By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - EU Commission Says Piracy Increases Legitimate Game Sales

 

Agree?

Pirates are scum! 24 24.00%
 
Pirates are sometimes scum! 26 26.00%
 
Emulation is awesome! 50 50.00%
 
Total:100
DonFerrari on 26 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
setsunatenshi said:

@bold

it's irrelevant for the argument that x games were pirated. the argument is: does piracy increase or not the legitimate game sales, so please, argue this point.

 

again, you push assertions with nothing to back them up: "a good portion of those 80 games, you'd probably would have bought if you had no option to pirate."

So yeah, i need to ask again, from where are you pulling that exactly? when a person is afluent enough to be able to afford this hobby, their time is not spend in mental gymnastics on how to circumvent the rules. they will take the easy path to get their pleasure. it's just how humans work.

 

My conclusion here is this, you're arguing from a moral standpoint. It means you are not even ready to concede that a net positive is possible from an action you deemed immoral from the start.

I am arguing from a practical standpoint. I can see how this action can have a positive effect to the industry. I can see that the long term "investment" on new gamers does pay off by fostering 1 more person that will take gaming as their main hobby even if at some point of their life they couldn't afford it. 

 

So look back at what your main point, look at my point, and then determine which one exactly is addressing the main question of the OP.

It's not irrelevant because that's how many games were pirated and some of those games would have been bought if the person didn't have the option to pirate them in the first place.  How many games would have been bought, rented, resold then bought as used by someone else and dlc purchased any time the game switched hands compared to what is gained with pirates deciding that they like a game enough (out of the hundreds they steal) that they choose to purchase it? if That's just you trying to invalidate the biggest weakness in your argument. 

My argument is not really a moral one but rather a mathematical one. Video game companies lose money when potential consumers pirate their games in bulk. Pirates have no sound arguement to justify the thievery of hundreds of games each one likely does. I'm fine with someone sneaking a few games that they really wanted when their country prohibits the games themselves due to censorship or high taxes or politics but not alot of games because it's detrimental to the video game industry.

I'm addressing the whole of it while you're only addressing the uptink in game sales due to pirating. If you simply just look at how many possible sales they lose compared to how many they'll gain in sales, you'll see the faults in your points.

If 100 games have to be pirated in order to get 20 legit sales from one person who pirates, how is that an increase in legit sales or profit? They are losing a lot more than they gain. How does that make any sense to a company from a financal standpoint? It does no good to the industry if a person takes a liking to gaming through pirating games when that person becomes a lifelong pirate of their games. 

Because the argument will turn in either the pirate wouldn't buy anything (so the 20 is a gain that we have to thank the pirates for) or that they wouldn't buy more than those 20 (so the industry isn't losing money because that person wouldn't buy it anyway).

It's funny to see the justification that what they do is good.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
vivster on 27 September 2017
Cobretti2 said:
interesting article.

i reckon you would find most people would pay for tv and films if they were not tied to a streaming service, itunes or some other software/device required to play it. If they released them same quality for small size and you could play it in plex, vlc, on phone/pc etc.. they would get many dollars

I'd say the development in recent years shows the exact opposite. More people are paying for music and movies BECAUSE they are part of one convenient streaming package. The rapid success of Netflix and Spotify show that there was strong demand for easy and convenient access to a lot of content available on any device.

Convenience is valued a lot more than quality.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster on 27 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
I don't trust that at all. Pirating of games only encourages more of it. Why would someone pay for something they got for free?

Convenience goes a long way. Most gamers are having a hard time dealing with computers, let alone trying to pirate. And then there are people with a moral conscience and also people who just fear the consequences. Those 3 groups are making up the vast majority of the gaming population, which is why piracy will never blow up. And it will continue to be that way as long as companies are making worthwhile content and create a convenient way to pay and consume that content.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

setsunatenshi on 27 September 2017
DonFerrari said:
Aeolus451 said:

It's not irrelevant because that's how many games were pirated and some of those games would have been bought if the person didn't have the option to pirate them in the first place.  How many games would have been bought, rented, resold then bought as used by someone else and dlc purchased any time the game switched hands compared to what is gained with pirates deciding that they like a game enough (out of the hundreds they steal) that they choose to purchase it? if That's just you trying to invalidate the biggest weakness in your argument. 

My argument is not really a moral one but rather a mathematical one. Video game companies lose money when potential consumers pirate their games in bulk. Pirates have no sound arguement to justify the thievery of hundreds of games each one likely does. I'm fine with someone sneaking a few games that they really wanted when their country prohibits the games themselves due to censorship or high taxes or politics but not alot of games because it's detrimental to the video game industry.

I'm addressing the whole of it while you're only addressing the uptink in game sales due to pirating. If you simply just look at how many possible sales they lose compared to how many they'll gain in sales, you'll see the faults in your points.

If 100 games have to be pirated in order to get 20 legit sales from one person who pirates, how is that an increase in legit sales or profit? They are losing a lot more than they gain. How does that make any sense to a company from a financal standpoint? It does no good to the industry if a person takes a liking to gaming through pirating games when that person becomes a lifelong pirate of their games. 

Because the argument will turn in either the pirate wouldn't buy anything (so the 20 is a gain that we have to thank the pirates for) or that they wouldn't buy more than those 20 (so the industry isn't losing money because that person wouldn't buy it anyway).

It's funny to see the justification that what they do is good.

it's neither funny nor unfunny, it's simply reality and how things actually work

given the disposable income, people will spend on their favourite hobby. and nor just by direct sales, but also merchandise, fandom, etc.

especially since the bulk of people who actually pirate games are 1) younger kids with no disposable income to fuel their hobby or 2) people in poorer countries or with low access to affordable gaming (or outright censorship)

it's a magical thinking that just because one of such people managed to download 100 games, that instead they would be buying 100 games. that's just being completely out of touch with reality.

 

again, there's absolutelly nothing preventing people from pirating pretty much any game they want, and still most people still decide to buy their games. this should be telling you something



setsunatenshi on 27 September 2017
vivster said:
Aeolus451 said:
I don't trust that at all. Pirating of games only encourages more of it. Why would someone pay for something they got for free?

Convenience goes a long way. Most gamers are having a hard time dealing with computers, let alone trying to pirate. And then there are people with a moral conscience and also people who just fear the consequences. Those 3 groups are making up the vast majority of the gaming population, which is why piracy will never blow up. And it will continue to be that way as long as companies are making worthwhile content and create a convenient way to pay and consume that content.

this 100%

 

convenience is the most important factor on why people still prefer to pay when given the opportunity and having the financial conditions to do it.

could not agree more with the above statement



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 27 September 2017
vivster said:
Cobretti2 said:
interesting article.

i reckon you would find most people would pay for tv and films if they were not tied to a streaming service, itunes or some other software/device required to play it. If they released them same quality for small size and you could play it in plex, vlc, on phone/pc etc.. they would get many dollars

I'd say the development in recent years shows the exact opposite. More people are paying for music and movies BECAUSE they are part of one convenient streaming package. The rapid success of Netflix and Spotify show that there was strong demand for easy and convenient access to a lot of content available on any device.

Convenience is valued a lot more than quality.

Even more when streaming costs basically yhe price of one or 2 movies and you get as much as you can watch for the month.

setsunatenshi said:
DonFerrari said:

Because the argument will turn in either the pirate wouldn't buy anything (so the 20 is a gain that we have to thank the pirates for) or that they wouldn't buy more than those 20 (so the industry isn't losing money because that person wouldn't buy it anyway).

It's funny to see the justification that what they do is good.

it's neither funny nor unfunny, it's simply reality and how things actually work

given the disposable income, people will spend on their favourite hobby. and nor just by direct sales, but also merchandise, fandom, etc.

especially since the bulk of people who actually pirate games are 1) younger kids with no disposable income to fuel their hobby or 2) people in poorer countries or with low access to affordable gaming (or outright censorship)

it's a magical thinking that just because one of such people managed to download 100 games, that instead they would be buying 100 games. that's just being completely out of touch with reality.

again, there's absolutelly nothing preventing people from pirating pretty much any game they want, and still most people still decide to buy their games. this should be telling you something

It's how it works? Similar to you simply knowing they would have more profit selling for 20 instead of 60 but companies are too dumb to do it?

1) Could be, but there are plenty of adults here and everywhere that pirate

2) BS. The bulk of pirates are in wealthy markets. As someone even put here in the thread a lot of the people on poor country doesn't even buy the HW so they don't have much access and not pirate as much.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Cobretti2 on 27 September 2017
vivster said:
Cobretti2 said:
interesting article.

i reckon you would find most people would pay for tv and films if they were not tied to a streaming service, itunes or some other software/device required to play it. If they released them same quality for small size and you could play it in plex, vlc, on phone/pc etc.. they would get many dollars

I'd say the development in recent years shows the exact opposite. More people are paying for music and movies BECAUSE they are part of one convenient streaming package. The rapid success of Netflix and Spotify show that there was strong demand for easy and convenient access to a lot of content available on any device.

Convenience is valued a lot more than quality.

Yer but the issue for me is they fight for rights. So you need a few packages and you also need to be on the internet. I am old school i buy my movies and tv shows. I would gladly switch to digital if I could add it to my server and play it how I want it.

It is liek the BluRays you buy that have a digital movie code. I added a few to the service that was offered. Then that service closed down and wanted ot me transfer to another service. For someoen who is busy and travels for work I need it to be storable and work with whatever i have on me at the time.

Spotify I have no issue with as music is generlaly small files, so you can sync them in offline mod your fav tunes. HD movies is a little different with mobile phone space lol.



 

 

Teeqoz on 27 September 2017

Does this mean that the pirated games themselves gain from the act, or that the gaming industry in general gains from the act? That is an important distinction.



Nautilus on 27 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Nautilus said:

Of course they work like that.But sometimes its not just crystal clear.Sometimes companies do what Leadified said.As long as the operation is profitable and they see a potential of expanding the market for its products and brand(and this is very important, since if the quantity doesnt justify earning less per unit, they obviously wont do that) they will do that.They wont just leave the money on the table.

Or if the company is worried that the price drop would damage the brand(because it would stop being seen as a luxury and tha could impact the product image) they usually "create" or buy other companies to create products for these poorer countries, which would basically be the same(with maybe a bit less quality) but with the price being much lower(or higher, depending on where you want to sell), and thus would create a new market for that said company(or Group, in this case) to sell their products and rack in more cash.One such example is Ambev.

The problem with this line of thinking is that no business wants to be just well.It wants to be the best it can be.Its a bussiness, it wants to maximize profits.Like I said in the first post, it doesnt care about your personal feeling on the topic and if you are paying more.As long as the games are priced just right, enough that you feel that the price is justified, they will charge as high as they can get.If you really have a problem with that, vote with your wallet.And the regular customers wouldnt be pissed because most of them have zero idea of whats happening outside their country, especially with regards to price of things of luxury such as videogames.And specially in wealthy countries.And FYI, this has been done since the dawn of times.Merchants always charged more on regions were people could pay more.If the practice has been going on for so long, its because it works.

And you clearly dont understand how socialism and capitalism work.

Countries have different tax rates and companies don't decrease the base price whatsoever to offset the high taxes/fees of some countries compared to others. Why would they decrease their prices for the reasons that you're talking about if they won't even do it for taxes? It's because it affects their profits if they sell below a certain price point at a certain period of time.  

Poor countries are poor. They don't have money to dick around with these kind of luxuries and companies know it. If a person in those countries can afford a luxury, they'll pay the regular price for it. If they can't then oh well. It's that simple.

 

Thats why I said that companies only do it(lowering price in the hopes of making profit off of sheer numbers sold) if there is the potential.If the estimates they do check out and so on.If there is no evidence suggesting that such practice will pay off, and they are better off leaving the original price at it is, they will do it.Its a matter of analysing the market and deciding based off of that.

And you need to remember that there are poor countries and there are poorer countries.Just because you are poor doesnt mean you cant afford a bit of luxury.Plus there are countries that are not that poor but simply prefer to spend their money elsewhere, other than gaming.(Like China with console gaming).If you manage to create a strategy to make the buying customs of said country to change, you are bound to rake in big loads of cash, and sometimes thats worth the risk(with one such strategy being lowering the price of games in general).

Its all a matter of perspective.And you really need to get off that idea of your that poor countries have only enough money for essential things and a few extras on the side.Poor countries are obviously poorer than richer countries, but they are not nearly as poor as you think.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

vivster on 27 September 2017
Cobretti2 said:
vivster said:

I'd say the development in recent years shows the exact opposite. More people are paying for music and movies BECAUSE they are part of one convenient streaming package. The rapid success of Netflix and Spotify show that there was strong demand for easy and convenient access to a lot of content available on any device.

Convenience is valued a lot more than quality.

Yer but the issue for me is they fight for rights. So you need a few packages and you also need to be on the internet. I am old school i buy my movies and tv shows. I would gladly switch to digital if I could add it to my server and play it how I want it.

It is liek the BluRays you buy that have a digital movie code. I added a few to the service that was offered. Then that service closed down and wanted ot me transfer to another service. For someoen who is busy and travels for work I need it to be storable and work with whatever i have on me at the time.

Spotify I have no issue with as music is generlaly small files, so you can sync them in offline mod your fav tunes. HD movies is a little different with mobile phone space lol.

Yeah, but that puts you in a minority, so it doesn't matter.

Teeqoz said:

Does this mean that the pirated games themselves gain from the act, or that the gaming industry in general gains from the act? That is an important distinction.

Both I guess? It's hard to gauge an impact on a game by game basis. It most likely is a net loss for bad games, because people try it, hate it and will probably be less likely to buy any future games from the same developer. It's basically the same issues as with demos. Depends on the game and how it's monetized if it has a negative, positive or no effect at all.

It's certainly more beneficial for online games with single player components than for singleplayer games or online games without singleplayer. So it only really makes sense to measure it for the whole industry.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.