Ubisoft sets sail on DRM-free waters. The Internet steals their boat.
Ars Technica is reporting that the PC version of Prince of Persia will not contain any kind of DRM. For those not hip to the Digital Rights Management scene, it means that there will be no checking or authenticating to make sure you're running a legitimate version of the game. Of course this doesn't apply to your Steam purchase, which will still be married to the Steam interface.
Now this is some DRM I can get behind.It's admittedly a weird move, but as the article points out, it's maybe not as benevolent as it may seem. It appears that the game's publisher, Ubisoft, is calling the bluff that people are using SecuROM and other DRM methods as an excuse to pirate games instead of purchasing them and will use this DRM-free exercise to show that the absence of security is not an answer. When folks complain about adding back ever-stringent forms of DRM they need only reply with "we tried to work with you and look what you did to us, you stole from us when we were being so nice!" It's guaranteed that this game is going to be pirated, regardless of any DRM, so why not paint yourself as a selfless martyr? It's a cynical view, to be sure, but we live in dark, DRM-laden times...
In related news, Dawn of War 2 will apparently not limit the number of PCs on which you can install it. In an interview with VideoGamer.com, associate producer Jeff Lydell had this to say:
We are looking at some form of DRM for Dawn of War II, but we're heavily concerned with the consumer end of that, and the consumer experience. We want people to be able to play their games on multiple PCs. We want them to be able to play it with their friends, and most importantly we want any authentication to not be annoying or a detriment to the experience.
I definitely feel for the publishers and developers who want to curtail PC piracy. I'm not sure how that's going to be accomplished, considering games are cracked and distributed with abandon, sometimes before they are even officially released. I'd definitely be interested in seeing if there is any difference in the pirating of games without any DRM versus with, if such a thing is even able to be tracked.
Quote: "How, exactly, do you determine a threshold for "it's okay to pirate"? Do we use Metacritic? Do we start a whole new site for the video game community to get together and hold arbitration?"
I'm not going to propose any hard and fast standards for allowing piracy, because at the end of the day its a private, personal choice that, in all likelihood, no one will know about. However, if you think the makers are offering a good product for a fair price, you are obligated to pay them a fair price for their product. If you choose to steal the product before purchasing it to ensure quality, that's your choice, and is in my opinion a moral gray area. Crap software doesn't deserve to be bought, but whether it is permissible to pirate it is at the end of the day a personal question.
Quote: "So the logic is that if a game is good, it should not/won't be pirated, but if a game is bad, it should/will be pirated? That's a total load. That's like saying it's okay to steal the Ford, but not the BMW. A good game for one person it not a good game for another person. GIVEMEREPLAY, you think Relic blows, I don't, there's an immediate and wide difference between the two of us. I think Far Cry 2 was worth the 60 dollar investment, many people don't, so therefore it's okay for them to pirate it by your standards."
It's not that the low quality of the product makes it ok to steal, but rather it makes it wrong to buy. It's silly from an economic standpoint to buy a shitty product for a high price, unless you have some special affinity for it. It is the duty of the consumer to decide what is worth buying and what is not, and we must support the survival of the fittest among game companies to ensure that we don't end up with shitty devs turning out the same crappy games year after year. That brings us to whether it is OK to steal games which fall short of the buy line. So long as you honestly ask yourself "If I could not pirate this game, would I buy it?" and answer in the negative, I believe it is morally acceptable to pirate the game. It is better for developers if people who would not be customers end up pirating their game, because it creates word of mouth, community and hype, things which cannot be bought but which add to the value of a game property tremendously. It is also possible that the pirate will find that the game is much better than they originally thought, and they end up purchasing it. I see no point at all in devs (even shitty ones) laboring for thousands of hours to churn out a game, only for it to fall immediately into the shadows. At the very least pirates can talk to their friends about the game, who might buy it, they may ask and answer technical questions about it on forums, creating informal tech support, and they may buy future games from the developer in hopes that their next efforts will be improved. Piracy, if only done by people who would have not bought the game under any circumstances, will benefit the company more than non-players.
"Lookie here, any of you pirating dumbasses. Quit ruining this shit for the rest of us. I really don't give a damn how much you want a game or think it's cool. The rest of us pay for you being a thieving bastard. If you want a game, get off your lazy ass, work for the money, and go buy it. It's called responsibility - try it out sometime."
After faithfully buying games all my life, a year or two ago, I realised that some games were incredibly dissapointing, although I have now found that rental is a much better alternative. Now pirating movies, that's a completely different ballgame.
Wait, so is it a morally gray area or a morally acceptable area to pirate games? The idea that pirates are only stealing games of dodgy quality is erroneous, they're stealing games to steal games, regardless of quality.
QUOTE: "Piracy, if only done by people who would have not bought the game under any circumstances, will benefit the company more than non-players."
So you're arguing that pirates are a majority of well-intentioned people who just want to try a game of questionable quality before buying? There's no way the word of mouth generated by this group of people is going to make up for the financial damage caused by their theft of the title in the first place.
No one deserves to be stolen from, I don't care how crappy a game is. Read a review before purchasing, try it at a friend's house, play a demo, any of the above. Trying to argue that piracy creates positive word of mouth is rather disingenuous, pirating has one, single result, taking something for free that should be paid for. It is the equivalent of driving off with the Ford Focus without paying, or taking a meal from McDonald's without paying because I think the quality of the food is less than AAA.
Quote: "Wait, so is it a morally gray area or a morally acceptable area to pirate games? The idea that pirates are only stealing games of dodgy quality is erroneous, they're stealing games to steal games, regardless of quality."
Line drawing fallacy. There are people who drink, and there are people who drink to excess. The fact that some drink to excess doesn't make the other drinkers wrong. Simply because some people pirate quality, fairly priced games doesn't mean the ones who are pirating crap games that are overpriced are wrong. If they are doing something wrong, it must be evaluated on its own.
Quote: "So you're arguing that pirates are a majority of well-intentioned people who just want to try a game of questionable quality before buying? There's no way the word of mouth generated by this group of people is going to make up for the financial damage caused by their theft of the title in the first place."
Your conclusion rests on the erroneous presumption that all of the pirates would have bought the game. In "stealing" the game they are doing no direct financial harm to the company. They do not have one less game to sell, they still have an infinite number of games to sell. If the majority of pirates are persons who would not have otherwise bought the game, the company is better off than if they simply ignored the title entirely.
Quote: "No one deserves to be stolen from, I don't care how crappy a game is"
They certainly don't have any claim to my money unless I use their product. And yet even if I do use it I do no damage to them, provided I was not going to buy the product anyway. If that is so, from whence does your the immorality of piracy derive?
Quote: "Trying to argue that piracy creates positive word of mouth is rather disingenuous, pirating has one, single result, taking something for free that should be paid for."
In what way is it disingenuous? I don't see how you can feasibly argue that a game which gets very little attention is better off that one which gets pirated a lot. Provided that the people willing to purchase the game (if piracy wasn't available) do purchase it, the company is NO WORSE OFF than they would be if those people did not pirate the game. I am arguing that they are in fact better off if some of those people DO pirate the game, and do spread the word, rather than simply ignoring it.
Quote: "It is the equivalent of driving off with the Ford Focus without paying, or taking a meal from McDonald's without paying because I think the quality of the food is less than AAA. "
Again, your analogy is poor. When you take a ford focus or a happy meal you are taking away a physical object. EACH physical object has intrinsic value because it took labor to make those things. Digital content as a whole has value, because the original code took labor to produce, but after that each additional copy has no value except that which can be derived through sale. In short, where as you deny Ford one car's worth of labor and materials via stealing, you do not deny Ubisoft one game's worth of labor and materials when you pirate their game.
I am arguing that there are justified pirates, and unjustified ones. The pirates who take a game they would not have otherwise bought (if piracy wasn't an option) are not doing anything morally wrong. The pirates who take a game they would have otherwise bought (if piracy werent available) ARE doing something wrong. This isn't a legal definition, it is a moral one. Unless you can show me why stealing a game you would not have bought (if piracy wasn't an option) is wrong, your argument holds no water.
QUOTE: "Line drawing fallacy. There are people who drink, and there are people who drink to excess. The fact that some drink to excess doesn't make the other drinkers wrong. Simply because some people pirate quality, fairly priced games doesn't mean the ones who are pirating crap games that are overpriced are wrong. If they are doing something wrong, it must be evaluated on its own."
Disingenuous oversimplification. Drinking and stealing are too entirely different actions. Stealing a game is stealing a game.
QUOTE: "Your conclusion rests on the erroneous presumption that all of the pirates would have bought the game. In "stealing" the game they are doing no direct financial harm to the company. They do not have one less game to sell, they still have an infinite number of games to sell. If ONLY people who would have not otherwise bought the game pirate it, inarguably the company will suffer no more, or possibly less than if they just ignored the game entirely."
But they are doing direct financial damage to the company, this is not a matter of supply, it's a matter of financial returns. When you take a 60 dollar game and do not pay for it, that is 60 dollars that does not go to the company that spent money developing it. It doesn't matter if they have an infinite number of copies to sell if no one is paying for it.
QUOTE: "They certainly don't have any claim to my money unless I use their product, and yet even if I do I do no damage to them, provided I was not going to buy the product anyway. If that is so, from whence does your the immorality of piracy derive?"
Yes, you are damaging the company by making use of their product without paying for it. That's exactly what financial damage in this situation is, the use of another group's copyrighted materials without providing compensation to them for that use.
QUOTE: "In what way is it disingenuous? I don't see how you can feasibly argue that a game which gets very little attention is better off that one which gets pirated a lot. Provided that the people willing to purchase the game (if piracy wasn't available) do purchase it, the company is NO WORSE OFF than they would be if those people did not pirate the game. I am arguing that they are in fact better off if some of those people DO pirate the game, and do spread the word, rather than simply ignoring it."
Of course they're worse off, you have made use of a product they spent money developing without paying for it. You've stolen from them. People who pirate games don't talk their friends into buying the game, those people in turn pirate the game. You can't, with a straight face, argue that any word of mouth derived from a pirated game is going to result in sales, and that's the important part, sales.
QUOTE: "Again, your analogy is poor. When you take a ford focus or a happy meal you are taking away a physical object. EACH physical object has intrinsic value because it took labor to make those things. Digital content as a whole has value, because the original code took labor to produce, but after that each additional copy has no value except that which can be derived through sale. In short, where as you deny Ford one car's worth of labor and materials via stealing, you do not deny Ubisoft one game's worth of labor and materials when you pirate their game.
I am arguing that there are justified pirates, and unjustified ones. The pirates who take a game they would not have otherwise bought (if piracy wasn't an option) are not doing anything morally wrong. The pirates who take a game they would have otherwise bought (if piracy werent available) ARE doing something wrong. This isn't a legal definition, it is a moral one. Unless you can show me why stealing a game you would not have bought (if piracy wasn't an option) is wrong, your argument holds no water."
The idea that there is a situation of justified theft when it come to pirating games is pretty ridiculous. Each copy of the game has the same intrinsic value as the Ford Focus or the Happy Meal, when you take a copy without paying you are causing direct financial damage to the company, whether you want to recognize that or not. I find your argument to be a prettied-up smoke screen, you're stealing something. It's theft. You are hurting another person, in this case game designers, by making use of their material, which they labored over, without providing compensation.
Quote: "Disingenuous oversimplification. Drinking and stealing are too entirely different actions. Stealing a game is stealing a game."
Now you're just being silly. I was using that analogy only for the purpose of showing that simply because someone does in an excessive manner doesn't mean all instances of it are wrong. A starving person stealing bread is obviously different from someone stealing simply out of aesthetic desire. If you want to take it to an even more dramatic example, stealing a gun from an assassin before they could assassinate someone is not only not wrong, it would be a very GOOD and RIGHTEOUS thing to do.
Quote: "But they are doing direct financial damage to the company, this is not a matter of supply, it's a matter of financial returns. When you take a 60 dollar game and do not pay for it, that is 60 dollars that does not go to the company that spent money developing it. It doesn't matter if they have an infinite number of copies to sell if no one is paying for it."
ONLY if they would have bought the game were piracy not an option. If you don't recognize this simple fact you have simply misunderstood the entire situation. The only people who are hurting the company are those who constitute lost revenue. People who steal a game that they would have under no conditions bought do ZERO FINANCIAL HARM TO A COMPANY.
Quote: "Yes, you are damaging the company by making use of their product without paying for it. That's exactly what financial damage in this situation is, the use of another group's copyrighted materials without providing compensation to them for that use."
Again, a fundamental misunderstanding. In what way do you financial damage to a company by using their software without paying for it? The only way that is possible is if you would have otherwise bought it if piracy wasn't an option. This is the fundamental principle my argument rests on, and you simply haven't grasped it. Quote: "Of course they're worse off, you have made use of a product they spent money developing without paying for it. You've stolen from them. People who pirate games don't talk their friends into buying the game, those people in turn pirate the game. You can't, with a straight face, argue that any word of mouth derived from a pirated game is going to result in sales, and that's the important part, sales."
You're welcome to chant your mantra from the rooftops, but it doesn't make it true. You need to PROVE to me how someone who would NEVER buy the game does financial harm to a company by pirating the game. You cannot do that, because they don't cause any harm. You can't, with a straight face argue that word of mouth is not valuable to companies. I can think of fewer run of the mill occurrences than someone telling their friend about the workings of a game, causing their friend to go out and purchase it. It has happened to me! Just because that first person didn't buy the software doesn't negate the value of the friend who DID buy it. Quote: "The idea that there is a situation of justified theft when it come to pirating games is pretty ridiculous."
Again, you're pushing fallacies. You're telling me that my point is wrong because it's obviously wrong. If it is obviously wrong SHOW ME why it is wrong. Don't just chant "STEALING IS BAD" until you're blue in the face. That does nothing valuable. Quote: "Each copy of the game has the same intrinsic value as the Ford Focus or the Happy Meal, when you take a copy without paying you are causing direct financial damage to the company,"
An absolutely terrible analogy. I can pop Crysis into my DVD drive, and with the proper software make INFINITE PERFECT COPIES of it at NO COST to the developer. Can you make infinite perfect copies of a ford focus, or a happy meal? Do you have a ford focus drive? EXPLAIN how you cause financial damage to a company by stealing their software if you would have NEVER otherwise bought it. Don't just tell me THAT it happens, prove your point by telling me WHY it is so.
Quote: "whether you want to recognize that or not. I find your argument to be a prettied-up smoke screen, you're stealing something. It's theft. You are hurting another person, in this case game designers, by making use of their material, which they labored over, without providing compensation."
This is getting tired. Try to give some reasons rather than just restating your moral maxim. What Crytek material am I using in copying Crysis? Do they have any less Crysis to sell simply because I made a copy of their disk? They certainly do not. So how am I stealing from them? How are they harmed?
QUOTE: "ONLY if they would have bought the game were piracy not an option. If you don't recognize this simple fact you have simply misunderstood the entire situation. The only people who are hurting the company are those who constitute lost revenue. People who steal a game that they would have under no conditions bought do ZERO FINANCIAL HARM TO A COMPANY."
Every game you steal IS LOST REVENUE. Every single one. How you can argue that it is not?
Quote: "Every game you steal IS LOST REVENUE. Every single one. How you can argue that it is not?"
Lets use some numbers to clarify. Situation A will represent a world with piracy, our world. World B will represent a world without piracy.
A : Far Cry 2 sells 1 million copies in launch week, 2 million are stolen. B: Far Cry 2 sells 1.2 million copies in launch week, 0 are stolen.
You are arguing that in situation A, every single one of the 2 million pirates constitutes a lost sale. Yet in situation B, only 200,000 of the people who would have been pirates get converted into buyers. That means that a full 800,000 of those pirates in situation A ------ DID NOT CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE FOR UBISOFT. THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BUYERS, AND THUS DO NOT CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE. This is a FACT. It is FACT that not all pirates would be buyers if piracy was not an option. Even if we allow for some further portion of those 800,000 to turn into buyers as the price of the game drops into the bargain bin, there will still be some portion of the pirates that I argue have done NOTHING wrong. They did nothing wrong because they did ZERO economic damage to the company, as they would have NEVER bought the product.
Now you need to tell me why people who DO NOT CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE STREAMS from Ubisoft are still in some way hurting Ubisoft by pirating their product.
QUOTE: "Lets use some numbers to clarify. Situation A will represent a world with piracy, our world. World B will represent a world without piracy.
A : Far Cry 2 sells 1 million copies in launch week, 2 million are stolen. B: Far Cry 2 sells 1.2 million copies in launch week, 0 are stolen.
You are arguing that in situation A, every single one of the 2 million pirates constitutes a lost sale. Yet in situation B, only 200,000 of the people who would have been pirates get converted into buyers. That means that a full 800,000 of those pirates in situation A ------ DID NOT CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE FOR UBISOFT. THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BUYERS, AND THUS DO NOT CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE. This is a FACT. It is FACT that not all pirates would be buyers if piracy was not an option. Even if we allow for some further portion of those 800,000 to turn into buyers as the price of the game drops into the bargain bin, there will still be some portion of the pirates that I argue have done NOTHING wrong, because they did ZERO economic damage to the company, as they woud have NEVER bought the product.
Now you need to tell me why people who DO NOT CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE STREAMS from Ubisoft are still in some way hurting Ubisoft by pirating their product."
It doesn't matter if they would have never bought the product, the fact that they are taking a full-priced game for free is direct financial damage, they are enjoying something that Ubisoft created, and is SELLING, for FREE when Ubisoft is not offering the item for free. Those two million stolen copies, at 60 bucks a pop, is a pretty ugly financial hit.
Please link me to the site, or direct me to a book or news periodical, that spells out your FACTS about pirates vs buyers, because now all you're doing is saying "It's not wrong", over and over again.
Quote: "It doesn't matter if they would have never bought the product, the fact that they are taking a full-priced game for free is direct financial damage, they are enjoying something that Ubisoft created, and is SELLING, for FREE when Ubisoft is not offering the item for free. Those two million stolen copies, at 60 bucks a pop, is a pretty ugly financial hit."
Your argument is illogical. They aren't damaging the company financially, they aren't damaging them by stealing their materials or labor (if they were, how could it be that they still have just as much material and labor to sell as they did before?), and they would have never been buyers under any circumstances, yet according to you they are still hurting the company's pocketbook. Absolute nonsense. If they aren't doing any form of damage (and if you think they are, you need to explicate WHAT it is and HOW they it damages them), then they aren't harming the company, and they aren't doing anything wrong.
Quote: "Please link me to the site, or direct me to a book or news periodical, that spells out your FACTS about pirates vs buyers, because now all you're doing is saying "It's not wrong", over and over again."
The FACT is that people who would have never bought your digital product don't do you any financial harm by stealing it. The FACT is that there will always be a portion of pirates who would have never bought your product (if they couldn't pirate it), even if it retailed for a buck. These people are not damaging the game company in any way, and as a product aren't doing anything morally wrong.
Explain to me how having access to a full-fledged, full-priced product that the company labored to create is NOT damaging them financially? Because you seem to be ignoring me when I say that it does financial damage to the company in terms of return on work invested.
Let's assume I use the old quarter on a string trick to play an arcade booth (knowing full well it doesn't work anymore) to get free plays on the machine. Now, those plays don't physically exist, so by your definition they have no value as a thing because they are infinite. Am I doing financial harm in that situation?
Quote: "Explain to me how having access to a full-fledged, full-priced product that the company labored to create is NOT damaging them financially?"
Lets do another math exercise
Ubisoft will generate exactly 1 billion dollars from Far Cry 2. I will NEVER buy Far Cry 2 under any circumstances. If I pirate Far Cry 2, they will make exactly 1 billion dollars. If I ignore Far Cry 2, they will make exactly 1 billion dollars.
Explain to me how I am doing them financial damage if I pirate it, being that I would under no circumstances have been a customer. In either case their revenue is the same. I have not done any damage to their bottom line, so you must be arguing that while I haven't taken away any potential dollars from Ubisoft, I have still taken away potential dollars from Ubisoft. I have done no more damage to their bottom line than my 90 year old grandfather who has never played a video game in his life, yet in your mind I am somehow guilty of denying them funds. Explain.
Quote: "Let's assume I use the old quarter on a string trick to play an arcade booth (knowing full well it doesn't work anymore) to get free plays on the machine. Now, those plays don't physically exist, so by your definition they have no value as a thing because they are infinite. Am I doing financial harm in that situation?"
Would you play it if you couldn't use your quarter on a string? If yes, then you are guilty of doing financial harm. If you would not, you aren't doing them financial harm.
In my eyes, my intent is irrelevant, I am still taking something that is not mine for free. Your opinion does not constitute fact, it constitutes your opinion of the situation.
It would seem we're at an impasse, though. So I think it would be best if we agreed to disagree, as mature adults do, and go on about our daily lives, yeah?
Quote: "In my eyes, my intent is irrelevant, I am still taking something that is not mine for free. Your opinion does not constitute fact, it constitutes your opinion of the situation."
Right, so you agree that you are arguing from the position that "piracy is wrong because it's somehow similar to stealing" and not "piracy is bad for business". Thankfully laws in this country aren't usually based on individual morality, but rather on harm. If I am not harming the game company through piracy, I have not wronged them. You can claim that it was WRONG for me to do it, but not that I WRONGED them.
I honor your right to your own moral opinion. I suggest that you apply your moral rules to your life, and I will apply my moral rules to mine. Unless the actions of an individual pirate is causing significant, measurable harm to game producers' pocketbooks, they are not guilty of stealing. I'm certain that there are many pirates who steal games which they would otherwise buy, and they are indeed guilty of hurting game companies' bottom lines. As to the rest, they have not wronged anyone.
I would also like to add that apparently in your eyes both intent AND results are irrelevant. It doesn't matter that some of the pirates wouldn't have bought the game if they couldn't pirate it, and it doesn't matter that it doesn't hurt the company's bottom line. You have rejected both consequentialist reasoning, and deontological reasoning. What your base your reasoning on isn't clear, but given your apparent hatred of anything approaching theft it seems that you believe in absolutism, perhaps of the religious variety. That is fine for deciding personal moral action, but it won't do for public law. Back to studying for my philosophy final I go.
Wow. Couldn't quite let it go, could you? We can argue all day long, and we have been. It comes down to opinion, and our differences of opinion. My argument is based on my logic, your argument is based on your logic, so, again, I say we'll agree to disagree and let it alone.
Quote: "My argument is based on my logic, your argument is based on your logic, so, again, I say we'll agree to disagree and let it alone."
Your argument is based on your own personal morals, not on logic. My argument is based on intention, lost revenue and the harm principle. Don't confuse the two.
The biggest flaw in piracy is that there are so many games released that even having a copy of all of them doesn't guarantee you'll have time to play it. Maybe a cursory view or to play one game in full. Some games take so long, by the time you get around to the others, a new flood of other games will already be out & those other games will just be forgotten about, perhaps for several months or years. I think time ultimately thwarts the pirate. I buy a ton of Xbox games for used prices & all it does is generate a backlog of games that maybe one day I'll be able to chew on..
72 Comments