Recently, I was playing video games, and I remembered that I have a blog about video games. I went online to check if it was still here, and sure enough, it's right here where I left it.
It seems that my most recent post was nearly two years ago, when I wrote about Alan Wake being removed from online stores in May 2017. The game went back on sale in October 2018, so my blog has been inactive for five months longer than the game's music license negotiations kept it off the digital shelves. Perhaps a more horrific indicator of this blog's absolute state of decay is that the last post was written before I was even married and, as of this post, I'll soon be a father. I also turned 30 years old.
On that note, perhaps there's no point in pretending this blog isn't completely and utterly dead. With a baby on the way and death by old age rapidly approaching, will I ever have time to play video games again, let alone write about them? But wait. Here's a better question: Even if I had all the time in the world and posted five times a week, would anyone read it? Of course not! This blog can't be dead, because it was never alive. Most of my page views probably come from Google's web crawler bots. And besides, who reads blogs anymore? That's right, nobody! It's all about podcasts and videos. Nobody reads words in <current year> — and so, as I can be sure that nobody will ever read this blog, I am free to write about my manchildish love for video games without fear of being judged by society.
So I guess what I'm trying to convey with this meandering clusterhump of a blog post is that, despite logic and reason, I'm going to start using this blog again instead of deleting it.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Alan Wake To Be Pulled From Stores
I don't often have an opportunity to mention on this blog that the music industry is awful. Well, an opportunity has presented itself, so here it goes: The music industry is awful.
Two days from now, Alan Wake will be removed from stores, because the licenses for music used in the game are expiring. People who already bought the game should not panic; it's highly unlikely that already-purchased copies will be taken away from customers in the near future, and I've seen no evidence that software updates will be removing any content from those existing copies. If you bought the game on Steam, for example, it will remain intact in your Steam library, likely for as long as Steam exists. Furthermore, the semi-canon sequel/spinoff Alan Wake's American Nightmare will remain in stores, so there's no rush to buy it. However, if you still haven't played the original Alan Wake, your time to purchase a legal copy of the game is running out.
In the meantime, it's 90% off (from $29.99 to $2.99):
I should clarify that Steam is not the only store with a 90% discount on Alan Wake. The tweet above mentions only the Steam store because, as explained in another tweet, it's the only store on which developer Remedy Entertainment can control the pricing of the game. However, other stores want to compete, and other stores also want to sell as many copies of Alan Wake as possible before they are no longer allowed to sell it.
I don't have time to check every online retailer, but I've personally checked two other great stores, GOG.com and The Humble Store, and both of them also have a 90% discount on Alan Wake. Furthermore, both of these stores are arguably better than Steam, because they both offer DRM-free copies. The Steam version (last time I checked) will launch only through the Steam client.
Another difference between the stores is that GOG.com and The Humble Store both have a 90% discount on American Nightmare (from $9.99 to $0.99), while the Steam store still has the game at full price (seemingly by accident) and won't be offering an equivalent 90% discount on American Nightmare until tomorrow. All three stores, however, already have a 90% discount on the series as a whole, so if you buy the Alan Wake Franchise pack on Steam (which is discounted from $39.99 to $3.99), you're effectively getting the 90% discount on American Nightmare as well. I can't strongly recommend American Nightmare, anyway, as my feelings about the game are mixed, but if you're intent on buying it, now is probably a good time.
I can't say this is the best time to buy either of the Alan Wake games, because they were once featured in a name-your-own-price Humble Bundle, which means smart shoppers could have acquired DRM-free copies of both games for only a few cents. But, without a time machine, the current deal is likely the best you'll ever see... unless, of course, you opt for piracy instead and download the game for free, which will be the only option after the game disappears from stores on May 15th.
Regarding piracy, there are times when it is morally (if not legally) justifiable. I went into detail about the pricing, in the paragraphs above, as a public service to those who wish to acquire a legal copy while they can. However, don't think I'm trying to convince you to spend money on the game. Two days from now, it will essentially be abandonware. I'm generally against piracy, but if a game cannot be acquired legally then I think piracy is not only harmless but also necessary for the historical preservation of the game in question. If the publisher doesn't want to sell it, you should not feel obligated to pay for it. The licensed music in the game is certainly not abandonware, but I have no sympathy for the music industry, so I honestly don't care. Nobody who illegally downloads Alan Wake will be doing so just for the music.
In any case, whether you pay for the game or not, I do recommend playing it. The ending is a bit of a cliffhanger, though, which is more frustrating now than ever before, because this latest turn of events does not bode well for the anticipated sequel. I'm sure Remedy would like to continue the series someday, but it's probably not happening anytime soon if they can't even afford to keep the first game in digital stores. If I'm wrong and an Alan Wake 2 is in the works, they probably shouldn't release it while legally downloading the original game is impossible, because newcomers to the series might be less likely to buy the sequel if they can't easily play the original game first.
Fortunately, the current state of affairs is not necessarily permanent. If a proper sequel to Alan Wake is ever finished, I suspect they'll renew the music license at that time (or, if we're less lucky, they'll release an edited version with offending music removed). On the other hand, if the franchise has truly been laid to rest and plans for a sequel are permanently shelved, it might be a long time before any more copies of the original are sold. I doubt that Microsoft cares much about the franchise — they never did — so they'll probably be content to sit on the publishing rights while doing nothing with them for years to come.
Two days from now, Alan Wake will be removed from stores, because the licenses for music used in the game are expiring. People who already bought the game should not panic; it's highly unlikely that already-purchased copies will be taken away from customers in the near future, and I've seen no evidence that software updates will be removing any content from those existing copies. If you bought the game on Steam, for example, it will remain intact in your Steam library, likely for as long as Steam exists. Furthermore, the semi-canon sequel/spinoff Alan Wake's American Nightmare will remain in stores, so there's no rush to buy it. However, if you still haven't played the original Alan Wake, your time to purchase a legal copy of the game is running out.
In the meantime, it's 90% off (from $29.99 to $2.99):
Alan Wake sale on @steam_games 90% discount starting 5/13. Game will be removed from stores after 5/15 due to expiring music licenses. pic.twitter.com/y10DPgY8Q0— Remedy Entertainment (@remedygames) May 12, 2017
I should clarify that Steam is not the only store with a 90% discount on Alan Wake. The tweet above mentions only the Steam store because, as explained in another tweet, it's the only store on which developer Remedy Entertainment can control the pricing of the game. However, other stores want to compete, and other stores also want to sell as many copies of Alan Wake as possible before they are no longer allowed to sell it.
I don't have time to check every online retailer, but I've personally checked two other great stores, GOG.com and The Humble Store, and both of them also have a 90% discount on Alan Wake. Furthermore, both of these stores are arguably better than Steam, because they both offer DRM-free copies. The Steam version (last time I checked) will launch only through the Steam client.
Another difference between the stores is that GOG.com and The Humble Store both have a 90% discount on American Nightmare (from $9.99 to $0.99), while the Steam store still has the game at full price (seemingly by accident) and won't be offering an equivalent 90% discount on American Nightmare until tomorrow. All three stores, however, already have a 90% discount on the series as a whole, so if you buy the Alan Wake Franchise pack on Steam (which is discounted from $39.99 to $3.99), you're effectively getting the 90% discount on American Nightmare as well. I can't strongly recommend American Nightmare, anyway, as my feelings about the game are mixed, but if you're intent on buying it, now is probably a good time.
I can't say this is the best time to buy either of the Alan Wake games, because they were once featured in a name-your-own-price Humble Bundle, which means smart shoppers could have acquired DRM-free copies of both games for only a few cents. But, without a time machine, the current deal is likely the best you'll ever see... unless, of course, you opt for piracy instead and download the game for free, which will be the only option after the game disappears from stores on May 15th.
Regarding piracy, there are times when it is morally (if not legally) justifiable. I went into detail about the pricing, in the paragraphs above, as a public service to those who wish to acquire a legal copy while they can. However, don't think I'm trying to convince you to spend money on the game. Two days from now, it will essentially be abandonware. I'm generally against piracy, but if a game cannot be acquired legally then I think piracy is not only harmless but also necessary for the historical preservation of the game in question. If the publisher doesn't want to sell it, you should not feel obligated to pay for it. The licensed music in the game is certainly not abandonware, but I have no sympathy for the music industry, so I honestly don't care. Nobody who illegally downloads Alan Wake will be doing so just for the music.
In any case, whether you pay for the game or not, I do recommend playing it. The ending is a bit of a cliffhanger, though, which is more frustrating now than ever before, because this latest turn of events does not bode well for the anticipated sequel. I'm sure Remedy would like to continue the series someday, but it's probably not happening anytime soon if they can't even afford to keep the first game in digital stores. If I'm wrong and an Alan Wake 2 is in the works, they probably shouldn't release it while legally downloading the original game is impossible, because newcomers to the series might be less likely to buy the sequel if they can't easily play the original game first.
Fortunately, the current state of affairs is not necessarily permanent. If a proper sequel to Alan Wake is ever finished, I suspect they'll renew the music license at that time (or, if we're less lucky, they'll release an edited version with offending music removed). On the other hand, if the franchise has truly been laid to rest and plans for a sequel are permanently shelved, it might be a long time before any more copies of the original are sold. I doubt that Microsoft cares much about the franchise — they never did — so they'll probably be content to sit on the publishing rights while doing nothing with them for years to come.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Losing Forever and Loving It
Lately, I've been playing a game called Devil Daggers, released by independent developer Sorath in 2016. I've been playing it a lot, which is interesting because it belongs simultaneously to several subsets of video games which I generally try to avoid:
- It's an endless game with no win condition. You play until you lose, and your score is the amount of time for which you managed to avoid losing. You can never really "finish" Devil Daggers; you can only decide that you're happy enough with your high score (or frustrated enough with the game itself) to stop playing. I like games that have definitive endings. I like to know when I'm done. Simply put, I like to beat games, but I'll never beat this one.
- The game is stupidly difficult. I'm almost 30 years old and I have a full-time job with a long commute and I'm getting married this year and I'll probably have children soon, and I don't have time to get good at stupidly difficult games. The only real measures of success in Devil Daggers are an achievement for surviving 500 seconds (which I'll never unlock) and placement in a global leaderboard (which will never have my name at the top). As of the last time I checked, only 49 people in the world were high enough on the leaderboard to have unlocked that singular achievement, and I very much doubt that I'll ever be among the top 50 players, no matter how much I practice.
- Despite being single-player, Devil Daggers is competitive (by way of that leaderboard), and I generally don't like competitive games for the same reason that I don't like stupidly difficult games.
- Devil Daggers is stressful. Each time I set a new personal record, my heart is pounding and my hands are shaking at the end. It's usually why my best runs come to an end. The game requires precise mouse control and shaking hands are a death sentence. This is not a relaxing experience. I wonder what it's doing to my blood pressure.
This isn't to say that I'm actually, factually, objectively bad at the game. Judging by the numbers, I think I've done rather well, reaching around 315 seconds on my best attempt which, at the time, nearly put me in the top 1,000 players. (To be more precise, I was ranked in the 1,040s, but a lot of players surpassed me while I was taking a break to play Dishonored and some other games, so presently I'm down in the 1,190s.) Then again, from where I stand, things look bleak. I've only gotten good enough to appreciate how much better the best players are, and how much better I would need to be in order to reach that 500-second goal. Devil Daggers is so incredibly hard that I still haven't survived long enough to fight every type of enemy, despite having gotten farther than the vast majority of players (who are numbered at over 100,000 according to the global leaderboard).
Maybe this makes me a sore loser, but I don't really like the idea of losing over and over again for eternity, with no end in sight (even if we consider 500 seconds to be a win state). Furthermore, I've never been a fan of having my scores, good or bad, permanently on display for the world to see. It seems that Devil Daggers is eating up an unusual amount of my time for a game that makes me feel like such a hopeless loser, especially considering I have an absurd number of games which I still haven't played and not enough time to play them. I really shouldn't be spending all my time on one frustrating game I'll never beat. So why am I doing it?
Because I'm addicted. Because, despite being exactly the kind of thing that drives me nuts, Devil Daggers is just a really good game.
It's also a simple game: There's one level. The same enemies always appear at the same times. You shoot them until you die and then you play again. There is no story. There are no characters. The faux-retro graphics are stylish as hell but are, of course, unlikely to impress anyone who doesn't have any nostalgia for that kind of thing. Setting aside the difficulty which extends the playtime via endless retries after infinite losses, there isn't much content. The best times, held by players whose skill level seems almost superhuman, are only around 1000 seconds. New content ends long before that time, when the "final boss" is defeated and enemy spawn patterns seem to enter a loop. It wouldn't be unfair to say that the length of the game itself, not counting countless replays, is only a few minutes.
None of this is meant as a criticism, though. Small games are okay if the price is right, and Devil Daggers is only $4.99, which seems appropriate. I got it from a $1.00 bundle, because I watch out for PC game deals like a hawk, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I had paid the full price.
Impatient players will conclude after a few attempts that Devil Daggers is merely a cheap novelty to be played for a few minutes and tossed aside, or that it's more of a tech demo for Sorath's brand of old-school pixel graphics than a carefully designed game. It's understandable that one might not see any value in the game after a few rounds of losing almost immediately. Until you get the hang of the basics, you'll die just because your reflexes weren't fast enough, or because your aim wasn't precise enough, or because you weren't looking in the right direction at some crucial moment. The surface-level gameplay (shoot things quickly and don't get hit) will appear to be all this game has to offer. However, Devil Daggers is deeper than it may appear at first glance. I wasn't lying when I called it a simple game — mechanically, it is simple — but even the simplest mechanics can introduce a layer of strategy.
Movement, spacial awareness, prioritization of targets, and understanding of enemy behavior are all very important, of course, as they are in any decent first-person shooter. Even weapon selection comes into play, as your primary dagger attack can take the form of a shotgun-like blast or a machine-gun-like stream, and limited homing daggers are acquired later on. What sets Devil Daggers apart are a few unusual gameplay mechanics, the most notable of which is somewhat counter-intuitive.
Although it might not be obvious at the start, you won't get far in the game without collecting the red gems dropped by tougher enemies. You'll acquire important power-ups at 10 gems, 70 gems, and (nominally) 220 gems. The catch is that those gems, which disappear after a few seconds, will move away from you whenever you shoot. They'll be attracted to you whenever you're not shooting, but, even then, they might not catch up with you in time, if you're moving away from them at full speed.
In a game with rapidly spawning enemies and infinite ammo, holding your fire and slowing down are exactly the opposites of what you'll want to do. It's easy to forget that the gems are even there, and the difficulty of picking them up increases sharply with the number of enemies on the battlefield; you won't have time for a break when you've got an entire army of demons breathing down your neck. In this way, the gem mechanic serves to punish the player for being unable to keep the battlefield under control. Giant spiders which steal your gems, and towering squid-like spawn points which periodically spit out enemies until destroyed, will have the same effect. When things start to go wrong, it can all fall apart very quickly.
The first step to becoming proficient at the game is recognizing that sound is extremely important. Each enemy makes a unique sound; you can usually hear them as they spawn, even before you can see them, and you'll even have some warning if one of them is approaching from behind. It's easy for some of the more subtle sound effects to be lost in the chaos, but you'll learn to focus on the ones that really matter.
More experienced players will learn to move faster by repeatedly jumping, to maximize shotgun firing rate with the perfect rhythm of click-hold-release, to collect more gems by deliberately leaving some enemy spawn points intact, and to gain more height by shotgun-blasting the ground while jumping (although the practical usefulness of this last maneuver is questionable). Ultimately, however, it seems the key to being the best is to memorize the game (after, of course, mastering aim and movement). You need to know exactly which enemies are in the upcoming wave and exactly how to defeat them most efficiently. The fact that each round is the same, in terms of when each enemy spawns, is arguably the game's greatest flaw. However, if the game were more unpredictable, it would also be a lot more difficult. The best scores would likely be a fraction of what they are.
On the subject of flaws, there are a few "gotchas" in the game's design, namely that homing daggers are acquired at 70 gems but using them will detract from progress toward the next upgrade. Inexperienced players might be unaware of this, because the number of gems acquired and the number of homing daggers remaining are both invisible to the player. But I guess the idea is that, once you're good enough, you won't need those homing daggers and, knowing they're limited, won't use them. Getting the last dagger upgrade would then come naturally, but perhaps not for more trigger-happy players. The fact that you can't see how many gems you have until you're dead is certainly an annoying feature, in any case.
If I could add one feature to the game — leaving all of the existing content intact, of course — I would add some kind of campaign mode. Maybe it's because the game is so reminiscent of Doom, Quake, and other old-school shooters, but it just seems to be begging for one. Besides, one flat arena is too bland an environment for a game with such a wonderful art style.
Okay, so maybe I just want the chance to say I beat Devil Daggers. That would be nice, too. But I also want more from Sorath, even if it's another game I'll never win. In the meantime, Devil Daggers is the perfect game to play when I have only a few minutes of downtime.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Piracy
I don't want to get into the habit of making bad cartoons in Paint, but I made this one, so here it is.
And now a long disclaimer.
It's not that I care so much about piracy. If you're going to do it, then do it. I've done it a couple of times myself, so I'm not here to pass judgement. I'm not even going to say it's "wrong" (morally or otherwise). I'll leave that in the hands of the justice system or whichever supernatural being you like. The fact that a law exists doesn't necessarily mean you're a bad person for not following it. You might be a terrible person anyway, but if you die tomorrow and end up in your preferred version of Hell for all eternity, it's probably not because you failed to obey the speed limit, and it's probably not because you downloaded a video game without paying for it.
Some will tell you that software piracy is essentially theft and that it harms the video game developers and the industry as a whole, but it's pretty obvious that such claims are still up for debate. Since I don't have any hard evidence that software piracy has ever caused a video game developer to go hungry, I won't tell you what to do. Make your own decision and live with it.
What I don't like are the attempts to justify piracy and the claims that it helps the industry in some counter-intuitive way. Let's get something straight: People download games illegally because they don't want to pay for them. It's that simple. They can take a game for free instead of paying, so they do it. Surely there are those who engage in piracy for the sake of trying a game before they decide to buy it, but I have serious doubts that these conscientious pirates are the majority. There are others who use piracy as a way of boycotting a publisher or developer, but if you want to commit to a boycott, you should have the self-control to go without the product of the company you're boycotting. In any case, for many if not the vast majority, piracy is nothing more than an attempt to get something for nothing.
This is why it's so transparently pathetic when pirates try to justify what they do. The fact that they even feel the need to justify piracy at all is kind of troubling. If you're comfortable with your own choices and your personal reasons for those choices, you shouldn't need to explain them in detail to everyone. But instead of owning up to the fact that they're violating copyright law for personal gain, accepting that decision for what it is, and ignoring the haters, they desperately try to come up with reasons that piracy is either harmless or somehow beneficial to all parties involved. (Are they trying to convince me, or are they trying to convince themselves?) I'll admit that some of their arguments are plausible, even when the claims on which they base these arguments are completely unverifiable, but let's be honest. It's denial, plain and simple.
One of the most popular (and perhaps most bone-headed) justifications of piracy goes something like this: "But it's not stealing!" Since theft usually means taking something from someone else, while software piracy typically involves making a copy while leaving the original intact instead of taking it away, many argue that piracy is not the same as theft. Based on that definition of theft, this is absolutely true. After all, there's a reason we use a different word. But is everything that isn't "theft" automatically justified?
It's fine to point out that piracy isn't stealing if you're actually responding to claims that piracy and theft are one in the same, but I've had people tell me repeatedly that "it's not stealing" even when the concept of stealing hadn't been brought up in the discussion at all. It's as if people believe that "it's not stealing" is the end-all argument in favor of doing whatever you want regardless of context. Frankly, I don't care that piracy isn't theft. Does it really matter? If piracy is wrong, then quibbling over semantics doesn't make it less wrong. If piracy isn't wrong, then comparing it to a serious crime isn't helping your case.
I'd also like to point out that it doesn't matter whether the publisher loses a copy. In the age of digital distribution, the idea of counting copies of a product is meaningless. (In fact, the entire concept of theft, in the traditional sense, is equally meaningless in this context.) What the publisher loses due to piracy, in theory, is a potential sale.
This leads to the obvious "but I wasn't going to buy it anyway." The implication is that no potential sale is lost because the pirate never would have spent any money on the product even if piracy weren't an option. Fair enough, if it's true, but I suspect it rarely is. People who illegally download games want to play games, and I see no reason to assume that the average pirate wants to play games any less than the average customer. The only obvious difference is that the pirate isn't afraid to break the rules. The fact that someone downloads a game illegally to save money is no indication that this person would never spend money on games.
But since we'll never have reliable data on the percentage of pirates who would have been paying customers if piracy weren't an option, we can only guess about piracy's overall effect on sales. I have no doubt that a significant number of pirates would buy games if they had to, but there are other factors to consider.
Some would argue that piracy actually helps sales by giving more exposure to certain games. This isn't entirely unreasonable, but there's no real evidence for it. Accepting this viewpoint requires us to assume either that each pirate, on average, perhaps through word-of-mouth, effectively convinces more than one other person to buy the game, or that there are a whole lot of those conscientious pirates who illegally download a game to try it out and then buy a legitimate copy if they like it. I think either scenario is unlikely.
Those few who do adhere to the "try it before you buy it" philosophy, though, are okay in my book. I can't complain. If the owners of a game don't want people to pirate the full version of their game to use it as a demo, they should release a free demo. In fact, there's no excuse for not releasing a demo. Either the developers are lazy (which probably means the game is bad), or they're afraid that letting people play the game before they buy it will lead to a decrease in sales (which almost surely means the game is bad). Unfortunately, you don't need to make a good game to get rich. The video game industry is like any other business. The publishers don't want you to make an informed decision; they just want you to buy. That's why they try so hard to get us to pre-order their games even before a single review has been written.
But piracy isn't some form of vigilante justice. Those who use their general dissatisfaction with the state of the industry to justify piracy seem to have this odd delusion that they're affecting things in a positive way. They claim they'll buy the games made by the developers who allegedly deserve their money and pirate everything else. The idea is to avoid rewarding bad behavior, which sounds nice. But pirating a game because it was made by a developer you hate isn't sending the right message. If they know people are pirating their game, it tells them two things. The first is that people want their game. The second is that they need to crack down on piracy so these people who want their game are forced to pay.
Even if piracy does have some positive net effect, it's still ridiculous to pretend that people engage in piracy for this reason. Piracy isn't about being a hero. It's about each individual doing what's best for himself, and any theoretical benefits are nothing more than an unintended side-effect which proves useful for desperate after-the-fact rationalization.
And now a long disclaimer.
It's not that I care so much about piracy. If you're going to do it, then do it. I've done it a couple of times myself, so I'm not here to pass judgement. I'm not even going to say it's "wrong" (morally or otherwise). I'll leave that in the hands of the justice system or whichever supernatural being you like. The fact that a law exists doesn't necessarily mean you're a bad person for not following it. You might be a terrible person anyway, but if you die tomorrow and end up in your preferred version of Hell for all eternity, it's probably not because you failed to obey the speed limit, and it's probably not because you downloaded a video game without paying for it.
Some will tell you that software piracy is essentially theft and that it harms the video game developers and the industry as a whole, but it's pretty obvious that such claims are still up for debate. Since I don't have any hard evidence that software piracy has ever caused a video game developer to go hungry, I won't tell you what to do. Make your own decision and live with it.
What I don't like are the attempts to justify piracy and the claims that it helps the industry in some counter-intuitive way. Let's get something straight: People download games illegally because they don't want to pay for them. It's that simple. They can take a game for free instead of paying, so they do it. Surely there are those who engage in piracy for the sake of trying a game before they decide to buy it, but I have serious doubts that these conscientious pirates are the majority. There are others who use piracy as a way of boycotting a publisher or developer, but if you want to commit to a boycott, you should have the self-control to go without the product of the company you're boycotting. In any case, for many if not the vast majority, piracy is nothing more than an attempt to get something for nothing.
This is why it's so transparently pathetic when pirates try to justify what they do. The fact that they even feel the need to justify piracy at all is kind of troubling. If you're comfortable with your own choices and your personal reasons for those choices, you shouldn't need to explain them in detail to everyone. But instead of owning up to the fact that they're violating copyright law for personal gain, accepting that decision for what it is, and ignoring the haters, they desperately try to come up with reasons that piracy is either harmless or somehow beneficial to all parties involved. (Are they trying to convince me, or are they trying to convince themselves?) I'll admit that some of their arguments are plausible, even when the claims on which they base these arguments are completely unverifiable, but let's be honest. It's denial, plain and simple.
One of the most popular (and perhaps most bone-headed) justifications of piracy goes something like this: "But it's not stealing!" Since theft usually means taking something from someone else, while software piracy typically involves making a copy while leaving the original intact instead of taking it away, many argue that piracy is not the same as theft. Based on that definition of theft, this is absolutely true. After all, there's a reason we use a different word. But is everything that isn't "theft" automatically justified?
It's fine to point out that piracy isn't stealing if you're actually responding to claims that piracy and theft are one in the same, but I've had people tell me repeatedly that "it's not stealing" even when the concept of stealing hadn't been brought up in the discussion at all. It's as if people believe that "it's not stealing" is the end-all argument in favor of doing whatever you want regardless of context. Frankly, I don't care that piracy isn't theft. Does it really matter? If piracy is wrong, then quibbling over semantics doesn't make it less wrong. If piracy isn't wrong, then comparing it to a serious crime isn't helping your case.
I'd also like to point out that it doesn't matter whether the publisher loses a copy. In the age of digital distribution, the idea of counting copies of a product is meaningless. (In fact, the entire concept of theft, in the traditional sense, is equally meaningless in this context.) What the publisher loses due to piracy, in theory, is a potential sale.
This leads to the obvious "but I wasn't going to buy it anyway." The implication is that no potential sale is lost because the pirate never would have spent any money on the product even if piracy weren't an option. Fair enough, if it's true, but I suspect it rarely is. People who illegally download games want to play games, and I see no reason to assume that the average pirate wants to play games any less than the average customer. The only obvious difference is that the pirate isn't afraid to break the rules. The fact that someone downloads a game illegally to save money is no indication that this person would never spend money on games.
But since we'll never have reliable data on the percentage of pirates who would have been paying customers if piracy weren't an option, we can only guess about piracy's overall effect on sales. I have no doubt that a significant number of pirates would buy games if they had to, but there are other factors to consider.
Some would argue that piracy actually helps sales by giving more exposure to certain games. This isn't entirely unreasonable, but there's no real evidence for it. Accepting this viewpoint requires us to assume either that each pirate, on average, perhaps through word-of-mouth, effectively convinces more than one other person to buy the game, or that there are a whole lot of those conscientious pirates who illegally download a game to try it out and then buy a legitimate copy if they like it. I think either scenario is unlikely.
Those few who do adhere to the "try it before you buy it" philosophy, though, are okay in my book. I can't complain. If the owners of a game don't want people to pirate the full version of their game to use it as a demo, they should release a free demo. In fact, there's no excuse for not releasing a demo. Either the developers are lazy (which probably means the game is bad), or they're afraid that letting people play the game before they buy it will lead to a decrease in sales (which almost surely means the game is bad). Unfortunately, you don't need to make a good game to get rich. The video game industry is like any other business. The publishers don't want you to make an informed decision; they just want you to buy. That's why they try so hard to get us to pre-order their games even before a single review has been written.
But piracy isn't some form of vigilante justice. Those who use their general dissatisfaction with the state of the industry to justify piracy seem to have this odd delusion that they're affecting things in a positive way. They claim they'll buy the games made by the developers who allegedly deserve their money and pirate everything else. The idea is to avoid rewarding bad behavior, which sounds nice. But pirating a game because it was made by a developer you hate isn't sending the right message. If they know people are pirating their game, it tells them two things. The first is that people want their game. The second is that they need to crack down on piracy so these people who want their game are forced to pay.
Even if piracy does have some positive net effect, it's still ridiculous to pretend that people engage in piracy for this reason. Piracy isn't about being a hero. It's about each individual doing what's best for himself, and any theoretical benefits are nothing more than an unintended side-effect which proves useful for desperate after-the-fact rationalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)