EU Commission: "No evidence that piracy affects video games sales"

ChienAboyeur said:

There is no we.

Click to expand...

There is.
If you don't feel you're a part of audience exposed to different scam attempts, that doesn't mean such audience doesn't exist.

The report continues: 'This positive effect of illegal downloads and streams on the sales of games may be explained by the industry being successful in converting illegal users to paying users. Tactics used by the industry include, for example, offering gameplay with extra bonuses or extra levels if consumers pay.'"​

Click to expand...

So the industry is fighting piracy with micro-transactions and in game purchases and it is working?

So now we know who to blame for those……….

GothicGothicness said:

So the industry is fighting piracy with micro-transactions and in game purchases and it is working?

So now we know who to blame for those……….

Click to expand...

Devs and corps have been trying to blame their terrible practices on piracy for some time now. Don't fall for the BS. It's a smoke screen and a scapegoat.

The only person responsible for stupid decisions is the person making the decision..

GothicGothicness said:

So the industry is fighting piracy with micro-transactions and in game purchases and it is working?

So now we know who to blame for those……….

Click to expand...

Actually the article says that piracy is not hurting, and is probably helping, the industry. Hence there is no financial reason for the industry to be "fighting piracy."

Quite obviously some members of the industry are just increasing profit margins and lining their own pockets every way they can, including "with micro-transactions and in game purchases."

__

I think GG is worried we will pirate her game. Although if any of us are still alive or gaming in 2060 when she releases it remains to be seen.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I guess that the way of thinking is this ? - That the hoinest people buy anyway and that those who want to pirate pirate anyway ?

Click to expand...

There is a saying I have read somewhere before, "Laws keep honest people honest."

Also, piracy is super evil, but this is just good business:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthe...s-a-disgusting-sense-of-deja-vu/#4bd650ae71f5

posfan12 said:

There is a saying I have read somewhere before, "Laws keep honest people honest."

Click to expand...

I think that's actually a philosophical question. It might directly lead into Staatsphilosophie (the branch of philosophy that considers how a state should be made up -> Plato, Locke).

Is force (here : force through laws) actually something that makes people behave in a certain way - or might the idea of behaving in a certain way be ther actually BEFORE the law ?
Plus, people might have come to a reasonng on how to behave all by themselves - for example by thinking, watching what other do, or by an innate sense of righteousness, or by reading books from other philosophers …

I don't believe so, by the way, for corporations. These might be meta-beings, but meta-beings all by thmselves are - in my opinion - not able to develop an innate sense of righteousness, because they simply lack "something" to digest and develop such a thing, except for ethic advisors, but these are never as strong as the chief's decision, and no-one can overule a chief if the chief decides to be bad, greedy, for example.

I see this right now most striking within the story of "The Eloquent Peasant", in which he himself complanits and laments that justice is not given to him - his words are indeed very impressive !
Even today, his words are so impressive that - in my opinion - this text heavily deserves to be read. This story was one of the finest exampley of ancient Egyptian writing - one that rings even today !

posfan12 said:

Also, piracy is super evil, but this is just good business:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthe...s-a-disgusting-sense-of-deja-vu/#4bd650ae71f5

Click to expand...

Isn't this actually the other side of the coin ?

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Isn't this actually the other side of the coin ?

Click to expand...

I don't understand. I was being sarcastic. The point the article makes is that evil things are permitted by the law sometimes.

joxer said:

There is.
If you don't feel you're a part of audience exposed to different scam attempts, that doesn't mean such audience doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

There is nothing like we gamers. Just like We The People did not exist (or it would have eliminated the conditions for slavery or generalize them)

All players are not gamers. Gamers are players with an interest in gameplay.

This said, we players do not exist.

Among players, players think their own interests do not overlapse fully with devs, studios etc What is good for them is not forcefully good for devs. And vice versa.
They think that their own interest is more important than devs interest.
They are one group of players.

And then there are players who think their own interests match devs, studio interests. What is good for devs is forcefully good for players. They also think devs interest is more important than their own interests.
They are another group of players.

There is no we players when referencing to these two different groups.

I somewhat struggle to say it, but I kinda agree with chien on that

I refuse to agree. I'm going for a coffee with another frie… another dumbass who shares the same views on ongoing decadence of videogames industry with me. So we will... Erm... Can't concentrate. We... A pair if not a group, will definetly drink the coffee before I continue.

RPGFool said:

Actually the article says that piracy is not hurting, and is probably helping, the industry. Hence there is no financial reason for the industry to be "fighting piracy."

Quite obviously some members of the industry are just increasing profit margins and lining their own pockets every way they can, including "with micro-transactions and in game purchases."

__

Click to expand...

Yes, because the industry introduced micro-transactions and in game purchases to counter the piracy? Isn't that what it said? from the quote I posted it sounds like so. If the industry had stayed with the old model, the results would probably show something else ? Besides it is funny, because if the article is true, it would mean people are fine with pirating games, but if they can't pirate the online micro-transictions and in-game purchases in a good way, they are fine to pay for that? Wouldn't that mean that if they had to pay for the game, they would be fine with doing that too?

Then again pirates are probably generally mostly stupid people, who think an in-game pair of pants for their sexy elf are worth more than years of hard work by ( sometimes ) hundreds of other people.

Wisdom said:

I think GG is worried we will pirate her game. Although if any of us are still alive or gaming in 2060 when she releases it remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

2060 that sounds a little bit too optimistic....... probably everything will be some kind of SaaS or SaaBS ( software as a brain service ) at that point so piracy might not be an issue.

If the game is finished before that, I wouldn't worry about pirates, I would still think it is sad though that there are people who wants to illegally get a hold of someone's else extremely hard work without paying for it.

GothicGothicness said:

Yes, because the industry introduced micro-transactions and in game purchases to counter the piracy? Isn't that what it said? from the quote I posted it sounds like so.

Click to expand...

Having a hard time following your 'logic'. Nothing in the OP article or the 300+ page EU Commission report ever mentioned microtransactions or in-game purchases, The para you quoted cited the positive effect of piracy on "sales of games". Obviously game sales are different than microtransactions and in-game purchases.

The quote said the positive effect on "sales of games" might be due to industry success "in converting illegal users to paying users". Since the Commission specifically cited "sales of games", it's apparent that they meant converting game users not paying for the game ("illegal users") to game owners ("paying users").

The quote continued, "Tactics used by the industry include, for example, offering gameplay with extra bonuses or extra levels if consumers pay." Again, in the actual context of the quote, "consumers [who] pay" was referencing "paying users" from the prior sentence, i.e., game purchasers. The Commission was saying that the industry rewarded game purchasers with bonuses or extra levels.

Your speculation that illegal users, who wouldn't spend money on the game in the first instance, subsequently spent money to became game owners so they could spend even more money on microtransactions and in-game purchases ('pay to pay more') requires a leap of logic that isn't supported by the EU Commission's report, or by logic itself. Microtransactions and in-game purchases can also be pirated, same as the game, with or without game ownership.

At any rate your 'pay to pay more' scheme certainly wasn't proposed by the EU Commission.

__

RPGFool said:

Having a hard time following your 'logic'. Nothing in the OP article or the 300+ page EU Commission report ever mentioned microtransactions or in-game purchases, The para you quoted cited the positive effect of piracy on "sales of games". Obviously game sales are different than microtransactions and in-game purchases.

The quote said the positive effect on "sales of games" might be due to industry success "in converting illegal users to paying users". Since the Commission specifically cited "sales of games", it's apparent that they meant converting game users not paying for the game ("illegal users") to game owners ("paying users").

The quote continued, "Tactics used by the industry include, for example, offering gameplay with extra bonuses or extra levels if consumers pay." Again, in the actual context of the quote, "consumers [who] pay" was referencing "paying users" from the prior sentence, i.e., game purchasers. The Commission was saying that the industry rewarded game purchasers with bonuses or extra levels.

Your speculation that illegal users, who wouldn't spend money on the game in the first instance, subsequently spent money to became game owners so they could spend even more money on microtransactions and in-game purchases ('pay to pay more') requires a leap of logic that isn't supported by the EU Commission's report, or by logic itself. Microtransactions and in-game purchases can also be pirated, same as the game, with or without game ownership.

At any rate your 'pay to pay more' scheme certainly wasn't proposed by the EU Commission.

__

Click to expand...

I don't know that much about pirates, but as far as I understand they don't bother to crack everything, like a pair of new pants or extra levels, as the amount of work required is not worth it for the pay-off it gives them. So those are added after the release sometimes for free ( TW3 except the add-on ) or sometimes ( more often ) for a cost Deus Ex Microtransaction edition. But it is specifically mentioned in the article that means such as these are taken to combat privacy by the companies and that they think it works. Whatever the game companies are right or not in their analysis we cannot know. Unless they start releasing full games on day one again instead, and sales would decrease. Then another such a study is initiated.

GothicGothicness said:

I don't know that much about pirates, but as far as I understand they don't bother to crack everything, like a pair of new pants or extra levels, as the amount of work required is not worth it for the pay-off it gives them. So those are added after the release sometimes for free ( TW3 except the add-on ) or sometimes ( more often ) for a cost Deus Ex Microtransaction edition. But it is specifically mentioned in the article that means such as these are taken to combat privacy by the companies and that they think it works. Whatever the game companies are right or not in their analysis we cannot know. Unless they start releasing full games on day one again instead, and sales would decrease. Then another such a study is initiated.

Click to expand...

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided microtransactions were present at game release (but not in pre-release copies given to game reviewers). The DX items available via mt's and in-game purchases were also rapidly made available for free on the web via game "trainers", etc. DX:MD sales were miserable and the series abandoned by Square for the foreseeable future. The poor sales were blamed by many, on the mts and in-game purchases added to the game.

TW3 incentives OTOH are freely given to game owners, and are the type of rewards that are thought to have a positive effect on game sales. CDPR execs have noted that these incentives can also be pirated but nevertheless are thought to have a positive effect on goodwill between gamers and CDPR, thereby promoting game sales. CDPR's TW3 achieved massive game sales without game piracy protection.

At any rate the EU Commission report never mentioned mts or in-game purchases; makes sense taken at face value; and certainly doesn't itself propose or suggest your 'pay to pay and pay more' scheme.

__

RPGFool said:

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided microtransactions were present at game release (but not in pre-release copies given to game reviewers). The DX items available via mt's and in-game purchases were also rapidly made available for free on the web via game "trainers", etc. DX:MD sales were miserable and the series abandoned by Square for the foreseeable future. The poor sales were blamed by many, on the mts and in-game purchases added to the game.

TW3 incentives OTOH are freely given to game owners, and are the type of rewards that are thought to have a positive effect on game sales. CDPR execs have noted that these incentives can also be pirated but nevertheless are thought to have a positive effect on goodwill between gamers and CDPR, thereby promoting game sales. CDPR's TW3 achieved massive game sales without game piracy protection.

At any rate the EU Commission report never mentioned mts or in-game purchases; makes sense taken at face value; and certainly doesn't itself propose or suggest your 'pay to pay and pay more' scheme.

__

Click to expand...

I am confused how do you mean "offering gameplay with extra bonuses or extra levels if consumers pay.'", if it is not done by DLC or micro-transactions, how do you do this in that case?

You mean to say that if for example a new hairstyle for Geralt is added after the game is released for free, instead of included with the initial game, the people who pirated TW3 will buy it instead because of that?

GothicGothicness said:

I am confused how do you mean "offering gameplay with extra bonuses or extra levels if consumers pay.'", if it is not done by DLC or micro-transactions, how do you do this in that case?

You mean to say that if for example a new hairstyle for Geralt is added after the game is released for free, instead of included with the initial game, the people who pirated TW3 will buy it instead because of that?

Click to expand...

Here's how Marcin Iwiński, co-founder of GOG and development studio CD Projekt Red, explained it:



__

RPGFool said:

Here's how Marcin Iwiński, co-founder of GOG and development studio CD Projekt Red, explained it:

We released [The Witcher 3] without any copy protection. So, on day one, you could download the game from GOG, and give it to a friend (enemy as well)…and still we sold near to 10 million units across all 3 platforms. But the piracy factor was irrelevant, because we cannot force people to buy things. We can only convince them to do it. We totally believe in the carrot, not in the stick…I’ve seen many times, comments [that say] ‘Hey, I couldn’t afford the game when it was full price, but these guys are so fair, and they were never against us. They were always trying to do good, add a lot of value, give free DLC, give free content, that I bought the game from them when it was mid-price.'

…We don’t like when people steal our product, but we are not going to chase them and put them in prison. But we’ll think hard what to make to convince them. And uh, convince them in a very positive way, so that they’ll buy the product next time, they’ll be happy with our game, and they’ll tell their friends not to pirate it.

And funnily enough, the more we proceed this way, the more we see them again on forums and Reddit and whatnot, we see that there is a guy saying ‘hey where can I download Witcher 3: Wild Hunt from?’ And then there is 10 people bashing them, ‘Oh you fucko, do not download the game. These guys are fair, they’re the only fair guys in the industry. You should go and buy it.’

And so, I’m not sure if this guy will buy it or find this link, but still, it’s a very positive attitude and it’s excellent word of mouth.
​

__

Click to expand...

That is actually an excellent way of thinking. Perhaps if other companies acted in that way as well piracy would indeed be less.

Unfortunately, CDPR is almost alone in acting like that, and I don't think they only refer to them in the report.

GothicGothicness said:

That is actually an excellent way of thinking. Perhaps if other companies acted in that way as well piracy would indeed be less.

Unfortunately, CDPR is almost alone in acting like that, and I don't think they only refer to them in the report.

Click to expand...

You asked about Geralt; said you didn't understand. So I quoted CDPR to help you understand. But CDPR isn't actually alone.

Larian Studios and other indies for example, also try to treat the gamer in a good way (e.g., making upgrades available to game owners) to encourage game sales. In the past Bethesda has released game modding tools after game releases, many times actually, to build good will with the gamer (consumer) that also probably converted some pirates to game owners and enhanced game sales. In earlier years, Bioware released mod tools to gamers, and undoubtedly generated goodwill and enhanced sales as a result. Obsidian at one point released free upgrades to KotOR 2… and so on.

Glad to see btw that we do happily agree CDPR has an excellent approach on piracy.

Best regards.

__

OK, I'm finally opening this thing up to give it a look. Fraggin' thing is mighty huge but I want to see for myself.

First some obvious stuff. It's only the EU so nations with far higher rates of piracy aren't part of this at all. Also, they mean ALL games not just PC games. That means both phones and consoles are included. Also also, this remains as hard to study as ever.

In the games industry the greatest proportion of revenues is generated by physical console games but online games will overtake this segment in a matter of a few years if current trends continue.

Click to expand...

Not terribly relevant to the topic but still interesting. Or maybe it is relevant? Online games are far harder to pirate than single player.

For games, the estimated effect of illegal online transactions on sales is positive – implying that illegal consumption leads to increased legal consumption. This positive effect of illegal downloads and streams on the sales of games may be explained by the industry being successful in converting illegal users to paying users. Tactics used by the industry include, for example, offering gameplay with extra bonuses or extra levels if consumers pay.

Click to expand...

Now that's really strange. One big thing this isn't saying is WHEN they pay. Pirating a $60 game then paying $10 for it years later would still count as a sale. But what the Hades is that last sentence!? Do they mean DLC? Are people actually buying the main game when DLC shows up because they would rather not get the pirated version of the DLC? Or perhaps its something with console/phone pirating??

55% of people were willing to pay the list price for their last pirated game. Quite a few more are willing to pay the lowest price - though even that is considered too high by many (between 41% in Poland and 16% in UK). So, if most people are willing to pay the price, why aren't they paying it?

The summary gives a couple of explanations. The first is that they may already own it. That's probably happening some in games. A person owns a game at home but doesn't have it on his laptop so he gets a pirated version. Or maybe a game company boneheads their anti-pirate protection so the pirated version is actually better (or at least the gamer imagines it is). I'm guessing what's more common, though, is the second explanation: that they are quite willing to pay for *A* game but they are downloading *MANY* games. $60 for GTA 5? Sure! $600 for GTA 5, MEW, SP:tFbW, NBA 2K18, WWE 2K18, TW:W2, Civ 6, MvC:Infinite, F4:GotY, and XCom 2? No, can't do that. (Though who knows how many of those games the player will actually play.)

OK, big enough post by far. I'll read more later.