazines at the time would devote energy to expressing their disgust for the pirating groups while praising work on the demo scene, seemingly unaware that they were the exact same groups - games journalism had its issues even then).

In case of old games it would be very confusing to use the term piracy nowadays. Eg I have so many old games that would be a hassle to rip to HDD or ISO, find the proper Windows patch to run them etc. Just grabbing an available GOG version is much less of a hassle. This download statistic will be counted as piracy though.

As for the emulators, demos and cracks, they helped so many game developers to get hired back then, just like many developers are hired today from the modding scene, even in cases where gaming companies forbid the use of mods.

Denuvo is owned by Irdeto, a satellite service encryption providers, who also hired pirate crackers.

 

[Zewp]

Except here, people are claiming they have a right to plagiarise and that copyright law is why they plagiarise. Furthermore, plagiarists should be given a free pass but we need to condemn those that seek to protect their property through the legal means should be demonised unless they provide us their private data. We pretend we don't know right from wrong. And that two opposite things are exactly the same.

Madness. But it's here on these pages. In black and white.

So please show me where a Neogaffer said they have the right to plagiarise something. Because plagiarism is not the same as piracy. Plagiarism is the act of copying someone's work and passing it off as your own. I'd love to know which Neogaffer thinks they can take someone's work and pass it off as their own.

Well, firstly, it's doubtful publishers care about used games as they get no revenue from them.

??? That's exactly the point. They care because it cuts into their revenue.

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? Because it wasn't that long ago that plenty of publishers were complaining about used sales, how places like Gamestop are big problem to them and wanted to implement things like online passes so that people who bought used games would have to pay the publisher again to use all the features.
Nothing wrong with it if you're a younger gamer who wasn't around to see that, but... that happened. Publishers very much care about used games. If you're going to say things like "it's doubtful publishers care about used games", it shows that you should go back and read up a bit more about the things you're posting about, because there are significant gaps in your knowledge. The gaming industry's feelings on used games are well-documented at this point and easily found using a few minutes in Google.

You have piracy to thank for that.
As I said: this is the result of piracy, not the other way around.
"That bastard who put more locks on their door after I broke in to his room has the temerity to start capitalising on the topic of locking doors? That's digusting. Who do they think they are?"

Do i really need to explain to you why this is a false equivalence? Piracy ≠ breaking into someone's home and stealing something.
DRM ≠ installing a lock on your front door.
Even the law differentiates. Breaking and entering and burglary are criminal offences. Piracy is a civil offence.

Nope.
Free games are pirated.
Games with demos are pirated.
DRM-free games are pirated.
Steam games are pirated.

This is not a convenience issue. It's a greed issue.

???

If free games are getting 'pirated', what does that tell you?! How is someone downloading a game they can legally acquire for free, from a torrent site instead of the official site, motivated by greed? There's clearly more behind piracy than just greed if free games are being 'pirated'.

I get that you're trying very hard to dig yourself into your arguments here, but take a moment and reflect on your arguments because some of them make no sense whatsoever. Like this one.

The way it will be solved will be to embed more and more functionality server-side. Because you can make something as convenient and nice and ass-kissy as you like - it will still be pirated. There is decades of evidence of this.

Bingo! Glad you're finally getting it. You won't ever stop piracy so clearly the goal should be to convert pirates instead. Like how Witcher 3 that didn't have DRM, from developers renowned for their anti-DRM stance, broke sales records anyway. It's almost like... good products that provide value to the customers sell well. Who woulda thunk?

Server-side isn't a sure fix either. Tell it to EA with Sim City, where ironically enough, the pirated version turned out to be the superior version of the game. Or every single MMO with private servers.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

So please show me where a Neogaffer said they have the right to plagiarise something.

I used your comparison with the events in this thread. You can't have it both way by using comparisons and then shrugging cluelessly when someone uses those same comparisons.
This either suggests the comparison is pointless in the first place - if so, why bring it up.
Or it suggests you only feel it should be used for your side of an argument exclusively. In which case, that's simply a poor approach to discussion.

??? That's exactly the point. They care because it cuts into their revenue.

So you raised a point about second hand games just for the purposes of redundancy??
Then there's no need to raise it. It's just noise and obfuscation.

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

I'm old enough to have seen these same copy+paste pro-piracy excuses raised hundreds of times before.
One day, I may even be old enough to see one that stands up to mild scrutiny and logic.

Do i really need to explain to you why this is a false equivalence? Piracy ≠ breaking into someone's home and stealing something.
DRM ≠ installing a lock on your front door.
Even the law differentiates. Breaking and entering and burglary are criminal offences. Piracy is a civil offence.

As above, this "I'm the only ones that can use comparisons to illustrate a point, not you" approach to discussion isn't very reasonable.
But great - let's go out of our way to miss the clear-as-day point because semantics and double-standards. Again - noise and obfuscation.

This is what pro-pirates love to do. Focus on the differences and pretend they can't grasp the overall point and then derail it all onto semantics. Adding layers of obfuscation and fabricated complexity to an extremely clear and simple topic that they are on the wrong side of.

If free games are getting 'pirated', what does that tell you?!

It tells me that pirates will pirate whatever they like and make up any excuse to pretend they aren't dishonest and immoral.

Bingo! Glad you're finally getting it. You won't ever stop piracy so clearly the goal should be to convert pirates instead. Like how Witcher 3 that didn't have DRM, from developers renowned for their anti-DRM stance, broke sales records anyway. It's almost like... good products that provide value to the customers sell well. Who woulda thunk?

Got pirated to hell and back.

Because piracy is about greed. Not quality. Not convenience. Not capitalism. Not any one of these excuses I've heard a hundred times.
Just greed.

Server-side isn't a sure fix either. Tell it to EA with Sim City, where ironically enough, the pirated version turned out to be the superior version of the game. Or every single MMO with private servers.

Hence why I said streaming will be more effective.

 

[Damien Crowley]

What a thread!

Yay for another Denuvo-implementation fucked!

 

[plushyp]

Schrödinger's cat Just for the sake of curiosity, do you work in the gaming or software industry?

 

[nkarafo]

What game companies don't get is that "pirated downloads" are NOT lost sales. Most people who pirate would never buy most of these games either way. Maybe they don't have money to spend or they just download whatever is in their path, regardless if they care about a game or not. Just to try a game once and uninstall it. In all of my life i have only seen a person that i know of who bought a game only because there was no crack for it once. In my personal experience that was one lost sale saved in a span of, what, 25 years? So i would say, the potential sales they save with DRM (assuming a crack isn't released day 1) are too low and not worth the cost of said DRM.

Hence why I said streaming will be more effective.

Streaming is less value for customers though. You don't have control over your game collection, in fact i don't think there's a game collection at all, just a list of "favorites". You can't know for how long a game will be available. Like, i'm playing the original Dungeon Keeper every year at least, i don't think a streaming service would have this game up for so many years. You also add one more dependancy in order to be able to play, a fast internet connection. At least now you can play most games offline so you only need to pay your power bills in order to play. Streaming will remove that while at the same time add technical issues that i don't think will ever get fixed entirely like input latency. It's a problem hard enough to eliminate with your own equipment, imagine having to stream the game from a remote computer on the other side of the globe.

All that just to deny access to people who would not buy games either way? I don't think it's worth it.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

plushyp
I used to, for around 15 years.
One thing I can tell you is that piracy was rife among publishers and developers I encountered during that time.

My position on the topic is not influenced at all by my career in the slightest. I've have not made any personal claims at all.

Luxury goods are still not the same as basic life essentials.
DRM-free games still get pirated.
Dishonest, Immoral, unethical, illegal, greedy behaviour is still dishonest, immoral, unethical, illegal and greedy.

Streaming is less value for customers though.

Customers are not the only stakeholder in the equation. Also customers need to understand that ownership is never theirs, that's not what their money buys them.

And if pirates were genuinely concerned about value for customers, they would not be conducting activities that harm them.
All talk, no walk.