I don't think publishers these days
understand how good they've got it. They love to complain about
piracy and used game sales, and are intent on redefining the concept
of software ownership in order to “protect” their works. Compared
to how things have been, publishers have the most control over their
games than ever before. Consumers no longer own software, they own a
license to software, and this license allows the publisher to
basically make any restrictions they want on the product. It just
annoys me that publishers completely ignore the negative effects on
the honest consumer out of fear of theoretically losing money.
Compared to the way things were on PCs in the early 90's, modern day publishers got it easy. It was so easy to copy a game from an official floppy disks to the computer and to other disks that it was extremely wide-spread. I don't know how anybody ever made money on PC games back then. Even with copy-protection schemes like the use of passwords out of user manuals was only a mild deterrent. I remember that my grandfather, who is admittedly more technologically savvy than the average grandpa, had a spreadsheet of all the possible passwords for The Incredible Machine. I also recall my brother outright guessing passwords for Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?.
Later on, the industry switched to CD
keys, and consumers went from owning a game to owning a key to
accessing a game, and this gave rise to keygens. And that basically
sums up how software piracy is. Hackers always find a way around
copy-protection schemes, and there is always be people that don't
want to pay for things. The way I see, this is inevitable and if
publishers focus on it, it only ends up to the detriment of people
that actually want to pay for games, and that makes no damn sense.
To me, and probably to most gamers DRM,
digital rights management, is is a reviled thing. The funny thing is
that it doesn't need to be. Steam has DRM, but nobody cares because
it uses it in way that generally makes things easier for the
consumer. Sure, the user can't be logged in in more than one place
and play the same game simultaneously on two computers, but it also
does things that are convenient for the user. For example, it is
possible to log into that account anywhere and download games as
often as the user wants, streamlining the install process, and in the
case of some games save games and settings will automatically be
there as well. Even if it has steps that curtail piracy, it also
makes managing a library of PC games across multiple computers really
easy, and that is how it should be.
The best thing publishers can do to
minimize game piracy is to make things convenient for the user. The
music and movie industries are currently seeing this with services
like Spotify and Netflix, which make things more convenient for users
while not allowing ownership of content. Even though these sort of
things are keeping those industries in a financially successful they
are still lobbying for more strict control over content, because they
are apparently very stupid, much like the video game industry. If it
is easier to purchase something for a reasonable price than it is to
pirate, then people will do that, and that is why things like iTunes
has done really well.
Probably the biggest misconception that
publishers have about piracy is that they see every pirated copy of a
game is a lost sale. That just seems ridiculous to me, because it
has always been my experience that people that pirate shit either are
the sort that don't ever want to spend money and would sooner just
not play the game or are the sort that simply can't spend the money.
Then there are people like me that publishers don't believe exist.
I'm the sort of person that sometimes pirates games to try them out,
then if it is something that I like I'll go out and buy it, and if I
don't I'll just delete it. I don't think I ever would have just
purchased Super Princess Peach based on the box, but after I
played it and liked it, I did. This happened for me with a lot of
games, like Mega Man Zero and Chrono Trigger. I guess,
for me, I wouldn't need to pirate if demos were universally
available.
I should also point out that there are
certain situations in which I don't feel guilty about piracy at all.
If I it is an old game that is not freely available on services like
Virtual Console or Good Old Games or whatever, then fuck it. The
perfect example for this sort of thing is Earthbound, which
isn't available on anything other than the SNES in the US, and used
copies go for exorbitant prices. If I download the rom, the only
people that aren't getting my money are resellers. I like to support
things I like with my money, and if Nintendo isn't going to take my
money in exchange for Earthbound, then screw them, I'll pirate
it because to me that is a morally neutral thing to do at that point.
You speak directly to me when you say you pirate games to demo them. I do the same, but wish I didn't have to resort to criminal behavior in order to try it before i buy it. However, it has saved me from a lot of terrible purchases. I don't feel to bad because it's not like there is a return policy on games (also a huge pain). The idea that we should trust a developer has done a good job and fork over the money, but they don't trust we didn't make a copy it is absurd. I give everything a fair chance, but buying turds ain't none of my business.
ReplyDeleteGood article.