Piracy: Consoles vs. PC

Ok so we all know that PC's are infamous for having games mass pirated on them, and supposedly consoles should be the solution to this, but recently I've noticed more and more piracy hitting consoles. Everyone knows how MW2 was actually pirated on the Xbox first, which was a serious slap in the face for IW, but I've just seen via twitter that Left 4 Dead 2 and Assassin's Creed 2 have both already been leaked to console and are being pirated.

I really despise companies who delay PC games for copyright and piracy purposes, when clearly it's the consoles they should be worrying about. I hope developers get the message.

xbox games are pirated like crazy, rented and resold at eb games/ gamespot over and over.

Wasn't there a mass ban on Xbox recently because of pirates?-D3ATH-

Considering that used games is pretty much the same thing as piracy from the publisher standpoint, I'd say it's a FAR bigger problem on consoles. Especially on 360. It makes me wonder why none of the publishers/devs haven't complained anything about stores like Gamestop that sell used games for only a couple of dollars cheaper than new copies. It's pretty much the same thing if someone sold pirated copies for 98% of the price of the new copy. I guess they can't complain since it's perfectly legal.

Considering that used games is pretty much the same thing as piracy from the publisher standpoint, I'd say it's a FAR bigger problem on consoles. Especially on 360. It makes me wonder why none of the publishers/devs haven't complained anything about stores like Gamestop that sell used games for only a couple of dollars cheaper than new copies. It's pretty much the same thing if someone sold pirated copies for 98% of the price of the new copy. I guess they can't complain since it's perfectly legal.

HenriH-42

Considering that used games is pretty much the same thing as piracy from the publisher standpoint, I'd say it's a FAR bigger problem on consoles. Especially on 360. It makes me wonder why none of the publishers/devs haven't complained anything about stores like Gamestop that sell used games for only a couple of dollars cheaper than new copies. It's pretty much the same thing if someone sold pirated copies for 98% of the price of the new copy. I guess they can't complain since it's perfectly legal.

HenriH-42

Does console games have cd keys?

Does console games have cd keys?

siddarthshetty

[QUOTE="siddarthshetty"]

Does console games have cd keys?

TerroRizing

The reason game developers take so long to release the pc version is simply because they dont wanna bother much, porting the game right and fixing stuff. They focus totally on the console versions and make them as good as possible and after the game is released they spent some "quality time" :lol:...NOT...... porting the pc version as fast and sloppy as they can. Since pc gaming is second class sales to them, due to piracy and pc gamers not liking those games much. In any case its not as high as you think. Look at ps3 games, zero piracy but sales are not that high either.dakan45

apparently the eb games in my area sells pirated pc games for $30, even more reason to hate them!

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"][QUOTE="siddarthshetty"]

Does console games have cd keys?

siddarthshetty

[QUOTE="dakan45"]The reason game developers take so long to release the pc version is simply because they dont wanna bother much, porting the game right and fixing stuff. They focus totally on the console versions and make them as good as possible and after the game is released they spent some "quality time" :lol:...NOT...... porting the pc version as fast and sloppy as they can. Since pc gaming is second class sales to them, due to piracy and pc gamers not liking those games much. In any case its not as high as you think. Look at ps3 games, zero piracy but sales are not that high either.TerroRizing

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"][QUOTE="dakan45"]The reason game developers take so long to release the pc version is simply because they dont wanna bother much, porting the game right and fixing stuff. They focus totally on the console versions and make them as good as possible and after the game is released they spent some "quality time" :lol:...NOT...... porting the pc version as fast and sloppy as they can. Since pc gaming is second class sales to them, due to piracy and pc gamers not liking those games much. In any case its not as high as you think. Look at ps3 games, zero piracy but sales are not that high either.dakan45

The main reason they delay games is to rake in the money, they may say that it's because of piracy, or even to make the experience better on pc, but they cannot justify that.

Batman Arkham Asylum was delayed by about 2 weeks for the PC and it added Nvidia PhysX to the game which really added to the game, whereas for AC1 AND 2, they are delaying the game on PC by 3 months, to do what exactly?

The main reason they delay games is to rake in the money, they may say that it's because of piracy, or even to make the experience better on pc, but they cannot justify that.

Batman Arkham Asylum was delayed by about 2 weeks for the PC and it added Nvidia PhysX to the game which really added to the game, whereas for AC1 AND 2, they are delaying the game on PC by 3 months, to do what exactly?

lucfonzy

The main reason they delay games is to rake in the money, they may say that it's because of piracy, or even to make the experience better on pc, but they cannot justify that.

Batman Arkham Asylum was delayed by about 2 weeks for the PC and it added Nvidia PhysX to the game which really added to the game, whereas for AC1 AND 2, they are delaying the game on PC by 3 months, to do what exactly?

lucfonzy

Piracy has always been heavy on consoles, especially in other countries. It was extremely easy to buy a modded gameshark for your PS2 to play pirated games. PC gaming always tends to get saddled with the blame because admittedly its a more visual piracy. Torrent downloads and sites like GameCopyWorld tend to make PC piracy seem to be an evil empire that must be stamped out, and that game consoles are a safe haven for game developers. I just wish the farce would end. I hate piracy, whether it be on PC or console. As a PC gamer, I'm tired of being saddled with all of the blame.

I think they delay it because they know its gonna be put up on a torrent the next day. Now if a PS3 and PC owner wants the game, he might think hmm free game on the PC or pay $60 for the PS3 version, many would choose the first option. However if the PC version is delayed by 3 weeks then why not just buy the PS3 version of it to avoid the long wait.

BTW Xbox games are prob the easiest to pirate. You can buy a hardrive with like 150+ games for around $100.

I've seen the majority of games being pirated first on Xbox before PC these days.

Considering that used games is pretty much the same thing as piracy from the publisher standpoint, I'd say it's a FAR bigger problem on consoles. Especially on 360. It makes me wonder why none of the publishers/devs haven't complained anything about stores like Gamestop that sell used games for only a couple of dollars cheaper than new copies. It's pretty much the same thing if someone sold pirated copies for 98% of the price of the new copy. I guess they can't complain since it's perfectly legal.

HenriH-42

xbox games are pirated like crazy, rented and resold at eb games/ gamespot over and over.

TerroRizing

[QUOTE="HenriH-42"]

Considering that used games is pretty much the same thing as piracy from the publisher standpoint, I'd say it's a FAR bigger problem on consoles. Especially on 360. It makes me wonder why none of the publishers/devs haven't complained anything about stores like Gamestop that sell used games for only a couple of dollars cheaper than new copies. It's pretty much the same thing if someone sold pirated copies for 98% of the price of the new copy. I guess they can't complain since it's perfectly legal.

STAR_Admiral

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"][QUOTE="HenriH-42"]

Considering that used games is pretty much the same thing as piracy from the publisher standpoint, I'd say it's a FAR bigger problem on consoles. Especially on 360. It makes me wonder why none of the publishers/devs haven't complained anything about stores like Gamestop that sell used games for only a couple of dollars cheaper than new copies. It's pretty much the same thing if someone sold pirated copies for 98% of the price of the new copy. I guess they can't complain since it's perfectly legal.

Cdscottie

[QUOTE="Cdscottie"][QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"] Whats wrong with selling used games? I dont see anything wrong about it. jimmyjammer69

Everyone has a right to property, the right to property is what defines us as not slaves. I have the right to own the fruits of my labour and to exchange my labour for the products that others have produced with their labour. It does not matter if it is a car, a chair, a sofa, a movie DVD, a video game DVD, etc. Once i exchange my money(my labour) for that, that item becomes mine and the previous owner no longer has jurisdiction over that property. I do not own the intellect behind it. A chair, a car, a movie, all of those have intellectual property behind them. But i do own that particular copy, that copy of the car, that copy of the game, etc. And with that copy i do as I wish. I may sell it, break it, lend it to whoever i want. If I am not able to do what i wish with that I have laboured for then I am a slave.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Cdscottie"] Simple, the publisher/developers don't receive any compensation for the sale of used games. All profits go directly to the store that sells the Used game. This in turn can hurt the companies bottom-line. As with PC games, there is also the issue of the EULA (Just because you don't read it doesn't mean you don't have to follow it) in which the majority of games state you are not to sell the game as you are only licensing the game from them and have no true ownership over it.STAR_Admiral

Everyone has a right to property, the right to property is what defines us as not slaves. I have the right to own the fruits of my labour and to exchange my labour for the products that others have produced with their labour. It does not matter if it is a car, a chair, a sofa, a movie DVD, a video game DVD, etc. Once i exchange my money(my labour) for that, that item becomes mine and the previous owner no longer has jurisdiction over that property. I do not own the intellect behind it. A chair, a car, a movie, all of those have intellectual property behind them. But i do own that particular copy, that copy of the car, that copy of the game, etc. And with that copy i do as I wish. I may sell it, break it, lend it to whoever i want. If I am not able to do what i wish with that I have laboured for then I am a slave.

Your confusing Patent law and copyright law. I'll make my point quickly. Patent laws deal with intrinsic value, copyright law deals with the other. Software doesn't exist in intrinsic terms. Software can't be percieved....it must be translated from a series of pits on a dvd. If you own a dvd, you only own the metal and plastic that comes with it. You do not own the software that comes with it. The first sale act states that since you own the medium in which the software is supplied (or originated), your allowed to resale the media and the software license must be transferred with it. If you acquired software in another way, such as through a service like steam, Firse Sale doesn't apply because you don't own the media from which you get the software. Bottom line, software doesn't exist in any real terms. We take it for granted that you insert a disc and read the files, but your dependent on a machine to give that dvd more value than the few cents it took to make it. In other words, you don't own that copy of the software. You only own the disc it was supplied on. So, you are right in part, but not in whole. Anyways, I have all the requisite copyright laws on hand to prove what I mean but I have to get to work, but i'll supply them later if you want. Havea good day everyone.

Considering that used games is pretty much the same thing as piracy from the publisher standpoint, I'd say it's a FAR bigger problem on consoles. Especially on 360. It makes me wonder why none of the publishers/devs haven't complained anything about stores like Gamestop that sell used games for only a couple of dollars cheaper than new copies. It's pretty much the same thing if someone sold pirated copies for 98% of the price of the new copy. I guess they can't complain since it's perfectly legal.

HenriH-42

Where have you been? Publishers like EA, Atari and Activision have been moaning and complaining about the used game market for years now. Some have called it legal piracy, I recall one executive calling it a "grey market", and other, similar comments. There's at least some belief that some of the new DRM, with online activation tied to an account, with a limited number of activations allowed, was a way to try to stem the used game market as opposed to a real anti-piracy technique. I think the only reason some of the publishers have quieted down a bit is that there was some pretty bad backlash for their comments and (especially!) for the DRM they were trying to shove down our throats.

That said, there's a pretty significant difference between pirating and used games. With a used game, there is one copy that moves from person to person. Person A plays it, sells it to Gaemstop, then person B buys it and plays it. Person A can no longer play it, he doesn't have it. With piracy, person A and person B (and C,D,E and F) can all play the game at the same time, using just that one copy. In each case, the publisher only sells one copy, but with the used game scenario, at least only one person can benefit at a time. That's why one is legal, and the other is not.

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Whatever the EULA states, you are legally allowed to sell any store purchased game, no matter how uncooperative the publisher wants to be about that.stele29

Everyone has a right to property, the right to property is what defines us as not slaves. I have the right to own the fruits of my labour and to exchange my labour for the products that others have produced with their labour. It does not matter if it is a car, a chair, a sofa, a movie DVD, a video game DVD, etc. Once i exchange my money(my labour) for that, that item becomes mine and the previous owner no longer has jurisdiction over that property. I do not own the intellect behind it. A chair, a car, a movie, all of those have intellectual property behind them. But i do own that particular copy, that copy of the car, that copy of the game, etc. And with that copy i do as I wish. I may sell it, break it, lend it to whoever i want. If I am not able to do what i wish with that I have laboured for then I am a slave.

Your confusing Patent law and copyright law. I'll make my point quickly. Patent laws deal with intrinsic value, copyright law deals with the other. Software doesn't exist in intrinsic terms. Software can't be percieved....it must be translated from a series of pits on a dvd. If you own a dvd, you only own the metal and plastic that comes with it. You do not own the software that comes with it. The first sale act states that since you own the medium in which the software is supplied (or originated), your allowed to resale the media and the software license must be transferred with it. If you acquired software in another way, such as through a service like steam, Firse Sale doesn't apply because you don't own the media from which you get the software. Bottom line, software doesn't exist in any real terms. We take it for granted that you insert a disc and read the files, but your dependent on a machine to give that dvd more value than the few cents it took to make it. In other words, you don't own that copy of the software. You only own the disc it was supplied on. So, you are right in part, but not in whole. Anyways, I have all the requisite copyright laws on hand to prove what I mean but I have to get to work, but i'll supply them later if you want. Havea good day everyone.

That's not an absolute truth. Case law in the US has resulted in mixed results regarding the doctrine of first sale versus the EULA's of publishers. Even though Section 109 was amended to give the EULA's a little more punch, the publishers are still bound by the Clayton act, so they don't have quite the power they might. Really, the only places the EULA has anything like absolute authority is in states that have adopted the UCITA trade regulations (only Maryland and Virginia as of right now). Other states are still under the UCC, and some have even passed regulations that further strengthen the first sale doctrine in their borders. Add to that, if the EULA was actually enforcible, do you really think a company like EA or Activsion wouldn't have taken real, legal action against Gamestop by now? It's not like they are a small target, hard to find or anything. It's because EA won't risk losing, and they don't think they have a good enough chance.

You can't say definitely yes or definitely no to most situations under IP law. The field is just too damned complicated that even the experts can only make educated guesses. Even the most basic concept in copyright law (you can copyright the expression, not the idea) is difficult for most to interpret. What constitutes the idea? What constitutes the expression? It's very hard to separate the two. Consider the recent lawsuit by White Wolf vs. Sony Entertainment over the movie Underworld, due to similarities between IDEAS in the game and the movie. It was pretty clearly about the ideas, not the expressions, but Sony settled out of court, because getting a judge or a jury to understand that is hard. It's too complicated as it stands, and could use some simplification.

Where have you been? Publishers like EA, Atari and Activision have been moaning and complaining about the used game market for years now. Some have called it legal piracy, I recall one executive calling it a "grey market", and other, similar comments. There's at least some belief that some of the new DRM, with online activation tied to an account, with a limited number of activations allowed, was a way to try to stem the used game market as opposed to a real anti-piracy technique. I think the only reason some of the publishers have quieted down a bit is that there was some pretty bad backlash for their comments and (especially!) for the DRM they were trying to shove down our throats.

That said, there's a pretty significant difference between pirating and used games. With a used game, there is one copy that moves from person to person. Person A plays it, sells it to Gaemstop, then person B buys it and plays it. Person A can no longer play it, he doesn't have it. With piracy, person A and person B (and C,D,E and F) can all play the game at the same time, using just that one copy. In each case, the publisher only sells one copy, but with the used game scenario, at least only one person can benefit at a time. That's why one is legal, and the other is not.

Royas

You can pirate ANY wii or xbox 360 game. When bluray burners come down in price there will be demand for a PS3 hack and then you'll be able to pirate any PS3 game. The reason why co. blame PC for pirating is becaues your average PC gamer is smarter than your average console gamer.

[QUOTE="lucfonzy"]

The main reason they delay games is to rake in the money, they may say that it's because of piracy, or even to make the experience better on pc, but they cannot justify that.

Batman Arkham Asylum was delayed by about 2 weeks for the PC and it added Nvidia PhysX to the game which really added to the game, whereas for AC1 AND 2, they are delaying the game on PC by 3 months, to do what exactly?

TerroRizing

I think they are just making us wait longer so they can milk our money out of us. They now that if it's a popular game [or it's goinng to be], that we wil buy the game for, say, the PS3 because we can't wait for the story or something, and then they release the PC version [that we wanted earlier], and then most people will buy that aswel, maybe for the graphics, or just the different playstyle.

apparently the eb games in my area sells pirated pc games for $30, even more reason to hate them!

TerroRizing

[QUOTE="lucfonzy"]

The main reason they delay games is to rake in the money, they may say that it's because of piracy, or even to make the experience better on pc, but they cannot justify that.

Batman Arkham Asylum was delayed by about 2 weeks for the PC and it added Nvidia PhysX to the game which really added to the game, whereas for AC1 AND 2, they are delaying the game on PC by 3 months, to do what exactly?

TerroRizing

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"]

apparently the eb games in my area sells pirated pc games for $30, even more reason to hate them!

missjenny69

[QUOTE="TerroRizing"]

[QUOTE="lucfonzy"]

The main reason they delay games is to rake in the money, they may say that it's because of piracy, or even to make the experience better on pc, but they cannot justify that.

Batman Arkham Asylum was delayed by about 2 weeks for the PC and it added Nvidia PhysX to the game which really added to the game, whereas for AC1 AND 2, they are delaying the game on PC by 3 months, to do what exactly?

polarwrath11

That's true, but then surely they should allow more time BEFORE the game is released to test for all these bugs.

Responding to this used games stuff;

Yeah, it's not illegal. It shouldn't be illegal. But that's the problem. Think about it from the game publisher/developer standpoint.

From the publisher's/developer's view, what is the difference between buying used and piracy? Well, the only difference is that the other one is illegal. In both cases, they aren't getting any money.

If someone pirates a game, there is still a chance that he might buy it later on if he really liked it. Some people pirate just because they don't have money to buy the game, or they want to test the game before blindly buying it.

If someone buys a used game, why the heck would he buy a new copy again? He's already got a fully working legal copy of the game.

The problem for them is that they can't ban trading used games, so they have to make buying new copies more attractive. Look at stores like Gamestop, they're selling used copies for like 95% of the original price, and when someone buys that THEY'RE getting ALL the money and the developers get NONE. So they create stuff like what was in Dragon Age; If you buy a new copy, you get free DLC - if you buy it used you have to buy the DLC too... well, you don't have to - but the game is incomplete without it, I mean who would want to miss out on Shale? That's currently probably the best solution against used games market.

This is why I said what I said about patent/copyright law. I'm a little late to respond but here it is.

Copyright Law of the United States : Title 17 : Chapter 2

§ 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.

Your right that the EULA is not always binding, as far as specificially how software is used, but I'm merely saying that the license is independent of the dvd, even thought they travel together. This is straight from the law. It states that just because you own the media that software is supplied on, you have no rights as to the information carried within it. First Sale doctrine (the right to resale software) was created because even though you don't own the software, you do in fact on the media therefore by law the license must go with it. Digital distribution (download) are exempt from this law because since you are only buying the license, and not the media. Since you have no intrinsic property (i.e. dvd, blu-ray, etc), you have no actual property to sell, therefore no legal right to resell. Regardless of the EULA, software ownership is NEVER transferred to the end user.

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(d) Definitions. For purposes of this section

(1) the maintenance of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the repair of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.

As to fair use (backup copies), this law was put into effect in because software distribultion methods were unreliable (tapes, diskettes, punch cards, etc), and you didn't have a store to go exchange it at. More often than not you had to request a replacement by mail and pay for a replacement. They were unreliable because the media would fail during normal use, and not because you let your kids mishandle your discs. Current manufactoring allows an almost 100 percent reliability, and even if you get a bad disc you can exchange it easy enough. The legal right to backups should be removed from law, because now all it does is cause problems with people who believe that it justifies cracking copyprotection in order to make their "backup".

The real gray area is when you buy media at the store, but are then required to tie the license to an account. In theory, this violates first sale doctrine, since the license cannot be automatically transferred with the media. Anyways, i'm not here to make a morality call on whether copyright law is just or unjust. I just want to put the facts out there and hopefully educate those of you who don't understand how it really works, and what the difference between a tangible asset and an intangible asset.