until they stop giving you refunds
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4873-QOSK-5126#limit
Comment has been collapsed.
This limit is basically per undisclosed period of time, and there's a warning when you approach it (at least that's what it looked like in my case).
Comment has been collapsed.
Or just pretend you did and the net result is the same. Your money is in your pocket and the shitty game is gone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Morales aside.. Why would you buy something you certainly know you wont enjoy ?
Comment has been collapsed.
First world problems. I mean: wtf, is this thread serious?
Where I live, some games cost over $200. Most companies don't even get near here because of taxes. For people get the chance of testing a game, the only choice is pirating. Even if games had a fair price, they couldn't afford the full price to buy every single thing they want to test, since purchasing power here is not much, and there's a crisis that makes it worse. And OP is feeling bad because he didn't buy a game he didn't even like?
C'mon!
P.S.: I should save this thread.
Edit: I forgot to say that in some places (like here) you can't ask for refunds or even give back a product just because "you didn't like it". If you tell it to the sellers, they will laugh at you and kick your butt out of their stores. That's not what happens in a lot of countries where you can give a try and give back, ask for refunds or change for other products as you please.
The only way to give back something here is if the product has any factory defect, so they will replace for a new one. No refunds, no changings.
So if you need to know if a game is worth in a situation like that, you pirate to test it. If you like, you buy it. If you don't like, you don't buy it. Simple like that. People here can't afford buying stuff just to find out they don't like after the purchase is made. The lack of purchasing power prevents most people of becoming compulsive buyers who waste money just to test stuff.
(I wonder if all the people here who classify any act of piracy like robbery have never downloaded any mp3 file or if they just watch band videos on YouTube from official channels rather than uploaded by common users)
Comment has been collapsed.
https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-not-theft-111104/
Comment has been collapsed.
End result is the same isn't it? As long as you stick to the pirated copy, that's one less copy of the game sold. Your distinction was valid (kinda) for physical disk based media, where by making a copy of a library game, you leave the copy on a store shelf for someone else to buy. Not anymore. Besides you can't exactly say piracy is a good thing to do either.
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as you stick to the pirated copy, that's one less copy of the game sold
You are assuming that the person using the pirated copy would have bought the game if they hadn't pirated it. This assumption just isn't true. Even Microsoft agrees with that, otherwise they would make more efforts to protect their OS and Office suite against piracy: it's better for them to have a huge user base even if a significant proportion of them are freeloaders, than taking the risk of seeing all those who pirate turn to Linux and LibreOffice, for instance.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's slightly better for Microsoft as it makes the pirates join an ecosystem of microsoft services, where some money could potentially be made. Not in games.
There is absolutely no gain for the efforts of the developer here.
I was assuming the slightly better case, but you are assuming that pirates don't really care about any of this and will just greedily take for free, against the will of the devs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just saying that if someone can't afford a $60 game and can't pirate it, they just won't play it rather than take a credit for it.
There is absolutely no gain for the efforts of the developer here.
No true, people talking about the game is advertisement. Why would devs ever give away free copies of their game if there was "absolutely no gain" from it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Or they can wait a couple years until the price is within their budget. Most 60$ games require a high end gaming pc to run nowadays, and if they can afford that i'm sure they can scrounge up enough to buy an older game on discount.
You speak as though they are streamers advertising to a large audience. At most they would talk about their pirated game to their friends, and probably give them the torrent files as well...
You still miss my main point:
Your distinction was valid (kinda) for physical disk based media, where by making a copy of a library game, you leave the copy on a store shelf for someone else to buy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Trust me, you don't wanna get into that argument. I've been there, on your side. (That being that piracy isn't totally perfect. Can't say anything about GrimPhantasia's situation)
I've said that the potential for more profit can be lost because people can, with piracy, just wait out for permanent price drops or just sales. They just said that I have no proof. (Even though it's the most basic thing ever)
I've also said that it's theft in the colloquial sense. Meaning, stealing. In the end, you're taking something that isn't yours and you're not paying for it. They just said that I have no proof and that it's still not theft. (Even though, what does it matter. It's just wordplay. In the end you still take something that isn't yours without paying the creator).
There are people that are diligent piracy protectors. Piracy, for them, isn't just a non-issue, for them it's actually the saviour of the industry. If need be, they'd even claim that everyone that pirates will buy the original piece of media.
Don't bother, it's a waste of time.
Comment has been collapsed.
you have been given some very valid points. points that don't come from "diligent piracy protectors", but from reasonable people with reasonable, discuss-worthy arguments.
Comment has been collapsed.
it is in many countries, yes. not in all of them, though (famous example; Switzerland). also, we are discussing the morality of piracy, right? my argument is as follows: the moral issue with theft is that you take something away from someone. if you take away my banana, i don't have a banana anymore. your action hurts me, therefore it is immoral. this is way more complicated with piracy, since you copy my banana. i still have mine. so there is no direct loss. there might be, if you intended to buy my banana, but copied it instead and i don't get the sale i was hoping for. but if you don't have any money anyway, i don't see why you shouldn't copy my banana. doesn't hurt me, and you can enjoy this delicious fruit. it's a win/win situation (or rather a win/no-loss situation).
the only way i see for you to dispute is to declare any illegal action immoral. but to that i would say that moral should be defined by reason, not by arbitrary rules that change all the time and even differ from country to country. the mere state of illegality is not the same as immorality.
Comment has been collapsed.
At its core, this is really about people taking things for free that they have no right to take (which is in its own a form theft).
well, the term theft is really debatable, as others said before. but let's not go there again. as i said, i don't really care about the exact wording, as long as the main distinction is clear.
Does anybody really need a game so badly that they cant simply wait until they can afford it?
it's not about what people need. it's rather about if it's morally ok when people get what they want via piracy, if they can't afford it. or if they cannot legally get it in their country. or if the game is not sold anymore and there is no other way. i say: if they want it, and the act doesn't hurt anyone, why shouldn't they?
The distinction between digital and physical isn't really relevant.
oh, it is absolutely relevant. removing a physical object means you objectively and directly hurt the victim. very different from merely copying something. the only way a copy hurts the company is lost sales. and if you are not even a potential customer, there is no lost sale.
It seems to me that it does in fact harm developers.
the studies i have read about suggest otherwise. that one movie-related study even said piracy was beneficial for smaller indie movies, because it was free advertising. i think if piracy really hurts sales and how much is still unknown territory. we can't claim one or the other with absolute certainty.
It is also a safe bet that most people pirating are doing it because they can, not because they live in Romania or some such place where people are more economically strapped.
yes, absolutely. most people will pirate out of sheer greed. but that doesn't change the argument. i am not advocating for piracy in general (absolutely not!), just for those cases where it is in my opinion moral (or at least not immoral). and it would be unfair to put all people in the same basket. for me there is a big difference between someone who can't afford games, and someone who simply doesn't want to.
The other blatant lie (which I've seen you also confront) is that people claim they then buy the pirated game later. That is obviously bullshit.
yes, i am absolutely against that. if someone is pirating games, he should just say so or be quiet. but he shouldn't try to present himself as something he simply isn't. there are people who actually do pirate just to demo games, and i am fine with that. but i suspect the majority of people are not. they might buy the games later on sale for -90%, or in a bundle. but then they didn't demo the game, they pirated it. claiming otherwise is hypocritical.
Ultimately pirates know they are full of shit and will try to find any justification for their acts. It's pretty sad really.
not all of them. that's what i am trying to say. you seem to see all pirates as equally bad, while i think there are pretty clear distinctions to make. there are reasons for piracy that make it morally alright in my opinion. and these people shouldn't be condemned for what the others do.
Comment has been collapsed.
i guess you're right. i absolutely don't see them as the same. i see relevant differences, and i explained them here in detail. but we're starting to run in circles here. so let's just stop. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
didn't see your edited text before i answered...
it doesn't actually matter if the word is theft or not. the important part is the difference between traditional theft and the act of copying software. this is a clear and significant difference. as long as you admit that, you can call it any way you want. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't bother, it's a waste of time.
well, you did bother. so i will as well. don't worry, it is possible to discuss a topic like this in a serious and polite manner (even though many discussions might not go that way). i will try to do that. :)
the definitions of theft i know involve taking an item that then is no longer in the victim's possession. you take it, therefore the victim doesn't have it anymore. software piracy is different, since you only make a copy of something. you don't take it away. this is quite a significant difference. it may not make a difference for you from a moral standpoint. but it is in terms of lost value. there is no direct lost value with piracy. the only potential lost value is sales that don't happen because the customers pirated.
if that is really the case is debatable (and hard to say). we had a few studies on this matter, and so far they paint a different picture. there was this movie related study. the result was that there is no significant impact of piracy on big hollywood productions, and even a positive one on smaller indie movies. making the movie known via piracy websites is a form of advertisement, and pirates recommend movies to friends after they have seen it (word-to-mouth). i am not saying piracy doesn't have a negative effect on the industry. but the scientific results i know don't implicate that.
i personally am fine with people who pirate because they can't afford the game anyway. i don't see how that is harmful to anyone. it's not even against the law in all countries. i believe it's legal in switzerland, for example. if someone doesn't have any money for games, he might as well do it. there is no actual loss for anyone involved. and if you just have a look at the absurd regional pricing in some countries, i find it very understandable that people do it. i mean, would you buy a single game for 1/5 of your monthly loan? of course not, if you need the money for rent, electricity, water, food... so yeah, in these cases i can absolutely understand if someone pirates games and have no problem with it. just to be clear: i don't pirate games myself.
There are people that are diligent piracy protectors. Piracy, for them, isn't just a non-issue, for them it's actually the saviour of the industry. If need be, they'd even claim that everyone that pirates will buy the original piece of media.
i said before that i don't believe most people if they tell me they pirate games just to demo them. we had this discussion a few months back. and basically every pirate there told me they buy the games if they like them. i remember one specific guy who told me exactly this. i checked his steam profile. i couldn't find a single recent game in his library. after i pushed him a bit, he admitted that he doesn't buy games directly after demo'ing them. he stopped answering then, but i assume he meant he buys some of the games he pirates and likes, and only way later if they are on a big sale or in a bundle. i also assume that is the case for many people who claim to pirate games to demo them. as i see it, if you don't buy them right away for the current price, but go on playing the pirated copy instead and "alibi-buy" the game a year later at -90%, you didn't demo it. you pirated it. many in this thread also wrote "just buy it later on sale", which leads me to believe they mean exactly that by "pirating for demo purposes". they play the pirated copy, finish the game and buy it at some point later when it's really cheap. seems pretty hypocritical to me. as i said, i am not against piracy per se. there are good reasons for it. but people shouldn't claim they "just demo" games, when in reality they really just pirate the games to play them, not to demo them (buying later doesn't change that).
Comment has been collapsed.
Reading your comment, you're obviously much more reasonable. It isn't just a black and white "Everyone who pirates will buy it and that means no lost revenue", but instead a more shaded issue of "they might buy it at a lower price because they don't need to buy it right away".
I did that when I was younger. I pirated games and just played them the whole way through. Later, when I actually started buying the games, I bought them at -75% sales and for much lower MSRPs. There's a massive difference between buying a game for €20-€60 and pirating and then waiting until the price is €1-€5.
I'm not against piracy either. I think people should be free to do it. I just also think that piracy isn't this amazing thing that only benefits people. There are success stories, but there are also so many failures. Like small indie companies. The companies that had every sale count and who were nickle and diming to make ends meet.
Also, it's important to remember that games are a luxury. Meaning that they don't need the newest and greatest. Buy bundles. $1 will net you 3-5 games in a Humble Bundle. $5 will net you some older AAA games that still kick ass today. If you can't afford to spare a dollar a month, then you obviously can't spare the $20-$30 on the Internet bill. In which case, you couldn't pirate anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh sure, i did it too when i was younger. i pirated the shit out of my Amiga, and later my PC. ^^ and i really don't see any moral issues there. i got maybe like 3 games per year legally. one on my birthday, one on christmas and one i could and was willing to afford from my allowance. games were a bit more expensive back then, even if you take inflation into account. so i had these 3 games for the year, which was obviously not enough for a young guy who wanted to play every good game out there. so i pirated the other 50 each year. ^^ we all did it, we exchanged games on diskettes on the school yard. and that was fine. i couldn't afford more anyway, so i really think it was fine. no actual loss for the game devs, but a gain for me at the time. i would never judge anyone who pirates in a situation where this is the only way to get those games. this includes people who don't have the money, and also people who are not able to buy the games legally because of regional restrictions, or because the games are simply not sold anymore.
I'm not against piracy either. I think people should be free to do it. I just also think that piracy isn't this amazing thing that only benefits people. There are success stories, but there are also so many failures. Like small indie companies. The companies that had every sale count and who were nickle and diming to make ends meet.
even if there is any proof that a specific dev went bankrupt because of piracy (and i highly doubt there is), this would still not change my arguments. because i concentrate on the people who cannot buy anyway. so those people would not be responsible for such a situation anyway. i condemn piracy as much as the next guy. i just make exceptions to that. and i feel there are very valid exceptions, like i said before. but if someone has more than enough money - then yes, he should absolutely pay for his games.
Also, it's important to remember that games are a luxury. Meaning that they don't need the newest and greatest.
right, they don't need it. but what does that even mean? you could also argue we should not buy any games at all, because we don't need them, and rather give all our money to charity. i think this discussion is not about what people need. it's about whether it is alright to get what you want by piracy, if you can't afford it. the question is, what are the pros and cons of it. the obvious pro is the enjoyment of playing a nice game. the obvious con in many countries is breaking the law (everyone has to decide for themselves if that is a risk worth taking). from a moral standpoint i don't see a con if there is no actual loss for the industry. this is why i am in favor of piracy in these cases (and against it otherwise).
Comment has been collapsed.
For example, the game "Battle Dungeon" on iOS was forced to shut itself down because of piracy.
On PC, Project Zomboid got their updater cracked, which almost bankrupted the developer. He had to stop selling his game and fix the issue. It cost him a huge amount of money.
Stardock, the developer of games such as Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, Offworld Trading Company and Galactic Civilizations III lost huge amounts of money with their game called Demigod. They had massive server loads, causing everyone to be unable to play the game. Because of the server loads, they lost a huge amount of profits as well because reviewers slammed the game because of the issues that were caused solely by the pirates. So, they lost revenue because of bad reviews and they had to spend money to fix their situation.
Titan's Quest is another example. They had DRM that made it so that pirated copies of the game were filled with glitches and bugs. Those pirates tanked their reviews, causing the game to have less sales.
So, most of these examples are not about bankruptcy. Instead, they're mostly about devs losing a lot of money (mind you, they're all small to medium sized devs) and losing future profits and losing credibility in the industry.
I'll tell you right now what "need" means. "Need" means a literal need. People have a need for entertainment, people have a need for food, water, clothing, housing and so on.
You need food... does that mean you will only buy the most expensive eco-friendly bananas? If you can't afford it, then no. There are cheaper options that fare as well.
You need water... does that mean you'll only buy the expensive Evian water for 1.5€/L or Coca-Cola for 2€/L? If you can't afford it, then of course not. There are also cheaper options out there.
You need clothes... does that mean you need to buy Yeezys and expensive brand clothes? No, it doesn't. Second-hand shops and cheap retailers will sell you similar clothing for 10% of the price of the branded clothes.
You need housing... will you get the 2 bedroom, fully furnished apartment? Again, only if you can afford it. You can also get a small place which will do fine. It's not perfect, but what can you do. That's life.
Now for games. You want a game... Do you buy the $60 Call of Duty WW2 (which you can only run with an expensive PC, mind you) or will you buy a couple of bundles for $3 and get 9-15 games with enough entertainment for a solid month at least? Get what you can afford.
Don't take things out of proportion. This isn't black and white. It's not a problem of "either the best things all the way or nothing at all". Learn to compromise. That's what I've done. No joke. I've spent around €250-€300 on games in the last 5 years and I have 1100+ games. Sure, they're not all amazing, but so what? I can play them and have fun. Only recently have I had a bit more money to spend on games because I got the new PC. And now I've had the chance to spend more money. I've bought some The Sims 3 DLCs. I've bought a book to read for the first time ever. I bought myself a few new games that I can enjoy.
I saved money for 5 years and lived frugally. But I was never unhappy. I still had access to so many amazing games. You can get so much for so little now. Don't throw it back at their faces to demand free stuff. Be glad that you can get dozens of hours of entertainment for the price of 2 Kit-Kats. This is the golden age of affordable media.
Comment has been collapsed.
Big thumbs up for this comment, really like the way you have argued this and couldn't have said it better myself despite sharing the same opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Titan's Quest is another example. They had DRM that made it so that pirated copies of the game were filled with glitches and bugs. Those pirates tanked their reviews, causing the game to have less sales.
I think that they didn't really thought about consequences xD Good example how to treat pirates would be Witcher 2 or Game Dev Tycoon. When a pirate described their problem - everybody knew that they have cracked version of the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is a pretty ignorant and self-centred response, seeing as you're from a fairly well off first-world-country. Piracy is first and foremost a service and pricing problem, not a behavioural problem. Piracy is very common in eastern parts of Europe, and has been for a long time. This doesn't mean people from these countries are morally misguided or actively attempting to crash the video game industry. Regional pricing in video games used to be fairly common in Eastern European countries because of their lack of purchasing power. This meant that a Slovakian, working minimum wage, earning €2,76 an hour (before taxes), would have to work +20 hours in order to afford a fully priced €60 AAA title (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-datasets/-/EARN_MW_CUR). And there are far worse examples. Sadly, regional pricing in its current form is highly susceptible to abuse via VPNs, which means that many companies have stopped offering this as a result.
I don't condone piracy myself, but I can understand why some people would resort to it.
I'm also interested why you equate piracy to stealing? Usually when you try to make an argument, you have a claim backed up by evidence, in the form of facts or reasoning. This is just closed-minded ignorance resulting in you publicly shaming someone for something they didn't even claim doing. Embarrassing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see how the definition of software piracy proves your point about it being stealing. Unauthorized use and reproduction of software isn't theft, and nowhere in your source does it state so. Software piracy might be illegal in many countries, but it certainly isn't theft. The comparison is pretty problematic since a key element of stealing, is that the person getting stolen from loses the object. And no, piracy does not necessarily mean lost revenue, if you want to make that argument.
“In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements. That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.” (https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf)
I have never claimed that not being able to afford games is a valid reason to pirate them. I merely explained why it is more prevalent outside the world’s wealthiest countries. It’s pretty fun that you keep attacking people for piracy, just because they are able to understand and empathize with people are left with the choice of piracy or nothing. I am fortunate enough to live in a country where games are priced at a very affordable level, compared the purchasing power of the average person. Piracy isn’t relevant to me, unless there’s a service problem. If a DRM prevents me from playing a game I bought, I’ll go download a version I can play. Otherwise, piracy is not really relevant for me.
I see your point, that not being able to afford games is not an excuse to pirate them, but I am not sure I agree. You are really committed to painting piracy as stealing, and stealing is of course wrong, which we can agree on, but why is it then okay to steal food? Where is the limit? There is a reason behind it, yes, staying alive. But there’s also a reason behind pirating games, which are not offered at an affordable price point. There’s more to life than survival, such as esteem needs and self-actualisation. Most companies don’t even consider these countries as part of their market, so why should it even matter? It’s a price problem caused by a service problem, and the companies are at fault for not providing a solution in my opinion.
I will as per your recommendation re-evaluate my whole life, because clearly I am in the wrong here. It's not this is a moral grey area that has been discussed to death a thousand times already.
Comment has been collapsed.
Definition of theft (Merriam-Webster)
1a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
No, it doesn't sound like theft. Any further comment on the morality aspect of the issue? I think I had some good points, which I'd be interested to read your opinion on.
Comment has been collapsed.
"software piracy"
synonyms: illegal copying · plagiarism · copyright infringement · bootlegging
So you have disproven yourself and still don't get it?
Is driving too fast also theft? Do you think theft mean "anything illegal"?
Comment has been collapsed.
You personal opinion does not matter.
Words have clearly defined meaning.
If you pirate a game, you will NEVER be convicted of theft. At least in all major countries.
As if you steal someones purse you will NEVER be convicted of murder.
Can you not or want you not understand that there are different laws with different names and different definitions for theft and piracy.
You are being completly ignorant to every argument provided to you (even to the ones provided BY you). Even though my belief in humanity is pretty shattered anyways, noone can be that hm... how do I put this... anyways. The conclusion is, that you are just a (bad) troll.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you embezzle a million dollars from the company you work for, you will never be convicted of theft either, just fraud, Does that mean it's not theft?
You're using semantics to try and confuse the situation. The only reason you would not be convicted of theft is because Piracy has it's own dedicated laws, just like fraud.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your example is not fraud but embezzlement (which you used yourself), which literally is defined as "theft of stuff you have been entrusted with".
Fraud is, if you make people give you stuff on their own will by telling lies.
And yes, fraud is not theft as well.
Basically it goes as follows:
You take something from someone else without his knowledge/against his will -> theft / robbery / embezzlement depending on the circumstances. The later two are special cases of theft.
You make someone give you stuff by telling lies -> fraud There is a special case of fraud called "theft by false pretense" but thats just common law you are still commiting fraud, not theft.
(Software) Piracy is none of those above. Thats not even a law term in most countries. It's called copyright infrigment.
You copie stuff you are not allowed to copy. That is it's own law and has simply nothing to do with theft.
I am not trying to confuse the situation, I am trying to clear it up.
You can not just say speeding is the same as murder, because thats your personal opinion. Law has very specific defintions and you can not use words interchangable as you like.
I would say there is something lost in translation, but you are from the UK... You should at least read the wikipedia article about the words you are using.
I don't have time and don't want to read through UK law, but in my countrie I can show you the distinctive laws for theft/frau/piracy and their subforms CLEARLY not putting them together.
Comment has been collapsed.
Without food, you starve to death. Without the latest expensive AAA game installed on your (expensive) high-end gaming PC you don't. There simply is no comparison.
Besides, there are numerous free or cheap games available across the wold, if the pirate wants to enjoy their hobby. Furthermore, if they want their expensive AAA games and can't afford it immediately, why can't they wait a year or two and then get the game when it goes on a significant discount? Perhaps their financial situation could also improve in the meantime and they can pick it up when that happens.
The earliest defence for piracy was access. With digital distribution, that's (mostly) negated. Now it's price, but with some patience that solves itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
the important difference between theft and software piracy is that the item is not missing afterwards. it is merely a copy. and that is a big difference. theft always has a negative influence on the victim. his item had a certain value, and that is gone now. with piracy that's obviously not the case. so in case of a person who can't afford the game anyway, piracy actually does not lead to any loss of value on the victim's side. that is why i have no problem with people who pirate stuff they wouldn't be able to afford. i think that is a valid argument. and no, i don't do it myself. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Then use statistics. Be the better man here. All you gave was an average wage. This has nothing to do with anything.
All you showed was that a Slovakian needs to work 0.3 hours to buy 3 games on Humble Bundle. Or, that you can get 9-15 games per month if you work for an hour. ($1 = 0.83€)
Seriously, you're one entitled person. You don't have to get the newest and best. It's a luxury. A luxury that I (and I'm guessing you) can't afford. So stick to what you can afford. This isn't a necessity and you can literally get dozens of games each month with ease.
Also, I hope you're not so bold as to claim you can't afford that either. Because news flash, Slovakia is a cheap country.
I'll quote Numbeo here: "Cost of living in Slovakia is 12.24% lower than in Estonia (aggregate data for all cities, rent is not taken into account). Rent in Slovakia is 19.82% higher than in Estonia (average data for all cities)." - https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Slovakia
But it's not like that even matters... games are cheaper than ever and you still have the balls to cry foul. Instead, just work for 20 minutes for your 8-40 hours of entertainment.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that most games are more accessible than ever in terms of pricing, especially if you're willing to wait for a bit. There are many great F2P games too, rivalling many AAA in terms of production quality and enjoyment. My goal was never to argue for piracy, but to explain some background on why people might do it, while also arguing that piracy is mostly a problem of service.
I'm not sure how I am being entitled, as I agree that video games as products not a necessity. I never argued against that. I can afford to purchase any newly released AAA game, no problem. I don't pirate games unless there is a DRM problem causing a product I've paid for to not work optimally.
I am not sure what you're trying to get at by comparing the cost of living and rent in Slovakia and Estonia. Both countries are fairly similar in this regard. while the cost of living is 12% lower in Slovakia, the average wage is also 21% lower (https://www.reinisfischer.com/average-salary-european-union-2017), and the cost of rent is almost 20% higher. There's also a reason the cost of living in Slovakia is cheaper, which is that many products and goods are sold cheaper than elsewhere, because otherwise people would not be able to afford them. Again, not sure if I misunderstood the point you were trying to convey. Sorry about that.
Humble Bundle especially is fantastic, if you're in a situation where you cannot afford good games at MSRP, and even if I don't have a source on it, I am sure Humble has had a positive effect on decreasing piracy. At least on the games they've included in their bundles. It is simply far more convenient purchasing a cheap bundle instead of pirating the games separately.
I think we generally agree on most things. I am however not of the opinion that piracy is hurting the industry, and I think the solution to eliminating piracy is not prevention, but presenting a better service for people to get what they want through legal means. Humble is a good example of this, and I think it's good that brought it up.
Comment has been collapsed.
I read it as you trying to excuse your piracy. My bad. :D
It's just that nowadays you don't need to pirate to get good games.
But also, I tried to convey that I live there and I don't have an issue with buying games. Buying bundles, to be exact.
The prices and wages mostly go hand in hand, meaning that we spend proportionally to each other. So we're very easily comparable.
As for the piracy hurting the industry, I have a comment on here already, which I'll quote now:
"For example, the game "Battle Dungeon" on iOS was forced to shut itself down because of piracy.
On PC, Project Zomboid got their updater cracked, which almost bankrupted the developer. He had to stop selling his game and fix the issue. It cost him a huge amount of money.
Stardock, the developer of games such as Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, Offworld Trading Company and Galactic Civilizations III lost huge amounts of money with their game called Demigod. They had massive server loads, causing everyone to be unable to play the game. Because of the server loads, they lost a huge amount of profits as well because reviewers slammed the game because of the issues that were caused solely by the pirates. So, they lost revenue because of bad reviews and they had to spend money to fix their situation.
Titan's Quest is another example. They had DRM that made it so that pirated copies of the game were filled with glitches and bugs. Those pirates tanked their reviews, causing the game to have less sales.
So, most of these examples are not about bankruptcy. Instead, they're mostly about devs losing a lot of money (mind you, they're all small to medium sized devs) and losing future profits and losing credibility in the industry."
Comment has been collapsed.
So, three questions for that:
First, where are you from where the game prices are higher than literally the highest price regions. 200 USD is a lot of money. In the most expensive regions, The US and Northern Europe (Plus West Europe and UK usually) , the prices will only climb to $60, £40-£50 or 60€. The euro price is obviously the most expensive one out of those.
Second question would be this. You can't afford full prices. That's fair, neither can I. So... why not wait? Games are a luxury, not a necessity. Also, if you wanna claim that you need it, fair enough. But then, if you need it so much, then you'd know that there are so many other good, cheap games that are purchasable now. Why do you need the latest and greatest?
Third, why do you need to test? It's a serious question? Why? If you're testing whether the game is good, then you have Steam refunds for that. If you just want to test if you can run it just for the hell of it, then my question is this: Do you need it? In almost any case, the answer would be no. Please prove me wrong if I'm missing something. Plus, there are free hardware tests out there. 3DMark comes to mind right now. Use that. Test your new PC with that.
Feel free to pirate of course, but just don't make ridiculous excuses. That's what they look to me currently at least.
I would genuinely like to hear your side. Prove me wrong and so on.
It's just that the "companies are greedy" mantra doesn't really work for outside parties. It only works to justify it for yourself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Second question would be this. You can't afford full prices. That's fair, neither can I. So... why not wait?
but why should he wait? yes, ne doesn't need games for survival. it would not hurt to wait for lower prices. but does he really have to wait? if there is no loss on any side (and there isn't, he is copying something he couldn't afford anyway), why can't he just go ahead and play the games he wants? there is a lot to be gained from it (his enjoyment while playing), but nothing to lose (company doesn't actually lose money). the only argument i see against it is that in many countries this means breaking the law. but if he doesn't care about that, is willing to take the risk or lives in a country where it's not illegal - why not?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, you have to wait. Simple as that. If a TV is too expensive for me, I'll wait until I can afford it and then buy it.
If I can't afford a computer (like I couldn't for 5 years, up until a month and a half ago) then you wait. You make compromises.
This sadly isn't a utopia where you are able to just pick what you want and get it for free. It'd be great if it was, but it just isn't.
But you're also insinuating that it's fine to commit crimes as long as the person is fine with getting caught. "the only argument i see against it is that in many countries this means breaking the law. but if he doesn't care about that, is willing to take the risk or lives in a country where it's not illegal - why not?"
To that I say, it's genuinely an awful state of mind. Either all of it is okay or none of it is okay. Laws shouldn't be broken like that, simple as that. If you don't like the law, then fight against it. Otherwise, the logic would extend to other crimes. And I don't think rapists, murderers, child molesters and drunk drivers should be encouraged to do it because they don't care about getting caught.
Just learn to wait and be patient. Games will get cheaper, hardware gets cheaper. You also accumulate money. By the time you've earned the $60 to buy the game you wanted, it's probably already at $20 and $5 at a sale.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, you have to wait. Simple as that.
well, you basically say "it is like it is" without really giving any real arguments as to why that is. i tried to make clear what i mean by listing pros and cons. the pro is clear (your personal benefit from the item you get). the con for a typical theft is that the item is missing. and that one doesn't exist with digital copies.
If a TV is too expensive for me, I'll wait until I can afford it and then buy it.
If I can't afford a computer (like I couldn't for 5 years, up until a month and a half ago) then you wait. You make compromises.
sorry, not the same thing. physical vs. digital goods. stealing stuff vs. merely copying it.
But you're also insinuating that it's fine to commit crimes as long as the person is fine with getting caught. "the only argument i see against it is that in many countries this means breaking the law. but if he doesn't care about that, is willing to take the risk or lives in a country where it's not illegal - why not?" To that I say, it's genuinely an awful state of mind. Either all of it is okay or none of it is okay. Laws shouldn't be broken like that, simple as that. If you don't like the law, then fight against it. Otherwise, the logic would extend to other crimes. And I don't think rapists, murderers, child molesters and drunk drivers should be encouraged to do it because they don't care about getting caught.
i never said that! what i mean is that in my opinion it is fine to break the law, if that is morally justified - and if you're fine with getting caught. ^^ laws are subject to change. they constantly change. laws don't equal moral. what is the law today might not be the law tomorrow. also law is not a global concept. software piracy is illegal here in Germany, but it is not illegal in Switzerland. does that mean it is absolutely wrong to do it here, but perfectly fine in Switzerland? from a moral standpoint that doesn't make any sense. you live in Britain, right? drinking alcohol is fine there, as long as you're old enough. but there are countries where it's illegal. doesn't it make more sense to judge actions based on moral instead of laws? if we want to determine what's "right" or "wrong", we shouldn't go by the law. we should try to determine what's moral, and go by what our reasoning tells us. it is easy to come to the conclusion that murder is immoral, independent of law. and i definitely do not encourage anyone to do any of those horrible things. it is not that easy with piracy, though, as i tried to explain.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, see it really is what it is and what it is is cheap and free media available to you with a few clicks or 20 minutes of working.
That's how easy it is.
Speaking of morals, your logic holds none. I'll explain it.
So, the classic moral question/scenario is this: A man steals bread from a store, but he does it to feed his starving family. Is it immoral to steal or did the circumstances change the situation and the morals? Yes, in my eyes they did.
So, your situation: A man pirates a video game, but he does it because he can't afford it. Is it moral? No, in my eyes it isn't.
The bread is to stop a life and death situation, the piracy isn't. It's a selfish desire for free premium entertainment. We all want it, but that doesn't make it any better.
The bread will always cost you money. There's no way of getting free bread. If there was and he just wanted a more delicious bread, then his actions would also be immoral. The piracy is immoral because of a few things. One, you need a good PC for most expensive newest games, which requires money regardless. Two, you can get games for a very cheap price. Three, you have Free To Play games that can keep you entertained. Four, almost every day there's a bunch of free keys for some game. Five, you're on Steamgifts, a site that is about getting free games. Six, free AAA games are also given away around once a month or two months.
So, in this case, we can easily deduce this.
You can get free to play games. You can get free AAA games in giveaways once in a while. You can get free games on SG. You can also get very cheap games for pennies and you can play them on older PCs.
There's almost no reason to pirate games that are from 2010 or earlier because they're available for a cheap price. Downloading new, expensive games just proves that you have money for a higher end PC, meaning that you could afford the PC, meaning that you can afford cheap games.
You have a choice to wait. You just went the selfish way. (You being the person that pirates, not you in specific)
Also, to add to your piracy at a young age. When we were young, entertainment media wasn't as cheap as it is today.
Free let's plays. Free videos. Free movies. Free broadcasting for many. Free radio. Free newspapers. Free books. Free hardware being given away by generous people and charities. Free games.
This wasn't a thing back then. We had no Steam. We had no bundle sites. It was harder to get cheap stuff then. Now it's harder to get expensive stuff than cheap stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry, i am really running out of time here. have to leave in a few. but let me say that i really enjoy the discussion, even if we have different opinions. let me try to give you a short answer in the time i have left:
in the example with the bread you automatically assume that stealing the bread is immoral (because stealing is immoral), unless there are circumstances that change the nature of the act. and that is absolutely correct.
but why is stealing even immoral? what exactly makes it immoral? i would say it is the fact that you take it away from someone against their will, and they don't have the bread anymore then, right? that is the immoral part about it. that you take it away from someone. that you take away value from them. my argument the whole time is that this part does not necessarily exist with copying a game. you don't take it away. you merely copy it. the original value is still there. there is no direct loss involved. there might be, if you were able to buy the game but chose to copy it instead. then there is loss, and therefore it is immoral. but if you are not able to buy the game, you are not able to produce any loss with your action. therefore the act of copying the game is not necessarily immoral.
really have to go. no time to read the second part of your post and answer, sorry. will do it tomorrow, i promise. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, here's the reminder to read my previous comment's second half then ;)
Stealing bread is immoral because you're taking something that you don't own, that isn't free.
Piracy does affect sales. These were my examples from a different comment here:
"For example, the game "Battle Dungeon" on iOS was forced to shut itself down because of piracy.
On PC, Project Zomboid got their updater cracked, which almost bankrupted the developer. He had to stop selling his game and fix the issue. It cost him a huge amount of money.
Stardock, the developer of games such as Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, Offworld Trading Company and Galactic Civilizations III lost huge amounts of money with their game called Demigod. They had massive server loads, causing everyone to be unable to play the game. Because of the server loads, they lost a huge amount of profits as well because reviewers slammed the game because of the issues that were caused solely by the pirates. So, they lost revenue because of bad reviews and they had to spend money to fix their situation.
Titan's Quest is another example. They had DRM that made it so that pirated copies of the game were filled with glitches and bugs. Those pirates tanked their reviews, causing the game to have less sales.
So, most of these examples are not about bankruptcy. Instead, they're mostly about devs losing a lot of money (mind you, they're all small to medium sized devs) and losing future profits and losing credibility in the industry."
So, overall, I'd say that it's immoral to pirate a game. You have free alternatives available. This isn't taking the game from necessity, it's taking it because of personal greed and desire.
You have F2P games, free key giveaways, Steamgifts, free AAA giveaways, extremely cheap bundles.
Comment has been collapsed.
most of these examples, like you say, have nothing to do with piracy. at least not directly. but that doesn't really matter. please keep in mind that i don't defend piracy in general. i say that in some cases it's alright to do it. these cases are people who can't afford the game and games that cannot be bought, either due to regional restrictions or because it's generally not for sale anymore. in neither of these cases any company goes bankrupt or loses sales. that's why i think it's ok in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Woah woah woah here :D
They were all caused solely by piracy. Nothing else. Pirates crack updaters. Pirates were the ones swarming the servers (18k verified users, 200k unverified, a.k.a. pirates). Literally all of these were from piracy. They just didn't get bankrupted. But remember that the reason why these don't exist here is because the dead companies have no voice, no notoriety. That's because they didn't get their chance. These are near deaths. With a real death of the company, you wouldn't hear about it because most of these guys got their fame later.
Games that can't be obtained is almost universally on the "allowed to pirate" list. At least for most people.
I just get frustrated when people download the latest games for no real reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude, I remember as a kid, I just went outside, played soccer, had fun and talked to other kids. When I got back home, I just booted up my only real game, which was GTA Vice City and just started playing that.
Comment has been collapsed.
The piracy is immoral because of a few things. One, you need a good PC for most expensive newest games, which requires money regardless. Two, you can get games for a very cheap price. Three, you have Free To Play games that can keep you entertained. Four, almost every day there's a bunch of free keys for some game. Five, you're on Steamgifts, a site that is about getting free games. Six, free AAA games are also given away around once a month or two months.
sorry, all these points have nothing to do with morality. you are merely describing certain circumstances that could possible influence the incentive to pirate a certain game. those do not make the act itself any more or less right. also, we can easily create cases with which all these points do not matter.
You have a choice to wait. You just went the selfish way.
again, my argument is that there is virtually no downside to pirating (because no money anyway, so no loss). but there is a downside to waiting. first thing would be - well, that you have to wait. ^^ and it may be a really long time before you can play that specific game you want. we're talking years here. second would be that someone with little money should maybe invest his money in more important things. so buying even cheap games might not be the best idea. remember: i am not talking about everyone. i am against piracy. but i don't want to condemn it in general. in some cases it is justified.
Also, to add to your piracy at a young age. When we were young, entertainment media wasn't as cheap as it is today.
Free let's plays. Free videos. Free movies. Free broadcasting for many. Free radio. Free newspapers. Free books. Free hardware being given away by generous people and charities. Free games.
This wasn't a thing back then. We had no Steam. We had no bundle sites. It was harder to get cheap stuff then. Now it's harder to get expensive stuff than cheap stuff.
so you're basically justifying piracy at our young age with the argument that entertainment was expensive and we couldn't afford it? so it was kind of ok? isn't that exactly what i am saying all the time?
Comment has been collapsed.
This is most definitely morality. Morality is the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Keyword being "extent". So, it depends on context. Is it morally fine to kill someone? Is it morally okay to kill someone in self-defense? Is it morally okay to kill someone when coming to the rescue of someone? Is it morally okay to kill someone in self-defense even if you could've avoided the manslaughter?
In this case, the action that has its morals judged is the killing of another. For many, murder isn't okay. For a lot of people manslaughter isn't okay either. But people tend to start splitting off at the point of it being self-defense, but the defender using excessive force.
These are all moral questions in the end. While there's also a lot of discourse about the laws surrounding these, a lot of it is still moral. Like even simpler questions of whether it's moral to have sex with your friend's ex.
Anyways, this is most definitely moral. A rich person doesn't need to pirate. A person doesn't need to pirate if they have so many good games available for a cheap price or downright free. It just depends on the person whether it's morally justified.
"again, my argument is that there is virtually no downside to pirating (because no money anyway, so no loss). " - I'm guessing it was before I listed all of those examples. In those examples a man almost lost everything he ever owned, two companies almost went bankrupt and the rest lost a huge amount of money, especially for their size.
"second would be that someone with little money should maybe invest his money in more important things. so buying even cheap games might not be the best idea. remember: i am not talking about everyone." - True, they should save that money then. Good thing they didn't buy their relatively high end PCs to even run those games. If $1 is a lot to spend every month, then spending 400€-800€ (depending on what tier the PC is, it has to be at least 400 though because you have to actually run the new games as well) and spending 20 or so euros on an internet connection is also too much. So, if the latter two payments are fine for the person, then the price of a candy bar is also fine for them. You can want many things, doesn't mean you've earned them.
Stealing an iPhone from an official iPhone store is less harmful than pirating a video game in most cases. That $30 they lost is nothing for a company that's worth almost $1 trillion. Losing 20 cents is much worse for a company that has a budget of $1000.
This genuinely is sometimes worse than theft from a large company.
In the end, video gaming is a hobby. It isn't a necessity. If you have to steal games just so you can play them, then you're obviously not wealthy enough to play them. (Wealthy meaning literally a dollar...)
EDIT: Nah, yeah, the last paragraph sounds douchey. My point was that if you're into gaming, then you probably already bought the necessary devices for it. (PC, Console, whatever else) So, if you have money for those, then I think you'd have money for a bundle. Plus, you'd need an internet connection regardless. Doing this would add around 1% to your gaming budget. Not even to your overall monthly budget. For a normal monthly budget, buying games would be around 0.01%-0.3%.
Comment has been collapsed.
While I do not see the "dev loses nothing since the person could not afford the game anyway" as a very good excuse, it might be true (though there are tons of pirates that can afford the games yet do not feel obliged to do it and just pirate); at least one party still gets hurt, and that party is the paying player. Devs often have options to track the number of illegal downloads/pirated versions running and as these numbers increase, they obviously try to implement more and more intrusive defenses to counter the pirates (and these cost them money hence even they are being hurt), which in turn hurts the paying customers.
E: By the way, I really, really want to play the new South Park game since I loved the first one and am a big fan of the show but despite getting average wage for where I live in (Central Europe), I just cannot afford nor justify spending 60 euros on a single game. What do I do? Well, I am waiting for the price to drop (or the game to go on sale) to a more reasonable price (would have grabbed it on Winter sale for 30 but there was one game I wanted even more). Does it suck to wait? Sure but fortunately as others have said, there are tons of other cheaper but also great games to play while I wait.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't pirate. I don't have patience to test stuff. I only buy what I'm sure I'll like it. If I don't like it (what didn't happen yet), well, I'll find a way to like it, since I don't have much money to get stuff I won't find any use. Because if you spend money on something, it gives value to that thing. If you just pirate, you have a lot of options, but don't really enjoy them. It's a psychological effect. A lot of people here think like me. Of course there are people who still pirate everything and manage to enjoy something they don't spend money. It's hard to understand, but, well, people are different.
I talked about the common practice here. Most gamers I know do that: they pirate to test, so they buy it if they like it. Beside that, a common practice is importing games, but dollar has been too expensive lately, so that practice reduced. Even so, certain stuff can still be cheaper if they are imported. Another common practice among gamers here is buying games, finishing them, so they sell them to other people in order to get money to buy the games they want to play next (they can be brand-new or already used as well).
It was worse before. 15 years ago most people here didn't buy anything official, since there were no companies here (no Sony, no Microsoft, no Nintendo; nowadays we still have no Nintendo), so there were not many official products as well. They just bought an imported PS2, for example, and got a lot of pirate games. The first XBOX was something which was never seen here. Gamecube was for those who had more money, since its games couldn't be pirated. Dark times. We still live dark times, though.
I live in Brazil. Brazil taxes are internationally famous. Even so, taxes are not the only reason for prices being so high. Companies here use it as an excuse to make prices even higher (I've heard something about greed?).
Let me show you some news and pics:
That's the news about the official release of XBOX ONE X here. If you can't understand the language, I'm sure you can at least understand the price. Do you know when I'll buy one here? Never. I'll rather importing than paying for that rape. Yeah, because if pirating is robbing, that is rape.
This is a common price for a released game in Brazil:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/5txgyd.jpg
I remember when I bought a SNES in 90s. It was about R$ 250. There were not the actual taxes at the time. For me, that price is more than abusive, since I could be spending that money on a console (or at least for affording a good part of the price of a console), not on a single game.
To be fair, I'll show you some promotions of old games just to exemplify that here game prices don't really have any criteria:
(The Last of Us Remastered cheaper than The Last of Us for PS3? How come??)
Comment has been collapsed.
Right, that is very bad, I agree.
Two things though.
First, those are consoles.
But two, I've heard that news story about the Xbox One. Isn't it that digital games aren't as heavily taxed?
https://www.steamprices.com/br/search/?preset=cheaper
That site might help you find cheaper games in Brazil on Steam :)
Brazil's having a bad situation with that whole crap though. I feel for you, man! :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you.
I don't know about digital games for consoles, since I don't have any consoles from this gen (yet). I got a handheld one (3DS). Digital games on 3DS are really better, since here people sell imported 3DS games for over R$200 (there is no Nintendo here, just to remember). On eShop you just pay the actual conversion from dollar to local currency, so you can say that on eShop prices are, at least, fair (a US$ 50 game is around R$ 150, R$ 130 sometimes).
On the other hand, you need an international credit card in order to buy them, so you pay international fees for using it internationally and got to have a lot of space to download digital games.
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot of popular banks also issue debit cards for a cheap monthly fee. For me, it's 2€ per month for an account. Free international purchases and free everything. Check if your bank has something like that.
A debit card is essentially a credit card and a bank account in one.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got a pre-paid international credit card. It was the only option for me since my bank doesn't give me a credit card because I don't fit the requirements. So it's basically as if it was a debit card which works as a credit card. It's the only way I have to make international purchases, especially on eShop (Nintendo). Strangely, it doesn't work on Steam at all (directly or through PayPal). But, well, taxes are automatically charged by government for international transactions.
I have another pre-paid international credit card, but this one doesn't work for eShop and most of purchases I try to make online on foreign stores, but it does work on Steam. That's strange like hell. Both have monthly fees. It's not being easy at all to pay all the stuff, especially with those government fees.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here Ferrari's cost over £100,000, so the only way I get to drive one is by stealing it.
Here Xbox's cost over £400, so the only way I get to play one is by robbing people's houses.
This is basically what you just said.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it was not. I talked about testing, not owning. Beside that, you don't need to take anything from anyone to pirate a game to test. If you like, you buy it. If you don't like, you don't buy it. Simple like that. People here can't afford buying stuff just to find out they don't like after the purchase is made.
P.S.: I forgot to say that in some places (like here) you can't ask for refunds or even give back a product just because "you didn't like it". If you tell it to the seller, they will laugh at you and kick your butt out of their store. That's not what happens in a lot of countries where you can give a try and give back, ask for refunds or exchange for other products as you please.
The only way to give back something here is if the product has any factory defect, so they will replace for a new one. No refunds, no changings.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have any responsability for that. I've never asked for a refund. And finishing a game and asking for refund is a nasty practice.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Brazil. Yes, it is the worst place in the world.
- The theme is called "Holiday Profile 2014". I probably got it for some badge crafting from 2014 winter sale. Maybe it is available for sale in the market, maybe not. Don't know the difference between a theme and a profile background, if there is any.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Brazil. Yes, it is the worst place in the world."
plz come to Africa (any country, doesn't matter) and you'll know the true meaning of "the worst place in the world".
you're in heaven compared to me....
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's agree about not competing about where is worse and assume I just said it because I hate where I live ('cause it's true)
Comment has been collapsed.
I see piracy as getting on public transport. Most people pay to use it but some get on it without paying. Sure you can walk but I can just sit in a seat and not pay. No harm...
Just they are not paying for the fuel, wages of drivers, ticket givers etc, but because you didn't take the bus or train away it's fine... people pay their fares because they are paying for a service but some people do not value that. But people don't understand they are on the train using the service... So they should be a potential customer... because... the only difference between you sitting on a seat and the person next to you is they paid for the journey and you decided not to pay and not walk.
I personally don't like piracy... that's how the cinemas are dying... Well it's basically dead, let's be honest.
Basically, transport = playing games and walking = get a new bloody hobby you can afford or is free.
Comment has been collapsed.
Long live piracy!
As a side note, you can always buy the game, play it for less than 2 hours and still get a refund ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not your fault that publishers didn't bother to provide a demo. If you've actually got pretty serious psychological barierrs against piracy, just try the advice above, it's actually a sensible one. You would have probably refunded the game anyway if you bought it in the first place. If you are unable to just relax and move on, play "buy - refund" script through.
Comment has been collapsed.
Paying for a game you didn't enjoy will just greenlight more terrible games. Use your money to support people who are doing good stuff for the gaming community.
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually pirate games that dont provide a demo, and consider the pirated version my demo of the game. I play long enough to know if I like it or not, then buy it if I liked it. So in your case, Id just consider the pirated copy a "demo", uninstall, and skip buying it. But if its bothering you, like others said, just buy it and refund it if it would make you feel better about pirating it.
Comment has been collapsed.
why do you guys think refunding would solve his problem? the devs gets no money that way, might even lose money due to a possible fee. buying and refunding the game is actually the worst thing he can do now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would there be a fee? Publishers are not paid instantly, they're paid the next month all in one payment. So refunding just removes the sale from the system. Vale may need to pay a fee depending on the paid method, I don't know about that.
Comment has been collapsed.
i think it's very possible that valve takes a fee for refunds, because they have to pay fees themselves. the payment interval has really nothing to do with that.
edit: just read it up and you're right. valve doesn't charge them and pays all fees themselves. doesn't really change my argument, though. refunding achieves nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's about local psychological comfort of a person who's asked for advice, not about developers.
Comment has been collapsed.
his problem is that devs need to feed their families, and the solution is to do a refund?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Late playing out the exact algorithm that they would have been comfortable with in the first place could be a solution.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, i still disagree. there is simply no point in doing that. it has no effect whatsoever. it doesn't solve the moral conflict he has (regarding devs needing to feed their families etc.). unless he says it does, then you're obviously right (still wouldn't understand it, though ^^).
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much this. Said it better than I was going to lol
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't find the game worthy of your money then don't buy it. That's a great thing about piracy, it allows you to test games and see are they enjoyable or not, do they run well on your hardware or not. Yes, there is a refund option on steam and people say you can go that route, but honestly 2 hours is too short to get a feeling for the game in cases of many lengthy games.
Comment has been collapsed.
most demos back in the day didn't give you more play time than you get now with the refund system. many were maybe like half an hour of content (and often limited content!), and that was enough to get an impression. 2 hours is in my opinion enough for most games. maybe not all, but most of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
the difference is that a demo usually starts somewhere in the middle and you can see how the game mechanics work, while if you start from the beginning in a 60+ hour game, you don't have enough time to test it.
Comment has been collapsed.
so a selected 30 minute snapshot of a 60 hour game is enough for you to make an informed decision then?
Comment has been collapsed.
a demo shows the strong parts of the game. if you start from the beginning you won't see those in 2 hours. And I personally don't like to rush through games. In an RPG I take at least 20 minutes to set up my char and read all the stuff about it
Comment has been collapsed.
Agree, timely limitation is bullshit compared to content limitation. Loading screens, videos, empty running sections - these all reduce the window until a refund, while a demo stays where it is, and one can take their time with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
a demo shows the strong parts of the game.
exactly. it shows you the good stuff and leaves out the bad stuff. in some cases demos even have stuff in it that isn't in the final game. it is advertisement, after all. i just think getting a short snapshot of a game in many cases isn't more representative than seeing the first 2 hours.
In an RPG I take at least 20 minutes to set up my char and read all the stuff about it
you do that if you want to test the game? seriously? if you want to use the refund period as a demo, then why do you waste your time with character creation and reading character lore? sorry, but in these discussions i really get the feeling people deliberately exaggerate to make a case against the refund system.
Comment has been collapsed.
you do that if you want to test the game?
hen why do you waste your time with character creation and reading character lore?
why waste 2 hours?
If I like the game, I will need to start all over from the beginning and waste 2 hours for nothing, not to mention the fact that I will spoil myself. It takes away the pleasure of the game.
If I dislike what I played in those two hours then I saved myself some time. But there are cases with games, where one gets better as you play through it. So 2 hours from the beginning of the game gives you nothing conclusive. You can't draw a conclusion based on the first 2 hours of a game. That is like meeting a person and dislike it before it even speaks.
Comment has been collapsed.
we are talking about the 2 hour refund period vs a demo, right? you want to tell me why demos are good and 2 hours are no replacement for them. i think you are being a little unfair here. because most of your criticism can easily be applied to demos as well.
why waste 2 hours?
your initial argument was that 2 hours are not enough to test a game. that you would invest even more time in a demo. which would equally be a waste of time, am i right? if it's ok for you to invest time in a demo, it must also be ok to invest time in checking out a game during the refund period.
If I like the game, I will need to start all over from the beginning and waste 2 hours for nothing, not to mention the fact that I will spoil myself. It takes away the pleasure of the game.
again, same thing with the demo. you will "waste time" (possibly even more than 2h, like you said), and you will also spoil yourself.
If I dislike what I played in those two hours then I saved myself some time. But there are cases with games, where one gets better as you play through it. So 2 hours from the beginning of the game gives you nothing conclusive. You can't draw a conclusion based on the first 2 hours of a game. That is like meeting a person and dislike it before it even speaks.
and how is a demo better? you get a little part of the game, and it could as well be horrible before and after that part. there is no way of knowing that, unless you use additional information like reviews, user-reviews, youtube videos. the demo alone cannot lead to a definitive conclusion about the quality of the game, just like the first 2h can't do that.
so, why do you think a demo is so much better than the refund period? you have the same problems there.
Comment has been collapsed.
i posted a very lengthy answer below. if you are still interested in the discussion, please read it and answer there. no need to repeat the same arguments here. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Nyalotha and adam gave good replies on why 2 hours isn't enough.
Again it all depends on the game, but with a lot of games I barely scratch the surface within the first two hours.
When I launch the game the first thing I do is go to options menu and fiddle with that, then I check the keybindings and spend some time configuring them to my preference if needed.
If a game has character customization I'll probably spend good amount of time on that, heck sometimes I spend over half an hour just trying to figure out how to name my character.
Some games have long cutscenes or dialogues at the beginning. If you're like me and like taking things slow to explore every pixel of the game you can spend a lot of time just wandering around not progressing through the game in a meaningful way (which often leads to being disappointed because lots of games nowadays don't reward exploration like they used to).
Sometimes I have to pause the game to do a quick chore or two around the house (no point quitting the game if you're going to get back to it after 5-10 minutes, especially nowadays when most games don't allow you to save&load at exactly the point you quit the game at).
Sometimes I'll alt-tab between the game and my browser often, whether it's to check something on steamgifts or some other website.
Overall there are just so many things that can lead you to not getting a feel for the game after only 2 hours. Not to mention that if you had mixed feelings about buying the game and you know you only got 2 hours to decide whether it's worth your money or not, it's hard to get relaxed and allow yourself to play the game at comfortable pace. If you pirate the game you can take all the time you need in order to properly asses the game and whether it's enjoyable or not.
Still for a lot of games watching youtube videos and reading reviews is enough for me to decide whether I would enjoy it or not, but in some cases you just can't know unless you try the game for yourself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nyalotha and adam gave good replies on why 2 hours isn't enough.
i replied there as well. feel free to read it.
Again it all depends on the game, but with a lot of games I barely scratch the surface within the first two hours.
yeah, but you're not supposed to to more than scratch the surface. remember, all you want is to get an impression of how the game plays. your want to make a purchase decision, nothing more. the main argument for demos is usually that reviews and youtube videos cannot tell you how controlling the game feels to you personally. that a game might look good in video form, but controls badly once you play it yourself. that is the argument i got in the last 20 discussions about it. i am surprised i didn't see anyone saying that here (yet). well, 2 hours is more than enough to see how it controls. even if you (for some reason) spend 20 minutes in the options menu, and then another 20 for character creation, if the game has that - even then you have more than enough time to see how the game feels and controls.
When I launch the game the first thing I do is go to options menu and fiddle with that, then I check the keybindings and spend some time configuring them to my preference if needed.
this is a point i absolutely cannot understand, unless you really need to do that in every game (for example if your left-handed or something). a demo is just a short snapshot to show you the game. if you want to use your 2 hours to examine the game, why waste time in the options menu. most people never even touch the key bindings. i would argue for most people it is simply unnecessary to change anything just for a quick look at the game. and well, even if you absolutely must - we're talking about 5 minutes at most here, right?
If a game has character customization I'll probably spend good amount of time on that, heck sometimes I spend over half an hour just trying to figure out how to name my character.
same thing. if you want to determine whether you want to buy the game or not, is it really necessary to spend half an hour for character creation? i'd say definitely not.
Some games have long cutscenes or dialogues at the beginning. If you're like me and like taking things slow to explore every pixel of the game you can spend a lot of time just wandering around not progressing through the game in a meaningful way (which often leads to being disappointed because lots of games nowadays don't reward exploration like they used to).
again, basically the same answer. if you want to use the refund period for examination of the game, maybe you should do exactly that. you can explore every pixel of the game later after you bought it. it seems you me you complain that the 2 hours are not enough to play the game in a normal way, therefore demos are the better option - the thing is, demos don't allow you to play the game in a normal way either.
Sometimes I have to pause the game to do a quick chore or two around the house (no point quitting the game if you're going to get back to it after 5-10 minutes, especially nowadays when most games don't allow you to save&load at exactly the point you quit the game at).
Sometimes I'll alt-tab between the game and my browser often, whether it's to check something on steamgifts or some other website.
oh come on... ^^ being away for 5 minutes won't change a thing. many games do actually allow you to save freely, and those who do not usually have quite frequent checkpoints. i'd say the games where you really have to replay big chunks after restart are the minority. so feel free to close most games if you need to go for a few minutes or really must check your browser.
Overall there are just so many things that can lead you to not getting a feel for the game after only 2 hours. Not to mention that if you had mixed feelings about buying the game and you know you only got 2 hours to decide whether it's worth your money or not, it's hard to get relaxed and allow yourself to play the game at comfortable pace. If you pirate the game you can take all the time you need in order to properly asses the game and whether it's enjoyable or not.
but a demo doesn't give you that either. a demo usually offers only little content. it's very restricted, it doesn't show you the whole game. and it might even trick you, because it shows you its best side and hides the boring parts.
the question is, how much time do you think is appropriate? how much do you need? if i read some of the statements in here, i get the feeling you guys won't be satisfied until you have seen half the game. i mean, how far do you want to take this? if you "demo" a game and saw the first 5 hours, is that enough then? it could get bad after that, you know. maybe the story starts strong, but is very weak later. maybe the mechanics are only fun for a few hours, but get repetitive and boring later. so the first 5 hours are still a risk. it's better if you see more of it. so maybe it makes sense to play 10 more hours, just to be sure it doesn't get boring later on. and what if the ending is bad? some people say a bad ending basically nullifies all the fun they had before that. so in order to be 100% comfortable with the game, you really need to see the ending.
i think you see what i'm trying to say. ^^ a demo was never intended to give you a full impression of the game. it was always only a snapshot. after playing a demo you could never be 100% sure you will completely like the full game. people complain about the 2 hours being not enough to judge a game, being a step back from demos. yet demos were never able to deliver what people are asking for nowadays.
and let's not forget we have so much more information today than we had 20 years ago. 20 years ago we had a magazine or two each month. there were a few demos on the CD. but not for all the games, of course. we had the reviews and the screenshots. a single opinion, and a few select images. look what we have now. countless reviews for free on the internet. countless videos showing us the complete game, if needed. countless opinions on the game, not only from traditional professionals, but also from independent youtubers, bloggers and whatnot. user reviews and scores on steam, user reviews and scores on metacritic/opencritic. we have such an incredible amount of information on our hands, and on top of that we can even play the game for 2 hours (or more, depending on the store - Origin has this 24h thing i believe). and somehow that is not enough to determine the game we want to buy? sorry, i think that is simply not true. i think we can make informed purchase decisions better than ever before.
sorry for the wall of text. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I did that a long time ago. But my reasons were different. 1- I didn't know about steam. 2- The game wasn't released in my region and (and yes I'm showing my age here) there was no Amazon yet.
But now I own 2 of the 4 games legitimately. Shame Guilty Gear X still can't be bought anymore in any area for PC. And to my knowledge was never released for the US market on Windows.
Edit- I'm sure we've all pirated something at least once in our lives. Don't deny it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it would be wrong if you liked the game and continued to play it without paying, but you tried it and didn't like it, so I'd say try not to worry about it too much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you feel bad at all? Tell me, if they did provide a demo, and you played it then didn't like it, will you buy the game in this case? You seem like an honest person who wants to do the right thing but in no way are you obligated to buy a game you know for a fact you don't like. Consider this pirated copy was your demo. If pirating makes you feel bad, then next time just check some youtube videos and see what others are saying about the game. One thing I advise you to do though. Scan your computer thoroughly and make sure no malware was in the crack/keygen or whatever. Some of these things even have cryptocurrency miners nowadays that make money of your computer without your consent.
Comment has been collapsed.
If pirating makes you feel bad, then next time just check some youtube videos and see what others are saying about the game.
That's what he should have done in the first place. Twitch, YT, user reviews, review sites - they're all sources to check out a game before buying.
Comment has been collapsed.
so you're basically saying your initial impression based on YT videos and so on was correct. maybe just stick to that in the future. i never understood why that is not enough. back in the 90s there were more demos, yes. but not for every game. not even close. and we didn't have the internet and youtube. we had to judge games based on the description in a review and a few screenshots. worked well enough then. so i don't understand why people think the situation was better in the old demo times. i think it's better now. lots of video footage and opinions from independent critics. that is a luxury we didn't have back then. also, the old demos often were heavily restricted and not always representive of the full game. if you were fine with the old days, you should be fine with a 2 hour refund time today. many demos back then didn't give you more than 2 hours anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Back then we had video stores where you could rent shit to find out if the purchase is worth it or not. So what is even your point?
Comment has been collapsed.
So what is even your point?
Pretty obvious to me. It's in the first two sentences.
Comment has been collapsed.
what tzaar said. i can't understand how all the information we get nowadays is not enough to make an informed decision. and my additional argument is that we didn't always have that much more information (often even less) in those old days people like to glorify so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you feel bad about it, buy a good game instead (maybe to support a good indie developer) or donate the money to a charity.
Comment has been collapsed.
You tried it and did not like it - don't buy it, unless you want to appease your conscience then go for it when its on sale. Or buy it if you completed pirated version...
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole point of trying before you buy is to avoid having bought something you don't like. Just uninstall the game and delete the installer/whatever you downloaded - the makers of the game aren't any worse off than if you'd never tried it in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is bad and you should feel as bad as the game is.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm aware that there are still people behind it which need to feed themselves and/or their families.
Of all the hundreds, if not thousands of games on Steam you haven't played, are you going to pay all their developers some money because they have to feed themselves? I'm guessing no. Let's say instead you bought a game and found out it was terrible or even unplayable within the first two hours, would you forego a refund because of hypothetical hungry families? Again, I'm guessing no. (Let's leave out the fact that your money does not end up directly putting food on someone's table because developers aren't paid by copies sold, that's another issue altogether.)
Now, if you pirated the game, played it all the way through to the end to complete it, and then opportunistically went "nah, this isn't cool enough for me to pay money", you'd have some point, because apparently you got something out of the experience if you played it that long. But if "quite some time" is significantly less than the game's total time, and you hated the experience, why would you give money to the people who created the miserable experience? The only one that benefits is the publisher, who'll likely use the money and the sale to justify making more games you don't like.
If this still bothers you, then it's better to get used to turn a "not sure" decision into a firm "no" before you download anything. This will leave you with more money and more time for things that look awesome right from the start.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not to mention many that buy their games at a fraction from bundles and still claim they support and help feed their families..
Non indie developers get salaries but if they are laid off because the company isn't making enough money well that can happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why pay some developer if you don't like their program?
Yes, piracy is "bad", but without it you wouldn't get an accurate opinion for the game.
I think you should save your money for games that are really worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, piracy is "bad", but without it you wouldn't get an accurate opinion for the game.
the funny thing is that youtube videos and whatnot already told him quite accurately before how the game is. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. I think the OP is trolling to justify his pirating.
If the OP PAYS(!) for every single game that he pirates and then ends up playing and enjoying, EVERY SINGLE GAME DEVELOPER in the world loves him and wishes all other shady acquisitions of their product would follow his pattern of behavior. Right now, game developers are framing this guy's post on the wall.
What if this guy got a burnt burger, does this guy REALLY(?) wring his hands that the business is going to starve because he had the audacity to return the burnt burger?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not your obligation to fund the development of any games, let alone a game you find to be bad.
If you really want to send money their way, then buy a different Square game.
It's a big company, the wages will have already been paid to the staff, but by buying a different game by the same company, you're funding their future endeavours, without specifically endorsing a game that is bad, or not to your taste.
Comment has been collapsed.
I second this - it makes a lot of sense.
I think the fact that its a Square game makes a difference - if Square is hurting in the financial department, its because of poor business decisions (like making a subpar game...) not because of lack of attention or loss of money due to piracy. If this were a small indie team it'd be different - but it's Square. Put your money where you want to see it flourish.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey guys,
so I pirated "World of Final Fantasy" because I really wanted to try it out. As I grew up with PC demos for every game, I expected Square to release one.. well.. turns out there isn't one. And since YouTube videos portraited the game as somewhat mediocre I thought "Okay, fire up that good old Torrent program and if you get caught using it, it's your own damn fault".
So I downloaded the game and played it for quite some time. Turns out the game is horrible. I have never been so satisfied with an uninstallation before.
Now I have the following problem: I actually pirated games before to try them out, but purchased all of them afterwards. But with this one, it's different. Would it have been on sale, I'd glady purchase it anways. But I really do not feel like purchasing crappy shovelware for 40 bucks (!).
What would you guys do in my situation? Suck it up and cough up the money? Just uninstalling and forgetting about the whole thing is not really an option because even though the game is really, really terrible, I'm aware that there are still people behind it which need to feed themselves and/or their families. So this is what makes me feel bad.
I guess the fact that I have had purchased every pirated "demo" before made me think "Ah well, it's a Square game, how bad can it be?", ignoring the fact that I might be extremely underwhelmed and disappointed, which I am right now.
Did you ever had to go through something like that? If so, what did you do?
I tend to spend the money, if you're asking what my tendencies are.
Comment has been collapsed.