How does one stop piracy?

[Jaime Lannister]

http://www.gametap.com seems like a good solution. Monthly fee to be able to play any game on the service for no extra charge seems like it would deter "casual pirates" who would buy games if they only had the money. Hell, I would even subscribe to GameTap if they had a bigger game selection.

EDIT: Psychonauts and Thief 3 are free until the end of the year. Looks like I'll get the free version of GameTap.

 

[denizsi]

Oh boy, they even have Planescape Torment (and also all the other IE games) in gold package.

Other noteworthy titles I can see include Sam & Max series, Myst series, X-Com series (wow!), Beyond Good & Evil, Deus Ex, Homeworld series, etc.

 

[cardtrick]

Yeah, that's pretty cool. I'm going to strongly consider it. By the way, their free games at the moment include Daikatana, bitches!

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Daikatana, bitches!

Maybe if they paid me to play it...

 

[Joe Krow]

Great idea. Put the art assets on the player's system (for fast loads) and have everything else on the remote server. When companies go bankrupt or after a specified period games could have a "closing patch" which would give players the rest of the parts needed to play the game remotely. They get their money, you get your game.

 

[cardtrick]

Great idea. Put the art assets on the player's system (for fast loads) and have everything else on the remote server. When companies go bankrupt or after a specified period games could have a "closing patch" which would give players the rest of the parts needed to play the game remotely. They get their money, you get your game.

This, of course, screws people with limited access to the internet and people who like to play games on their laptop while traveling. I doubt there's any perfect solution.

 

[MetalCraze]

that is a retarded idea - and I personally will avoid such tyranic games. I mean - I want to play the game - not constantly waiting why the same level will be downloaded from the interwebs because I failed to survive through it.

and pirates will find a way to download all that stuff from the server and make a full game anyway.
notice - the harder you kick the gamers - the more seriously they begin to pirate your game.

do you think much time or costs will stop them?
bah - there are software that costs ~$1000 - and they spread it for $0. it's not like they are getting it for free in the first place.

 

[cardtrick]

Of course they are. Have you ever read one of the .NFO releases that comes with pirated games? The groups are always looking for help from people who work retail or in software distribution/marketing -- i.e., people who can get them the games for free, and preferably before release. The mere fact that games are almost always pirated before being sold should be an indicator that piraters aren't paying for these games.

 

[MetalCraze]

I was speaking about the software in the example of how far they can go. pirating the game with a serial that costs $50 is one thing.
pirating software with a serial (that besides activation - gives the buyer -20% off from the next product) that is not available in stores - only through developer - and costs $400 and higher - is totally other.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

I wonder... does KC have any pics related to software piracy?

 

[Section8]

Yeah, that's pretty cool. I'm going to strongly consider it. By the way, their free games at the moment include Daikatana, bitches!

I bought Daikatana second hand for AU$5 (a new release typically costs about AU$90) and that brings up an altogether different, yet related issue - second hand sales.

For all intents and purposes, the net effect is the same as piracy, except a retailer is making money from it. So which is more or less ethical? Pirates downloading a game without paying for it, and thus depriving the creators of potential revenue, or retailers profiting while depriving the creators of potential revenue?

 

[MetalCraze]

it's better not to pay anyone than pay the wrong guys.

 

[WalterKinde]

So now selling secondhand equipment is potentially wrong because the original devs are removed from picture.
How many classic games have people here at the codex picked up from yardsales/flea markets and not to mention ebay/amazon resellers etc?
Sometimes for more than the game was originally sold but more often for way less as in the above example.
My take is if you are done with said product, you have the right to resell or give it away, you bought it free and clear, if we lay the hammer down on games, whats next?
Secondhand/used Books, movie dvds, appliances, We already know the record industry LOATHES second hand music stores and have successfully had a few shut down, because they don't get a cut.
So should Saturn get a cut when you decide its time to sell your car?

 

[Section8]

So now selling secondhand equipment is potentially wrong because the original devs are removed from picture.

Potentially. After all, pirates are evil because they get their games without rewarding the developers for their hard work. Why aren't resellers also evil for the same reason?

The only real difference is that the resale rate is closely tied to the number of retail units sold. You could sell no copies of a game, and have a million people pirate it, but to resell a game, it has to be sold as new first.

How many classic games have people here at the codex picked up from yardsales/flea markets and not to mention ebay/amazon resellers etc?

Yeah, a lot. If legality is your thing, that's the way to go. But the developer isn't going to get any royalties or a higher sales figure they can pitch to a publisher when they're trying to secure funding for their next project.

Secondhand/used Books, movie dvds, appliances, We already know the record industry LOATHES second hand music stores and have successfully had a few shut down, because they don't get a cut.
So should Saturn get a cut when you decide its time to sell your car?

I'm not really arguing anything here, and I'm certainly not in favour of any measures that give more power to the people who already have too much. I just find it an interesting discussion point.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I'd say second-hand sales are fundamentally different from piracy in one striking aspect:
When you pirate a game you pay nothing to get a benefit. Essentially you claim ownership without paying for it. If you, on the other hand, pay for a used game you give up something in order to get the benefit. The seller also gains something (money) in order to give up his benefit (the game). The seller also payed for the benefit in the first place which means he is free to do with his product what he chooses.

So, yeah, while second-hand sales are closely tied to the ammount of new units sold it's also a whole different issue than piracy. Second-hand sales includes the exchange of values, piracy does not. While some publishers may throw hissy fits over the second-hand market it's perfectly legal and viable as long as the product itself is exactly a self-contained product. If games went the way of being services (like GameTap or InstantAction) then any form of re-sales would be "illegal", or indeed not possible, since you can't re-sell a service.

 

[Longshanks]

Not all that different, both piracy and reselling deprive the developer/publisher of a potential customer.

You say that the seller benefits, and that this is right as he is giving up a benefit. What if he's already played the game, with no intention to replay it? What about giving the game away? Lending it? Hiring it out? Is it the payment of money that makes it right, or the "he owns it so he can do what he likes"?

The important difference is that for a resale to occur there must first be a sale, not the case with piracy. Therefore reselling/giving away has less of an impact, but is still wrong for the same reason piracy is (depriving the producer of a product of a potential customer).

If everyone pirated, no games would be sold. Whereas, if everyone onsold, sales would be reduced by more than half (more, as those buying second hand may also onsell).

 

[Slylandro]

Jesus Christ. I can't believe I have to spell this out in such basic terms to you guys.

You're all still stuck in consequentialist mode, both those of you who are against and those of you who are in favor of reselling. When you get software, there is typically a software license agreement that dictates the terms between the buyer and the producer of the software. By acquiring the software and using it, you agree to the contract. If it's part of the EULA that you cannot resell the software, and you do, then obviously you're not fulfilling your part of the bargain and there is good grounds for saying that your action is immoral. But the vast majority of EULAs (as far as games go at least) don't put any constraints on reselling. Most devs obviously don't mind reselling. So in general it clearly isn't immoral, and has nothing to do with piracy, which definitely violates the agreement.

 

[cutterjohn]

I would make sure that, when you pay for a game, you have to have your fingerprint taken and registered with the game. Now, to install the game, you need to verify it with some fingerprint-scanning device that should be given out for free to everyone. No print, no install.

Copies of the game wouldn't work because the game is branded to your fingerprint upon purchase. The only way to rebrand is to give it to a store with a proof of purchase, so you can still sell games, as long as you provide the receipt you got buying it.


Or maybe internet registration. Make a checksum out of your computer parts and encode it. You can only run the game on a computer that matches the checksum; this is verified with an encrypted internet database that matches your copy's registration number to your hardware checksum that's upload upon registering. You'll have to reregister the game once you install new hardware.

Something like that.

You must be from what was once East Gernany...

[EDIT]
AFAIC the VAST majority of pirates aren't going to buy the game anyways, so I find the publisher/developer claims of losses attributable to piracy to be GROSSLY inflated and disingenuous.

Second hand: aw, too bad. The right to re-sell copyrighted works which you have purchased has been around as long as copyright law has existed, and is closely tied to property rights in general. Any changes would require onerous changes in law, and likely not be tolerated in the US at least as well as other western nations, other than the union of Jasede socialist republics.
[/EDIT]

 

[Section8]

Most devs obviously don't mind reselling.

Why do they "obviously [not] mind"? Why is piracy such an issue that we get all these developers baaaaawwwwwwwing over how it's killing PC gaming, and they suddenly don't mind when someone finds another way of getting a royalty-free copy? Do they similarly not mind when someone buys a pirated copy?

And while I'm at it. Why don't we see devs baaaaawwwwwiiinnnggg about bargain bins, cheap price points and budget re-releases - "Hey, 10,000 people bought our game for $10! We should have charged them $50, and we'd have made five times as much!"

 

[Naked Ninja]

You aren't duplicating the material, you are transferring the right of ownership. Of which you paid for only one copy.

With software you pay for a licence to use a piece of software not the rights to the oringinal code. Duplication and distribution rights remain with the owner. In the same manner as books. There is a reason libraries can buy books and rent them to patrons but NOT copy books and hand them out for free. And likewise for music.

But hey, continue weaselling on champ.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

You aren't duplicating the material, you are transferring the right of ownership. Of which you paid for only one copy.

With software you pay for a licence to use a piece of software not the rights to the oringinal code. Duplication and distribution rights remain with the owner. In the same manner as books. There is a reason libraries can buy books and rent them to patrons but NOT copy books and hand them out for free.

But hey, continue weaselling on champ.

To be consistent, you have to agree that lending and borrowing as much as you want is also AWWWWWWRIGHT.

Also, am I the only one here who finds it supremely ironic that one of the two people to have ever received the muchly-coveted "weasel" tag is accusing people of "weaseling"?

 

[Naked Ninja]

No, I find it really ironic that you guys called me a weasel too. :D

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

No, I find it really ironic that you guys called me a weasel too. :D

To be consistent, you have to agree that lending and borrowing as much as you want is also AWWWWWWRIGHT.

Well, do you, tit?

 

[Gnidrologist]

NN is using reverse weaseling.

Btw, i thought weasels are well educated, intelligent and honest.

 

[Naked Ninja]

To be consistent, you have to agree that lending and borrowing as much as you want is also AWWWWWWRIGHT.

When has anyone ever complained about you lending your copy of a game to a friend?

But you don't do that, do you? You create a new copy so that you can both play at once, then alter the copy via a crack, a process which is strictly forbidden under legislature, circumventing the intellectual properties owner's sole right to duplicate and license the material.


Good job champ, you sure showed me.