Can company really "lose" money to pirates?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chibibar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12248010

Well.... let me try to be more clear on that.

Can a company lose money to pirates who never intend to buy game in the first place? I would assume that if a person is a potential customer and face with an option to pirate vs buying, then the company DOES lose money since that is one less potential customer.

How does these company figure the number that they lose billions? Do they go by how many times it was downloaded? does it have a secret software that report to the "home" that these games are hacked?

Can you really claim you lose money if the person never intend to buy? I know that if a person can "steal" X dollars by NOT buying the game and play, but if pirating wasn't available (in a perfect world) then that person may not buy in the first place (supposely)

Now how can a company fight against people who are never willing to pay for a game in the first place? I think making a game affordable may curb some pirates (the people who willing to pay but can't afford the high price tag)

Last but not lease. What kind of customers are there?


People willing to buy collector's edition
People willing to buy regular edition
People who pre-order (either above)
People who can afford games that are less than X dollars
People who are willing to buy games as long doesn't have restrictive DRM
people who are going to play the game and pass time and not willing to pay
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I think companies do indeed lose money through piracy. I also think they overstate the amounts they lose to an extreme amount for maximum impact. Since it's literally impossible to track lost cost, it's nothing more than a guess as to how much they lose.

Having said that, there are times when I'd LOVE to give someone money and do not have the avenue to do so. For example, I wanted to buy the DVDs of the BBC show QI. But the only ones I could find could not be played on my DVD player because of regional differences. So I'm currently downloading them. I want to buy them. I can't.
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

Funnily enough, games are where I don't download. I have before, but for ones that I couldn't find anymore, like the old Sierra or LucasArts games. Abandonware, as it's called. But the moment it pops up on Steam? Well, maybe not the moment, but when they have a sale on it, like their Boxing Week one? Boom, bought. And happily.

That said, I'm not a game fanboy that needs to buy the game as soon as it's released. Games drop in price ridiculously quick, so waiting even a couple of months can save me $30 and up, even new. Though I've broken it twice, I have a personal promise not to buy a game for more than $30. The first time was for pre-ordering Dead Rising 2, but that was with a good chunk of credit. The second was Smackdown 2011, again with a chunk of credit. There are games that I've yet to beat that I've bought, so it's not like I can't wait, anyway.

But yeah, I can understand the company's grief about downloaders. Some don't bother paying money EVER for a copy of a game. But there's enough fanboys to keep their profits high. I firmly believe in the idea of paying for what you like.

Of course, the reason I've now moved most of my movie collection to digital is because I'm tired of paying for what I like...over and over again in different formats (theatre, video, DVD, now Blu-Ray).
 
J

Jiarn

That's an easy question: Depends on the pirate.

If it's someone who had zero intention of ever buying the game? Then nope.

If it's someone who was interested in the game and wanted to try it out before buying? Possibly because even if the buyer didn't like the game, at least the company recieved funds.

If it's someone who's going to buy the game when it eventually hits a price mark they can afford? Nope, they'll still get as much money as they were going to in the first place.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

But if that person pirates the game, he will not buy the product, hence the product is being used for free, therefore the company loses money.
 
C

Chibibar

sixpackshaker said:
But if that person pirates the game, he will not buy the product, hence the product is being used for free, therefore the company loses money.
Click to expand...
some pirates (what I use to do) is download games that seems interesting and then I buy them (if there is no demo) but later I discover steam and since I bought all my games from them (at least most of the PC stuff)
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Chibibar said:
some pirates (what I use to do) is download games that seems interesting and then I buy them (if there is no demo) but later I discover steam and since I bought all my games from them (at least most of the PC stuff)
Click to expand...
Sorry you are unbelievably rare. Very few people will buy the cow when the milk is free.
 
J

Jiarn

Not that rare, I'm the last category as well. I can't buy games over $20, so I will "play" them till I can buy them.
 
Adam

Adam

In online gaming for example, a company will set up a server based on X amount of documented sales. If I sold a million "Call of Duty: Adammon Ops" discs, and research showed that 65% of those purchases will end up online, I would create server infrastructure to be able to handle 10% of those users at any one time.

Pirating removes any kind of demand restriction and now I either boost up infrastructure to support excessive users (which costs me money) or I don't and I lose customers because the servers can't handle the strain of both paying and non-paying users.

And this is independant of lost opportunity costs.
 
C

Chibibar

Adammon said:
In online gaming for example, a company will set up a server based on X amount of documented sales. If I sold a million "Call of Duty: Adammon Ops" discs, and research showed that 65% of those purchases will end up online, I would create server infrastructure to be able to handle 10% of those users at any one time.

Pirating removes any kind of demand restriction and now I either boost up infrastructure to support excessive users (which costs me money) or I don't and I lose customers because the servers can't handle the strain of both paying and non-paying users.

And this is independant of lost opportunity costs.
Click to expand...
but doesn't server stuff like that would need authentication of valid serial key? (kinda like Steam method) so pirate version using the same key/hack key won't work?
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Jiarn said:
Not that rare, I'm the last category as well. I can't buy games over $20, so I will "play" them till I can buy them.
Click to expand...
I know you guys say that, but it is still theft. You play a $50 dollar game for two years then wait for the price to drop to $20, still means you stole $30 from the company.
 
Piotyr

Piotyr

Adammon said:
In online gaming for example, a company will set up a server based on X amount of documented sales. If I sold a million "Call of Duty: Adammon Ops" discs, and research showed that 65% of those purchases will end up online, I would create server infrastructure to be able to handle 10% of those users at any one time.

Pirating removes any kind of demand restriction and now I either boost up infrastructure to support excessive users (which costs me money) or I don't and I lose customers because the servers can't handle the strain of both paying and non-paying users.

And this is independant of lost opportunity costs.
Click to expand...
This is largely why Blizzard now filters all online play through Battle.net, to verify actual registered games.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
The obvious answer to everyone's dilemma is, of course, demos followed by Steam-like authentication. I know there are those who HATE that you have to check in online to work a game, but it's really the only way to prevent pirates.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

In short, the answer is obviously "yes."

Let's say we have a non-pirateable game (How? Magic, I guess).

-People who want to buy the game will buy it regardless. No lost sale. Cha-ching!
-People who weren't going to buy the game anyway will continue to not buy the game. Also not a lost sale regardless of whether they are 'collectors' who would have had the binary but never played it had they been able to pirate it.
-However, people who were going to have to save/wait/upgrade/etc before they could buy the game may be tempted to get the 'free' copy instead. These people are the lost sales. Yes, there are those who will avoid the temptation of the cracked/free copy (I'm one of 'em, laugh all you want), but there are plenty who will give in and get the unofficial copy. These people are the ones who have cheated the company. Whether they buy it later or not is further clouded by how they acquire it. Buying a used copy fully cheats the original publisher because the second purchase carries no payment/royalty to the publisher (and that's why there's such a huge debate about reselling games, and why so many are moving to subscription).

And I could go on (and still may) but my break time is over, and I must return to work.

--Patrick
 
J

Jiarn

sixpackshaker said:
I know you guys say that, but it is still theft. You play a $50 dollar game for two years then wait for the price to drop to $20, still means you stole $30 from the company.
Click to expand...
So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I'm pretty sure the unanimous argument for this is "Yes, they do, but not everyone who pirates was willing to buy it in the first place." A sale is only "lost" when the person is actually willing to buy it, but there is no way to measure this objectively, so game companies exaggerate every instance of piracy as a lost sale.

And no, waiting fro a price drop is not stealing. The company already got paid for the copy your buying by the people your buying it from. Your only depriving them of money if you buy used, but that is still legal.
 
D

Disconnected

I agree with Dave that I see that kind of model coming.

also perhaps...
"The future will be stream-ivised". Ok that doesn't work so well but you try making it fit with televised.

-it eliminates re-sales (used copies)
-it eliminates a home system needed to put media into or onto
-it nearly eliminates there is even a product. only parts of a product sent to you.
-it allows a company to use online authentication too

Jiarn said:
So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?
Click to expand...
wut?
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Jiarn said:
So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?
Click to expand...
you find utility from some one's product and you do not pay for it, it is theft.

I sit on the sidelines and wait until the price drops, I did not use that game when it was $50. I stole nothing, because I did not use that game for those 2 years.
 
J

Jiarn

Sorry man, but I'm still buying it. Just because I used it for 2yrs didn't mean anything to the company.
 
Piotyr

Piotyr

Jiarn said:
Sorry man, but I'm still buying it. Just because I used it for 2yrs didn't mean anything to the company.
Click to expand...
You got two years of unpaid use out of the product. It's electronic, which doesn't make it feel like a tangible thing, but if it weren't you'd consider it completely differently.

It's just a strange society that considers IP so differently than physical property.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Jiarn said:
So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?
Click to expand...
How does that logic apply? Games (and movies) go down in price because people generally want to play new games more than they want to play older ones. There is more demand for new games, so the price is higher. This is basic economics. People are willing to pay for the privilege of certain things. They pay extra for certain brand names. They pay extra for limited editions. They pay extra for backstage passes. They pay extra for early access, and that's what this is. Paying $50 for a new game is paying to have access to it before those who are only willing to pay $20.
 
J

Jiarn

figmentPez said:
How does that logic apply? Games (and movies) go down in price because people generally want to play new games more than they want to play older ones. There is more demand for new games, so the price is higher. This is basic economics. People are willing to pay for the privilege of certain things. They pay extra for certain brand names. They pay extra for limited editions. They pay extra for backstage passes. They pay extra for early access, and that's what this is. Paying $50 for a new game is paying to have access to it before those who are only willing to pay $20.
Click to expand...
Yet explain to me, how they lose $30 with how I do it.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Jiarn said:
Yet explain to me, how they lose $30 with how I do it.
Click to expand...
I never said that they did. Virtual goods are a difficult thing to talk about, because you didn't deprive the company, or some other customer, of any physical goods or effort. However, that doesn't make what you did acceptable. You got access to a game without right. It doesn't matter that you later paid for a license. If you weren't willing to pay the price that the copyright holder fairly and legally offered, then you shouldn't have violated their rights by taking the game anyway.
 
M

makare

I've always wondered about if it is ok to dl movies I already have on tape. Technically I already paid for the movie. Did I pay for the tape or what?
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

Ditto, makare. Like I said above, there's a lot of movies in my collection that I don't care for the special features or a high definition version. So, I've been selling them off and moving them to digital. A vast majority of my collection used to be VHS. And a large number of them I've seen in theatres. So I've paid for them multiple times. The studios have gotten more than enough of my money from the same damn movie.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
A judge in California ruled it's legal to make copies of your DVDs, just like it's legal to make MP3s out of your CDs. However, the same judge also said that any software capable of doing so is illegal. That's like saying it's legal to take a recipe and bake it into a cake, but anything that can effectively be used as a pan to bake that cake is illegal. Want to turn flour, sugar, eggs, etc. into delicious cake? Use only your bare hands and the power of your mind!
 
CrimsonSoul

CrimsonSoul

Hey Dave, not the cheapest of routes, but AnyDVD (http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html) can play DVD's on your PC no matter what region it's in (and it can burn the DVDs even if it has encription on it) just putting that out there. Basically you install it and have it open on your taskbar pop in the DVD in your PC and it plays in whatever you use, Windows media player for example. It's worked great for me.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I think VLC media player does the same thing, but is also an all-in-one format reader.

figmentPez said:
I never said that they did. Virtual goods are a difficult thing to talk about, because you didn't deprive the company, or some other customer, of any physical goods or effort. However, that doesn't make what you did acceptable. You got access to a game without right. It doesn't matter that you later paid for a license. If you weren't willing to pay the price that the copyright holder fairly and legally offered, then you shouldn't have violated their rights by taking the game anyway.
Click to expand...
This is the argument you should have been making to begin with, instead of claiming money was stolen and muddying the issue.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

It is like stealing a shirt in the spring and then paying for it once it goes on sale in the fall. You had use of that shirt for 6 months, while it was still more valuable, then pay when it is less expensive. You guys are just lucky the police has so many violent offenders to chase.
 
C

Chibibar

wait.... so you are saying if a pirate download a game that is worth at 50$ and later actually buy the game for 20$ they are stealing 30$?

or if I didn't buy the game and wait for the price to drop to 20$ and bought it (like steam sales) am I still stealing 30$?

(I'm so confuse)
 
J

Jiarn

figmentPez said:
sixpackshaker was the one who said money was stolen. When Jiarn responded to that with illogic, I pointed it out.
Click to expand...
I pointed out illogic with illogic. It wasn't my "point" I was trying to prove.

Also, the difference here is "It's immoral to use it for those 2 years" and not "The company loses $30".

I'm not denying the immorality of it, I'm saying, the company loses no money the way I do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top