Gaming industry lose 'billions' to chipped consoles

sarumite

People who play illegal copies of video games on chipped or modified consoles cost at least £1.45 billion in lost sales in 2010.

The Association of UK Interactive Entertainment (UKIE), which speaks for the games industry, says it's not just money that's being lost.

It also estimates that it's resulted in 1,000 fewer jobs in the industry.

One pirate told Newsbeat that games are too expensive and the companies behind them make enough money as it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12248010

---

Not sure I disagree with the point about the price of games being too high, but having met people who will pirate a game they can buy for less than €20 new makes me think its just a BS excuse.

chrislad

Well, the people who pirate aren't likely to buy games anyways, so it's not really 'lost', if you catch my drift. I know very few people who have chipped Xbox 360s or PS3s. I'd be more worried about PC piracy, which is a lot easier to achieve, than console piracy.

srsly78

Yes it's the usual bull****. They assume that each every game pirated results in a sale lost, which is not true. Also, how can they measure the amount of chipped consoles etc? They can't, so they just pull numbers out of their ass.

Liber8or

This is hardly a new occurrence. Computer games have always been pirated, and pirates will always find a way to modify a console to play illegal software. However, with every piece of software trying to have some sort of online element, then that will be used as a way of securing titles.

In terms of pricing, well you have to take inflation into account as well. For example, I saw somebody trade in a copy of Project Gotham Racing on the Xbox 360 a few weeks ago, and the original pricing sticker was on it: €74.99. Considering the maximum cost of a console game these days is €60, it demonstrates that software fluctuates as much as anything else.

I have never pirated a game, and I own a PC and an Xbox. Don't think I ever will either, if you are too cheap to buy the game, then you are too cheap to buy the console/PC.

Duggy747

How did they lose that money if they didn't have it in the first place? Projections, eh?

Where did they get these numbers from?

How can they tell how many consoles have been chipped? People who download these games usually do so because they can and wouldn't be bothered playing certain games in the first place because they cost money.

Zombrex

While those figures seem pulled out of the air, piracy still pisses me off. The damage piracy does to the industry is more in terms of the draconian DRM software publishers feel compelled to build into their games to fight piracy, particular on the PC.

sink

Those figures are BS tbh. I have pirated games before, but only to try them out. Games I thought might be worth a shot but which I was not willing to risk €40-50 euro on. Every game that I pirated was a game I was not willing to buy.

For the record in my games library I have over 100+ games for the PC, 30+ for the Xbox 360 and, 15~ games for my PS3 virtually all bought new and only the odd second hand. And that's not counting the previous generations of consoles of which I have had several.

So their claims the games I pirated and played for an hour or two before getting bored and uninstalling them counts as lost revenue are rubbish. I spend way above the average on games every year and I have a suspicion the same goes for the majority of people who have pirated games. Although I have only ever pirated games on PC as I don't have a chipped console.

NotorietyH

sink wrote: »

I have a suspicion the same goes for the majority of people who have pirated games. Although I have only ever pirated games on PC as I don't have a chipped console.

I'd be inclined to think the opposite. Just anecdotally, and for a rough comparison, everyone I know who pirates DVDs doesn't buy a DVD and very rarely goes to the cinema. I think the majority of people who have access to pirated games, rarely buys one new. Not saying they never buy a game, but I think they more than likely pirate the majority.

Fnz

Strikes me as the same tired old article, written by a lazy reporter.

We'll get another in 6 months.

RedXIV

It still is a valid point though. Fact is that if there was no piracy, there would be more money in gaming which would lead to more money in developing games which would lead to a higher standard. it sucks but its true

PogMoThoin

People with chipped consoles usually buy a second legit console to play online.

tman

PogMoThoin wrote: »

People with chipped consoles usually buy a second legit console to play online.

Think that should read more like "A minute fraction of people with chipped consoles buy a second legit console to play online, and even then would only purchase a few games a year"

mcgovern

NotorietyH wrote: »

I'd be inclined to think the opposite. Just anecdotally, and for a rough comparison, everyone I know who pirates DVDs doesn't buy a DVD and very rarely goes to the cinema. I think the majority of people who have access to pirated games, rarely buys one new. Not saying they never buy a game, but I think they more than likely pirate the majority.

Everyone I know who pirates films, buy above average amount of DVDs. Research has also shown that music pirates, buy more music than those who don't. URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html"]link[/URL
I don't pirate games, because a) I like to play online, b) it's too much effort and c) I like supporting the developers. I actually don't know one person with a chipped 360/PS3, but I know plenty with chipped DS's. A lot of them would never have bought a DS if they couldn't "chip" it, and certainly wouldn't have purchased the games, so Nintendo at least, is better off with it (though publishers are probably slightly worse off).

Cork24

the only thing about a chipped PS3 or a chipped Xbox 360 is that you can not play online so what is the point in that if you play online ?

With a PC it is different you can download a PC Game get a fixed .EXE of the Start up icon and play away. Now with EA looking into the Key thing that they have for online play Rumour has it that their looking at having that aswell to play their games. So one Key per PS3/XBox 360.. Stopping Copy Games getting online Plus stopping people from Sharing games with their mates. which i think is a joke..

PS3. is losing money either way with the price it cost to make a game on the Blue-Ray DVD, and having Free online game play. the only reason it is free with the PS3 as they know if they do what Microsoft are doing and start having a pay serivce you would see a drop of people on the PS3 Network and more into the Xbox Network.

pablomakaveli

I have an R4 card for my DS. Before i got it though i had only bought maybe 4-5 DS games over the 2-3 years i had already had it. Pretty much all the games i did download onto the card after i got it though i wouldn't have bought without the card.

However i do spend a good bit above average on PS3/360 games as well.

Fnz

RedXIV wrote: »

It still is a valid point though. Fact is that if there was no piracy, there would be more money in gaming which would lead to more money in developing games which would lead to a higher standard. it sucks but its true

Yeah, if there was no piracy it would be a different world. Piracy has been discussed here before. The article brings nothing new to the table so it seems there's nothing worth adding to the conversation, tbh.

Retr0gamer

Funny how the 360 and PS3 have comparable install bases, the PS3's security has so far not been compromised to the public while 360 piracy is rife and yet games sell the same or better on the 360.

pablomakaveli

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Funny how the 360 and PS3 have comparable install bases, the PS3's security has so far not been compromised to the public while 360 piracy is rife and yet games sell the same or better on the 360.

With consoles though it's more about people not being arsed to get the console chipped so the likes of the PS3 and 360 are least affected by piracy. I've only ever known one person who had a console chipped and that guy had it done mainly so he could play snes games on his Xbox although he did have a few Xbox games downloaded to it as well.

Grumpypants

If someone has 100 euro and some one else robs it thats sad, if someone has 50 billion and someone robs 1 billion i don't care.

Duggy747

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Funny how the 360 and PS3 have comparable install bases, the PS3's security has so far not been compromised to the public while 360 piracy is rife and yet games sell the same or better on the 360.

I thought that guy who cracked the iPhone recently broke through the PS3's security, leaving it completely open for people to install all sorts of things as well as run cracked games.

Had something to do with the hardware encryption which was poorly implemented so Sony have no way of patching it.

He released the methods online and now Sony are taking him to court to clean him out.

EDIT: Here we go :pac:

BBC wrote:

A US hacker who gained notoriety for unlocking Apple's iPhone as a teenager has told BBC News that he has now hacked Sony's PlayStation 3 (PS3).

George Hotz said the hack, which could allow people to run pirated games or homemade software, took him five weeks.

He said he was still refining the technique but intended to post full details online soon.

The PS3 is the only games console that has not been hacked, despite being on the market for three years.

"It's supposed to be unhackable - but nothing is unhackable," Mr Hotz told BBC News.

"I can now do whatever I want with the system. It's like I've got an awesome new power - I'm just not sure how to wield it."

Sony said it was "investigating the report" and would "clarify the situation" when it had more information.

'Open curiosity'

Mr Hotz said that he had begun the hack last summer when he had spent three weeks analysing the hardware.

After a long break, he spent a further two weeks cracking the console, which he described as a "very secure system".

He said that he was not yet ready to reveal the full details of the hack but said that it was "5% hardware and 95% software".


The hack could allow gamers to play pirated games
"You can use hardware to inject an insecurity and then you can build on that," he said.

He admitted that he had not managed to hack the whole system, including the protected memory, but had worked out ways to trick the console into doing what he wanted.

Mr Hotz said that he was continuing to work on the hack and, once finished, would publish details online in a similar way to his previous iPhone exploits.

In particular, he said, he would publish details of the console's "root key", a master code that once known would make it easier for others to decipher and hack other security features on the console.

He said his motivation was "curiosity" and "opening up the platform".

"To tell you the truth, I've never really played a PS3," he said. "I have one game, but I've never really played it."

Opening the system could allow people to install other operating systems on their console and play homemade games, he said.

In addition, he said, the hack would allow people to play older PS2 games on their consoles.

Recent versions of the PS3 do not have the ability to play PS2 games after Sony controversially removed a piece of hardware.

He admitted that it could also allow people to run pirated games.

"I'm not going to personally have anything to do with that," he told BBC News.

Gaming firms do not take the issue of game piracy and console modification lightly. Recently, Microsoft disconnected thousands of gamers from its online gaming service Xbox Live for modifying their consoles to play pirated games.

Mr Hotz said that the nature of his PS3 hack means that Sony may have difficulty patching the exploit.

"We are investigating the report and will clarify the situation once we have more information," said a Sony spokesman.

Mr Hotz rose to fame in 2007 at the age of 17 when he unlocked the iPhone, which could only be used on the AT&T network in the US at launch.

The hack allowed the popular handset to be used on any network.

He has since released various other hacks, allowing people to unlock later versions of the popular handset.

When he puts up enough info, somebody else will release the whole sha-bang and that's it for the console.

Retr0gamer

The PS3 hack only happened in the last couple of weeks and it's still impossible to run pirated material on a PS3 using the hacks that have been released. There was a USB hack but it's far less prevalent and again only happened in the last few weeks. Looking at the data most titles sell better on the 360 than the PS3 despite the 360 being hacked to a muh wider degree for the last few years. Those piracy figures are BS and count each title download as a lost sale which is poor research.

Duggy747

Every time I walk by a Coke vending machine that's a lot of money lost for them :pac:

Helix

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The PS3 hack only happened in the last couple of weeks and it's still impossible to run pirated material on a PS3 using the hacks that have been released.

not since last week

all you need now is a usb stick and a hard drive

Varik

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The PS3 hack only happened in the last couple of weeks and it's still impossible to run pirated material on a PS3 using the hacks that have been released.

Well that's wrong there were loaders out after a few days of the first release of the CFW made due to these keys.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There was a USB hack but it's far less prevalent and again only happened in the last few weeks.

19-08-2010 was the posting date of the big PS3 hack thread with started out about the jailbreak and now has gone to taking about the cfw created with the keys, it wasn't prevalent as it needed to be under firmware 3.42 and Sony could stop it working on newer games and it did not get on to PSN with the exception of a few days where it could.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Looking at the data most titles sell better on the 360 than the PS3 despite the 360 being hacked to a muh wider degree for the last few years.

As of now the ps3 is now far more open and other than PSN bans there not much Sony can do without new hardware where as MS can protect games for a time during the crucial initial sale period.

Laisurg

Games are too expensive now and money is tight for people, i think they would make enough as it is really.

Venom

RedXIV wrote: »

It still is a valid point though. Fact is that if there was no piracy, there would be more money in gaming which would lead to more money in developing games which would lead to a higher standard. it sucks but its true

Fact is people can't spend money they don't have so zero piracy doesn't mean gamers will buy every game released. I agree piracy dose cost the game studios money but its not nearly as much as the studio's claim.

The Irish music industry claimed the drop in sales for 2009 was due to piracy but never factored in the effects the recession and online shopping had on their market.

clonadlad

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?

As for a flashed xbox online, I'm banned, and rightly so. But there are plenty of people around who still have a flashed 360 and are online. As long as the right precautions are made your pretty much safe online.

gizmo

Funny how people rage when the industry quote the piracy figures and make a direct monetary link to the amount of money lost via such piracy yet no one has pointed out the equally bull**** line..

One pirate told Newsbeat that games are too expensive and the companies behind them make enough money as it is.

No, companies don't make enough money as it is. The vast majority of games hardly break even as it is and most publishers rely on the smaller number of higher profile titles released at key points during the year in order to make their money back. As for independent developers, they survive solely on the success of their titles and the royalties received from sales after the publishers have taken their cut.

And yes, as clonadlad disappointingly points out, there are plenty of people who play on Live with modded consoles.

Venom wrote: »

Fact is people can't spend money they don't have so zero piracy doesn't mean gamers will buy every game released. I agree piracy dose cost the game studios money but its not nearly as much as the studio's claim.

No, but I'd wager it's pretty damn close.

alastair_doom

I dont really get all the comments defending piracy, or suggesting its not an issue. They was alot of news about games companies closing over the past 2 years, and while piracy may not be the sole cause, it certainly contributed. Not all companies can afford these kinds of losses.

For example, I bought a DS. Bought a good few games few games. Bought an R4. Didnt buy anymore games for it which I would have bought normally, and worse yet, I traded in all the games I had already bought. I'm not proud of it, I wouldnt encourage it, but piracy does cost companies alot of money. Particularly with the DS this is a serious problem

Varik

clonadlad wrote: »

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?

As for a flashed xbox online, I'm banned, and rightly so. But there are plenty of people around who still have a flashed 360 and are online. As long as the right precautions are made your pretty much safe online.

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.

alastair_doom wrote: »

I dont really get all the comments defending piracy, or suggesting its not an issue. They was alot of news about games companies closing over the past 2 years, and while piracy may not be the sole cause, it certainly contributed. Not all companies can afford these kinds of losses.

Yea it's terrible to the industry that people do this, and all those double standards.

You're so right.

alastair_doom wrote: »

For example, I bought a DS. Bought a good few games few games. Bought an R4. Didnt buy anymore games for it which I would have bought normally, and worse yet, I traded in all the games I had already bought. I'm not proud of it, I wouldnt encourage it, but piracy does cost companies alot of money. Particularly with the DS this is a serious problem

and you blew it.

Here's the thing why should someone pay for games when other just decide that it's ok for them to steal, a lot of these asses then go on to insult the intelligence of anyone who does pay for what the get.

alastair_doom

Varik wrote: »

Yea it's terrible to the industry that people do this, and all those double standards.

Your so right.
...
and you blew it.

?? 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.

Varik

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.

alastair_doom

Varik wrote: »

Hypocrisy would have been the correct way of saying it then rather than say you or anyone else has double standards

hy·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.

Varik wrote: »

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.

Varik

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.

the untitled user

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.

Varik

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.

Nollog

1.45 Billion pounds is only worth 1,000 jobs to them?
WOW.

Magill

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.

Azza

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?

Ciaran500

Varik wrote: »

For music maybe but if someone pirates a game there is not much reason to buy it or contribute to developers

What's so different about music?

the untitled user

Varik wrote: »

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.

Varik wrote: »

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?

Elessar

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.

johnnyjb

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.

the untitled user

Azza wrote: »

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.

Zombrex

Laisurg wrote: »

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.

Fnz

Azza wrote: »

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.

clonadlad

Varik wrote: »

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 think I'd know if it's sh1te or not.

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.

gizmo

Fnz wrote: »

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.

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?

clonadlad wrote: »

So yet that I'm ruining the gaming industry I've spent more money in the industry than those three people put together.

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.

clonadlad wrote: »

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?

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?

K.O.Kiki

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.

Magill

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.

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

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.

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.