Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gaming industry lose 'billions' to chipped consoles
Options
Comments
-
alastair_doom wrote: »?? I'm not showing any double standards. I fully accepted what I'm doing was wrong and hurting the the gaming ecosystem. What I'm complaining about is the defense and rationalization for piracy.
Hypocrisy would have been the correct way of saying it then rather than say you or anyone else has double standards
What i want to ask it what would it take for you to buy the next DS game you want, is it just a matter of piracy being wrong but spending money being worse.0 -
Hypocrisy would have been the correct way of saying it then rather than say you or anyone else has double standardshy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
I'm not telling people not to pirate, I'm just debating whether the views expressed by users previously (companies can afford it, or most people wouldnt buy the games anyway) are indeed accurate, and provided my own situation as an example which I fear is alot more common than people realize.What i want to ask it what would it take for you to buy the next DS game you want, is it just a matter of piracy being wrong but spending money being worse.
Good anti-piracy software would be the only thing. You could say its selfish and shortsighted, but I dont feel an individual buying a game when DS piracy is so rampant is going to make any impact. I honestly hope Nintendo dont make the same mistakes with the 3DS.
The biggest issue here imho (and why i took issue with previous statements) is that piracy seems almost socially acceptable at this stage. There used be a stigma attached than has been lost forever thanks to broadband internet making it seemingly ubiquitous. Companies tried and failed before to reattach this stigma (the brilliant "knock off Nigel" ad), and without the stigma and the improving quality of these items being pirated its only going to grow as a problem.0 -
alastair_doom wrote: »You could say its selfish and shortsighted, but I dont feel an individual buying a game when DS piracy is so rampant is going to make any impact. I honestly hope Nintendo dont make the same mistakes with the 3DS.
The biggest issue here imho (and why i took issue with previous statements) is that piracy seems almost socially acceptable at this stage.
It socially acceptable because most think what harm or affect can i have which was exactly what you said.
The 3ds is meant to or was alluded to having a sleep update feature by Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata that would allow it to update the firmware without input from the user and even while off(with a battery charged at least).
At some point console makers will hopefully start using a steam like system of registering games to an account and requiring it to be connected at the start to work.0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »Those piracy figures are BS and count each title download as a lost sale which is poor research.
Many companies tend to do this deliberately to cover up for failing to reach agreed targets with shareholders and the like.
It's the same story in the music industry, record companies blamed piracy rather than own up to the decreasing product standards.
For the record, there's as much evidence to correlate piracy with increasing sales as there is decreasing (google napster and radiohead for a prime example). In short, the vast majority of these studies are driven by vested interests and no one has yet to paint the true picture imo.
edit: To add to the anecdotal evidence, the only people I know who ever bothered to chip their consoles still spend more on games than anyone else I know.0 -
the untitled user wrote: »For the record, there's as much evidence to correlate piracy with increasing sales as there is decreasing (google napster and radiohead for a prime example)
For music maybe but if someone pirates a game there is not much reason to buy it or contribute to developers unless the online features of some protected feature is enticing enough.the untitled user wrote: »In short, the vast majority of these studies are driven by vested interests and no one has yet to paint the true picture imo.
they're companies, there very reason to be is to make money, working out how much piracy cost in lost sales would be very hard.the untitled user wrote: »edit: To add to the anecdotal evidence, the only people I know who ever bothered to chip their consoles still spend more on games than anyone else I know.
A lot of hacks don't need you to buy or install anything any more and the cost and effort is no longer a deterrent.0 -
Advertisement
-
1.45 Billion pounds is only worth 1,000 jobs to them?
WOW.0 -
Although alot of people on here are against people pirating games.. i'd put money that most of them download music/films and TV shows illegally, which are losing a far higher percentage of sales/views because of piracy. I've not bought or downloaded a chipped game since the PS2 Jonesborough days and spend quite alot of money on games every year, whereas i cant remember hte last time i've bought a DVD or CD.0
-
Every time someone from the game industry says X amount is lost to piracy each year you commonly hear these two things.
"The figures quoted are bulls**t." But they don't have any numbers of there own to back that statement up.
"And when is the games industry going realize that every pirated game does not equal a lost sale!"
To which I ask when did the game's industry ever say that?0 -
-
For music maybe but if someone pirates a game there is not much reason to buy it or contribute to developers unless the online features of some protected feature is enticing enough.
Again, I've nothing but anecdotal evidence to back this up, but I've bought the odd game I wouldn't have because I played pirated versions in friends places and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. And as I said above, those friends who pirate the most also spend the most anyway. Nothing to do with the ease of the hack, or features etc, if they really like a game or series they'll usually preorder it or get the legit version without much thought because they know in advance they are getting value for money.they're companies, there very reason to be is to make money, working out how much piracy cost in lost sales would be very hard.
And that's exactly why I ignore anything the companies say, and why everone else should too on the matter. They will often have a hidden agenda.
Anyway, I'm talking about the supposedly impartial academic studies that considerable resources have gone into. You do a little research on who's behind it see it sponsored by various different players in industry most of the time. Even then, there's no accurate information on unit sales in the public domain, which is odd, if the info really did backup the industry on this why are they so relucatant to disclose it? Could it be they are telling fibs and that their shareholders/investors may not like what they see?0 -
Advertisement
-
Meh, I'm not concerned. I've saved hundreds if not thousands on games for the xbox 360. Most I wouldn't have bought anyway. But if you can get something for free, why buy? The studios earn enough money. It's the same tired old argument with the music industry. "Piracy is killing music!". No it isn't.
Yes technically it's wrong of me, but again I'm not concerned. Plus the fact that you can often play new releases weeks before they appear in shops is a great incentive. I completed GOW 2 two weeks before it's retail debut.0 -
Im not saying pirating is a good idea but shouldnt the developers be trying to get a better cut of the pie if their getting shafted. Stop complaining and using scare tactics.
Im sick of people complaining about their job being ****e and all that. Move on, i was a sparks by trade , industry went belly up, move on your not intitled to anything in this world. Aer Lingus feck off out of it with your strikes.
Its not a moral sin to play a computer game that was not exchanged for cash. Might be unorthodox and socially frowned upon but not something thats gonna be used against ya at the pearly gates.0 -
Every time someone from the game industry says X amount is lost to piracy each year you commonly hear these two things.
"The figures quoted are bulls**t." But they don't have any numbers of there own to back that statement up.
"And when is the games industry going realize that every pirated game does not equal a lost sale!"
To which I ask when did the game's industry ever say that?
They did it in the article ffs!BBC wrote:It estimates that for every original game sold at least one is pirated.
Video game bosses say that, like the music and film industry, it's a huge problem.
Michael Rawlinson, the Director General of UKIE, says it's a simple question of criminals breaking the law and posing a genuine threat to video game companies.
He said: "When people play a pirated game that money goes to a criminal, not to the industry.
"That takes away jobs from young developers and graphic designers, so it actually stifles creativity and stops new games coming out."
Now, look at the figures of the article. They claim at least 1.45 billion is lost, which is coincidentally the totals sales figures for the industry. And Rawlinson says there is one download for every sale, so they are clearing counting every download as a lost sale.0 -
Games are too expensive now and money is tight for people, i think they would make enough as it is really.
Just like the movie industry most games lose money.
Publishers make profit based on the games that are hugely successful, and they fund the ones that aren't. This is based on the idea that you don't know what game will be huge so you got to make a few at least.
Because of this publishers are very interested in combating piracy, for two main reasons.
Firstly the successful games tend to get pirated a lot. I agree that not every pirated game is a lost sale but some of them are, particularly on the popular games, and every lost sale is money lost not just to be profit for this game but for the publisher themselves.
On less successful, loss making games, the less they sell the greater the loss is.
So while it may seem like publishers make a lot of money, they need to if we want to continue to see publishers taking risks on games.
I'm not trying to justify the DRM methods publishers use, and I think figures are over blown.
But the idea that they make enough money already is short sighted if we want a game industry that takes chances. The more money they make on successful games the more chances they will take with other riskier games that have less chance breaking even, because the loss on these games can be absorbed by the big sellers.0 -
Every time someone from the game industry says X amount is lost to piracy each year you commonly hear these two things.
"The figures quoted are bulls**t." But they don't have any numbers of there own to back that statement up.
"And when is the games industry going realize that every pirated game does not equal a lost sale!"
To which I ask when did the game's industry ever say that?
The industry can't know how much is "lost to piracy" because they can't know what percentage of pirated copies represent actual lost sales. They have to make up this figure. This estimate will be the same figure used by their industry lobbyists when looking for tougher anti-piracy legislation and increased police resources.
This vested interest means that the industry figures should not be trusted. The burden of proof in these matters should lie squarely on the shoulders of the industries looking for protectionist legislation.0 -
I think I'd know if it's sh1te or not.While a download is not a lost sale you have cost the developers money by not buying their games you play. The excuse of "i wouldn't have bought it if i couldn't get it free" is ****e if you went to the trouble of hacking your 360 you probably do like games and would have bought them otherwise meaning a few lost sales to the developers.
I have 3 friends with xboxs. One of them buys one game a year, Fifa. I can't even remember the last time either of the other 2 have purchased any type of game or peripheral.
But me being a pirate and ruining the gaming industry and everything, I still buy lots have peripherals- Kinect, RockBand, DJ Hero.
So yet that I'm ruining the gaming industry I've spent more money in the industry than those three people put together.0 -
Who cares what the exact figure is though? The fact is it does result in lost sales/revenue and given the more volatile nature of the games industry it cannot afford to continue to lose such funds. Look at Alan Wake for instance, going by the piracy figures here which, bear in mind, don't include private sites or usenet, they actually outstrip the actual sales of the game itself. Now are you going to tell me large amounts of revenue were not lost here?The industry can't know how much is "lost to piracy" because they can't know what percentage of pirated copies represent actual lost sales. They have to make up this figure. This estimate will be the same figure used by their industry lobbyists when looking for tougher anti-piracy legislation and increased police resources.
This vested interest means that the industry figures should not be trusted. The burden of proof in these matters should lie squarely on the shoulders of the industries looking for protectionist legislation.
So your argument is because you spent a couple of quid more on stuff than your mates that you're excused? No, sorry it doesn't work like that.So yet that I'm ruining the gaming industry I've spent more money in the industry than those three people put together.
Lines like this basically blow the defense of piracy argument out of the water. As a matter of interest, if you weren't able to download games would you simply not buy any games or even own a console?I have a flashed 360 and I would never buy a game. Don't have the money so I really don't see how it's 'losing' money?0 -
Give me games with lovely big boxes and assorted game-related paraphernalia (maps, posters etc.) in the STANDARD edition.
Spend that extra 1-2euro to make games special again.
Keep the prices low.
Alternatively: everything is digitally distributed.0 -
Well... maybe in the next generation of consoles they'll put some ****ing effort into protecting the systems, a 10 year old can chip and rip games for the xbox ffs and now the PS3 is even easier because of one incredibly simple error.
I mean up until a month or so ago the PS3 was pretty much pirate free... I hate piracy... but there are alot of arsewipes who dont give a **** about anyone else, acting like they're the only industry in the world effected by counterfeit goods wont get them anyway.0 -
Prices are kept low by not including that kind of stuff though. If you do want it, as many people do, then just spend the extra couple of quid on the special editions.Give me games with lovely big boxes and assorted game-related paraphernalia (maps, posters etc.) in the STANDARD edition.
Spend that extra 1-2euro to make games special again.
Keep the prices low.
Alternatively: everything is digitally distributed.0 -
Advertisement
-
Who cares what the exact figure is though? The fact is it does result in lost sales/revenue and given the more volatile nature of the games industry it cannot afford to continue to lose such funds. Look at Alan Wake for instance, going by the piracy figures here which, bear in mind, don't include private sites or usenet, they actually outstrip the actual sales of the game itself. Now are you going to tell me large amounts of revenue were not lost here?
The title of the article, itself, invites the question. If it's important to quantify the impact of piracy, then it's important to show how you came to the resultant amount.
I'd hate to find out the industry was pulling numbers out of their ass to satisfy their own, err, ends.0 -
But the numbers will never really be known which is why they estimate them. Hell, they even say themselves the figures are estimates and aren't fully known. The problem of course is that no set of figures will ever be accepted by people so I don't know why people complain over specific ones. The fact of the matter is though, a large amount of money is being lost and that situation is unacceptable.The title of the article, itself, invites the question. If it's important to quantify the impact of piracy, then it's important to show how you came to the resultant amount.
I'd hate to find out the industry was pulling numbers out of their ass to satisfy their own, err, ends.0 -
-
Who cares what the exact figure is though? The fact is it does result in lost sales/revenue and given the more volatile nature of the games industry it cannot afford to continue to lose such funds. Look at Alan Wake for instance, going by the piracy figures here which, bear in mind, don't include private sites or usenet, they actually outstrip the actual sales of the game itself. Now are you going to tell me large amounts of revenue were not lost here?
It's in everyones interest to know the full picture though. For example, do the figures justify the draconian, invasive and borderline illegal DRM we are seeing on products? Do the figures even justify investment in DRM?
Secondly, given the anecdotal evidence we see of the potential positive effects of piracy, is it possible to leverage filesharing for the net benefit of both consumers and producers, through increased exposure, possible feedback mechanisms etc.
Thirdly, the download figures always appear frightening, but there is no direct correlation established to date (that I have seen at least) between the absolute piracy figures and revenue lost. For example, the more authoritative studies in the music industry suggest at most 7-8% is lost total, despite the staggering volume of downloads. And even then I would argue they haven't taken into consideration enough externalities.
edit: I wonder is it possible to get an English translation of the following? http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/01/dutch-government-study-net-effect-of-p2p-use-is-positive.ars0 -
the untitled user wrote: »It's in everyones interest to know the full picture though. For example, do the figures justify the draconian, invasive and borderline illegal DRM we are seeing on products? Do the figures even justify investment in DRM? [/url]
If all DRM verging on illegal someone or some group would have taken action and the cases of when it is they do. If you choose to buy a game then you get it and a person should consider that when buy it and not complain later.
The figure do justify the effort, some of these games are pirated more than are sold and if this effort can make even a few of those pirates buy the game then is a good use of effort.the untitled user wrote: »Thirdly, the download figures always appear frightening, but there is no direct correlation established to date (that I have seen at least) between the absolute piracy figures and revenue lost. For example, the more authoritative studies in the music industry suggest at most 7-8% is lost total, despite the staggering volume of downloads. And even then I would argue they haven't taken into consideration enough externalities.
On 360 the title of most pirated game in 2010 was Dante’s Inferno, not a great game so many would not have bought it but when there were 1,280,000 downloads made what percentage of that would be worth the effort of DRM to get some more sales.
If 10% of those 360 game would have bought the game other wise that would be 128,000 lost sales of a full priced game maybe this crap game would only have sold 1% of that 12,800 copies. When manufacturing in games is so low to print a disc most of that is profit and to go against the development cost. 12,800 copies at $60 = $640,000 if only an extra 1% of pirates would have bought the game instead.the untitled user wrote: »Secondly, given the anecdotal evidence we see of the potential positive effects of piracy, is it possible to leverage filesharing for the net benefit of both consumers and producers, through increased exposure, possible feedback mechanisms etc. [/url]
There may be positive results of music or movies piracy as people go to more concerts or to the movies but on games there is no reason to go use a legitimated source after getting a pirated game other than a pirate being force to buy a game for online play.
How many of these would have been bought other wise i don't know but it would have been a lot of lost money in any case.
PC Game Downloads on BitTorrent in 2010
as of December 26, 2010
1 Call of Duty: Black Ops (4,270,000) (Nov. 2010)
2 Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (3,960,000) (Mar. 2010)
3 Mafia 2 (3,550,000) (Aug. 2010)
4 Mass Effect 2 (3,240,000) (Jan. 2010)
5 Starcraft II (3,120,000) (Jul. 2010)
Wii Game Downloads on BitTorrent in 2010
as of December 26, 2010
1 Super Mario Galaxy 2 (1,470,000) (May. 2010)
2 Wii Party (1,220,000) (Oct. 2010)
3 Donkey Kong Country Returns (920,000) (Nov. 2010)
4 Kirbys Epic Yarn (880,000) (Oct. 2010)
5 Red Steel 2 (850,000) (Mar. 2010)
Xbox 360 Game Downloads on BitTorrent in 2010
as of December 26, 2010
1 Dante’s Inferno (1,280,000) (Feb. 2010)
2 Alan Wake (1,140,000) (May. 2010)
3 Red Dead Redemption (1.060,000) (May. 2010)
4 Halo Reach (990,000) (Sept. 2010)
5 Call of Duty: Black Ops (930,000) (Nov. 2010)
PS3 will be up there in the records these year with the hack.0 -
ps3 aside, ive got the capability to use all my other consoles for evil purposes, however i can justify it by it being an emergency last gasp measure for beating deadlines if a publisher is being tardy about getting a game sent out
no lost sales here since i get them for free anyway0 -
ps3 aside, ive got the capability to use all my other consoles for evil purposes, however i can justify it by it being an emergency last gasp measure for beating deadlines if a publisher is being tardy about getting a game sent out
no lost sales here since i get them for free anyway
Don't think you count and at least on steam there are press accounts.0 -
The figure cannot be known though so there's no point in wishing for it.the untitled user wrote: »It's in everyones interest to know the full picture though. For example, do the figures justify the draconian, invasive and borderline illegal DRM we are seeing on products? Do the figures even justify investment in DRM?
As for DRM, well as long as the end user isn't punished (and by that I mean Ubisoft's old style of always-online DRM, not the whole install limit thing which isn't really being punished) then I think it's perfectly fine for publishers to try and protect their IP. If you don't like it then simply don't buy it, that doesn't then give you the right to steal it though.
There is a mechanism in place to allow people to try games before they buy them, demos. This can also lead to games getting advanced press on top of already existing previews from various journalistic sources. If you give people the ability to download the entire game for free with no restrictions then the majority of them will simply not purchase it. If you do include time based restrictions then they will be circumvented by a huge number of people because they've already downloaded the full game.the untitled user wrote: »Secondly, given the anecdotal evidence we see of the potential positive effects of piracy, is it possible to leverage filesharing for the net benefit of both consumers and producers, through increased exposure, possible feedback mechanisms etc.
As has been said countless times, the figures given are estimates, sometimes conservative and sometimes not. Common sense, however, dictates that there has been substantial loss in revenues over the last number of years as pirating has become mainstream. The 7-8% figure is, however, pure and utter horse****. Look at MP3 players for instance, the iPod Classic starts at 80GB while the Touch models go all the way up to 64GB. Do you really think many of the owners of these devices own that amount of legitimately bought music?the untitled user wrote: »Thirdly, the download figures always appear frightening, but there is no direct correlation established to date (that I have seen at least) between the absolute piracy figures and revenue lost. For example, the more authoritative studies in the music industry suggest at most 7-8% is lost total, despite the staggering volume of downloads. And even then I would argue they haven't taken into consideration enough externalities.0 -
But the numbers will never really be known which is why they estimate them. Hell, they even say themselves the figures are estimates and aren't fully known. The problem of course is that no set of figures will ever be accepted by people so I don't know why people complain over specific ones. The fact of the matter is though, a large amount of money is being lost and that situation is unacceptable.
As I've said, the industry should not be volunteering guesswork in place of information that appears impossible to know. These mythical 'substitution rate' numbers are not helpful and may find their way into reports that have real consequences.
It wouldn't be the first time.0 -
Advertisement
-
If all DRM verging on illegal someone or some group would have taken action and the cases of when it is they do. If you choose to buy a game then you get it and a person should consider that when buy it and not complain later.
The figure do justify the effort, some of these games are pirated more than are sold and if this effort can make even a few of those pirates buy the game then is a good use of effort.
I'll give you an example, FM2009, the activation servers crashed. Some people who bought genuine copies couldn't play it for days.
Secondly, I'm a pretty heavy consumer of games but there are plenty of games I don't go near because of the DRM on them.There may be positive results of music or movies piracy as people go to more concerts or to the movies but on games there is no reason to go use a legitimated source after getting a pirated game other than a pirate being force to buy a game for online play.
True, but there's still an unmeasurable possibility. As I said above, I've bought games on the back of playing illegal versions before.The figure cannot be known though so there's no point in wishing for it.
We could have a much greater idea of it though if the industry weren't so selective about the data they publish.There is a mechanism in place to allow people to try games before they buy them, demos. This can also lead to games getting advanced press on top of already existing previews from various journalistic sources. If you give people the ability to download the entire game for free with no restrictions then the majority of them will simply not purchase it. If you do include time based restrictions then they will be circumvented by a huge number of people because they've already downloaded the full game.
Fair point, but demos assume prior knowledge of a title's existence and the publisher site etc. Filesharing can raise the profile of an IP significantly because it starts appearing on loads of different message boards etc. Whether that results in any tangible benefit is of course, unmeasureable.As has been said countless times, the figures given are estimates, sometimes conservative and sometimes not. Common sense, however, dictates that there has been substantial loss in revenues over the last number of years as pirating has become mainstream.
Common sense also points out that the industry is still growing. I find it hard to believe the lost revenues are as sizeable as made out, no industries could absorb such losses in the long run. That the games industry can points to one of two things i) either they are talking though their ass, ii) they are seriously overcharging their customers.The 7-8% figure is, however, pure and utter horse****. Look at MP3 players for instance, the iPod Classic starts at 80GB while the Touch models go all the way up to 64GB. Do you really think many of the owners of these devices own that amount of legitimately bought music?
The 7-8% figure is not something I arrived at myself. And that example is utterly pointless. Sure everyone has an ipod these days with hundreds of albums on it, but was it the same 20 years ago? Did people count the LPs/CDs they had in terms of the hundreds? Very very rarely in my experience.
Secondly, you must also take into consideration the fact the industry is facing much greater competition from other forms of entertainment now, particularly video games.
Thirdly, the standard of the product. In recent years the record breaking touring revenues have been seen from artists 20-30 years plus in the business. That says a lot about the state of the industry imo.
Anyway, lots of fair points in both yer posts, the piracy figures are staggering. I still don't think it impacts the bottom line to the degree suggested, but obviously I have nothing to back that up with.
I would encourage you to read the link I posted above though to see what ye think. Although no doubt it's been long dismissed in most industry circles by now.0
Advertisement