vlad321 said: Zucas said: vlad321 said: And you have brought so much enlightenment on this topic that it's absolutely astounding, right? Glad you agree because all I have to do is put you down and that's already more astounding than anything you've contributed.  Guess your self-esteem is about as non-existent as your reasoning capabilities as well. See, between the two of you seem to try to stroke your "epeen" by putting others down by ad hominem attacks, then trying to pass that off as a contribution. Honestly, that's extremely pathetic.

Ah so you do know something about logic.  Well ya know what the term means and you don't like them, yet you use them so much.  Now why is that.  How could someone make a statement condeming others of something they did 5 mins earlier. 

 

I'm not a big fan of these piracy arguments because usually they get nowhere.  But if you are going to open discussion on it, being a jackass to anyone that disagrees with you is childish.  If you don't like when people bring up points on the other side then why initiate the discussion at all.  You don't cry when the bullets start spraying and you don't whine when someone doesn't agree with you. 

 

vlad321 said: Ail said: vlad321 said: Ail said: You are saying that quality of a game and it's price have effect on the piracy level of a game... I'm saying that the fact that a game can be pirated has an effect too. And you will be hard pressed to argue about this.  If it can't be pirated, piracy level = 0... Yes except that would mean that if piracy level = 0, then sales would be even larger, which you cannot show me at all. Again, the US and Netherlands have both said that they can't say that piracy actually affects sales, and that if they do it's a minimal amount.   Lets say piracy is made impossible tomorrow... What are you going to do ? Stop gaming ? Or buy some games... Buy the same games I would have bought even when piracy existed, and not even bother with the rest. Actually I'd miss on some amazing games, cause I sure as hell wouldn't have bought games like World of Goo and Machinarium. I doubt most pirates would magically start buying games either. I doubt the people in poor countries will start buying games, or the people who think that games are not worth the money will magically start buying games. P.S. Except that you'd have spent the money on gas somewhere else. Meanwhile they stated that piracy increased the amount of money one would have spent by getting people to buy related products, not just substitute X for Y.

Well the question I would ask is if you weren't going to buy them or couldn't afford them or what not, where's the entitlement.  I can understand pirating with some form of justification as it can't actually be phsycially bought.  Then I could see some sense of entitlement because you wanted to buy it but physically couldn't so this is the only way of obtaining it.  But for simply being on a tight budget and unable to obtain something you might want or slightly interested in, do you think you are entitled to obtain it?  Rather curious.

Zucas said: vlad321 said: Ail said: vlad321 said: Ail said: You are saying that quality of a game and it's price have effect on the piracy level of a game... I'm saying that the fact that a game can be pirated has an effect too. And you will be hard pressed to argue about this.  If it can't be pirated, piracy level = 0... Yes except that would mean that if piracy level = 0, then sales would be even larger, which you cannot show me at all. Again, the US and Netherlands have both said that they can't say that piracy actually affects sales, and that if they do it's a minimal amount.   Lets say piracy is made impossible tomorrow... What are you going to do ? Stop gaming ? Or buy some games... Buy the same games I would have bought even when piracy existed, and not even bother with the rest. Actually I'd miss on some amazing games, cause I sure as hell wouldn't have bought games like World of Goo and Machinarium. I doubt most pirates would magically start buying games either. I doubt the people in poor countries will start buying games, or the people who think that games are not worth the money will magically start buying games. P.S. Except that you'd have spent the money on gas somewhere else. Meanwhile they stated that piracy increased the amount of money one would have spent by getting people to buy related products, not just substitute X for Y. Well the question I would ask is if you weren't going to buy them or couldn't afford them or what not, where's the entitlement.  I can understand pirating with some form of justification as it can't actually be phsycially bought.  Then I could see some sense of entitlement because you wanted to buy it but physically couldn't so this is the only way of obtaining it.  But for simply being on a tight budget and unable to obtain something you might want or slightly interested in, do you think you are entitled to obtain it?  Rather curious.

To address your curioisity, I feel as entitled to the game as the developers feel entitled to the same amount of money for a product which is half the quality of another of the same price.

No one is saying that companies don't lose any money whatsoever, just not anywhere near what the industry claims, as every independent study so far has confirmed.

Record sales were out of control in 2000 when every artist was going platinum, and at the same time, Napster was at its peak. I'll ask again, if it hurts these companies so badly, then what are the major record labels still doing in business? It takes an hour or two at the most to download an artist's entire discography.

The idea that the industry loses billions of dollars every year is flawed in and of itself because it's based on a false assumption, which is that people use P2P or otherwise obtain bootleg copies of digital media for the sole reason they want to get everything for free. One of the things that made Napster and subsequent P2P networks so popular for people who wanted music is that the business model and quality of the recording industry's product started to suck and blow at the same time. People got sick and tired of being force fed band du jour, they sick and tired of the same cookie cutter artists rolling off of the assembly line, and most importantly, they'd had enough of paying $20 for a CD with two or three good songs and 10 or 11 filler tracks. Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, Bearshare, Grokster, and the like allowed people to download the individual songs that they liked instead of having to plop down 20 bucks for a whole CD, which is something that the recording industry wouldn't give to them. People didn't start using P2P to download music because they didn't want to pay, they turned to that particular method because the industry wouldn't give them the product and service that they wanted, and if you don't do that, no matter what industry it is, you're going to lose business. Finally *surprise surprise*, companies started to notice this, at which point pay-for-download music services like iTunes and the like came about, and were immensely successful. But how could that be????!! After all, people just wanted to get things for free without paying? Wrong. They wanted a decent product, and having finally gotten one, they were once again willing to pay.

Look at video games. Did shit like Securerom and Starforce do them any good? No, it actually made more people turn to P2P because they didn't have to deal with that kind of nonsense with an unauthorized copy.

These companies know just as well as anyone that "piracy" doesn't cost them the amount of money that they claim. The real reason that they don't like it is because of the medium. People have been making bootleg CD's, movies, video games, and computer software for the longest time, but they didn't start making such a big deal about it until P2P networks became prominent, not because a person could make a digital copy of it and distribute it to all of humanity in a very short period of time, but because the internet is the only medium that they can't control.

The industry can control what gets advertised on tv, radio, and in magazines. Why do you think that every time you turn on the radio you hear the same five songs fifteen times a day for three months? With the internet, on the other hand, everyone has equal representation, and that's why they don't like it.

Kasz216 said: Akvod said: Kasz216 said: Akvod said: Kasz216 said: Um... Akvod... you've taken economics... so you should know what causes piracy. Heck you alluded to it as much when you posted your graph. Piracy is nothing but a reaction... mostly by people who aren't going to buy something. Is it wrong for somebody to get something for free if nobody actually loses anything? It's a grey area, the only reason I think piracy is particularly wrong is that I don't believe many people, if any are clairvoyant enough to know if they really wouldn't pay for it at it's asking price. If I made something, ANYTHING... and someone made an exact copy of it, for free, at no cost to me... and I KNEW for a fact that they weren't going to buy it any other way, like say, because they make less in a year then it costs... to be quite honest... I wouldn't give a damn. It's not hurting me, except for my ability to say "You can't have this because you can't afford to pay me or don't have the means to pay me." (Credit cards and the like.) Personally I think that makes ME the dick. I'm denying something to someone when that denial offers me nothing. Are those pirates selfish because they made their own copies of something they can't afford? Hell yes. However, aren't I being selfish by denying something to somebody for no reason other then I can? Hell, even if it's "You can't have this because it's not worth it to you" I feel would make me a dick... just so long as I had 100% knowledge that said person wouldn't. (Which would be impossible.) While there is the need for a more complex model and adress to the fact that there are people who do indeed, still pay to buy, I'm sure you and me can agree that there are definetly a good number of people, who are at or above the equilibrium price and marginal benefit, basically people that say "This is a fair price", who pirate. Why? If you're a rational person, why would you not pirate? Alturism? Charity? Morality? Again, I don't want to take the totally cynical look here. We can definetly incorporate a OC to pirating (sense of guilt, risk, etc) and make that the supply curve, but it will be much much more elastic (flater). You lose two things as a IP holder when there is pirating.   The potential loss of sale and revenue to those who would have paid, if they were not offered the same product for 0 cost, by other pirates. The labor they had put into creating that thing. That thing that would have never existed. That is undeniably going to be lost. The labor the was put in, the dignity that it entails.       I think it's more dickish, not to say "You can't have it", but to say "I want to have it, I deserve it, and I will take it". Two reasons. A) Basic economic theory tells us people WANT to pay a fair price for an item.  The VAST majority of people would rather pay what they see is a fair price then take something for free.  People are actually conditioned to WANT to pay for something.  Goods gained "iillegitamitly" aren't enjoyed nearly as much by the vast majority of people. B) Rational people know that if they do take something they think is worth the money... future versions of that thing WON'T be made.  I mean, duh.   Like I said though.   I disagree.  I think it's FAR more dickish to deny something for no other reason then... you can.  If there is no reason for you to expect they could or would pay regardless. Basic economic theory teaches us that people pay the price, if it is AT or BELOW their marginal benefit. If consumers paid exactly what they thought the product was worth, consumer surplus will be impossible. Although I might value, say, my PS3 to be $700, if I saw it being sold for $300 I will buy it, no? If it was half that, I'll still buy it, and so on. Economics has a simple logic, consumers want a lower price. You have a much more complex logic, which is, consumers want to pay a fair (under what criteria?) price. Consumers will think a price is fair, if that price is the same as their value for the product, but that doesn't stop them from paying a lower price.   But, that's why I admit there's a more complex side to it, and why I want to add a OC curve to "illegtimacy". This is much more complex, and is much more theoretical. But don't try to act like it's somehow "basic" economics. You're contradicting "basic" economics, and it's in your interest not to bring it up, because in basic economics, piracy entails a perfectly elastic supply curve, all the way at the bottom: $0.   B) Then why do people pirate... out of hatred for that product? And while my rationalism is simple (lower price=better), your "rationalism" is much more complex. Do you really think people constantly think about the macro or micro economic consequence of their buying? No.         But that person isn't obligated to give anything. That person has created something that there wasn't before, and you make it sound like they are "witholding" it, as if we had a "right" to take it. They can do whatever they want with the product, and we also can do whatever we want, with our wallets. Supply and demand, and the equilibrium price that results from it, is consensual. Those that pirate, are doing it without consent. A) exactly my point.  Most people WON'T pirate something because they WANT to pay a fair price.  Fair being whatever they are offering if they think it's of value.   B)  You already know why.  The cost/benfit analysis doesn't work.  Just because there isn't ENOUGH value in their to warrant a purchase... it doesn't mean there is NO value.  Is it particularly moral?  No.  It makes sense though... and if they CAN'T pay I find it rather immoral to say they can't have it "just cause". Why does someone care if someone else who makes something at an unreasonable price go out of buisness?

? My point was that people will pay whatever is the LOWEST price, as long as it is AT LEAST their marginal benefit. AT LEAST is the key word. That is fair to them. Afterwards, they don't care if the price is lower than the maximum they were WILLING to pay. Basic economics tells us that if there was a supply curve that was a flat line at 0, everyone will pirate. That's why I'm trying to bring more theoretical things in, but you're going against your interest by trying to bring up basic economics. Basic economics says that everyone will pirate.

B)  But I don't think all people think like that. Even if they do, trying to model that is way too complex. It is a much simpler model, to say that people will have a demand for a product, and will buy a product if the price is at least their marginal benefit. I'm not denying you, I'm just denying your use of "basic" economics to justify it.

But... but... *laugh* XD, what you're saying is that every single person should have the right to every single thing. But no, we deny that, with the barrier known as property rights. You can't take the labor of another person from another. And how is it more immoral for people to steal, than a man to refuse to sell, sell his own labor, his own body? Are you against boy cotts then, the reverse? People refusing to BUY what a man sells?

Oh no, though, because, because, you're out for the "people" right?

 

Well, we care because if people cannot gain the fruits of their labor, then they have no incentive to give it. We also care because we believe that a man's body is the one property that is indisputably his. Therefore, his labor is his property. To take away his labor and to give it away is SLAVERY. Enslavment of the mind, the body, and the soul.

Zucas said: vlad321 said: Zucas said: vlad321 said: And you have brought so much enlightenment on this topic that it's absolutely astounding, right? Glad you agree because all I have to do is put you down and that's already more astounding than anything you've contributed.  Guess your self-esteem is about as non-existent as your reasoning capabilities as well. See, between the two of you seem to try to stroke your "epeen" by putting others down by ad hominem attacks, then trying to pass that off as a contribution. Honestly, that's extremely pathetic. Ah so you do know something about logic.  Well ya know what the term means and you don't like them, yet you use them so much.  Now why is that.  How could someone make a statement condeming others of something they did 5 mins earlier.    I'm not a big fan of these piracy arguments because usually they get nowhere.  But if you are going to open discussion on it, being a jackass to anyone that disagrees with you is childish.  If you don't like when people bring up points on the other side then why initiate the discussion at all.  You don't cry when the bullets start spraying and you don't whine when someone doesn't agree with you.

The only person I actually attacked was Ail, who tried to argue that ping under 100ms is irrelevant. I guess I decided to humor myself a little at the expense of the stupidity of someone else. My fault I guess. It was also done after I laid out my argument which involved no personal attacks at all. I have however not attacked anyone else in his thread except you.

vlad321 said: Zucas said: vlad321 said: Ail said: vlad321 said: Ail said: You are saying that quality of a game and it's price have effect on the piracy level of a game... I'm saying that the fact that a game can be pirated has an effect too. And you will be hard pressed to argue about this.  If it can't be pirated, piracy level = 0... Yes except that would mean that if piracy level = 0, then sales would be even larger, which you cannot show me at all. Again, the US and Netherlands have both said that they can't say that piracy actually affects sales, and that if they do it's a minimal amount.   Lets say piracy is made impossible tomorrow... What are you going to do ? Stop gaming ? Or buy some games... Buy the same games I would have bought even when piracy existed, and not even bother with the rest. Actually I'd miss on some amazing games, cause I sure as hell wouldn't have bought games like World of Goo and Machinarium. I doubt most pirates would magically start buying games either. I doubt the people in poor countries will start buying games, or the people who think that games are not worth the money will magically start buying games. P.S. Except that you'd have spent the money on gas somewhere else. Meanwhile they stated that piracy increased the amount of money one would have spent by getting people to buy related products, not just substitute X for Y. Well the question I would ask is if you weren't going to buy them or couldn't afford them or what not, where's the entitlement.  I can understand pirating with some form of justification as it can't actually be phsycially bought.  Then I could see some sense of entitlement because you wanted to buy it but physically couldn't so this is the only way of obtaining it.  But for simply being on a tight budget and unable to obtain something you might want or slightly interested in, do you think you are entitled to obtain it?  Rather curious. To address your curioisity, I feel as entitled to the game as the developers feel entitled to the same amount of money for a product which is half the quality of another of the same price.

So the developers should then go take the money they feel entitled to but don't receive?

Lord N said: No one is saying that companies don't lose any money whatsoever, just not anywhere near what the industry claims, as every independent study so far has confirmed. Record sales were out of control in 2000 when every artist was going platinum, and at the same time, Napster was at its peak. I'll ask again, if it hurts these companies so badly, then what are the major record labels still doing in business? It takes an hour or two at the most to download an artist's entire discography. The idea that the industry loses billions of dollars every year is flawed in and of itself because it's based on a false assumption, which is that people use P2P or otherwise obtain bootleg copies of digital media for the sole reason they want to get everything for free. One of the things that made Napster and subsequent P2P networks so popular for people who wanted music is that the business model and quality of the recording industry's product started to suck and blow at the same time. People got sick and tired of being force fed band du jour, they sick and tired of the same cookie cutter artists rolling off of the assembly line, and most importantly, they'd had enough of paying $20 for a CD with two or three good songs and 10 or 11 filler tracks. Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, Bearshare, Grokster, and the like allowed people to download the individual songs that they liked instead of having to plop down 20 bucks for a whole CD, which is something that the recording industry wouldn't give to them. People didn't start using P2P to download music because they didn't want to pay, they turned to that particular method because the industry wouldn't give them the product and service that they wanted, and if you don't do that, no matter what industry it is, you're going to lose business. Finally *surprise surprise*, companies started to notice this, at which point pay-for-download music services like iTunes and the like came about, and were immensely successful. But how could that be????!! After all, people just wanted to get things for free without paying? Wrong. They wanted a decent product, and having finally gotten one, they were once again willing to pay. Look at video games. Did shit like Securerom and Starforce do them any good? No, it actually made more people turn to P2P because they didn't have to deal with that kind of nonsense with an unauthorized copy. These companies know just as well as anyone that "piracy" doesn't cost them the amount of money that they claim. The real reason that they don't like it is because of the medium. People have been making bootleg CD's, movies, video games, and computer software for the longest time, but they didn't start making such a big deal about it until P2P networks became prominent, not because a person could make a digital copy of it and distribute it to all of humanity in a very short period of time, but because the internet is the only medium that they can't control. The industry can control what gets advertised on tv, radio, and in magazines. Why do you think that every time you turn on the radio you hear the same five songs fifteen times a day for three months? With the internet, on the other hand, everyone has equal representation, and that's why they don't like it.

Good points here, especially in history. People have been trying to point at piracy as the death of an art form for years and years now. The radio was supposed to kill off music, remember? The casette was supposed to kill off Music as well. The printin press was considered to kill off literature as well, way back in the day. VHS and DVD were supposed to be killing off Movies.

Eve after all of those, everything is stil around and the world still turns. The fact is that businesses are lazy bastards which don't want to do anything but gain money. Anything new they want to stifle otherwise they have to get off their fat lazy asses and actually do some work for their money, boo hoo. This is where the internet is at currently.

Ail said: Kasz216 said: Ail said: Kasz216 said: Ail said: vlad321 said: Ail said: vlad321 said: I want it pirated so the developer knows that they should not be asking $60 for a game that is ridiculously bad next time they release a game. But you said yourself, piracy has no effect at all on developers, so why should they bother about how much a title is pirated ? Because instead of 3 million pirated copies maybe they would have had 3 million sales, maybe even more for anyone who just decided to refrain from buying it and pirating it. But but, piracy does not affect sales !!! That is the whole argument you have been posting on this forum over and over for the last year............   Are you suddenly changing your mind ???????   No... he's saying if you charge 30 dollars for a game worth 30 dollars... more people may actually buy it.  That at a lower Price Activision is likely to create more sales. If a pirate does pirate something he wouldn't pay 60 dollars for... it doesn't mean he wouldn't pay 40, or 20.   Nope, he is saying that if less people decided to pirate the game ( for whatever reason, be it price, quality or another reason) more copies would be sold..   That seem to be like he's establishing a clear relation between the number of pirated copies and the number of copies sold.......... That isn't a clear relation between the number of pirated copies and the number of sold copies at all. Afterall, he's saying if something chagned.  IE, Price or Quality. Not "If piracy stopped."   If it was a better game more people who didn't pirate the game would sell it.  The same is true with it was cheaper.  However by studying your piracy vs sales numbers... it can tell you a LOT about the product. Not really , you and Vlad are both saying that those pirates under different conditions could be potential buyers... So if piracy was not possible isn't it reasonnable to consider that some of those pirates could translate as buyers ? It seems so to me. So just by its existence, piracy does indeed affect sales....

Not really.  Because the number of people who would pirate is very low... and statistically is generally canceled out if not surpassed by the positive effects of piracy.

For example, I've got a friend who pirates.  I am not comofrtable with pirating.  Sometimes he'll tell me about a game he's playing or he'll show me it... I end up buying it.  Because it's cool and I refuse to pirate.

In general, studies show piracy to be net nuetral because the small number of people who would of bought it anyway are covered by the positive effects it generally has.

Those people who would of bought it otherwise are total douchebags, but they are a very small minority.

So vlad, did you end up buying World of Goo?