Pirating is illegal.Anyone who does it,in my opinion,Should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I've never dowloaded a free game, but I have downloaded pretty much all of my music. I don't feel like it's stealing..I guess I'm just used to it though.

@Slapme7times

If gamestop were shut down, than you would have to shut down pawn shops and Ebay also.
There is nothing wrong with selling a game you will never play again to someone who will. Would you rather it just be thrown away? What good would that do.. fill up landfills? And what about games that are out of production, those who didn't get a chance to play it when it came out can buy from those who did. I don't see anything wrong with that.

besides the people who bring those used games back for money (including me) usually buy new games with it so the money does end up going to the game companies anyway.

And if Gamestop was a financial threat to game companies something would have been said already.

I have never pirated a thing in my life. However I don't look down upon those who do.I do feel that the PC gaming industry in praticular will survive along side piracy. But if piracy decreased ad didn't become such a big issue that in my opinion is blown out of proportion by the industry, more developers would be attracted to write for the PC. That would mean more a better games for us, just something to think about before you open up your bit torrent browser. Now I do want to bring up something that's a bit of topic, but really annoyed me. I saw an antipiracy ad at the beginning of a movie where it has a guy pirating a movie online, while he pirates the movie, he's car is stolen. This ad is making the point that stealing a vidoe is like stealing a car. Pirating a movie online only costs the maker 20 dollars or so stealing a car is more like 20,000 dollars. There not at all the same thing. That was just somethin that annoyed me.

Good point Slapme7times. Good, valid counterpoint CandiedJester.
Total tangent, CandiedJester, you should change your handle to CandideJester, because the Voltaire reference will make people think you're super smart... or bombastic... or full of mistypes... or all three? Honestly, either way, my dyslexia sees it as CandideJester either way.

Well, the economy sucks now, for both corporations and consumers. But convenience is something worth paying for. I wish corporations would price games accordingly, like Mercury Meltdown on Wii is now $20, which really, it's a pretty good puzzle game, but it's only worth $20, not the $40 it started at. In fact, most Wii games (especially shovelware) are really only worth $20-$30. I was happy to see RE4 for Wii for $30 new, because that's about right. The best of the last gen, $30. However shallow, there's still something to be said for free games, like Wii Sports, Super Mario Bros/Duck Hunt...
I've downloaded a buttload of games, music, movies in my time. I am a musician, and I appreciate what musicians do, but most big musicians are lucky to pocket a dollar or two for every album sold. When Radiohead had a pay what you want album online, with a fast download, industry execs predicted they made a little more than $3-4 per album downloaded. Which was more than they had ever made selling albums. Now, they're basically the next U2, who are in turn the next Rolling Stones, who tour and make $60 million every year.

I do use Steam now, it's a matter of convenience and price point. The Orange Box has a GREAT price point. Download speeds are OK to pretty good. I do use Itunes on occasion. Convenience, again.

But back in the early 2000's, I downloaded a bunch of Emulators and ROMs, for games and systems I once had or never got the chance to play in the US. Thank you, Internet, for Seiken Densetsu 3. Then the publishers started taking down all fan sites that hosted ROMs/EMUs for distributing and caring for games that they had left behind. They didn't care at ALL about classic gaming 8 years ago, NOW, that's all I play on my next gen systems.
The Beatles catalog, whose melodies have been ripped off again and again without paying them, are about to start becoming public domain in the upcoming years. How fast does technology become obsolete? How fast does classic music become obsolete? I think the IP on tech is MUCH shorter than on other forms of entertainment.
I see both sides. Hip hop/rap/any music that samples has been killed as a genre by lawyers. I don't like very much hip-hop, (I'm more of an indie-rocker-snob) but it's depressing to me that rap has been turned into kareoke. Ghetto Superstar was a Dolly Parton song, Islands in the Stream, for instance.
Yes, lawyers can really kill an industry. They're why most of music today is so stale.

But to move on, look at it from a consumer side. Do you want to pay for the same shit over and over? I don't. Once again, I'm going to step away from the game industry, and this time, move towards all the other stuff that fills up your comp's HD. Programs.
Yes, computers were originally produced to fulfill user created tasks. Odd to think of it, but this is still what 90% of computers are meant to do. Mundane, work related tasks. Microsoft Word? Really? Should Office Suite still be $400? Final Cut Pro for $1200? Adobe CS3? ESRI ARCGIS? These programs are worse than Madden and Tony Hawk in making baby steps yet demanding full retail every few years. I just got done doing excel spreadsheets all day and none of the tasks I've needed to do have changed in more than 10 years.


My ultimate point is, games and consumers need to find a better price point. I don't think it's right when a person pays $60 for a 6 hour game with 10 year old gameplay. I might as well rent the game, or illegally download, or buy it used at a later date.
I still think that most downloadable titles are priced too high, for instance, I've filled up my Wii with Twilight Hack games, in part, because they're still holding back some of the games I had back when, and in part, because most of those games are diversions, not full games I want to spend money on.
And lastly, Steam is making bank because its very easy to use. Nintendo (I do love Nintendo) boasts ease of use, so the Wii can be played by anyone from 4 to 80, but really, buying is not made easy on Wii. True, kids are smart, and can abuse a credit card, but most adults (like me) already abuse their own credit cards. In fact, make it too hard, or too expensive, and people will abuse the internet instead and download games for free.

So the real question to developers/publishers is this: is it too difficult to buy games, or are they too expensive?

1. Yes, I have downloaded illegal copies of videogames, and no, I do not think it was ethical. Videogames over here aren't only truly more expensive (due to taxes and stuff) but also the relative price is awesomely high. Whereas in the US $40 (which ends up costing $100 here) for a videogame is a 5 hour shift on minimum wage (I think), over here it can pretty much be 12 hours (30 with taxes), so you can only buy legal copies if you're not 80% of the people that live by the check, and that applies to almost all South America.
2. No, in escence, there's not. You're still getting something for free when you should be paying for it.
3. I think the problem in itself is what you end up buying. When you download an illegal copy, its because it's easy to access and there's no real difference (other than moral issues) with the legal copy. When games also ask you for even MORE money after buying them (expansions! extra shit! online play!), then you start feeling like a cow, getting milked AFTER you already bought the game (and Im looking at you Katamari).

I think part of the solution isn't on DRM, but rather on showing the real "Bang for your buck" with whatever package you get. Not only getting the basic software, but also getting freebies with it, actually makes you want to GET the package.

I ended up buying my GameCube with original copies after getting a job that didn't suck and game prices fell due to the console getting obsolete (second hand, unwanted games, etc).

My own experiences can be organized into three categories.

1. I didn't want to pay for it.
2. I already paid for it.
3. I'm gonna make sure it works before I pay for it.

Number 1 is pretty straight forward. The game is not that interesting and I just wanted something to play so I could pass the time. I knew I wasn't going to play it ever again and if I had gone to the store to buy it, I would have talked myself out of it by the time I got there. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying I didn't care enough about it for it to matter.

Number 2 is the easiest to argue for. For example, I love Xenogears. However, I have played my copy so much that it melted. It literally has bubbled up in places and has ceased to work. Rather than pay an exorbitant amount of money online to somebody named "SugerBear1337" (who happens to have hermetically sealed away 500 copies back in 98'just in case), I choose instead to download it and save myself the fear of Suge knowing where I live. Still waiting for American PSN release.

Number 3 is where you begin to ride the fence. I like to play fps' a lot. I wasn't sure though, how my computer would play one in particular. Compy is pretty old and despite the joy that I've gotten out of the previous titles in the series, I was pretty sure that the loud box under my desk wouldn't survive this one. So, i downloaded it to try. I know that I could have just downloaded the demo and tried that. Not all maps are created equal, however, and the demo maps could have played fine while the others would run about as fast as my great-grandmother after her hip replacement. Rather than drop $50 on the "cross your fingers and hold your breath method" I chose to test drive it first and found Compy to be up to the task. In return for its hard work, I put forth some effort and drove down to the store to purchase the Collector's Edition in all of its metal boxy glory.

PS. Sometimes number 1 introduces me to a new game that I didn't think I would like and I end up playing the hell out of it. This is a rare occurrence but it does happen. I consider this occasion number 1b: "I didn't want to pay for it but realized it was actually worth a damn and did."

I have pirated 1 game in the past, but no more than that. I really want PC gaming to stay. I like the games and controls better, and i love the mod communities. With that said, at what cost? I think restrictive DRM is leading people to pirate.

I had a friend who always pirates games ask me if wanted the game (Spore). I told him no, I wasn't buying the game on principle and that I would wait for it to either patch out the DRM or not buy it at all. He said, "well you don't have to buy it. I'll just give it to you." I have to admit that i was curious. I almost did it by saying to myself, "well it's EA they can afford to not have my money and i can get the game for free." To be honest where is the line? When is ok to break the rules to protest or to get change?

To Ikillchicken and anyone else who used definition of words to justify piracy as not harming Devs and publishers then your just kidding yourself that you are not doing anything wrong. If some one has put time, money and effort into making something to sell, then you should decide whether you want it or not. Part of that decision process involves whether or not you are willing to pay the amount the money the business is valuing it at. If not then don't buy it. If enough people didnt buy it then the price would come down, but not when piracy exists as thats a whole load of potential buyers who wont pay even a discounted price.

Personally, I went through a period of downloading music, well it actually started after me and a friend used to buy an album a week from our wages. I was only 15 or 16 and didnt make much from my paper round. After buying 3 albums in 3 weeks that I thought were BAD and my friend buying 3 he thought were bad, we started splitting the cost, buying one and making a copy (this was before MP3)...then file sharing came and we took this up with the start of napster. As a creative myself I, since college, do not like or approve of piracy. I understand and realise the value of what you are "stealing" from its creator.

But, poor quality in games especially is a big reason for piracy, I dont want to pay £50 for a game that will last me 2 weeks. So now I think the best way is to rent games from say an internet site or something and use them as a test.

"If at some point you’ve downloaded a pirated copy of a game (or anything else), do you think that what you did was ethical? If yes, why? If no, why did you do it anyway?"

While I've never downloaded a pirated copy of a game, I've done more than my share of downloading of movies, music, and software applications. Do I think it was ethical? Ultimately, no. When it get's down to it, regardless of your reason for downloading a copy of a game, or any "Intellectual Property" for that matter, whether it be because you just don't give a f*<k, you feel entitled, you're broke, or if you think you're doing the right thing by "sticking it to corporate America" and standing up for the little guy, the end result is the exact same; You have a product that was created by someone\some group, that was made available by that person\group, in exchange for payment from the intended user, that you did not pay for. Period. There is no arguing that. Product = In your hands \ Money = Still in your pocket.

But, as I said above, I did it anyway. Why? Several reasons I guess. Using an example of downloading a movie; First; The idea of just a couple of mouse clicks and 30 minutes time equals me having a watchable version of the lastest hit movie, just strikes me as "cool". Not as in, "I'm cool and you're a dork.", but cool as in "adjective (slang) great; terrific; fantastic. Example: Wow, that's really cool!; You look cool in those jeans!" (from dictionary.com) Second; I'll admit it: I'm a cheapskate. So when presented with these two ways to see that hit movie: 1-Pay up to $10.00 for a ticket 2-Click & downlaod then most likely, #2 is going to win. Third; While I agree that downloading doesn't pay the person\group that should be paid for the product I've downloaded, I also feel somewhat absolved for my actions, by the actions in response of those that made the product. Example; The RIAA goes after people for not paying for the songs they've downloaded, because by downloading the song, you've not paid the artist(s) for their work. Yet, the RIAA doesn't use any of the money they gain from their settlements to then pay that artist(s). They instead use it to fund more suits against other people. How then does that benefit that artist(s)? Movie studios show commercials of recently laid off cameramen, grips, stagehands, etc, etc because Hollywood looses so much money every year to movie downloads. Yet, in general, summer after summer and year after year, a new total box office record is set. Plus, some individual studios just make an obscene amount in a given year. Now I have a hard time reconciling Studio ABC123 telling me on Thursday that poor John Smith the Boom Mic guy just got laid off because the studio lost X amount of money last summer\year, and then having Studio ABC123 telling me on Monday about it's latest hit making 100+ million on opening weekend, and that that same movie goes onto make over half a billion dollars. Fourth; Finally, the IP owners need to step up and take some share of responsibility. Once it's know how prevelant the downloading of a product is, the almost always response is to go overboard on trying to protect that product. However, all that typically results in is, headaches and problems for legit buyers, while only perhaps denting the piracy of their product, and certainly not stopping it. Instead, they should be embracing the internet, and harnessing it to sell their product.Mann

"Is there a difference between copying the property of an individual (like an indie game dev) and copying the property of a large company?"

A difference in action or result? No. Regardless of whom you're copying the property from, copying is copying is copying. Is there a difference perhaps in whether I'm more prone, or inclined, to copying from one or the other? Yes. I'd much sooner copy from Electronic Arts, than I would from say Positech, or an individual working from their basement. First, on a monetary basis, EA is much more capable of absorbing the hit of a lost sale, than the guy from his basement. Second, on a more "personal" level, it's much easier to copy from a faceless conglomerate than it is from the guy in the basement, whose basement is perhaps in the house right next door to me.





"What do you think the long-term implications of wide-scale IP infringement might be?"

I see two opposing paths; First, on the current path of "we download & they fight it"; I think that it will just get harder and harder for the legit buyer(ie; more restrictive DRM, more hoops to jump thru, more hassle) to use a product, shile doing next to nothing to slow piracy, which I think can\could result in more resentment from those legit buyers towards a company. That resentment could translate into three things I think; Nothing: No change on the buyers or companies end. Customer Loss: The legit buyer gets fed up with company A's product protection and goes to company B to use their similar product. Customer Loss & Product Loss: The legit buyer gets fed up with company A's product protection, but likes their product better than company B's similar product, and therefore downloads a copy of it instead. Second, as stated above in the second question, companies embrace the internet to sell their product, and not only sell it, but sell it in such a way as to entice some of those pirates to instead purchase a legit copy. Now I admit, i don't know how that would be done. That is beyond my scope of experience and expertise. But I do know, that the current status quo, will not work to sway some of the pirates out there to go legit.

Here's the first part of my first response. It got cut off for some reason.

"While I've never downloaded a pirated copy of a game, I've done more than my share of downloading of movies, music, and software applications. Do I think it was ethical? Ultimately, no. When it get's down to it, regardless of your reason for downloading a copy of a game, or any "Intellectual Property" for that matter, whether it be because you just don't give a f*<k, you feel entitled, you're broke, or if you think you're doing the right thing by "sticking it to corporate America" and standing up for the little guy, the end result is the exact same; You have a product that was created by someone\some group, that was made available by that person\group, in exchange for payment from the intended user, that you did not pay for. Period. There is no arguing that. Product = In your hands \ Money = Still in your pocket."

Again?

"While I've never downloaded a pirated copy of a game, I've done more than my share of downloading of movies, music, and software applications. Do I think it was ethical? Ultimately, no. When it get's down to it, regardless of your reason for downloading a copy of a game, or any "Intellectual Property" for that matter, whether it be because you just don't give a damn, you feel entitled, you're broke, or if you think you're doing the right thing by "sticking it to corporate America" and standing up for the little guy, the end result is the exact same; You have a product that was created by someone\some group, that was made available by that person\group, in exchange for payment from the intended user, that you did not pay for. Period. There is no arguing that. Product = In your hands \ Money = Still in your pocket.

I have to admit that I have in the past, illegally downloaded games. Most of the games however, were old. The biggest reason why I illegally downloaded games in the past is because of money. However, I consider DRM a big issue, and no.1 reason why people illegally download games.

Also, why not give incentives to people actually bought the game other than just a copy and a plain 10-page manual?

To me, the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument doesn't make any sense. First of all, the very fact that you downloaded it shows that the item had some value even if that value wasn't "full price". Many games may be overpriced, but the the market will take care of that problem. If a game truly is not a good value, the publisher will adjust the price to sell more copies. Maybe that lower price would have made it so you did find it a good value, but then you would not buy the game because you already have played it. In the entertainment industry, like most other industries, there is a general principle that things are going to be more expensive when they are first released. There is a premium to have earlier access to something than some other people. Ultimately, it is up to the companies to set the price at the correct point. That's not to say that consumers have no influence
Second, people say that pirating games they wouldn't have bought anyway isn't really costing anyone anything, because they still will be buying the games they would have bought. Unfortunately, this is not true. While you may not have bought that certain game (although maybe you would have if there were no other alternative), you are still using your leisure time on that video game. Assuming you would play video games for about the same amount of time either way, any time you use on a "free" game is time not being used on a game you would have bought.
Last, the people do it because they think they are entitled to try the product before they buy it. I understand that trying a game is important to many people before making a $50 or $60 purchase, but that does not entitled you to break the law to try a product. Again, it is up to the companies, with pressure from the market and consumers, to provide consumers with a meaningful chance to try out their product.

Well, I pirate games. And rather than spout off pseudo-intellectual bullshit I simply state that I'm not going to justify why I pirate some old shitty game occasionally. Basically: Fuck 'em that's why.

But seriously, who do some of you think you are, ivy league economists? Admit it, none of us know shit about corporate profit schemes. And you tossers on your high horses "oh I've never done it, but anyone who has is a big doodie (or some such)". Fuck you too.

Stealing, is like stealing the local game stores only copy of the latest game. They can't sell that game, and receive the atrocious amount of money paid for that game. piracy is virtual. The game numbers are unlimited. Piracy can muck up your computer, and you still feel like a thief. No one is missing out on piracy. It is wrong, both are wrong but the upside to piracy is
-no-one misses out
-unlimited number of games.
Bad Points
-can muck up your computer if gotten off a dodgy supplier
-still feel like a thief.

Both are wrong.

My response to the music, game and film industry in regards to piracy is...TUFF LUCK!! If the companies didn't charge so much per unit for their products, there would be no need to pirate! (it costs 19p to make a DVD, 50p to make a CD and just over £1 to make a Blu Ray) And all this "you can't steal just because we're rich" MY HEART BLEEDS!! LOL

For me this issue is more about a clash of the old with the new than it is about strictly piracy. The old business execs are clashing with the new younger web culture. The execs have been raised on a system of advertising and selling so many physical units to help guide them in their business decisions to help maximize future profits. Seeing that this item sold 300,000 physical copies proves it is more successful than this one that sold only 50,000 so they stop making the 50 seller and make more like the 300 seller. But the rise of easy access web culture has thrown this model for a loop. They see 500,000 people downloading but only 100,000 buying and they don't know what to make of it. No one can know how many of that 400,000 would have bought the game otherwise and how many wouldn't. And, they can't predict how many will be willing to buy a sequel. It screw with their business model and it scares them. And with the rise of sites like YouTube, Kongregate, and formerly Napster, kids are growing up with quick, free sources of entertainment. They are getting used to not paying to get stuff. And then you have stuff like the Radiohead album. Radiohead made a bunch of money all for itself and nobody was required to pay them. The internet allowed them to distribute their art without needing a middle man to pay for production of physical cds and marketing. This freaks the publishers out because they are no longer needed. The entertainment econmy is rapidly changing and if there is one thing big companies, like publishers, are scared of it is rapid change. So we get cries of rampant piracy destroying the industry and consumer punishing DRM rather than seeking to adapt to a new consumer market. And while Steam is a good first step, its also a good example of the unwillingness to change. And don't get me wrong I do love Valve and Steam, but why does a digital version of a game cost just as much as a boxed retail? You have no manual to print, no box to make, no shipping, no cd to write. Shouldn't it be less? Couldn't you sell more if it was cheaper? But the execs have set a price point for games based on boxed sales only and so that's the price of the game. Companies still use NPD as a rubric for their games success even though it deals strictly with retail sales. This is why they cry that the PC market is dying when anybody playing Team fortress 2 or WOW knows that is an ignorant claim. And the irony is games used to be at the forefront of this. How many people have been loyal Id followers because of Wolfenstien and Doom shareware? Publishers in all entertainment industries are refusing to see the internet as a more powerful force than them and embrace a new economy. It is a place where people can spend hours making their own entertainment, or where indie people turned down by big companies can release books, comics, music, etc. and make a good profit off donations and ads without the big companies help. People will support the entertainment they love and when you reward the consumer with freedom of choice and the freedom to find exposure to your work before shelling out 50 bucks or more, they will support you vehemently.

fuentesa, REALLY good point. Why didn't someone think of this sooner?
A lot of gamers are also collectors of useless hunks of plastic called toys. I myself have a replica lightsaber, which does nothing useful other than making me grin ear to ear every now and again.
The games industry really should try to appeal to collectors inside gamers. Why not include a replica of the Enterprise in the next crappy Star Trek game? I'd probably buy it. Or Green Latern's ring in the next crappy DC game? The one ring in a LOTR game box? A plastic batarang in the next Batman game. LEGOs in the next lego game? Give us a little more than instructions that are likely repeated in the first level of the game.

That being said, I think I might just go to Amazon and preorder GOW2 with the really expensive Lancer. I mean, I do have a credit card, might as well use(abuse) it.