Quoting: eldakingNo, I'm absolutely not saying that, do not fabricate stuff and attribute to me in bad faith.

I'm not fabricating anything. You wrote "Though I guess sometimes copyright is justifiable.", which means you believe it's not justifiable in most cases.

I do not agree and I said as much.

Quoting: missingnoNever mind the law at all. Is it ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

No, that is not ethical according to them. If you don't hand over your money you are toxic.

I mean:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/denuvo-respond-to-their-rep-for-tanking-games-im-a-gamer-myself-and-therefore-i-know-what-im-talking-about

They aren't selling enough games, why? Because of piracy of course! Yes, this remains true even though there is no pirated version of their game available, and there is no one downloading it illegally - but still, pirates are to blame for the lack of sales, of course.

No matter what pirates do or don't do, we will always be the one blamed.

Honestly, we pirates are so used to taking the blame at this point it's just another day, and frankly it pushes me further away from giving them money.

Quoting: BlackBloodRumNo, that is not ethical according to them. If you don't hand over your money you are toxic.

I don't know who you mean by "them", but I'm asking you.

Quoting: missingno

Quoting: BlackBloodRumNo, that is not ethical according to them. If you don't hand over your money you are toxic.

I don't know who you mean by "them", but I'm asking you.

The game developers in general, especially Denuvo and the likes (which intentionally limit your consumer rights).

For example, from the article I posted:

QuoteAndreas Ullmann: Hard to answer. So maybe it's just… maybe it's even a personal thing. I'm with the company for such a long time. The guys here are like my family, because a lot of the others here are also here for ages. It just hurts to see what's posted out there about us, even though it has been claimed wrong for hundreds of times.

On the other hand, I can imagine that this reputation also has some kind of business impact. I can imagine that certain developers, probably more in the indie region or the smaller region, are not contacting us in the first place if they are looking for solutions.

Because currently, there is only two ways to protect a game against piracy, right? Either you don't, or use our protection. There is no competitor. And I can imagine that there are developers out there who are hesitant to contact us, only because of the reputation. They would probably love to prevent piracy for their game, but they fear the hate and the toxicity of the community if they do so. And maybe they even believe all the claims that are out there - unanswered from us until today - and for this reason don't contact us in the first place.

So, who is to blame for the lack of usage of this software? The pirates, of course:

QuoteRPS: You’ve pushed back against some of the complaints about Denuvo tanking performance. Can you show us raw data and benchmarks to demonstrate that Denuvo games don’t affect performance? And is there scope for getting an agreed third-party (for example, a tech site like Digital Foundry) to audit the effects of Denuvo?

Andreas Ullmann: Perfect timing for this question, actually. This morning, I was going through the aftermath of our Discord opening yesterday, because I did not find the time to answer all the questions that came up there. And one question there was, of course, it's always about this performance topic. And there was a very healthy discussion started there between two users and myself about what such a test could look like. I posted a long answer in there today, so I would probably mostly repeat this answer here now as well.

So basically, I think the one question was: why don't the developers do these comparisons and post them publicly? That's something we cannot force them to do. There seems to be reasons why they are not doing it. And also, on the other hand, probably considering the toxicity of - especially the pirate community - they would probably not accept that anyway, because it could be rigged.

Put bluntly, whenever a company does not get the money it expects, or the reaction it expects, it blames the pirate community even when said community is not even pirating their products.

Last edited by BlackBloodRum on 25 October 2024 at 2:52 am UTC

You didn't answer me. Do you think it is ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

Quoting: missingnoYou didn't answer me. Do you think it is ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

Yes, I think it is ethical for me to choose not to purchase something that someone wants to get paid for. I often choose to not to buy and use products that deploy practices which go against my consumer rights.

With that said; I have purchased over 900 Steam games and 200+ GOG games. But I will not purchase or use the ones which deploy anti-consumer tactics such as kernel level cheats or denuvo.

Quoting: missingnoNever mind the law at all. Is it ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?

Absolutely. The fact the creator wants something doesn't mean it is reasonable or legally binding or ethical.

The Unity game engine wanted to get paid for every time a game was installed, and everyone agreed that was bullshit. Borrowing a book from a public library is completely normal and ethical, despite the wishes of the big publishers that certainly want to be paid by everyone that reads that book (and their efforts to undermine public libraries). Apple wants to be paid for every iPhone repair, but I certainly believe in the right to repair your devices yourself without giving them money.

Getting things for free is not wrong. Public libraries, borrowing from friends, passing it down to your kids.

The creator not getting paid is also not wrong. When you buy a second-hand copy they aren't paid. When you get a copy from an exploitative platform like Audible, the creator gets paid an unfairly low amount they aren't able to negotiate.

I also don't accept the idea that I am responsible for a creator's livelihood. If I choose to not buy, they also get no money, and I do that all the time. When I get a free Humble key from someone, or play a game that my family has shared, or borrow a book from a friend, creators get no money. Were I to get a pirate copy, they wouldn't even know the difference.

The issue is, obviously, not as simple "as you have to pay" or "authors have to make money". The difference with a pirate copy is a violation of an implicit contract: there is an expectation that doesn't exist on other cases. It is the ethics of breaking a contract, not the ethics of the author being fairly compensated - which they often aren't, even when you get a "legal" copy.

And I strongly rebel against this implicit contract, that was forced on me and not agreed upon, and is unjust both against creators and against their audiences.

Quoting: damarrin

Quoting: eldakingNo, I'm absolutely not saying that, do not fabricate stuff and attribute to me in bad faith.

I'm not fabricating anything. You wrote "Though I guess sometimes copyright is justifiable.", which means you believe it's not justifiable in most cases.

I do not agree and I said as much.

It is called "attacking a strawman", when first you claim I said something ("so you are saying", and then your words not mine) and then you argue against what you claim I said.

Yes, it meant I believe copyright is not justifiable in most cases. No, it does not mean "I believe authors should be obliged to give free copies" and all other bullshit you claimed "I was saying".

Yeah, whatever.

Well since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

The onus is on the creators to create a product that will buy them future loyalty from their customers. The big money mills basically ensure that any AAA gets the max hype/advertising possible, but the way they make games now, a lot of times what they deliver is underwhelming. The only thing that is driving innovation in these games are the graphics, those are improved every iteration as it helps sell hardware, and it is more trivial to do than taking a risk and changing the game design. For me a perfect example of this is far right, if you've played 2 (1) of those games you've played them all.

Meanwhile the price of games go up, no one in the 'big' games market scales back, more bugs etc. creep in. Not to even mention the live service/gambling stuff they experimented with.

So I think the better question would be what these companies could do better to make you pay that money? I think Valve is a good example, even though I don't like their client im not too bothered to buy games there, since after they decided to support my platform of choice they've continued to do that (and better and better) in their games.

It would be much better if things were freer in the game scene too, but that sadly won't happen.