Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » My trouble with the Law.
My trouble with the Law.
« previous page 123
...
6
78 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by ReNo on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:11am 2006

Nickelplate, from my experience, saying that people who pirate something wouldn't have bought it anyway as a general statement is utter rubbish. From the "Don't currently have enough cash - I'll just download it for now" excuse, through the "Well I might as well try before I (don't) buy" excuse, to the "I want it right now, not when I next go to the shops" excuse, there are plenty of cases where people download something that they would, without the means, have bought in the shops.

Of course this is a moot point when it comes to the discussion of used items, which are being sold to people who are obviously willing to pay for the item to some degree. Whether or not they are potential customers for the full priced version is debatable, but the price difference is quite often negligable which can suggest that yes, they would be.

If we take the case of Xbox 360 games, they currently retail for about ?40-50 brand new, and my local store offers preowned versions for ?35-45 - a mere ?5 saving pretty much across the board. At these prices, and with such a tiny margin of difference, it can be fairly safely assumed that anybody buying the preowned copies would be buying brand new copies if the preowned ones were not available. In this case, it is just about a given that the games companies are losing out on a sale because a copy they already sold is being bought in place.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Nickelplate on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:19am 2006

Right. USED items: i don't even see the problem.

All I can tell you is that I have bought 2 CDs in my whole life and I don't plan on buying many more. I have about 700 mp3s and many of those are legit. I listen to the radio or to internet streaming radio. I used to have over 10,000 MP3 and like almost 100 movies on my computer, I have gotten rid of all but the 700 mp3s. I'd say most of the stuff I download is old tunes that are not copyrighted, like old bluegrass or classical/opera. Just start liking stuff that is not NEW and you can DL all you want. because at the time, it was never for sale anyway.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by ReNo on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:32am 2006

Great solution there man - "just start liking stuff that is not NEW" <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_lol.gif">



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Nickelplate on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:37am 2006

haha, well, retro's in anyway ain'it?


I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Dr Brasso-Kona- on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:40am 2006

i spose you could always say f**k the public altogether, and just put a scrambler in the disc.....you buy it, you got it...you copy it, you lose it....game over....do i hear any constitutional rights being smashed? hmm?

Doc....

btw, nickel, i think that was undoubtedly the lamest argument ive heard you put up ever man....im dissappointed... :/





Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Nickelplate on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:50am 2006

? quoting Dr Brasso-Kona-
btw, nickel, i think that was undoubtedly the lamest argument ive heard you put up ever man....im dissappointed... :/

Sorry, Doc. I'm feelin a bit lame today anyway...

I'll do better next time, k?




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 12:36pm 2006

? quoting Crono
It's odd, because every industry looks at it differently.

Let me ask this question: you know those time trial demos you get of programs ... would you consider it "illegal" or "wrong" to simply remove the time restriction?

To carry this thinking one step further in a non-software direction.

Many high performance engines are deliberately dummied down for economy reasons with a chip added to the onboard computers. If you went to a junkyard and got the other chip, would you need to pay the chip makers for your junkyard acquisition?

The other chip returns the engine to its high powered design. You see, the engine was capable of doing all those neat high powered things but they fixed it with the other chip.

Is the chip maker losing capitol? Are you cheating them?





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by fishy on Thu Mar 2nd at 1:24pm 2006

i buy a game. the only other person on the planet to buy the same game is Orph. so, there are two games in circulation, and the developers have been paid for two games. if i sell my copy to Reno(since he buys 2nd hand games) then there are still only two games in circulation, that the developers have had their cut from.

to me, the 'pay for the experience' argument, is akin to whisteling a made up tune on the bus, and then demanding payment from anyone that heard it.




i eat paint



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Myrk- on Thu Mar 2nd at 2:51pm 2006

Wierd how topics change over time...

In my opinion the buy game to piracy game to 2nd hand buy ratio is fine- the developers, for thier style and intensity of work get paid the right amount and the money aquired by the publishers is enough.

I occasionally buy games, but tbh most I either get 2nd hand or download-

If I download a game it is usually because I only want it for the single player (as games generally have pretty damn good online piracy control) but also because I wouldn't buy the game if I didn't have the option to download it. It's rare for me to buy a game just because I can't download it, unless its very cheap 2nd hand (Mechwarrior 2: Lone Wolf for Xbox for instance).

If I buy 2nd hand its usually because the game is cheaper and because I can locate the game. In this situation I tend also not to play online and only buy 2nd hand because I can locate a 2nd hand copy.

.

As for general resale of goods, which I think games apply to, its stupid expecting money, not matter what your selling. The only ever instrument I've bought has been my Platinum Pro warlock guitar- the rest are 2nd hand, and as a manufacturer of a/an instrument/s I wouldn't expect any money for resale.

This does however raise the issue that seperates media from other objects for resale- the condition of the item. Usually a 2nd hand item is not as good quality as the original, which was the case with VHS cassettes. With DVD's and games the quality does not deterioate unless theres a physical problem with the disc, in which case the game/Film probably wouldn't work. Therefore there is no deterioation of quality of the product, its the same every time for anyone- this is most likely the reason publishers/developers get pissed off.




-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:24pm 2006

? quoting fishy
i buy a game. the only other person on the planet to buy the same game is Orph. so, there are two games in circulation, and the developers have been paid for two games. if i sell my copy to Reno(since he buys 2nd hand games) then there are still only two games in circulation, that the developers have had their cut from.

to me, the 'pay for the experience' argument, is akin to whisteling a made up tune on the bus, and then demanding payment from anyone that heard it.

EXACTLY.

Good explaination Fishman.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by ReNo on Thu Mar 2nd at 4:54pm 2006

That's a fair point about the whistling on a bus comparison except that they are a passive (or non-requesting) audience - thats more comparable to hearing some music in a shop, or on the radio, or having a shot of a game on a kiosk in a shop. You don't have any claim to that "experience" - it was simply a taster that the designer/owner bestowed upon you. I think it is far more comparable to paying the guard on the cinema door to let you sneak in and view a film rather than buying a ticket.

I'm still undecided as to the right and wrong of the argument to be honest, I just wanted to present the industry's take on it. I'm still going to be buying everything I can first hand though, in order to support the industry. Far too many games developers (and publishers for that matter) are closing lately, and while I would never claim that piracy or used games sales are to solely to blame, I also think it is completely naive to think that they don't contribute to the situation. Two of the main four games development studios in Scotland have shut down in the past few months, adding hundreds of people to the number looking for my sort of work at exactly the wrong time for me (as I'm about to graduate). It's a story repeating all over the world. Far more games than you might think end up making losses - this is far from a "make game, make money" industy and quality is rarely a factor in profits - and if you buy a used copy / pirated copy of the game, then you are getting the game experience without paying the developers a penny. Whether or not they have already had all they should get from that instance of the game, I guess is never gonna have a definate, universally accepted answer.

Things like Steam however are going to rectify the situation (in the developers view at least!) I'm sure. To me it makes far more sense to be paying the developers for access to the experience/content, not some random guy for the disk.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 5:29pm 2006

ReNo that's the way I see things too. I think the movie analogy is apt.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Nickelplate on Thu Mar 2nd at 5:35pm 2006

This second-hand sales thing is just ridiculous.

Example: A manufacturer uses $20 to make a video card. the manufacturer sells a Video card to a wholesaler for about $90, the wholesaler in turn sells it to retailer for $120. The retailer sells it to us for $230. If we sell it to our friend, and it does not matter how much, do we owe a part of that to all of these people? I don't see how music or games are any different. As long as you do not keep a copy for yourself after you sell it, there are still the same amount of CD's in circulation as there were before you sold it.

If a company makes 500 CDs and each one costs $1 to make and 500 people buy them for $2 each, that is a profit for the company on every CD they've made so if buyer number 500 sells his CD to guy #501 , the company has not lost any money, because the number of products sold by them matches the current number of products. And they have been paid once for each one in circulation.

  • Total manufactured:500
  • Total bought:500
  • Remainder:0
  • Money Gained:$500
  • Money Lost:$0

If the same scenario happens but the company made 600 CDs and only 500 were bought, and #500 sells to guy #501, the company STILL has not lost any money, because the total number of products is equal to the total number sold, and they have been paid for each product once.

But if the company has some surplus products, how is that our fault. That is part of running a business. We cannot be responsible for the fact that they thought they would sell more than they actually did.

  • Total manufactured: 600
  • Total bought: 500
  • Remainder: 100
  • Money Gained: $500
  • Money lost Due to Analysts' Misprojections: $100
  • Money Lost Due to resale: $0

    • Same scenario only there are a total of 1000 CDs produced and 500 buy them. buyer #400 makes 500 copies and sells them to buyers #501-1000. Buyer #500 sells his copy to #1001.

  • Total manufactured: 1000
  • Total bought: 500
  • Remainder: 500
  • Total Copied: 500
  • Money Gained: $500
  • Money lost Due to Analysts' Misprojections: $500
  • Money Lost Due to resale: $0
  • Money lost Due to Piracy: $500

    • See, piracy, resale and corporate losses are different, but the companies want to lump them all together to try to get money from everyone.




    I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
    http://www.dimebowl.com



    Quote
     Re: My trouble with the Law.
    Posted by ReNo on Thu Mar 2nd at 6:19pm 2006

    I can certainly see where you are coming from Nickel, but I think where we differ in opinion is that I still don't see the "product" as a physical object - I don't pay for the disk, I pay for the game. I think that the developers should get a cut when I buy the game, and used games bypass this. This debate is really growing pointless now as my past several posts have pretty much just stated the same point.



    Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



    Quote
     Re: My trouble with the Law.
    Posted by fishy on Thu Mar 2nd at 6:27pm 2006

    the though that i could charge people to play hl2 on my machine, and never pay valve anything extra, makes me all warm and fuzzy. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">




    i eat paint



    Quote
     Re: My trouble with the Law.
    Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 6:33pm 2006

    ? quoting ReNo
    I can certainly see where you are coming from Nickel, but I think where we differ in opinion is that I still don't see the "product" as a physical object - I don't pay for the disk, I pay for the game. I think that the developers should get a cut when I buy the game, and used games bypass this. This debate is really growing pointless now as my past several posts have pretty much just stated the same point.

    Granted. You may see it as "Paying for the game" but... Once the game is complete, they can cut 500 copies or 5 million copies for little or no additional capitol Duncan.

    Where is the line drawn, since you only see it as purchasing a GAME, where the developmental team is doing good business, and being greedy s**ts?

    Seriously. You have to look at it as DISKS SOLD because if they expect to sell 500 copies and they actually DO SELL 500 copies then if 100 additional people burned copies of their own, the developmental team hasn't lost one red cent.

    I see your point, but I think you are not quite seeing it from a profit/loss angle. You are determined to see it as loss/loss because 100 people got the game for nothing.

    That cannot be if 500 disks were produced, and sold.

    NOW, lets look at it from one more angle. A semi-tractor-trailer rig crashes and burns up 500 copies. The only 500 copies in existence. They have to make 500 more. Did they lose 500 copies?

    I think not. They are not in circulation so they cannot be claimed. The cost of the new 500 copies can be gained by increasing the final price by a couple bucks.





    The best things in life, aren't things.



    Quote
     Re: My trouble with the Law.
    Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 8:04pm 2006

    Wait if 500 copies burned up how did they not lose anything? Clearly, they had something beforehand and now they have nothing... with no money to show for it now.

    What if they broke the bank producing those 500 copies that burned up in the accident and now they can't produce any more games to make up for the copies they lost?

    Either in my example or your example they still lost 500 copies of the game, it doesn't matter whether or not they can still make money by selling additional copies... those original 500 copies were an investment they didn't see any returns on.

    Whats the difference between these two situations Nickel:

    #1:
    There is a demand for 1,000 copies of a game so 1,000 copies are manufatured. 500 are sold immediately. Each of those people resell their games to 500 others the next day after beating the game. The second group of 500 people were going to buy it from the game company but got it from their friends for less money.

    #2:
    There is a demand for 1,000 copies of a game so 1,000 copies are manufactured. 500 are sold immediately. Buyer #500 makes 500 copies and sells those to 500 others. The second group of 500 people were going to buy it from the game company but got it from the pirate for less money.

    In both cases by the end 1,000 people got to play the game and the company only made money off of the first 500 copies. Example #1 is resale, Example #2 is piracy. In both examples the company had their revenue cut in half. The only difference in the end result is the total number of products on the market (500 in example #1 and 1,000 in example #2) but the number of products on the market doesn't matter because the amount of money the game company lost in the end is the same for both examples.

    Am I missing something? The way I've set this up there doesn't seem to be any difference between piracy and resale from the game dev's point of view.




    Quote
     Re: My trouble with the Law.
    Posted by Gwil on Thu Mar 2nd at 8:20pm 2006

    If they had 100,000 printed, and ony 20,000 sold but 300,000 people played it, the developer would lose funding as a a result of the publisher viewing the game as not much of a success.

    Something like that - but people legitimately buying the game in the first place ensures the developer is allowed to go and make more games, as opposed to falling to profit based measures of success.





    Quote
     Re: My trouble with the Law.
    Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 8:24pm 2006

    ? quoting Addicted to Morphine
    Wait if 500 copies burned up how did they not lose anything? Clearly, they had something beforehand and now they have nothing... with no money to show for it now.

    What if they broke the bank producing those 500 copies that burned up in the accident and now they can't produce any more games to make up for the copies they lost?

    Either in my example or your example they still lost 500 copies of the game, it doesn't matter whether or not they can still make money by selling additional copies... those original 500 copies were an investment they didn't see any returns on.

    You are still thinking loss/loss. You cannot view it thus.

    If the marketing agent was so obtuse as to ship the product uninsured,then they deserve to go broke.

    Again I say, they have lost NOTHING because the games are NOT IN CIRCULATION.

    I am beginning to believe that this discussion is going weird because of a simple case of "Lack of personal experience with cash, or life as a commodity user"

    No insult intended, but have you not noticed that all the old members seem to be on one side of the fence, and the younger members upon the other?

    Its as if, since we have had to deal with cash, and its resulting impact upon our lives for a longer period, that we view loss in a totally different way.

    I, would be upset if I bought a winning lottery ticket, but lost it prior to cashing it in. I never actually had the cash, so the loss is minimized. Most youth see it as "But you won, it was yours and now you lost it"

    Damned few adults, or older adults see life as "could have had"





    The best things in life, aren't things.



    Quote
     Re: My trouble with the Law.
    Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 8:34pm 2006

    Orph, pretend like you're developing and distributing videogames. You spend the time and money to manufacture the videogames. You expect to make back the money (and more) from selling them. They get lost/destroyed before you can put them on the shelves. You've lost money. I'm not just talking about the money you would have made by selling the videogames... I'm talking about the money you spent manufacturing the videogames.

    Am I wrong in thinking that you lose money (you can seperate actual from potential if you'd like) when you lose the manufactured product before its sold?





    « previous page 123
    ...
    6
    78 next page »
    Post Reply