A Former Pirate on Piracy
By Jordan Prokosch in Steam, piracy, PC Gaming on Jul 15, 2009
Editor's note: It bothers me that so many people feel entitled to games, whether they can afford them or not. Jordan says he's a former pirate that's coming clean and also mentions how game companies may be able to stop some piracy. He does say at the end that this is an entirely fictitious account, but I detect some truth here. -Jason
I began pirating when I was 14. I was in a situation that I imagine is fairly common among pirates. I talked my parents into buying a good computer and paying for a fast Internet connection. It was for school -- or at least that's what I told them.
Talking them into buying more than a few games a year wasn't as easy. And since I couldn't get a job even if I wanted to, the only way I could get new games was to steal them.
It made perfect sense. I never bothered to concoct some ethical justification for my actions; ethics didn't enter my mind. I was a kid, and I wanted something, so I took it. I would have shoplifted the games, but I was afraid of getting caught. Besides, I was a nervous and awkward youth; I couldn't manage the nerve to talk to a girl, let alone pull off something as suave as shoplifting.
At first it was a frustrating process. Stealing one game could take hours of sifting through virus-plagued sites and clumsy peer-to-peer software. But I had lots of time and no money, so going through that effort for a free game was worth it. As time passed I discovered new methods to quickly steal the games that I wanted and to protect myself. Eventually, I developed enough knowledge to steal a game with only a few seconds of effort and minimal risk.
How long is eventually? Long enough that I could have gotten a job and paid for my games legitimately. But why would I go through all that work? I was already in the habit of stealing games. By this point it was easier to steal a game than to get off my lazy behind and drive to a store, let alone actually earning the money to do so.
Even when I got a job, I still stole my games, or at least some of them. The advantages of stealing games instead of buying them are huge. First, there's the whole no-cost thing. A lack of cost also means a lack of risk; even if you have money, you're still cautious about spending it. If the games cost you nothing, you can investigate many titles that you would've otherwise ignored. Then there's the fact that pirated games lack invasive digital-rights management; hilariously, DRM is justified as an antipiracy measure. And I must re-emphasize the convenience of pirating games. Once you have the infrastructure, it only takes four clicks and one typed phrase. It can be done in under 10 seconds. These days the stolen product is usually the better one. Some people don't want to hear this, but they need to accept reality if they hope to counter piracy.
It took a few years, but I did stop pirating. While it was a slow transition, and at the time I never thought it through this clearly, I think that I stopped pirating for three reasons. The first is that I had money. Make no mistake -- if I was still broke, I would continue to steal games. If I suddenly become broke but manage to keep my computer and Internet connection, I may very well relapse. I don't think game companies are too concerned about people who don't have money, anyway. The second reason is that my conscience started to gnaw at me. I really love videogames, and therefore I have at least some affection for the people who make them. And I like to think of myself as a relatively good person. So the whole "constantly stealing videogames" thing made me feel bad. This became especially acute when I started regularly listening to videogame podcasts, which made me feel closer to a larger "gaming community." And I began to use Steam, Valve's digital download service. Steam is almost as convenient as pirating, although it has that extra step of entering your credit card number. Steam also offers services that help build communities and make updating games easier. Piracy has its own community of sorts, but it's not exactly cohesive. And the difficulty of updating games is one of the greatest disadvantages of piracy.
The reasons that I stopped pirating games may be important to reducing piracy in the future. Note that I said reducing piracy. No one is going to stop piracy, ever. Crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, drugs, and murder will always exist, and so will piracy. But we can do our best to keep the unsavory elements of our society under control.
What can we learn from this story? You can't keep people without money from stealing games. Poor people like games, too. Game companies need to realize that those people wouldn't have bought their games anyway. Or they can improve the economy, provide full employment, and convince parents to cough up more cash for their kids' entertainment. I think the first way is easier. For people that do have money, guilt trips do work. Pirates are people, too, and if you can force them to think of an EA employee's starving kids, they'll probably cough up the dough. On the other hand, the more soulless, authoritarian, and generally evil an organization looks, the easier it is to justify stealing from it. This means it might be possible to counter piracy with good public relations. Finally, game companies need to realize that they're in a business and that their competitors are cheating. Pirates usually offer a product that's just as good, if not better, for a much lower price. To beat them developers must either match the price, like with free-to-play products, or offer a better experience that pirates can't copy, like Steam.
That's all for my first post on Bitmob. I hope that you enjoyed it. And to any game companies and lawyers: This is not an admission of guilt for criminal acts that may or may not have been committed within the statute of limitations; this is a fictional article written in first person. "I" refers to my imaginary friend, Bobo the Chimp, and not me.
Comments (26)
I definitely didn't have much money growing up, and didn't have a cell phone, computer, and many video games, but I made good use of what I had and tried to work at every opportunity to earn more money for games. Everyone has different circumstances, so this isn't always possible, but it definitely helps when you're into long games like RPGs. I'm sure that being a fan of six hour action games would be brutal if you lacked the necessary funds to purchase new games. I also don't think buying used is a bad idea if you don't have much money. I generally try to buy new games to support the developers, but when I'm strapped for cash, I sometimes have to buy used or scour the Internet for good deals.
Anyway, it was nice to see another perspective on this issue. Great article.
Basically i try to support companies/developers etc whom i have had good experiences with by spending my money with them even if it might be something ill not play or use for some time.
That was a little rambling but i think/hope you all get what I am trying to say here. I am so bad at writing.
Game companies need to realize that those people wouldn't have bought their games anyway.
This, I feel, is really central to the whole piracy debate, and it's a point that usually gets overlooked. The fact that there is no evidence that one download equals one lost sale is something that many developers and publishers are hesitant to accept. This is the same conclusion that Russell Carol came to when investigating the piracy of Ricochet Infinity. Increasingly strict DRM schemes did not cause those who had pirated the game to purchase the game -- they just stopped playing.
Brad Wardell of Stardock has said the something similar to the same effect, which was (I'm paraphrasing here): are you interested in increasing revenues, or preventing those who would have never purchased your game from playing?
I hope that developers and publishers realize that these types of DRM schemes only serve to inconvenience paying customers and have had virtually no effect on piracy to date, and they abandon this quest to treat their customers as criminals.
The reason I bring this up is that as my computer ages I find it increasingly difficult to justify purchasing a new game for it when I am not sure how well it will run. I don't want to plop down $60 for a bad experience. Meanwhile a pirated download is so easy and free. I won't lie and say there was no temptation to download different games, telling myself that it was just to try it to see if I wanted to buy it.
As for the games actually being better, I am not really sure exactly how this is true other than the lack of DRM, which for most people isn't really a problem or at least it rarely is. In fact I would think that a majority of people who pirate games aren't very cautious and actually are getting malware on there PC because of that. Maybe for a minority this isn't the case, but for your average torrent user I don't see how this is a better product than the actual game.
@Rob's point. Although I definitely see the logic to this, I think it is flawed in a theoretical sense. If companies were able to create a DRM which totally prevented piracy, then they would gain at least some revenue because pirates would be forced to become consumers. If they are dedicated enough to pirate games, I doubt that they would just pack up and leave gaming once they couldn't get it for free. Until game companies are able to prevent this 100% though, I have to agree that DRM isn't beneficial to game companies.
@Jordan D I think it's not that consoles makers are providing more demos than PC makers. It's that PC games just don't get the same level of attention. Look at Steam -- it's currently got 178 available demos.
In response to the editor's note, I'd just like to say that people in general feel entitled to anything they can get their grubby little hands on, and a lot of things they can't. I've come to this conclusion from my own experience and the psychological, sociological, and anthropological research I've been exposed to, though the confirmation bias might be in effect.
To Jordan D which part about my financial situation is “bull”? If you mean making excuses based on poverty then I completely agree. There is no good reason to pirate. But people still have reasons, or self-gratifying justifications if you prefer, and understanding those reasons/justifications is important to addressing this issue. Not being able to get games legitimately is probably a common reason, or at least it was one of my reasons, so I was pointing it out. I wasn't trying to argue that my actions were justified.
If you mean that my family being poor is “bull”, then I have to regretfully inform you that while I had no control over my financial situation I was also very poor. Not absolute starving-African-child poor, but still relative American-style poor. Buying that computer and paying for that internet connection every month was a real sacrifice when we barely had the money to pay for groceries. I, like most teenagers, was not a nice kid, so instead of empathizing with my family I convinced them to spend what little money they had to buy me fancy electronics. They had no idea what a computer costs, so I scammed them out of enough cash for a nicer computer than was strictly necessary for school.
You may be right about the “better product” point. But for a moment, let's let our imaginations soar into a twisted, labored metaphor. We're trying to decided which cheese to purchase. We have sampled both, and they appear to taste exactly the same. One cheese must be purchased at the store for a premium price, and it can only be shared among three people, or eaten on three separate occasions, or else it will instantly rot. The other cheese is delivered to your house regularly, for no cost, and can be eaten by as many people as you want. Technically it's the same exact cheese. You get identical eating experiences, provided you follow the rules of the first cheese. But at the same time, I'd call the second cheese a better “buy” if not a better “product”. I apologize for my poor choice of words.
To Rob Savilo, yep. I've read/listened to a lot of the Valve and Stardock stuff. I think for the most part they have the right ideas. I just wanted to add my experiences in support.
I guess that's it, my response is overly long and mainly focused on the only negative commenter. I probably need to grow thicker skin. As you can see, I'm not trying to paint myself as a saint here. I'm just trying to be honest. And by I, I of course mean Bobo. Bobo is just trying to be honest.
On message boards and in comment sections, people always refer to pirates in the third-person, as though they've never illegally acquired some form of media content. And those that admit it, usually say they don't pirate music, movies or games anymore - having reconciled with the illegal realities of piracy.
There is certainly a two-faced approach to the issue which everyone employs and I find it sincerely hypocritical. Among all my friends, I don't know a single one who actively avoids piracy in all forms. Maybe none of you currently engage in piracy, but I'm very skeptical of that claim.
preventing those who would have never purchased your game from playing?"ensuring that only people who payed for your game can play it" is another way to phrase that.
Its difficult for me to throw stones in this debate, but I just want to point out that we are only hurting ourselves. DRM isn't there because we were honest and we bought everything legally, but it's there because gamers as a whole steal shit like crazy. Not only that, PC developers are flocking to consoles just to avoid piracy. I am almost positive that if you asked any developer how they feel about piracy that they would not say "I'm so happy that so many people are enjoying my game." They are probably pissed that so many people are stealing what they worked so hard on.
Games aren't expensive. There are plenty of options to get affordable games (Freeware, sales, etc). But if you want to be on the cutting edge and play games as they come out, you will have to pay more.
Which brings me to my next point -- Ken, no matter how you want to phrase it, the end result is the same. These are people who are not interested in paying for the game. Is it worth spending time and resources simply preventing people from playing the game? It might make developers sleep better at night, but it's not going to bring a return on investment.
Ken, no matter how you want to phrase it, the end result is the same. These are people who are not interested in paying for the game.Please tell me you are using that 1:1000 ratio to personally justify your own piracy. Aside from that, this isn't some weird utopian market where you pay if you feel like it. Piracy is wrong and just because it doesn't make a difference sales-wise doesn't make it any less wrong.
As for DRM, I would say that pirates are more to blame for its creation. Sure publishers are the ones who pull the trigger in the end, but its hard for them to back publishing anything when they look at the how much games are being pirated. Although, we are quick to blame publishers for overburdensome DRM, maybe we should look within our own ranks as gamers for the source of the problem.
Please tell me you are using that 1:1000 ratio to personally justify your own piracy.Sorry, I should have said: Please tell me you are using that 1:1000 ratio to justify piracy in general.
I shouldn't have made this argument personal. Sorry.
We can have arguments regarding the morality of piracy 'til the cows come home, but I feel that's rather pointless as it does nothing to further the debate. What we can do is measure the real world effects of DRM and piracy on sales, as well as the effect of DRM on the user experience. In the end, I feel it's a waste of publisher and developer resources to concentrate on a group of individuals that will never part with their money for games. Again I'll reference Wardell, who argued that developers would do better to focus on the concerns of paying customers and cater their games to that group of people instead.
Heavily pirated does not necessarily mean a game was not profitable. Like I've been saying, there's no way to know that those who pirated the game would have purchased it at all, and if the Carroll investigation tells us anything it's that they likely would not have.
As I've said, the Carroll investigation is the only set of data I've ever seen that has tried to answer the question of DRM's effect on piracy. It's by no means a complete answer, but it's a part of the puzzle and to disregard the results is to take a step backwards. Yet, you'll sit there and make a prediction of perfect DRM and Modern Warfare 2 sales without any data to speak of?
We're talking past each other at this point, so I don't see any reason to continue.
Carroll's investigation does have merit, but I do not believe any of its numbers can or should be applied to this debate. Pirates who pirate games like Crysis or Call of Duty are much more technically savvy and have invested much more money into building powerful computers to play these games. They are also getting much more brazen as well. Demigod pirates not only stole their copy of the game but legitimately attempted to go online and play on official servers... The situation is getting worse.
As for DRM technology, I'm not advocating it because I, on principal, dislike it on my software, but I have never once run into problems with it. The industry will always be looking for a solution. The closest permanent one I can think of is the introduction of technology of OnLive where the game's code is sitting on a server and we only get streamed the image of the gameplay. Now if publishers begin to only publish their games on OnLive and we never get to see a local copy of the code, there may not be anymore software to pirate. I'm not saying this will happen soon, but solutions are still being developed.
Bottom line, piracy is bad for developers, is bad for the industry and is bad for us as consumers. I am sympathetic to and up on any attempts for the industry to curb it.
I didn't predict perfect DRM for Modern Warfare 2, it was simply a hypothetical situation with an upcoming popular game used to illustrate that if pirates were denied the ability to play an anticipated game for free, they would resort to paying for it.
1) "If pirates were denied the ability to play an anticipated game for free" is the description of perfect DRM. Though worded imperfectly, I know what you meant by it. Perfect DRM doesn't exist, and it cannot exist for reasons outlined above.
2) "They would resort to paying for it"; you cannot know this, you simply make the assumption without having any data to support this assumption. This is the point I was highlighting from the article in my first comment -- there's no way to know that those who pirated a game would have purchased that game if there were no other options available.
We've now gone full circle.