Community Feedback Poll - Game Piracy

[CheapyD]

Recently, some CAGs have been posting early impressions of games which were obtained via piracy. I want to poll the community to see if your fellow CAGs should be allowed to post reviews/impressions from pirated software. Please vote via our built-in polling system! (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196823)

Note: Only CAGs registered for 30 days or more will be eligible to vote

[darthbudge]

Yes.

As a gaming site, early impressions could cause more or less people to buy the game depending on how good it is, instead of having to wait until the release date and then reading reviews.
Also, despite common sense, you can't exactly say that said people are indeed pirating the game, they MIGHT have actually purchased it early somewhere.

[Salmonday]

If you allow it to be posted, you reward piracy. Simple as that. They get to be "first," and enjoy the attention they get (which they will try to leverage into getting people to get them Xboxes via referral services or some other stupid b.s.). Some of them will try to claim that they are "doing the community a service by letting people know if the game is worth buying before it comes out in order to save them money." This is a shameful lie.

A.) They are doing it to try to bolster sympathy for their shameful practice.
B.) They have already stated their position on whether someone should buy it because they DIDN'T see fit to buy it.
C.) Their opinion holds no more weight than any other review a CAG could use to determine their purchases.


In short: pirates suck, and should be driven out like filthy beasts.

[lordwow]

No.

[NegativeZero]

Nope, unless said person can prove that its not pirated and was actually purchased early. But often that is unlikely.

[manthing]

First of all, you don't know for sure if the games were pirated to begin with, as I don't believe anyone flat out stated they pirate games on this site

Second, what happens if the community decides 'no'? Will there be penalties for any mention of any game prior to release date? What release date would you use in the case of games released in Europe or Japan first? Will you start cracking down on import impressions as well?

Finally here is a question for the CAG community:

Is there any difference if someone pirates a game or buys it used from Gamestop for the games publisher?

:-k

[contej85]

Not a chance.

[kingsoby1]

Yes. Piracy is illegal, but reporting your impressions of a pirated game isn't. Simple as that.

[darthbudge]

If you allow it to be posted, you reward piracy. Simple as that. They get to be "first," and enjoy the attention they get (which they will try to leverage into getting people to get them Xboxes via referral services or some other stupid b.s.). Some of them will try to claim that they are "doing the community a service by letting people know if the game is worth buying before it comes out in order to save them money." This is a shameful lie.

A.) They are doing it to try to bolster sympathy for their shameful practice.
B.) They have already stated their position on whether someone should buy it because they DIDN'T see fit to buy it.
C.) Their opinion holds no more weight than any other review a CAG could use to determine their purchases.


In short: pirates suck, and should be driven out like filthy beasts.

Could you link to somewhere where someone was using them playing a game early to leverage referrals or something else like that? I have personally never seen this before...

Also, I believe the terms used in the original post are misleading, that would be stating that ALL people who got the game early pirated it. That is simply not true.

[TripMasterMunky]

I'd say yes. Why not? Yes, the act of piracy is illegal and no one should do it, but simply talking about it doesn't matter. If people want to give their impressions on games early, then why not let them.

[robosheep]

Maybe, Anyone that claims a pirated copy should have their post deleted because piracy should not be rewarded. However there is also what Darthbudge said, not every early release is a pirated copy.

[contej85]

Is there any difference if someone pirates a game or buys it used from Gamestop for the games publisher?

:-k

Yes, there is one less used copy on the market. Less used copies on the market increases the likelihood that the next purchaser will have to get a new copy, even if only by a tiny amount.

[crystalklear64]

wtf?

Yes. If someone has already pirated something why not at least make it useful to others?

[Danimal]

No. Piracy hurts the industry and by no means should it ever be encouraged in any way, shape, or form on this site. There are plenty of places online to find reviews for games prior to their release, so reviews from someone pirating software does no service to anyone.

I do, however, agree with darthbudge's point that it can be difficult to tell whether a game has been pirated if the reviewer doesn't come right out and admit it. Stores do break street dates.

[Dual45s]

If they want to review in their blog, so be it. I would certainly be interested to read impressions of a game as early as possible. I can't , however, see it as anything but tempting fate should it become a site advertised practice. For example, if the blog in question is only visited for the time it remains on the "new blog" page and then falls to the wayside, fine. If an early review from a pirated copy is chosen for the front page announcements, probably not the best call.

[shrike4242]

If you allow it to be posted, you reward piracy. Simple as that. They get to be "first," and enjoy the attention they get (which they will try to leverage into getting people to get them Xboxes via referral services or some other stupid b.s.). Some of them will try to claim that they are "doing the community a service by letting people know if the game is worth buying before it comes out in order to save them money." This is a shameful lie.

A.) They are doing it to try to bolster sympathy for their shameful practice.
B.) They have already stated their position on whether someone should buy it because they DIDN'T see fit to buy it.
C.) Their opinion holds no more weight than any other review a CAG could use to determine their purchases.

In short: pirates suck, and should be driven out like filthy beasts.Very well stated.

[NegativeZero]

Finally here is a question for the CAG community:

Is there any difference if someone pirates a game or buys it used from Gamestop for the games publisher?

:-k

My opinion on that is:
if everyone pirated MvC2 and sales were slow, wouldn't that seem like the demand for the game was low and thus make us less likely to get a sequel? So because the 1st game doesn't sell I think it woudl in fact affect publishers as they'd be less likely to produce something that it seems there is no demand for. Sadly , I'm pretty sure Gamestop's sales numbers matter in some way. whether used or new its a game sale and definitely matters in the end. Used game sales reflect the popularity of certain games (not being able to keep any stocked/on the shelves) Don't you think so?

[ddrpower]

Yes, but with an addendum:

If an early getter decides to get the game and praise the game, fine. Let him. People can see how he's enjoying the game and might feel elated to buy the game to experience the same thing. Heck, if the pirater is enjoying it, it leads to buying the game(in some cases, I understand it's not everyone).

If an early getter decides to criticize the game, then he must post a warning that any problems he has encountered with the game may be a result of pirating the game. No-CD cracks, security workarounds, all of those may cause issue with the game. This is necessary. In reference to the old THQ game Titan Quest, they had a security feature where they checked for legitimacy at the first dungeon. If you did not have a legit copy, it would just boot you to the desktop, no warning. As a result, piraters complained about "random crashes" and it killed the game's PR. If piraters want to criticize the game, they must indicate that they have pirated it. If they don't want to indicate piracy, but still want to criticize the game, then allow reporting him for fraud and someone jumping on the bandwagon of hate, regardless of whether he actually pirated the game or not(since it's impossible to tell).

In this way, you take the title of pirater, but can give your evaluations on a game. Or, you can avoid the title, but must shut up about the game until release. The question is whether your influence outranks how people interpret you. This is the best system I think.

[CheapyD]

Recently, some CAGs have been posting early impressions of games which were obtained via piracy.

Also, I believe the terms used in the original post are misleading, that would be stating that ALL people who got the game early pirated it. That is simply not true.

:-s

[Orion_of_Chaos]

Most definitely no.

[GuilewasNK]

No.

While not exactly the same, this is too similar to Speedy getting in trouble for getting Circuit City ads early.

[NegativeZero]

:-s

nice catch

[darthbudge]

:-s

SOME CAGs, yes. However, it leads people into believing that the only way said CAGs could get games early is through illegal means. I see my local Walmart break street date fairly regularly.

[robosheep]

Is there any difference if someone pirates a game or buys it used from Gamestop for the games publisher?


Buying a preowned game helps the publisher in that Gamestop is a publicly traded company so publishers have detailed reports on their earnings. They see that Gamestop is profiting from used games so they start producing DLC and even whole downloadable games that become locked into the purchasers system.
Plus, the distribution of a preowned game to a pirated rom is much smaller. So the original purchaser to end owner is more of a 1:1 ratio vs the 1:XXXX ratio of online piracy.
That all said, of course you should buy new if you want to encourage the developer to continue to make similar games. Buying used or piracy both send the message to the developer that 'this isn't worth my money'.

[goomba478]

I say absolutely not. I realize it's not quite the same scale, but you wouldn't allow people to steal cars to write early reviews for them...why would games or anything else be okay?

[MusicNoteLess]

Nope, unless said person can prove that its not pirated and was actually purchased early. But often that is unlikely.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Unless the reviewer flat out states they got their copy via piracy, there's no way to prove how a person got their copy early. And everyone has their right to their own privacy, to ask how one got their copy is instrusive and really nobody's business but their own. If they want to share, fine. But this site does not have to go the way of martial law.

Also, If Speedy1961 is leaking ads early to help benefit CAGs and customer's alike, I don't see it any different as one obtaining an early copy of a game. If you are going to punish one for posting a review early, you might as well have speedy stop posting ads early as well.

[NegativeZero]

No.

While not exactly the same, this is too similar to Speedy getting in trouble for getting Circuit City ads early.

Very true, but the ads are free and are gonna promote sales anyway.

So whether or not we get the ads early or on time isn't going to affect my decision on whether or not what retailer gets the sale. Best Price/promo wins

[manthing]

Recently, some CAGs have been posting early impressions of games which were obtained via piracy.



Also, I believe the terms used in the original post are misleading, that would be stating that ALL people who got the game early pirated it. That is simply not true.

:-s


How would you know definitively who would be considered a pirate?

Or would you be using inference in the place of proof?

[Number83]

Via Piracy? No. Obtained through a broken street date and purchased legit? I see no problem with it.

[robosheep]

How would you know definitively who would be considered a pirate?

Or would you be using inference in the place of proof?

You look for the eyepatch, peg leg, hook, and parrot.

[lilboo]

How would you know definitively who would be considered a pirate?

Or would you be using inference in the place of proof?


Easy. The people who have their gamertag privacy settings on 8-)

[CheapyD]

SOME CAGs, yes. However, it leads people into believing that the only way said CAGs could get games early is through illegal means. I see my local Walmart break street date fairly regularly.
How would you know definitively who would be considered a pirate?

Or would you be using inference in the place of proof?
If you are worried about being wrongly labeled a pirate, it would certainly be easy enough to post the name and location of the store that broke the street date. Providing a photo of the box and/or receipt would be even better. This isn't exactly rocket science here...

[Number83]

How would you know definitively who would be considered a pirate?


If they look like this: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/pirate-9.jpg then definately a pirate. ;)

EDIT: Robosheep beat me to it!

[darthbudge]

Very true, but the ads are free and are gonna promote sales anyway.

So whether or not we get the ads early or on time isn't going to affect my decision on whether or not what retailer gets the sale. Best Price/promo wins

But what you don't get is that early reviews might encourage people to buy the game.

For example, Mirror's Edge is coming out later this year. That preorder bonus at GS looks pretty awesome, however I am still on the fence about paying $60 for the game. If 2 weeks before it came out, several people on here got it early and said how awesome it was. I might very well be persuaded to go preorder it at GS and buy it on day 1, instead of waiting for a used copy or for it to go down in price.

[nbayus]

No. I'm not sure supporting the advocacy of information attained through piracy is a road we want to travel down. I thought that we as a community held ourselves to a higher standard than that. I was under the impression that our main purpose here was to promote the purchase of gaming products at less than retail. If our goal was to provide early reviews and information on new releases a la IGN, I could see how we could justify reporting such information. However, I feel that anything associated with piracy is something we should stay away from. Just remember what Speedy had to go through with all the info that he provided (and continues to do so:applause:). I shudder to think what could happen if we somehow got associated with piracy.

Edit: Just how others mentioned Speedy when I was busy typing my mountain. Glad that people still remember.

[eeryee]

I will adapt US senators style (Senators do not support HIGH gas price, but they are NOT doing a single thing about it either. They did take tax payers' money and go on vacations.)
I do not support piracy, but I am not going to prohibit people from posting early review since I can't tell if the person bootleg the game/software or the person has inside source of getting an early copy. Unless the person admin it as bootleg copy then no.

[lilboo]

But what you don't get is that early reviews might encourage people to buy the game.



Rent it? Gamefly it? Wait for a demo of it? Wait for reviews of it? Play it over a friends house?

[Wolve11]

The only reason this is an issue this gen and not last gen is because of gamercards and the portrayal of who has what game and when. Now everyone can see what everybody is playing where as before people could say they had a game early and nobody would care cause it wouldn't show up on a friends list or whatever. If there weren't any gamercards the pirates could just say they played the game early at some convention or whatever.
If this gets voted no (and I'd bet my car on that it will) then how would this be enforced? With the different array of people out here, some reviewers, some gamers, some developers, is each person going to have to just keep their mouth shut if they have gotten early gameplay time? Is posting videos of people playing early on youtube considered the same? Some clear guidance would have to be made.

[tiredfornow]

Nothing wrong with early impressions. Pirated copy or not, you'll still read a post in said game's thread that says ''Can't wait to hear some more CAGs reviews before biting'' and if a person has the game early, why not allow them to spill their insight on how the game is? *shrugs*

[manthing]

If you are worried about being wrongly labeled a pirate, it would certainly be easy enough to post the name and location of the store that broke the street date. Providing a photo of the box and/or receipt would be even better. This isn't exactly rocket science here...

:roll:

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/Chris%20Weston%20Big%20Brother%20Hey%20Oscar.jpg




What about Moderators who post impressions/have pre-released games in their Gamer Cards?

:-k

[crystalklear64]

Rent it? Gamefly it? Wait for a demo of it? Wait for reviews of it? Play it over a friends house?
But then you don't get the preorder loot.

[Tetnis]

nope. this is "cheap ass gamer" not "free or pirated gamer"

[Phillyman]

Some people need to get off there high horse, This is a gaming site not the National Committee for Gamers against Pirates. Whats next? Checking peoples locations and denying them the ability to post about games that didn't come out in there region. I for one downloaded Space Invaders Extreme for the DS about a week early....and you know what....I BOUGHT IT WHEN IT CAME OUT! So shame on me right?

[MusicNoteLess]

If you are worried about being wrongly labeled a pirate, it would certainly be easy enough to post the name and location of the store that broke the street date. Providing a photo of the box and/or receipt would be even better. This isn't exactly rocket science here...

Apply that to speedy. Give us the address of where he gets his ads early and take a photo of it as well.

[Mojimbo]

Does this mean that your guests that call in to the CAGcast to provide early impressions of games(See:Halo 3, GTA4) will have to provide receipts too?

<--- Not trying to be a dick, just throwing it out there.

Actually, I think it should be don't ask, don't tell with an emphasis on the don't tell. And if you do tell then you should be prepared for the consequences.

[corrosivefrost]

Nothing wrong with early impressions. Pirated copy or not, you'll still read a post in said game's thread that says ''Can't wait to hear some more CAGs reviews before biting'' and if a person has the game early, why not allow them to spill their insight on how the game is? *shrugs*

We're only talking about game piracy here?
What about all the people I've seen talking about music before it's released?
TFN is right. Early impressions are early impressions. Doesn't matter if you played the game cause your friend is a developer and brought an early copy over for you to try with him/her or if you downloaded the game early. You played it early and are being helpful to the community by letting them know if the game is worth your hard earned $$ before it comes out.

[shrike4242]

If you are worried about being wrongly labeled a pirate, it would certainly be easy enough to post the name and location of the store that broke the street date. Providing a photo of the box and/or receipt would be even better. This isn't exactly rocket science here...A store breaking street date should be posted on CAG anyway, as there's plenty of people that want games in advance through legal means, and they'd be happy to get it early.

Plus, we've had street date breaks posted here before, I can't see why the practice would suddenly stop.

Also, there's enough sites on the Internet that it'll be posted somewhere about it. I'd like to hope we're one of the first ones, to keep us in the front of the news about game releases.

[lilboo]

But then you don't get the preorder loot.

If there's a game you absolutely know you want, you are going to pre-order it--especially when it's a good pre-order bonus.

But games you just kinda want? Well, I think it's kinda silly to want a game for the pre-order bonus (Rocko & Stylii not included of course 8-)

[Indifference]

If this just becomes an issue of the pirates failing to support the game financially then wouldn't the big gaming sites and print mags be in the same situation. They often get review builds that aren't "paid" for. Let's throw reviewing a used game in there as well. Let's just be completely ridiculous. But seriously this is a slippery slope. Are we going to have to justify our sources of income for the games we did purchase? Reviewer 'X' bought game 'Y' with his/her salary from an oil/tobacco company is the review valid? It matters if we know for a fact that someone pirated the game, if we don't know(99% of the time) who cares.

[manthing]

This is really a non-issue.

I mean look at the deals forum. EVERY week a copy of the Gamestop Deal of the week is posted there. These coupons are supposed to be rewards for people who have signed up for the Gamestop mailing list.

Would having those coupons in those threads could be considered a form of piracy?

[branDamn]

I would say no and here is my reason:
A friend of mine is a former pirate of XBox Games and the games that he would get would tend to be buggy and not work 100%. It is very difficult to get a correct impression of the game when it doesn't work right. I remember going to his house when he pirated Mercenaries and thinking the game sucked because of all the texture pop in and other bugs that the game had. However, when I got it as a present I really enjoyed it and didn't have any of the other issues that were present on my friends pirated copy.

These problems are the same reason why most respectable gaming outlets don't treat a preview like a review. They usually give overall impressions as opposed to indepth coverage. If it is not the same game that people are getting in their hands when the game comes out then you can't really judge the game correctly.

[Ender]

Some CAGs are blurring a line here. Posting an impression of a game before it is released, whether it was obtained through piracy or legitimate means, does not condone the act of piracy. It's just an early review. That's all. The avenue through which the game itself was obtained is a moot point.

[lilboo]

This is really a non-issue.

I mean look at the deals forum. EVERY week a copy of the Gamestop Deal of the week is posted there. These coupons are supposed to be rewards for people who have signed up for the Gamestop mailing list.

Would having those coupons in those threads could be considered a form of piracy?

Coupons aren't really rewards, :lol: coupons are and always have been ads to get you in the store to buy shit

[manthing]

Hey Cheapy, you gonna stop talking about seeing movies MONTHS in advance of their Japanese theatrical release date in the CAGCast?

Or how you watch TV shows not broadcast in Japan like Battlestar Galactica?

What about the intro and outro musical pieces? Are you paying royalties on those?

[lilboo]

mangthang, why are you getting so hype about this? :-s

[NegativeZero]

But what you don't get is that early reviews might encourage people to buy the game.

For example, Mirror's Edge is coming out later this year. That preorder bonus at GS looks pretty awesome, however I am still on the fence about paying $60 for the game. If 2 weeks before it came out, several people on here got it early and said how awesome it was. I might very well be persuaded to go preorder it at GS and buy it on day 1, instead of waiting for a used copy or for it to go down in price.

With as much media coverage most games get today, if you can't decide whether or not to preorder a game then you have your answer right there. I too want that sweet ME preorder bonus but watched videos and decided it didn't grab me like I wanted.

If you preorder, wait for reviews and decide you don't like it, you don't "lose" your money do you? can't it be applied to a different game or you get a refund? I'm actually asking these two last questions as I do not know.

[darthbudge]

mangthang, why are you getting so hype about this? :-s

Manthang is on the juice...

Anyway. I believe CAGs stance on this should be summed in 4 words.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[manthing]

Coupons aren't really rewards, :lol: coupons are and always have been ads to get you in the store to buy shit


I wonder how Gamestop, a major site advertiser, would feel about it?


----------------------------

And boo, just pointing out the hypocrisy of this

[tiredfornow]

Some CAGs are blurring a line here. Posting an impression of a game before it is released, whether it was obtained through piracy or legitimate means, does not condone the act of piracy. It's just an early review. That's all. The avenue through which the game itself was obtained is a moot point.

Bitter people, I say! An early review is just indeed an early review.

We have a guy around here who posts early reviews/impressions all the time, but who cares? I don't know what the guy does. He could be lying through his teeth saying ''Oh, I work with the industry so I have all of the uber downlow news, man!'' but in reality, he's just some kid that spends way too much time reading shit over the internet and pirating games.

Who cares about early reviews? You should be more concerned with the people saying ''I GRABBED ROCK BAND 2 LAST NIGHT FROM ____ ____ AND IT DL'ED AT 750KBPS! fuck YEAH!''

[crystalklear64]

If there's a game you absolutely know you want, you are going to pre-order it--especially when it's a good pre-order bonus.

But games you just kinda want? Well, I think it's kinda silly to want a game for the pre-order bonus (Rocko & Stylii not included of course 8-)
Well thats what the early info would be for. To turn your kinda want into a DO WANT, and if I DO WANT something, I'd want to get the most of it and get the preorder stuff as well. Bonuses and such are pretty much the only things that make me buy a game on release, because 99% of games always drop in value, and can be had for less than 30$ down the road. Its the promise of a sweet preorder bonus that will sometimes make me pay full price.

[corrosivefrost]

Coupons aren't really rewards, :lol: coupons are and always have been ads to get you in the store to buy shit

I seem to recall the $10 target coupon was only *LEGITIMATELY* given to people on certain target mailing list, in a print catalog or something. Yet a scan of the coupon appeared here and target was inundated by CAGs trying to use it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, depending on the store and employee... but I'm willing to be a lot more of those coupons were used than were printed for intended use by Target.

[Strell]

This is just hilarious. You know, seeing the people who are coming out and saying they have no problem with it. Absolutely hilarious.

[botticus]

This is really a non-issue.

I mean look at the deals forum. EVERY week a copy of the Gamestop Deal of the week is posted there. These coupons are supposed to be rewards for people who have signed up for the Gamestop mailing list.

Would having those coupons in those threads could be considered a form of piracy?Luckily GS doesn't have a confidentiality clause on their emails, which leaves them open to distribution by any recipients.

In fact: "Sign up at www.gamestop.com/email (http://www.gamestop.com/email) to get deals like this delivered right to your inbox." is printed on the coupon.

[lilboo]

Manthang is on the juice...

Anyway. I believe CAGs stance on this should be summed in 4 words.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[-(
Why was that pointed at ME Budge? [-( :lol:

I wonder how Gamestop, a major site advertiser, would feel about it?


I really don't think they would get bent out of shape over using a 25% coupon. When it's emailed to subscribers they probably e-mail millions of people. Do you think ALL of those people use it? Of course not. It gets people into the store to buy stuff, so I really doubt they would be mad.

Well thats what the early info would be for. To turn your kinda want into a DO WANT, and if I DO WANT something, I'd want to get the most of it and get the preorder stuff as well. Bonuses and such are pretty much the only things that make me buy a game on release, because 99% of games always drop in value, and can be had for less than 30$ down the road. Its the promise of a sweet preorder bonus that will sometimes make me pay full price.

I totally get that. I do! <333 Bonus' <333
But when you pre-order a game (in-store at least) you don't have to pick it up that day. You can pre-order something, wait for a game.. listen to impressions..then pick it up with said bonus. But I do understand what you are saying.

[shrike4242]

This is just hilarious. You know, seeing the people who are coming out and saying they have no problem with it. Absolutely hilarious.I think I've heard something about someone protesting too much, though I can't think of where I heard it....

Took you long enough to show up in this thread. I guess you're getting slow in your old age.

[darthbudge]

[-(
Why was that pointed at ME Budge? [-( :lol:



I really don't think they would get bent out of shape over using a 25% coupon. When it's emailed to subscribers they probably e-mail millions of people. Do you think ALL of those people use it? Of course not. It gets people into the store to buy stuff, so I really doubt they would be mad.



I totally get that. I do! <333 Bonus' <333
But when you pre-order a game (in-store at least) you don't have to pick it up that day. You can pre-order something, wait for a game.. listen to impressions..then pick it up with said bonus. But I do understand what you are saying.

Unless of course your GS never has enough bonus stuff and always runs out the first day. I preorder Blacksite Area 51 for the Headset, but I couldn't get there the first day and when I came by they had already run out of them. I canceled my preorder and decided to wait for a better deal.

[Strell]

Took you long enough to show up in this thread. I guess you're getting slow in your old age.

It was just my birthday. Cut me some slack.

And fix my damn airship!

[manthing]

I seem to recall the $10 target coupon was only *LEGITIMATELY* given to people on certain target mailing list, in a print catalog or something. Yet a scan of the coupon appeared here and target was inundated by CAGs trying to use it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, depending on the store and employee... but I'm willing to be a lot more of those coupons were used than were printed for intended use by Target.


An even better example was the Blockbuster 'Buy 5 for $25' coupon that was supposed to be for one market in Kansas(?), but rang up in the system nationwide.

Said coupon was posted on the site and CAGs all around used it until BB killed it 12 hours after it was posted here.

[javeryh]

It should be allowed as long as the reviewer doesn't mention how he/she obtained the copy of the game. I don't think you are supporting piracy by hosting these early reviews. There may be other legitimate ways someone was able to score a copy.

[johnnypark]

Discussing a game, however it's obtained, and discussing the acquisition of said game are 2 very different things.

I don't see a huge difference between discussing a game that was pirated in advance, and someone discussing the game after it comes out. Clearly any directions, discussion, or mention of how or where to get pirated games should never be allowed (and never has) but is it reasonable to really go so far as to say 'Your opinion is no longer valid because you pirated the game'?

I guess it becomes more of a question of what "allowed" means. Does this mean people will be banned if they post early impressions of a game, and it's moderately evident they pirated it?

The Spore fiasco is a good example of how this issue can get complicated. Some people in the Spore thread are talking about how they're either considering and already have downloaded a cracked copy to circumvent the 3-install limit for future use, despite having already bought it or stating their intentions to do so.

On a related note, it seems less controversial when someone says, "I downloaded it early, and it's so awesome, I'm definitely keeping my preorder."

This is really a non-issue.

I mean look at the deals forum. EVERY week a copy of the Gamestop Deal of the week is posted there. These coupons are supposed to be rewards for people who have signed up for the Gamestop mailing list.

Would having those coupons in those threads could be considered a form of piracy?

The GS coupons are typically emailed, so they expect printed reproductions. I don't think that's a big deal. Some of the other coupons, though, like for CC, are for specific customers and situations, and people go out of their way to use them anyway by finding a hapless cashier or a lazy manager who won't read the fine print. These employees could potentially get in a lot of trouble for not doing their job correctly, and it's technically dishonest. I won't argue that point any harder, though, because I kind of feel like if the store puts out the coupon and the code still registers, then it's the store's responsibility (which seems to be the consensus here, since no one's crying out at the immorality at the $40 off $200 CC thread), and the original company still gets paid.

[CheapyD]

Hey Cheapy, you gonna stop talking about seeing movies MONTHS in advance of their Japanese theatrical release date in the CAGCast?

Or how you watch TV shows not broadcast in Japan like Battlestar Galactica?

What about the intro and outro musical pieces? Are you paying royalties on those?I'm sure the creators of Battlestar Galactica would be very upset to learn I'm watching their show which is otherwise not available here. Comparing my very light TV watching habits to your piracy is not a good example.

I'll be happy to post a list of the TV and movies I've downloaded and watched in the last month as soon as you take off the privacy settings on your Xbox Live account.

I wonder how Gamestop, a major site advertiser, would feel about it?
The head of GameStop.com is a regular CAG reader and poster. I'm sure he knows everything (GameStop related) that goes on here. I would be shocked if he did not.

[tiredfornow]

It should be allowed as long as the reviewer doesn't mention how he/she obtained the copy of the game. I don't think you are supporting piracy by hosting these early reviews. There may be other legitimate ways someone was able to score a copy.

I don't even see how supporting piracy and giving an early review have anything to do with each other in the first place.

[Wombat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYCMxD4pylM

[opportunity777]

This is a site about saving money, right?

Well, early reviews of shit games keeps me from spending money on them. If a review is "fair" without a lot of BS such as, "I suck at this game, so the game sucks," then I believe there should be no problem. I don't think a person should shy away from criticizing or praising a game. The reviewer should provide rational reasons and clear explanations why he hates or likes a certain title.

Plus, I don't give a crap how people get their games. I say piracy exists, so deal with it. Illegal activity is not being conducting on the site because the piraters are not sharing their pirated software. Also, the reviewer doesn't have to say he is a pirater. He could simply claim he got the game early. I'm not going to close my eyes to good information because the source's character might be shady.

I think people considering this poll should shy away from their own opinion of piracy. That fact is irrelevant. The relevant issue is whether the reviewers will be objective or not. This is even a problem for major review sites. Poor reviews can lead to poor sales, which should be the only concern in this discussion. I believe any other discussion is simply throwing a red herring or other fallacies into the mix.

If people want to debate the legality of piracy and whatever, then a new thread needs to be created for that issue.

[lingenfelser]

No.
The last thing piracy needs is a somewhat legit reason to prosper.
But. it's not my website.

[Mr Unoriginal]

I'm sure the creators of Battlestar Galactica would be very upset to learn I'm watching their show which is otherwise not available here. Comparing my very light TV watching habits to your piracy is not a good example.

Really? That's your argument? So we can pirate Japanese games? Unreleased games? If I just pirate a few games like you pirate a few TV shows that's okay? Talk about a slippery slope.

[xrayzwei]

Cheapy,

Are you planning on taking some sort of action against these users, or just removing the reviews? I'm curious.

As for the arguments for piracy reviews, I'm questioning why cheap ass gamers can't wait for legit reviews to show up.

[Oatmeal Batman]

If you are worried about being wrongly labeled a pirate, it would certainly be easy enough to post the name and location of the store that broke the street date. Providing a photo of the box and/or receipt would be even better. This isn't exactly rocket science here...

In the same vein, I don't see IDMB requiring that forum users post proof that they didn't pirate a movie or TV show. Why should CAG hold an opposing stance?

To answer the original question, my answer is yes. Let's be clear. People who pirate games are going to do so whether we give them a voice here or not. Pirating copyrighted material is a choice made irrespective of this forum. Of course CAG should not promote game piracy, through links or otherwise. But I don't see the original question as so fundamental that it would affect the game industry's bottom line. When I see an early review of a game (on CAG or elsewhere), it doesn't motivate me to find a pirated copy, rather it allows me to better determine whether the game merits a purchase/rental/cold shoulder.

[manthing]

I'm sure the creators of Battlestar Galactica would be very upset to learn I'm watching their show which is otherwise not available here. Comparing my very light TV watching habits to your piracy is not a good example.

Piracy is Piracy is Piracy


You can't try to justify yours while damning others...


Or is it more 'Do as I say, not as I do'?

[DJSteel]

No pirated game would be fully functional, so IMO it's not a full game to review. You couldn't play online or you can't access some sort of functionality that exists in the full game..

[Pck21]

I don't think it should be allowed because the review is almost certainly going to biased, as well as pirating games or other software is illegal. The poster who writes a review of a game, who most likely is not a professional journalist, has complete control of the content he or she places in the review. Some information may be false and misleading and it can sway the opinion of the game one way or the other. Reviews of games should not be allowed on CAG until the day the game arrives on store shelves, or maybe even a day after, so that people have time to play the game and have the ability to either agree or disagree with the review based on experience from the game or other reviews posted along side the pirated review.

[CheapyD]

Really? That's your argument? So we can pirate Japanese games? Unreleased games? If I just pirate a few games like you pirate a few TV shows that's okay? Talk about a slippery slope.

I don't have an argument...I'm letting the community decide.

[Romis]

Piracy should not be rewarded in any way even the just the idea of getting to play/review it before the majority.. But I also agree with others who say many times people come to own a copy way before the set release date which of course is a whole other issue..

I mean truth be told.. if your dumb enough to brag about illegal activity shouldn't at least your post be deleted? What the world needs less are dumb criminals If we could actually determine who, what, when and how they need to be prosecuted, then companies wouldn't be so freakin' worried about the few idiots that mess it up for the rest of the legal users..

my 2 cents

[Mr Unoriginal]

I don't have an argument...I'm letting the community decide.

Well then with no offense intended, maybe you shouldn't respond to/argue with users that are giving their opinion which you asked for.

[Viper139]

I'm going to say yes under the condition that the person has already brought it through Pre-ordering it.

[opportunity777]

No pirated game would be fully functional, so IMO it's not a full game to review. You couldn't play online or you can't access some sort of functionality that exists in the full game..

An example of someone staying on topic :-P

I'm going to say yes under the condition that the person has already brought it through Pre-ordering it.

Can't be proven.

Well then with no offense intended, maybe you shouldn't respond to/argue with users that are giving their opinion which you asked for.

Slippery slope doesn't work. You need something such as "proximate cause."

You can't just call it without providing correlating evidence.

[manthing]

I don't have an argument...I'm letting the community decide.

You should make the poll more inclusive.

Music, movies, television, books, graphic novels, old ROMs and emulators, etc. are all easily pirated.

Are you gonna apply the same standards to those as well?

[xGunCrazyx]

No, PC game piracy is destroying the industry I love
Companies are now being shut down (Look at what happened recently to Ensemble...), because assholes won't purchase games

Piracy is for poor people and dochebags

By suppporting piracy, you are supporting the destruction of a part of the industry we love so much

/rant

Edit: I suppose this also goes towards DS piracy as well...

[crystalklear64]

No pirated game would be fully functional, so IMO it's not a full game to review. You couldn't play online or you can't access some sort of functionality that exists in the full game..
Uh...
often times people considered pirated versions to be better than the original, on PC anyway, since they strip off the protection and you still get full content.

[opportunity777]

No, PC game piracy is destroying the industry I love
Companies are now being shut down (Look at what happened recently to Ensemble...), because assholes won't purchase games

Piracy is for poor people and dochebags

By suppporting piracy, you are supporting the destruction of a part of the industry we love so much

/rant

Edit: I suppose this also goes towards DS piracy as well...

I think it's a combination of the PC community being more technically advanced than the casual gamer, the game developers aggravating normal customers with their crap protection schemes (StarForce really sucks) and games being released to market needing multiple patches to run. Secondly, I think people have moved away from the PC to the living room. Third, I think companies have been forced to change their business model to get people to pay.

[xGunCrazyx]

Uh...
often times people considered pirated versions to be better than the original, on PC anyway, since they strip off the protection and you still get full content.

You never get full content if there is online content

[DJSteel]

Uh...
often times people considered pirated versions to be better than the original, on PC anyway, since they strip off the protection and you still get full content.

give me an example

[Mako1215]

IMO I believe reviews and/or impressions might help that one decide. Rather then them going out and buying a 60$ game that they end up hating.

I don't agree with piracy on video games, because it'll be the reason that we see game prices go up even more, and I'm not happy with paying 60$ a pop, but I enjoy playing the games so I will.

Even tho I don't agree everyone does there own thing. So if someone with pirated software gives a review on a game that i'm the fence about I'll read it, and we don't know if it's pirated, or they work for a company, or they get advance copies. It could be anything.

As long as CAG doesn't get in trouble for it. Let em have at it

[CheapyD]

You should make the poll more inclusive.

Music, movies, television, books, graphic novels, old ROMs and emulators, etc. are all easily pirated.

Are you gonna apply the same standards to those as well?
Only to you...because you seem to really want it.

[manthing]

Sweet, Cheapy's giving me special attention...

8-)

[darthbudge]

give me an example

Um, any StarForce protected game. Mass Effect where you can only install your game 3 times, many Securom games won't work if you have completely legal programs like Daemon tools installed.

[DJSteel]

IMO I believe reviews and/or impressions might help that one decide. Rather then them going out and buying a 60$ game that they end up hating.

I don't agree with piracy on video games, because it'll be the reason that we see game prices go up even more, and I'm not happy with paying 60$ a pop, but I enjoy playing the games so I will.

Even tho I don't agree everyone does there own thing. So if someone with pirated software gives a review on a game that i'm the fence about I'll read it, and we don't know if it's pirated, or they work for a company, or they get advance copies. It could be anything.

As long as CAG doesn't get in trouble for it. Let em have at it

it's called a demo..try it out.. if you like it.. buy it.. if not then don't.. simple as that

[CaseyRyback]

Game costs did not go up because of piracy. They went up because hardware costs went through the roof and the market would bear a higher video game cost on a new machine. There is a reason why Nintendo can still charge 50 dollars for a game and Microsoft and Sony will not and it has nothing to do with piracy.

[crystalklear64]

give me an example
Bioshock

[Mex25]

Why not? At least it'll benefit by giving people some early impressions of the full game.

[DJSteel]

Um, any StarForce protected game. Mass Effect where you can only install your game 3 times, many Securom games won't work if you have completely legal programs like Daemon tools installed.


That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..

[Mako1215]

it's called a demo..try it out.. if you like it.. buy it.. if not then don't.. simple as that and how many times has a demo come out 3 months after the game. or a month after the game??

[Mr Unoriginal]

That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..

Well it is functionality. Personally, I want my game to function if I install it more than 3 times.

[dcfox]

Games that have been pirated may not be indicative of a final retail product. So no, reviews of pirated games should not be allowed.

[opportunity777]

This is partially on topic, and it is related to the last dozen or so posts.

EA Games restricting the number of installs for C&C:RA3 (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/09/ea-loosens-red.html)

Same thing different site (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=233484)

This is one reason why people hate PC game developers. I have over 100 legit bought PC games, and I have to always work around this type of BS.

[crystalklear64]

That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..
What?
I said its seen as better because it strips protection (ala starforce and drm) and you still get full content.. not extra content.

[corrosivefrost]

(1) This is not the "Is piracy ok? Y/N" poll.
(2) Following some of the *logic* in this thread, say we had a pretty good idea of who some of the [game] pirates were... are you going to stop them from talking about games they downloaded AFTER release? you don't know where/when/how they got it, especially if they wait until after street date to burn/play/review any given game. But if you've labeled them as a pirate, then by the logic of a majority of these posters, they shouldn't be able to talk about playing the game because they in NO WAY paid for it.
(3) The direction is starting to cover a portion of my earlier question, but if you're looking at stopping people from talking about games early, in theory, shouldn't you also be doing the same for movie/music pirates?

[DJSteel]

Well it is functionality. Personally, I want my game to function if I install it more than 3 times.

it is, I guess, I was looking at game content on pirated software vs retail software.. in my experience, the pirated version doesn't have all the functionality such as online content as retail. I wonder how many CAGs rip game reviewers for not reviewing the full game?

[smoger]

as a CAG who recently received an infraction for saying that I *WASN'T* going to pirate something, i feel that this site is already way too uptight about the topic.

assuming the pirated copy isn't ripped in anyway, the person's opinions on the game are valid and could save fellow CAGs some money(and that's what this site is all about)

As long as they aren't coming right out and condoning piracy or saying where to get it, i don't see an issue.

heck,.. cheapy himself admits to pirating Howard Stern and tv shows regularly on the CAGcast. let's not be hypocrites.

[darthbudge]

I am just curious Cheapy, has any potential advertisers or so on, contacted you with concerns because some users might have been pirating games?

[willow_twf]

absolutely in no way should it be allowed. if they really want to pirate a game and review it ahead of time that's there prerogative. i guess that way, as soon as the game launches, they could post their witty and well written review right away... but not before the game actually hits stores.

[berzirk]

I think it's amusing to see the divide. I would guess that SOME of those who are strongly against blocking pirated copy early impressions are the very same people that are pirating the games. I feel like with the production costs are as high as they are now for console games in particular, it's even more unethical to pirate games. I've had several people offer to mod my 360, but I've told them no thanks, I'll give my money to those who invest a ton and make great games.

Letting people boast about playing a game early that they acquired through piracy, shouldn't be allowed on the site. Props to Cheapy for bringing up an ethical issue like this. It's nice to see someone take an unpopular, but correct stance.

[opportunity777]

as a CAG who recently received an infraction for saying that I *WASN'T* going to pirate something, i feel that this site is already way too uptight about the topic.

assuming the pirated copy isn't ripped in anyway, the person's opinions on the game are valid and could save fellow CAGs some money(and that's what this site is all about)

As long as they aren't coming right out and condoning piracy or saying where to get it, i don't see an issue.

heck,.. cheapy himself admits to pirating Howard Stern and tv shows regularly on the CAGcast. let's not be hypocrites.

I agree there is a lot of uptightness about the issue, considering, it's not even relevant to the discussion. For instance, many of these same people have probably copied a friend's DVD or MS Office during college.

I think a lot of recent posts show that people are actually discussing what is relevant. Personal opinions about actual piracy are not.

On that note, I'm going to eat some lunch :)

[TheRock88]

it's called a demo..try it out.. if you like it.. buy it.. if not then don't.. simple as that

Still waiting on my Merc 2 demo

I'd say yes, I dont care how a person gets the game as long as I get an idea of how the game is like. If I'm on the fence about a game, I'd like to get an impression on it ahead of time before I go out and spend $60 on it. Plus, if the person has the same interest in games as me, I'd rather trust his/her's impression than say a review site.

[corrosivefrost]

No pirated game would be fully functional, so IMO it's not a full game to review. You couldn't play online or you can't access some sort of functionality that exists in the full game..

Ok sure. Must be nice living in another reality.

Piracy is Piracy is Piracy
You can't try to justify yours while damning others...
Or is it more 'Do as I say, not as I do'?

Indeed.
And given some of the moderating decisions we've seen, are you surprised by the "Do as I say" framework?

That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..

Again... what planet are you on?
Find someone in here currently playing RB2. See if they have a gimped copy. Or if any of the GTA4 people did.

[corrosivefrost]

absolutely in no way should it be allowed. if they really want to pirate a game and review it ahead of time that's there prerogative. i guess that way, as soon as the game launches, they could post their witty and well written review right away... but not before the game actually hits stores.

Any game reviewers on this site, look out! You can't post your reviews here early, even if the developer gave you a review copy of the game!

[mr ryles]

This thread is a trap!

[crystalklear64]

it is, I guess, I was looking at game content on pirated software vs retail software.. in my experience, the pirated version doesn't have all the functionality such as online content as retail. I wonder how many CAGs rip game reviewers for not reviewing the full game?
You do realize there are an extremely large number of single player games on the PC correct?

As for the multiplayer, if your goal in pirating something is to get the software for free/protection removed, nothing is preventing you from buying a legitimate CD-key to use the game's online service.

I'm not saying this is any better than simply stealing a game, but it is a way to get that online part and still have pirated.


Also, Hamachi/LAN. But I'm guessing that if I had said only hamachi you'd have said that you can't use the game's service.

[mietha]

Yes. Piracy is illegal, but reporting your impressions of a pirated game isn't. Simple as that.

Pretty much. And this whole Rock Band 2 crap has me very pissed off. The game is sitting in every fucking store in the counrty, yet the only people who can play it (besides a very select luck few) are playing pirated copies. So yes, I say yes. The only people rewarding pirates around here is EA. I'm sure quite a few of those people would have bought legitimate copies, if EA allowed that to be an option. Not to mention that there is a battle of the bands that ONLY people that get the game before release can participate in. Total bullshit.

[mr ryles]

Not to mention that there is a battle of the bands that ONLY people that get the game before release can participate in. Total bullshit.

Que?

[b0bx13]

I say it should certainly be allowed, as long as there isn't talk about how it was obtained. I'll be an immediate hypocrite and say that I obtained a less than legit copy of Rock Band 2 and streamed gameplay for about 4 hours yesterday and many people really appreciated it. I have every intention of being at Walmart at midnight saturday night to get a real copy.

[memex]

I say yes. You won't stop piracy by stopping people from talking about it so then why not help others out by giving an early review. If someone is pirating software they will keep doing so even if it's not allowed.

Also, like others have said, just because the game is being talked about early doesn't mean it is pirated.

[smoger]

I say it should certainly be allowed, as long as there isn't talk about how it was obtained. I'll be an immediate hypocrite and say that I obtained a less than legit copy of Rock Band 2 and streamed gameplay for about 4 hours yesterday and many people really appreciated it. I have every intention of being at Walmart at midnight saturday night to get a real copy.
i did the same with Dr. Mario Online Rx(this is ok by Cheapy's own reasoning - it was only available in Japan at the time).

I installed it on my wii, and played it for the 2 weeks or so until the NA release came. That day I deleted it and paid my $10 for the game.

If I had reviewed the game during that time, there would have been no difference between what I played and what we got on release to change my opinion of the game(other than the fact that my Wii could finally display the text). The review would have been absolutely legitimate, so why not?

[paintball745]

i think it should be allowed just because someone pirated a copy has nothing to do with them sharing their impression on said game.

[DJSteel]

You do realize there are an extremely large number of single player games on the PC correct?

As for the multiplayer, if your goal in pirating something is to get the software for free/protection removed, nothing is preventing you from buying a legitimate CD-key to use the game's online service.

I'm not saying this is any better than simply stealing a game, but it is a way to get that online part and still have pirated.


Also, Hamachi/LAN. But I'm guessing that if I had said only hamachi you'd have said that you can't use the game's service.

OK.. I have nothing against piracy.. I know people here don't like reviews done on incomplete versions of the games, so I was just thinking out loud..

[smoger]

I say yes. You won't stop piracy by stopping people from talking about it so then why not help others out by giving an early review. If someone is pirating software they will keep doing so even if it's not allowed.

Also, like others have said, just because the game is being talked about early doesn't mean it is pirated.

I think Cheapy's concern is less in stopping piracy and more in keeping the site squeaky clean. It's better for business that way(I'm not saying that as a shot at Cheapy... he has to get his piece of the pie...)

[Krymner]

I say no.

Because

Ninjas > Pirates

Also, this should be considered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AzpByR3MvI

Are these the kinds of people we really want on CAG?

[52club]

I think Cheapy's concern is less in stopping piracy and more in keeping the site squeaky clean. It's better for business that way(I'm not saying that as a shot at Cheapy... he has to get his piece of the pie...)

At what point does he change the name of the site to sortofcheapassgamer? At the end of the day the cheapest way to game is by pirating stuff. I mean if I purchased SMB on the NES and I want to play the ROM on my computer does that count as pirating?

It is a grey area with lots of economic repercussions. Cheapy is probably going have to decide is it worth losing hits versus possible law suites and upset sponsors.

[The Mana Knight]

No, piracy should NOT be allowed on CAG on at all. I feel those who pirate a game early on and post impressions are doing a bad thing. If it was someone who worked for a gaming website and obtained their copy legally, then I see no problem (because they are the press). Those who download early are:

Basically telling everyone who may not be familiar with piracy there's some sort of way to obtain the game early, giving people ideas, so then more and more people do it. As more and more people do it, the sales might get hurt because some may finish a pirated copy not buying a retail copy. Some publishers may not want certain things revealed to the public (which is embargoed), and someone saying stuff that's suppose to be confidential is wrong IMO.

If people want to have these discussions, do it in private, not where everyone can see it. I'm fully against piracy and feel it should be eliminated. I'm ecstatic the mods have cracked down on it in the PSP forum.

[crystalklear64]

OK.. I have nothing against piracy.. I know people here don't like reviews done on incomplete versions of the games, so I was just thinking out loud..
This does bring up a semi-valid point about linking piracy to a game review.

First, I'll point out that I'm talking through a PC games perspective since that what I mostly play. There are pirated versions that are glitchy/buggy/etc.

They aren't enough to stop you from playing the game and getting a good enough idea to describe the gameplay/feel of the game to others, but you are right that some people only want to read professional reviews of full fledged retail versions of a game.

I'd also like to point out that many professional reviews (off the top of my head the Soul Caliber IV review in EGM) do not review the online sections of a game due to time constraints etc.

That said, some people would probably appreciate it if there were some way to indicate that what you are reviewing/playing is an early version (much like the disclaimers in a demo). I think a reasonable person can determine that a game is an early version when someone is giving impressions weeks in advance of the release date and that additional info is not really needed, especially given the policy of cag atm to not talk about pirating (don't ask don't tell).

Still, most people just want impressions and understand that the person giving them these impressions is just a fellow gamer, not a full fledged games journalist.

[dubbfoolio]

I'll just point out that their early impressions of games would be inherently flawed by the nature of how they obtained the game. They were not genuinely interested in purchasing the game, which may tilt their score either way, and they can't really review the game from a consumer's stand point.

But I don't feel strongly one way or the other, I can take or leave the information. Cheapy can deal with the consequences negative or positive. It's nice that he would gauge our feelings about the issue. Is this all that much different then leaked ads? Aren't those stolen from the companies that would like to control how that information is released?

[MusicNoteLess]

I believe this is going to come down to "Don't ask, don't tell". If the reviewer has obtained an early copy of the game, as long as they don't advocate piracy, the review should still be allowed regardless. As a consumer, I would like to get opinions from both professional reviewers and CAGs alike, whichever way they obtain a game.

[crystalklear64]

I'll just point out that their early impressions of games would be inherently flawed by the nature of how they obtained the game. They were not genuinely interested in purchasing the game, which may tilt their score either way, and they can't really review the game from a consumer's stand point.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard. Just remember to keep that in mind as you read their impressions. There would still be useful bits of information even if you thought that they were being influenced by not buying the game.

Also, a lot of game reviewers have to review things they normally wouldn't buy. In fact, some of reviewers have the games sent to them free to review.

[mguiddy]

Only to you...because you seem to really want it.
But he has a point, if you ban reviews of games that aren't in stores yet, there's no reason not to ban reviews of music/movies/TV shows/etc that haven't been released yet as well.

There's no reason to have a double standard just because this is cheapassgamer instead of cheapassmovies or cheapassmusic.

Also, I haven't noticed where cheapy has given his opinion on pre-release game reviews... even though it seems to me that he personally doesn't care, since I'd think he just outright ban them and not ask for feedback if he felt strongly about it.

[corrosivefrost]

I'll just point out that their early impressions of games would be inherently flawed by the nature of how they obtained the game. They were not genuinely interested in purchasing the game, which may tilt their score either way, and they can't really review the game from a consumer's stand point.

Then all reviews by magazines and persons in the industry must be thrown out, as they have no "consumer" stand point either, they're given the game to play by the publisher.

[pimpinc333]

I say who cares. You really don't know if a person who wrote the review actually pirated the game or not unless in their review they came out and directly stated they did so.

There are pro's and con's to both sides.

Also in this day an age where most game review mags/websites are biased or strongarmed into giving games good scores I'd personally like to read a non biased CAG review of a game.

Sure they could have got it by piracy but in all essences it still helps people whom are on the fence about the game regardless on how it was obtained.

[benjamouth]

I think it should be allowed, people giving impressions of games is unlikely to encourage piracy.

I am starting to see a lot of validity in the argument that there's little difference between pirating a game or buying a game used from Gamestop.

In both cases the devs/publishers get nothing, so what is the real difference?

I suppose one is legal and the other isn't, but don't all games have "Not for resale" on them ??

[pimpinc333]

I believe this is going to come down to "Don't ask, don't tell". If the reviewer has obtained an early copy of the game, as long as they don't advocate piracy, the review should still be allowed regardless. As a consumer, I would like to get opinions from both professional reviewers and CAGs alike, whichever way they obtain a game.

:applause::applause::applause:

Good Stuff. I feel the same way.

[Thomas96]

Let them pose their impressions of the games... is it any different than allowing Speedy to post early deals for us. I think that if you're using a pirated copy, don't call it a review, just post your "impressions" rather than a review. I think that posted information regarding a game not yet released will probably fly under the radar as long as it titled as an impression, and not as a review.

Regarding this issue.. I guess its best to use a "don't ask, but tell" policy. Don't ask where you got the game from, but tell us about your experience.


[please note that when I originally typed this message I did not know MusicNoteLess said pretty much the same thing]

[soliddragon]

I say yes. You won't stop piracy by stopping people from talking about it so then why not help others out by giving an early review. If someone is pirating software they will keep doing so even if it's not allowed.

Also, like others have said, just because the game is being talked about early doesn't mean it is pirated.

Absolutely True. In addition to this, how are you ascertaining that the games in question were acquired via pirating? Were they advertising the fact that they pirated the games? Even so, aren't we allowed freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment?

I mean just because I'm talking about a crime doesn't necessarily make me some sort of criminal. Well, I don't want to go too far into this, the point is we are a Video Game Community here, and as such talking about a game that hasn't come out yet should not be disallowed just because we don't know the means the person has gone through to acquire said games.

Now, blatantly telling you where and how are a different story altogether, and I think we all can agree that standard intarweb etiquette is that, stuff like that isn't allowed.

[crystalklear64]

Even so, aren't we allowed freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment?
uh oh..

[DJSteel]

my last question is

will CAG be under any legal repercussions for allowing this to happen, especially if it's on a game that doesn't come out in weeks?

[manthing]

Even so, aren't we allowed freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment?



:rofl:

[corrosivefrost]

uh oh..

ToS says no.
ToS wins.
Play by ToS's rules or get the fuck out of his backyard.

[johnnypark]

Then all reviews by magazines and persons in the industry must be thrown out, as they have no "consumer" stand point either, they're given the game to play by the publisher.

I can confirm that, as a former reviewer and editor for a gaming site. We'd get sent games for free, and I'd have fun with them, but some of the games we got I never would have paid money for, even if I enjoyed them a little. I'd determine what I thought about the game, and then I asked myself, "Would I feel just as good about this game if I paid $40/50/60 for it?" And if the answer was no, I took that into consideration, which I think is lost on a lot of larger review sites/mags who get paid well/can afford games AND get them for free.

[NWgamer666]

Yes, with a small caveat. That being that an early reviewer should state whether the copy they are reviewing is a retail release or not. Simple as that. I.E. if it is a broken street date, or a review copy sent out by the publisher prior to street date for review - it is a retail release. Otherwise, it should be stated by the reviewer that it is not a retail release, and further description of what type of build the game is or where it was obtained should be left ambiguous and unanswered. It could then be speculated by the reader that it is either a preview build, beta, or a pirate copy. If the reviewer explicitly states it was obtained by piracy, the review is then subject to deletion as being against the cag's TOS. This leaves the door open for ambiguity/plausible deniability and does not encourage piracy one way or the other.

I see a very stong correlation between this issue and basically the very idea of CAG. Our goal at cag is to inform everyone of the best deal possible, as soon as possible to make informed buying decisions. This can entail getting the pricing early via flyers, looking up in store database, or simply going into a store and reporting, or gossip. The source of the deal info is always the first question asked in a thread, but it usually is stated or accompanied by pics. Sometimes, to protect a deal breaker, the source is left intentionally vague, with some hint as to whether it is simply rumor or hard info.
Speedy posts facts rather than the actual flyers, but the type of his source is known to be early access to the acutal flyers. If an early review is stated to be from a retail release how is this any different?

If your buddy is a manager at gamestore, and tells you that x game and it is going to cost xx.xx with a preorder bonus of xx.xx, and competitor store will have it for sale at xxx price - without providing any proof, how is this any different than reading a review of a nonretail build of a game? The info is still absorbed by the reader with a higher level of skepticism than if the reader saw a hardcopy of his buddy's info. Same with a review of a nonretail copy.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Edit: If I could add a little personal note to the above/disclaimer:
I have legally obtained retail releases of games prior to their street date to try out, and have choose to refrain from posting my impressions of them as my source for the prerelease retail build of the game had asked me to. Under the policy proposed by others whereby a prerealease review posted by a cag must contain pic's of the receipt of a street date being broken, I would not be able to post, if I choose to. See my gamertag.

[bmcdarryl]

I'm not going to get into the whole pirating is bad/good argument, but I do think that talk of pirating brings negative attention to CAG. Some people already think CAG is bad for the industry we wouldn't want people to think the site promotes piracy as well.

[dubbfoolio]

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard. Just remember to keep that in mind as you read their impressions. There would still be useful bits of information even if you thought that they were being influenced by not buying the game.

I totally agree. but just pointing out that not only do these need to be taken with a grain of salt but also that they may be more trouble than they're worth depending on what sort of pressure is put on the site by game companies.

[Dreamer]

Piracy is very destructive to the gaming community. Look what happened to the Dreamcast, the best system out at the time. By allowing this stuff on your site, you are condoning it. If so, I will be giving up my membership as I want NO part of it.

[RiPPn]

For sure, I think the only rule should be there should be no mention or bragging that the game was obtained via piracy.

[Fireballof3]

More than anything else, I can't be sure of bugs, glitches, slowdown or any other technical aspect that they report of in their pirated copy review aren't from the act of removing/circumventing the DRM in the game.

[Agent_BBJ]

If it is an all or none situation, I would have to say "No" but early copies are fine. make them post a picture of the physical disc and box with the review then we know that they received the game through legit terms (unless the stole to from the store but that is not the argument).

[chimpian]

I say nay.
CAG always had/has a very strong anti-piracy stance and I think it is veyr nobil and should stay that way. If it is a gray area fuck it, id rather keep CAG then have it sink because of a few reviews that could have waited a week.

ALSO Some pirated games are hacked/cracked to get them to work without the disc, so they are changed from what the consumer is buying, so.....the review can only be seen as a good review for that one version of the game IE hacked/cracked version.

[dubbfoolio]

Then all reviews by magazines and persons in the industry must be thrown out, as they have no "consumer" stand point either, they're given the game to play by the publisher.

I'm not saying to throw reviews out I'm just saying that these are all flawed consumer reviews, as opposed to legitimate reviews the one's based on pirated copies may have negative consequences.

[Rig]

Should CAGs be allowed to post reviews/impressions of pirated software?

No.

But, like many others said, it will be almost impossible to split the "broke street daters" from the "pirates" from the "inside game devs". Sure, a receipt or something could be used, but I think that's a tad extreme.

I'd say continue to keep the piracy talk (of any form) off CAG, but don't moderate legitimate users that have early (legal) copies. That may be tough to do in practice.

[SnatchMan]

I vote against piracy reviews because they might have a broken or not have the final build of the game and they might give the game a shitty score because of all the glitches and bugs the game might not have. Also people need to spend more time playing the game to give it a proper review and not just an early quickplay/"first" review.

[MusicNoteLess]

If it is an all or none situation, I would have to say "No" but early copies are fine. make them post a picture of the physical disc and box with the review then we know that they received the game through legit terms (unless the stole to from the store but that is not the argument).

Kinda squashed your own argument with that last line. But either way, that's being intrusive. I think most CAGs here would agree on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[crystalklear64]

So being able to play a game without the disk= the gameplay has changed from a space fps to a puzzle game?

A preview build is still a good indication of what the game is like. Demos are preview builds.

[Strell]

Thread of the year. Without question.

[corrosivefrost]

Piracy is very destructive to the gaming community. Look what happened to the Dreamcast, the best system out at the time. By allowing this stuff on your site, you are condoning it. If so, I will be giving up my membership as I want NO part of it.

Yes yes. Piracy is what did the dreamcast in. Piracy!

[corrosivefrost]

Kinda squashed your own argument with that last line. But either way, that's being intrusive. I think most CAGs here would agree on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

If cheapy wanted the be intrusive, he wouldn't have gotten a lawyer to fight the whole CC legal action thing re: speedy1961.

[Agent_BBJ]

Kinda squashed your own argument with that last line. But either way, that's being intrusive. I think most CAGs here would agree on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I know I did thought about that as i was typing it. Better me squash it than someone else.

[AshesofWake]

it being pirated or not, does not change the quality of a game at all. so yes.

[MusicNoteLess]

If cheapy wanted the be intrusive, he wouldn't have gotten a lawyer to fight the whole CC legal action thing re: speedy1961.

IIRC, I think that it could've been avoided if CAG didn't pressure Speedy into showing legitimate photos of his early leaked ads, specifically citing the PS3 price drop. Which is why I go back to the don't ask, don't tell policy.

[crystalklear64]

it being pirated or not, does not change the quality of a game at all. so yes.
Maybe this turned out to be a hoax or something, but wasn't there a leaked either Halo 2 or Halo 3 french copy of the game that was actually pretty different from the final product?

[fatez]

i dont think someone who can get a copy of a game early can give a better review than someone who waits to get the game (or pre-order) on release date. those who will wait and decide to get it will end up waiting anyways. :)

[Trakan]

Can everyone please read the OP more carefully? I'm reading through this thread and more than half the responses have the wrong idea or don't understand it.

Cheapy is asking if it is okay for people to post impressions of games if they get them early. It's not condoning or rewarding piracy in any way.

[Hoffer]

You are promoting piracy if you allow it. If people have a place shine, they will pirate a game just so they can get people's attention that they are playing the game.

I played Rock Band 2 at PAX. That is a legit way to play a game before release.

[crystalklear64]

i dont think someone who can get a copy of a game early can give a better review than someone who waits to get the game (or pre-order) on release date. those who will wait and decide to get it will end up waiting anyways. :)
This is the internet where we can find multiple sources of information on any given subject. Why not add in the impressions of an early copy to your database of knowledge devoted to decided whether you want the game or not? I wouldn't buy a game based on one game review and nothing else, but you can take these multiple sources of info and use them to your advantage.

[MusicNoteLess]

Can everyone please read the OP more carefully? I'm reading through this thread and more than half the responses have the wrong idea or don't understand it.

Cheapy is asking if it is okay for people to post impressions of games if they get them early. It's not condoning or rewarding piracy in any way.

I think the Head title might be throwing off some CAGs as well. It just states "Community feedback poll - Game Piracy". Some might jump to the conclusion that this is only regarding game piracy if they don't read the OP properly.

[corrosivefrost]

Are there really that many early "reviews"? I've seen people talking about games before release, but nothing of the "these are my official impressions/reviews" sort...

So what are we talking here? Deleting any post mentioning a game being played before street date or what?

[CYRiX]

As long as people that are reviewing games with pirated copies are willing to accept all penalties then sure I think its fine.

[paintball745]

i say we have a don't ask don't tell policy on cag don't say were you got the game from and if you wanna post a review fine. but for the love of god i don't wanna know where you got it from.

[corrosivefrost]

I think the Head title might be throwing off some CAGs as well. It just states "Community feedback poll - Game Piracy". Some might jump to the conclusion that this is only regarding game piracy if they don't read the OP properly.

Read the OP?! No wai!!!1!1111!eleven!

[darthbudge]

I think the Head title might be throwing off some CAGs as well. It just states "Community feedback poll - Game Piracy". Some might jump to the conclusion that this is only regarding game piracy if they don't read the OP properly.

I said this early on, that the title was very misleading and biased. However, nobody listened to me.

[crystalklear64]

I said this early on, that the title was very misleading and biased. However, nobody listened to me.
I didn't listen to you because I like to go in and edit the registry the MANLY way.

[HarassmentPanda]

I think the reviews should be allowed to stay. There's no way to prove that a game wasn't legally purchased or otherwise played early. Additionally, forbidding the practice of reviewing and discussing games pre-release would open the floodgates to a lot of unforeseen complications.

That said, any discussion of actual piracy must be forbidden. Piracy is wrong and harms the industry. If people are going to pirates games, there's nothing you can do to stop them. However, CAG should not become a clearinghouse for piracy information.

[AntiCommie]

I dont think piracy should be rewarded, but if the reviewer can prove it was purchased, I think early reviews are fine. It shouldnt be hard to provide a scan of a reciept or atleast a picture of a box/disc.

manthing: I dont think gamestop does used PC games, and I'm pretty sure those are the most common pirated games. If its console, then thats 1 less used game on the shelf, so for "hot" games it might mean more new sales.

[OneWingedAngeI]

innocent until proven guilty. you cant go shutting down people with no proof. the burden on proof should be on the accuser, not the other way around.

[corrosivefrost]

I dont think piracy should be rewarded, but if the reviewer can prove it was purchased, I think early reviews are fine. It shouldnt be hard to provide a scan of a reciept or atleast a picture of a box/disc.

Not every cag has a scanner or camera[phone] to easily get pictures up on the interwebs. They are cheap. And they may not be handy with technology. I mean, we have users who type with their foreheads. And you expect them to use a camera and then upload the photo? Right.

[MusicNoteLess]

innocent until proven guilty. you cant go shutting down people with no proof. the burden on proof should be on the accuser, not the other way around.

:applause: Thank you.

[Gothic Walrus]

Can everyone please read the OP more carefully? I'm reading through this thread and more than half the responses have the wrong idea or don't understand it.

Cheapy is asking if it is okay for people to post impressions of games if they get them early. It's not condoning or rewarding piracy in any way.

No...but given the site already has a strong anti-piracy stance, it isn't too hard to make the inference.

I'd say no, in the interest of the site being consistent with its policies across the board. Regardless of how the game is obtained, if there's a chance that it could result in action against CAG I'd say we shouldn't allow posting of the early impressions. Sure, it may not be likely, but nobody here was expecting Circuit City to go after speedy and Cheapy either.

Look at big games like GTA IV or Metal Gear Solid IV - they've got NDAs that, usually with one or two exceptions, require everybody to wait to publish the reviews until the game is released. If a review of a title like that were to pop up here and get noticed, it'd mean that street date was broken, that the copy of the game was pirated, or that an NDA was broken. I don't think the first scenario would affect CAG, but the other two wouldn't exactly invite a warm response from the publisher.

Hell, if it comes down to it, just do what Ain't It Cool News did with the Star Wars reviews - it yanked all of them (even the legit, non-NDA ones) until the day Clone Wars was released, and then reposted them then.

[trip1eX]

Did you really need to make a poll for this? It's kind of sad.

[Gothic Walrus]

Did you really need to make a poll for this? It's kind of sad.

Did he? No.

If it'll help him to make a decision that's more in line with the community's desire, though, is that a bad thing?

[jeromechef]

Yes.

Piracy is wrong, sure, and if the person is posting saying "Hey, I pirated this game, here are my impressions of it" then I think there is a problem. But so long as they are like "I played the game and here are my impressions" it doesn't make a difference.

People have the freedom to post what they want, so long as they are not advertising pirating sites then I don't really have a problem with them giving their impressions about the game.

[Ivanhoe]

Yes.

I agree with Darthbudges statement.
"As a gaming site, early impressions could cause more or less people to buy the game depending on how good it is, instead of having to wait until the release date and then reading reviews.
Also, despite common sense, you can't exactly say that said people are indeed pirating the game, they MIGHT have actually purchased it early somewhere."

Plenty of people obtain legal early copies of games.
Let them share their impressions of their game to the CAG community.

This in no way supports piracy.
It does support sharing impressions of games that CAGs have obtained Legally.

[carpwrist]

I think I'm on the losing team here. I think honesty is more important here. If a CAG explains that it is not the full retail copy, that means that they're not playing the game to its full potential. I've noticed in the past that cracked games do not always run as well as retail games, but in the interest of saving people time and money to avoid shitty titles I think it's perfectly okay for someone to give out their two bits.

I tried Sins of a Solar Empire a week before it was officially released and answered questions about in the CAG forums. Now before anyone tries to stomp on my balls here, there wasn't a demo available for this game. I didn't buy the game, but that's because I didn't like it. If Stardock had put out a demo, I would have tried that instead.

In my personal opinion, piracy only takes money away from games that can't stand up to titles that have great multiplayer capabilities (ex: WoW, TF2, Starcraft, Halo 3, etc...)

[Gothic Walrus]

I've got a question: what, if any, benefit does an early review of a game have?

Let's say someone downloads a game and spends all day Friday playing it, and then posts a review on Saturday. That's great...but the game isn't available until Tuesday. And by that point, IGN, GameSpot, and all of the other review sites will have published their reviews, and usually before most of us get home from school or work and can go and buy the game.

Seriously, if you're THAT on the fence about the game, just wait a day or two and you'll see a ton of impressions from legitimate copies online. You'll still be able to find it on Wednesday, for the same price it would've been on Tuesday.

[crystalklear64]

I've got a question: what, if any, benefit does an early review of a game have?

Let's say someone downloads a game and spends all day Friday playing it, and then posts a review on Saturday. That's great...but the game isn't available until Tuesday. And by that point, IGN, GameSpot, and all of the other review sites will have published their reviews, and usually before most of us get home from school or work and can go and buy the game.

Seriously, if you're THAT on the fence about the game, just wait a day or two and you'll see a ton of impressions from legitimate copies online. You'll still be able to find it on Wednesday, for the same price it would've been on Tuesday.
I know more about it earlier so I can jump on any preorder deals/loot if maybe I was going to wait for a deal much farther down the road.

[NWgamer666]

Look at big games like GTA IV or Metal Gear Solid IV - they've got NDAs that, usually with one or two exceptions, require everybody to wait to publish the reviews until the game is released. If a review of a title like that were to pop up here and get noticed, it'd mean that street date was broken, that the copy of the game was pirated, or that an NDA was broken. I don't think the first scenario would affect CAG, but the other two wouldn't exactly invite a warm response from the publisher.



This got me thinking, what has changed on CAG recently that would make cheapy think hard about this topic?
I would have to speculate it is the CAG 2.0 changes that were implemented. It's not like early reviews of games or broken street dates became an issue recently, this has been going on since the dawn of criticism, early review copies, and the advent of P2P.
However, could the issue for cheapy be the difference between somone writing in a forum, and someone writing an their personal cag blog? A forum post is usually buried, with a topic usually of the OP's choosing, whereas a CAG blog title can be visible on the front page, and possibly stay there for a period of time if it gets a bunch of views (correct tech interpretation?).

Is the increased visibility of a CAG member's opinion [and thus his/her possible encouragement of piracy or breaking of an NDA] the difference in the issue?

[Gothic Walrus]

I think I'm on the losing team here. I think honesty is more important here. If a CAG explains that it is not the full retail copy, that means that they're not playing the game to its full potential. I've noticed in the past that cracked games do not always run as well as retail games, but in the interest of saving people time and money to avoid shitty titles I think it's perfectly okay for someone to give out their two bits.

Those two bits would be based off of the cracked copy, which you just said doesn't always run as well as the retail version. Why give impressions of an inferior version of the product?

In my personal opinion, piracy only takes money away from games that can't stand up to titles that have great multiplayer capabilities (ex: WoW, TF2, Starcraft, Halo 3, etc...)

So you're saying that games that are single player only (let's say...Bioshock) don't have money taken away from them by piracy? :-s

That argument doesn't make any sense, especially when pirated copies of the games usually don't have any of the online features working. It's usually EASIER to pirate games without multiplayer and to get away with it, and to experience everything the game has to offer without any missing features.

[crystalklear64]

This got me thinking, what has changed on CAG recently that would make cheapy think hard about this topic?
I would have to speculate it is the CAG 2.0 changes that were implemented. It's not like early reviews of games or broken street dates became an issue recently, this has been going on since the dawn of criticism, early review copies, and the advent of P2P.
However, could the issue for cheapy be the difference between somone writing in a forum, and someone writing an their personal cag blog? A forum post is usually buried, with a topic usually of the OP's choosing, whereas a CAG blog title can be visible on the front page, and possibly stay there for a period of time if it gets a bunch of views (correct tech interpretation?).

Is the increased visibility of a CAG member's opinion [and thus his/her possible encouragement of piracy or breaking of an NDA] the difference in the issue?
Its probably all the rock band 2 stuff.

[corrosivefrost]

I've got a question: what, if any, benefit does an early review of a game have?

Let's say someone downloads a game and spends all day Friday playing it, and then posts a review on Saturday. That's great...but the game isn't available until Tuesday. And by that point, IGN, GameSpot, and all of the other review sites will have published their reviews, and usually before most of us get home from school or work and can go and buy the game.

Seriously, if you're THAT on the fence about the game, just wait a day or two and you'll see a ton of impressions from legitimate copies online. You'll still be able to find it on Wednesday, for the same price it would've been on Tuesday.

Professional reviewers aren't the average gamer.
Sometimes, professional reviewers get pressure from companies to put the scores within ranges *cough* Kane & Lynch *cough*.
Hearing what a few of your online buddies may think about the game, since they actually played it could be worth more than 1000 official reviews.
Does it matter how they got it? Not really. What matters is the impressions you get to hear about. Otherwise, pre-release reviews/impressions/everything will have to go.
Just get rid of the CAG-Cast while you're at it too. Cause they talk about stuff that isn't released. Did they get it from piracy? I don't know. Let's have cheapy and wombat post some receipts and photos of cases/discs!

[Gothic Walrus]

I know more about it earlier so I can jump on any preorder deals/loot if maybe I was going to wait for a deal much farther down the road.

That's assuming that the pirated version leaks while the preorder sales or freebies are still around. From what I've seen and heard, that usually isn't the case - we're talking days or maybe weeks of lead time.

Besides that, if you're thinking of waiting months for a game to drop in price then odds are you weren't all that interested in it in the first place. I'd suspect that, for games like that, only the most glowing reviews would be enough to change opinions...and realistically, how often is that scenario going to happen?

[crystalklear64]

I know more about it earlier so I can jump on any preorder deals/loot if maybe I was going to wait for a deal much farther down the road.
Let me give you an example right now.

STALKER: Clear Sky.

I could preorder it on steam right now and save myself 5$. However, there were a bunch of little things in the original Stalker that I hated, things most reviewers would only give a passing mention to if any. Now, If someone had an early copy of this and was actively posting in a thread, I can ask them anything I want, and they can tell me right then and there.

With a traditional review, there is no interaction. Just you reading whatever the guy wrote.

[Sacsquash]

I say Yes, But only for review/preview/first impression purposes. to solely pirate a game for your own entertainment is entirely different in my opinion. If other people can gain from insight made from a pirated game that's a positive, even if it's a negative reflection of the game. I enjoy reading about games and the more I read about a game the easier it makes my decision to purchase a game, especially before it comes out. Now It surprises me when reviewers acknowledge that they used a pirated copy, but it is also likely that any faults within a pirated copy are in that copy alone. Even though I think it's okay for these pirated games to be reviewed I also believe that some of them(the reviews) can be misleading and thus should be presented as a preview or a first impression of the game, it would be a little more forgiving and fair to the reader(s) if the game was not rated.

I don't know if it sounds like I'm giving mixed signals here, but my main point is that it should be okay to give information about a pirated game as long as it is not solely for your own personal entertainment. I'd hope the pirate would purchase the full retail game upon launch day as well.

[corrosivefrost]

Its probably all the rock band 2 stuff.
RB2 applauds the people playing early!! Problem solved!

[corrosivefrost]

That's assuming that the pirated version leaks while the preorder sales or freebies are still around. From what I've seen and heard, that usually isn't the case - we're talking days or maybe weeks of lead time.

Yes, cause all pre-order bonuses sell out immediately and thus you can't get in on the action with weeks or days to spare. :roll:

[crystalklear64]

That's assuming that the pirated version leaks while the preorder sales or freebies are still around. From what I've seen and heard, that usually isn't the case - we're talking days or maybe weeks of lead time.

Besides that, if you're thinking of waiting months for a game to drop in price then odds are you weren't all that interested in it in the first place. I'd suspect that, for games like that, only the most glowing reviews would be enough to change opinions...and realistically, how often is that scenario going to happen?
I think about waiting months for every game. I am a cheapassgamer. Very very few games do I ever buy at release, and when I do, its only because of preorder/ridiculous value. The quality of the game has nothing to do with it.

I'll give you an example of this too.

Dreamfall: The Longest journey. When it first came out, I thought, awesome a sequel to The Longest Journey. But at the time, it was more than I was willing to pay for it. Not because I didn't want the game, but I refuse to pay full price for most games. A couple months ago I bought it for 10$ which is an excellent price, AND it is currently in my top 10 favorite games, and I knew it would be.

[GuilewasNK]

This is a site about saving money, right?

Well, early reviews of shit games keeps me from spending money on them. If a review is "fair" without a lot of BS such as, "I suck at this game, so the game sucks," then I believe there should be no problem. I don't think a person should shy away from criticizing or praising a game. The reviewer should provide rational reasons and clear explanations why he hates or likes a certain title.



That's what actual review sites like Gamespot or IGN are for, not CAG. Unless, that is the direction Cheapy is thinking of moving to. If so, that is his prerogative, but being first doesn't equate to being best especially if you have to do it at the expense of integrity.

[Gothic Walrus]

Professional reviewers aren't the average gamer.
Sometimes, professional reviewers get pressure from companies to put the scores within ranges *cough* Kane & Lynch *cough*.
Hearing what a few of your online buddies may think about the game, since they actually played it could be worth more than 1000 official reviews.
Does it matter how they got it? Not really. What matters is the impressions you get to hear about. Otherwise, pre-release reviews/impressions/everything will have to go.
Just get rid of the CAG-Cast while you're at it too. Cause they talk about stuff that isn't released. Did they get it from piracy? I don't know. Let's have cheapy and wombat post some receipts and photos of cases/discs!

Good point on Kane and Lynch - I'd forgotten about that when I wrote that post. :oops:

You are right on how you'd interpret reviews from your friends. I think that comes down to how you use reviews - I've always used them to check for things in the game that are glaringly wrong, like broken controls or AI, because "fun" is relative person-to-person.

If we do go to the receipts and pictures verification method (which is a completely ridiculous idea), it would be fair to apply it to CheapyD and Wombat.

Like I said, the main thing I'm worried about is that allowing early impressions could potentially backfire on the site. You are right that if we're going to ban that we should get rid of early reviews for things like music, but Sony or Microsoft is a lot more likely to keep an eye on CAG than EMI or Universal because of the site's subject matter. I'd say we should focus on games and then apply whatever the result from that is to other media as applicable.

I've got to go to class now. It'll be interesting to see where the thread has gone when I'm back.

[Davestation]

No, it should be a full retail game from the publisher with everything that comes in the retail version. Even if CAG's are doing it, the website should not promote it or mention it. It's okay to give impressions on Demo's or broken street dated products, with those they are sanctioned by the publisher and even if a street date is broken, you still paid for the retail price of the game. I believe that there should be zero tolerance on piracy, letting someone post a review or preview knowing a game is pirated on a website should not be allowed. How can one prove it though is the thin line to walk? Also, what the fuck is Cheapy thinking by polling the community to see if we should allow it? This is his website and he has sponsors like Gamestop that piracy directly affects.

[SDC]

cag is a wonderful site about obtaining games legitimately AND cheaply.
Piracy should have no place here.

[Gothic Walrus]

I think about waiting months for every game. I am a cheapassgamer. Very very few games do I ever buy at release, and when I do, its only because of preorder/ridiculous value. The quality of the game has nothing to do with it.

In that case, is an early review really going to sway your opinion that much? Most of the "ridiculous value" (which I'm guessing meant marquee) titles don't need early reviews to justify your purchase, because you already have a good idea of what to expect from the game well ahead of time, from other sources (like legit early impressions, from websites or magazines).

[corrosivefrost]

That's what actual review sites like Gamespot or IGN are for, not CAG. Unless, that is the direction Cheapy is thinking of moving to. If so, that is his prerogative, but being first doesn't equate to being best especially if you have to do it at the expense of integrity.

And most Gamespot and IGN reviews are garbage. People here should be a lot more unbiased. I mean, who are you more likely to believe -- a friend who has similiar interests as you, someone you can ask questions, someone who has no real bias and is mainly interested in the game for the sake of enjoyment -OR- a "professional" reviewer who has managers to answer to, who plays games to review them, not to enjoy them, whose salary is paid for by the advertisers on his site/magazine/whatever... advertisers likely to be having their game reviewed... again, see the whole K&L fiasco.

Personally, I'd be more interested in the fact that I knew someone who played it because they wanted to and could get my questions answered.

[zewone]

No pirated game would be fully functional, so IMO it's not a full game to review. You couldn't play online or you can't access some sort of functionality that exists in the full game..

Uh, for console piracy it's the exact same game that you buy at the store.

[mkelehan]

I voted yes, simply because as we all know, stores break release dates, and you shouldn't have to prove that the game wasn't obtained illegally. Also, if someone has a preorder for a game and then pirates it to play it early, I have literally no problem with that. I'm going to say right now I did that with Final Fantasy 12, and still picked it up on launch day, after enjoying it for a few weeks.

[corrosivefrost]

you still paid for the retail price of the game.

This has no place in your argument.
People here rarely pay full price for ANYTHING.
And you still have to deal with all the people who didn't pay anything but played it. Your friend bought a game, you played it? Sorry, you didn't pay for it, you can't talk about it.
Watch a DVD at a friend's house? Sorry, don't tell us what you thought of it, cause you didn't buy the DVD or pay for a movie ticket.

[Moxio]

Wow, how on earth did I miss this monster of a thread?

[darthbudge]

I think this is a question that most people need to ask themselves.

Imagine the sequel to your favorite game is coming out next week and you absolutely cannot wait for it to come out.

Then one day you are walking through Walmart/Target and you see it on the shelves, and they are obviously selling it early. So you quickly buy a copy of rush home to play it. It is the greatest thing in the world just like you thought, and would love to share this with other CAGs. However, now you get accused of being a pirate, and possibly have your post/thread deleted or locked. Sure you could post pictures, but maybe your Girlfriend/wife/roommate/kid/friend has the camera, or maybe you don't have one at all.

So now you are screwed over, unable to talk about a great game, just because of when the release date is. This IS NOT a poll about piracy, it is a poll about posting reviews of games early. I guarantee that each and everyone of us would want to do that if we got a game early. It is not supporting the pirates, because wether we talk about them or not, they still exist. This is about keeping your right to talk about the games you are playing, even if they aren't officialy released yet.

Just keep that mind if you choose to vote "No."

[crystalklear64]

In that case, is an early review really going to sway your opinion that much? Most of the "ridiculous value" (which I'm guessing meant marquee) titles don't need early reviews to justify your purchase, because you already have a good idea of what to expect from the game well ahead of time, from other sources (like legit early impressions, from websites or magazines).
On its own no. But I've already said that. Its another source of information to add to the other sources. Early impressions from alpha/beta builds from gaming news sites come far in advance of people getting early full copies. Using that knowledge base as a whole is very useful, and I don't want a source of interactive information being removed from my knowledge base.

Obviously, if I cared so much about it, I would simply get the early info from another site that DID allow it. But there are people on CAG whos opinions reflect many of my own concerning game interest, and, as it has already been said, it is those opinions that I give more weight to.

There has only been one game I bought at release (and preordered) in recent memory for value. And that was the Orange Box. I had played none of those games, and while information on Half-Life 2 and its episodes were already available, the game that got me to preorder was Portal, specifically, leaked and legit footage I had seen of it prior to release. Had it not been for seeing Portal in action (because picture don't really describe the game very well) I would not have preordered the Orange Box.

[corrosivefrost]

I guarantee that each and everyone of us would want to do that if we got a game early. It is not supporting the pirates, because wether we talk about them or not, they still exist. This is about keeping your right to talk about the games you are playing, even if they aren't officialy released yet.

I'm still waiting to hear whether this question is regarding general posts or just bloggers posting up reviews...

[zewone]

I think this is a question that most people need to ask themselves.

Imagine the sequel to your favorite game is coming out next week and you absolutely cannot wait for it to come out.

Then one day you are w

Exactly.

[msdmoney]

I would say no. Titan Quest was a great example of why this creates problems. People were using cracked copies of the game, which they thought was indicative of the final product. It turns out that the game was crashing because of an anti-piracy check that ran during the first dungeon. The game garnered a reputation of being buggy and glitchy before release. See the attached post by the THQ CEO on the quartertothree forums.

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42663

You also might want to think about the relationships you have with the developers Cheapy. As the site grows your exposure and interaction with the developement community will grow along with it. We already know developers listen to the Cagcast, and we've seen you appearing on Bloomberg, etc. Allowing the posting of impressions based on pirated software will give you a reputation that is guilty by association. Sure, most posts would fly under the radar, but all it could take is one accusation by a developer that names a post on this site. Maybe most users don't care about that, or see it as insignificant. I think it better serves the community for your site to be respected in the industry, such that the CAG Community has its voice heard (the power of gaming communities) when it comes to getting the most out of our gaming dollar, rather than getting some early impressions of a game.

[SnotRocket]

I have to say what if you know someone or are a reviewer and got a copy early and are posting some impressions?

No matter how you get the game, a review or opinions of the game should be allowed, as long as you state that it's not the final build, or say if it is. One thing that shouldn't be allowed is the talks of how to obtain pirated software, how cool it is, how stupid it is, how much cooler I am compared to you because I got a pirate version, .etc Thought provoking conversation is good.

[darthbudge]

WTF happened to my last post? It got cut off or something?

[manthing]

Hey Fudge:

Spies are sappin yer posts!!!

:whee:

[DT778]

Exactly.:rofl: Got to be careful becoming W.

[tiredfornow]

I think this is a question that most people need to ask themselves.

Imagine the sequel to your favorite game is coming out next week and you absolutely cannot wait for it to come out.

Then one day you are w

What? :rofl:

[oscargrouch]

I don't support piracy, so I voted no you shouldn't allow early impressions based off pirated material. However, without being able to tell if someone pirated something for absolute certain this will be extremely hard to enforce.

I think this will have to be an on your honor sorta thing. People do legitimately get retail copies ahead of the release date and shouldn't be penalized. Realistically there is no way to tell (save like something like when Valve was hacked and people were playing Half Life 2 over a year before the retail release), so the issue is pretty moot.

[nativetongue88]

people are going to pirate stuff no matter what. so might as well get a heads up on whats good and whats trash.

[lordwow]

I've already put in my 2 cents here, but... uh... do we have bloggers doing reviews?

[NATO_Duke]

Gotta say No. It seems to me that while the impressions of the game are of interest, they are being gathered by illegal means that shouldn't be rewarded. Piracy hurts all of us that buy our games and should be frowned upon more than it is in game forums.

[corrosivefrost]

:rofl: Got to be careful becoming W.

Is that like becoming V [for Vendetta]?

[Strell]

The LHC won't create a black hole and end the world, but this thread sure might.

[Moxio]

Well, my sig grants me immunity to the whole piracy controversy so I'm in the clear! 8-)

[corrosivefrost]

Gotta say No. It seems to me that while the impressions of the game are of interest, they are being gathered by illegal means that shouldn't be rewarded. Piracy hurts all of us that buy our games and should be frowned upon more than it is in game forums.

Where the fuck is the reward in posting about it? Internet-cred? So you can rep with e-gangs? It's not like these people are getting paid for their impressions or will get a job in the industry because they shared opinions/impressions of these games before street date.

The only "reward" is already gained by the time they posted/blogged. They played the game before you. They're enjoying the game right now. And guess what? They probably didn't pay for it.

Posting about the game itself is just posting. Regardless of whether it's 3 days before street date, a week before street date, or 5 days after it.

Don't ask, don't tell. Like music said.

[udabenshen]

Impressions yes, reviews no. At least that's how I feel. While I am not one to pirate software, for sake of personal and public impressions it can help the public good on some level by giving a better understanding of the product. If the pirated copy is used for a review its not a fair assessment of the final product as much as one would like to think it is, most notable for pc games.

[illpleasa]

An early impression is an early impression. Should the people be parading around that it is from a pirated game? No but thats none of our problems. I am reading the impression to get a better idea of the game before I decide to purchase it.

I don't know how the people get there early copies. It could be connections, it could be broken street dates, or it could even be the hated piracy, but as I stated before, as long as its not mentioned, all im reading are the impressions...

[DT778]

Is that like becoming V [for Vendetta]?It's worse. You sport a Nixon mask and you talk only in haiku's.

[corrosivefrost]

Well, my sig grants me immunity to the whole piracy controversy so I'm in the clear! 8-)

Brilliant!! :beer:

[botticus]

I think this is a question that most people need to ask themselves.

Imagine the sequel to your favorite game is coming out next week and you absolutely cannot wait for it to come out.

Then one day you are walking through Walmart/Target and you see it on the shelves, and they are obviously selling it early. So you quickly buy a copy of rush home to play it. It is the greatest thing in the world just like you thought, and would love to share this with other CAGs. However, now you get accused of being a pirate, and possibly have your post/thread deleted or locked. Sure you could post pictures, but maybe your Girlfriend/wife/roommate/kid/friend has the camera, or maybe you don't have one at all.

So now you are screwed over, unable to talk about a great game, just because of when the release date is. This IS NOT a poll about piracy, it is a poll about posting reviews of games early. I guarantee that each and everyone of us would want to do that if we got a game early. It is not supporting the pirates, because wether we talk about them or not, they still exist. This is about keeping your right to talk about the games you are playing, even if they aren't officialy released yet.

Just keep that mind if you choose to vote "No."
So tell everyone which Walmart/Target you bought it at so they can also go experience the joy of playing the game early. Problem solved!

[Davestation]

This has no place in your argument.
People here rarely pay full price for ANYTHING.
And you still have to deal with all the people who didn't pay anything but played it. Your friend bought a game, you played it? Sorry, you didn't pay for it, you can't talk about it.
Watch a DVD at a friend's house? Sorry, don't tell us what you thought of it, cause you didn't buy the DVD or pay for a movie ticket.


Yes, it is relevant. Most street dated games are triple A titles that many CAG's will pay for full retail on the first day. We are not all cheap, just look at the CAG's most ordered list from Amazon. The number one item was Gears of War 2 Lancer with a free Gears of War 2 game for $149.99. I am talking about getting the game in legal, legitimate ways such as purchsing it, renting it, or borrowing it from a friend. The copy that is being lent out is most traditionally a legitimet retail copy that was purchased. What Cheapy is asking for is if we agree that previews and reviews should be based off of pirated copies, and the anser in my opinion still reamains at no. If you loan a CD to a friend, they can easily pirate the CD on there computer (wich is still wrong in my book) instead of paying for it themselves. You can not easily do that this generation with games like you could in the PS1 and X-Box days so it is most likely that if your friend liked that game, he may want to go out and purchase it himself, or if he knows his websites, he can be schmuck and pirate it.

[tiredfornow]

Trakan said it, but a lot of the posts don't even have anything to do with the issue. 8-)An early impression is an early impression. Should the people be parading around that it is from a pirated game? No but thats none of our problems. I am reading the impression to get a better idea of the game before I decide to purchase it.

I don't know how the people get there early copies. It could be connections, it could be broken street dates, or it could even be the hated piracy, but as I stated before, as long as its not mentioned, all im reading are the impressions...

Which is exactly what the thread is about!

Thanks for putting your two cents in and welcome to CheapAssGamer. :D

[crystalklear64]

The number one item was Gears of War 2 Lancer with a free Gears of War 2 game for $149.99.
Thats cool thats cool...

So where does amazon show how many people didn't order this?

[corrosivefrost]

Yes, it is relevant. Most street dated games are triple A titles that many CAG's will pay for full retail on the first day.
..
I am talking about getting the game in legal, legitimate ways such as purchsing it, renting it, or borrowing it from a friend.

All games are street dated. Just like all music and movies are. For whatever purpose, everything has a street date. And just cause some CAGs will pay full retail on day doesn't mean they all do.

Borrowing and renting do nothing for the game publisher/developer. Used game sales do nothing for them. They get no $$$ to pay their employees and fund bigger and better games that you want to play. All of these are "legal" in the eyes of copyright laws, but in terms of the "effects of piracy", they all play out the same.

[help1]

Yes. But it isn't like it matters, because if you don't allow it, other places do.

[corrosivefrost]

Thats cool thats cool...

So where does amazon show how many people didn't order this?
+1
:wave:

[J7.]

Hell no. It indirectly supports piracy and encourages people to host it when they see others taking advantage of their hosts. edit: Also those who don't pay for it, will be providing a different type of review then what would be given by those who did pay for it... When you have to pay for something you judge it more critically.

[Leggo]

You can't police this so it's a moot point, unless the person outright states they're reviewing a pirated copy of the game. I voted "yes" because it seems like the wording of the question was suspect, and is ultimately a question of if reviews of games that haven't been released yet should be permitted. I say they should. Even though the possibility exist that the game was pirated, it can't be proved conclusively, and if that's not enough to convict, that shouldn't be reason enough to call someone a pirate and delete their review.

Plus, I don't even want to know the metrics of general opinions of games. I'm sure day 1 piracy is a much smaller issue when compared to post-release piracy. If you somehow could manage to delete all opinions of games people didn't pay for, that would probably be half of the forum.

Also, if reporting on a game you haven't paid for is the definition being used here, Gamefly rental opinions shouldn't be allowed either. Slippery slope.

[dallow]

Budge's full post is still full of laughs.

[detectiveconan16]

Hell, no! If you're going to pirate, why the hell are you tellin' people about it?

[bmulligan]

I voted NO.

There's no reason for CAG to draw a target around itself.

[gunm]

I'm not sure why this is even a question since the CAG forum discourages/prohibits any warez or otherwise illegal discussions, but of course I had to vote no.

[zenprime]

I'm sure this has been stated before but reviews of pirated copies? No.

Reviews of early copies by way of stores not honoring street date, won as prizes, etc basically legally acquired, yes.

Also and most importantly: Innocent until proven guilty instead of the other way around. If someone gets the game early because their boss is a soft touch and they write up a review but don't say how they got it, they shouldn't be attacked. They shouldn't be asked to show a receipt.

In a nutshell, if they admit they pirated it, keelhaul them. If not, live and let live. I'd rather think CAGs were a cut above the rest and there only a few bad apples instead of cutting them all open because there is a chance we all might be rotten at the core.

[crystalklear64]

Hell, no! If you're going to pirate, why the hell are you tellin' people about it?
WTF? Thats not what this is even asking...

[ThaiGrocer]

Pirating games goes beyond being a cheap-ass. So let's not encourage that.

[Davestation]

Thats cool thats cool...

So where does amazon show how many people didn't order this?

I just mentioned that to prove that members of this community are more than willing to pay full price for a game. The suggestion that no one here will pay full price for a game is insane. There are threads about the $149.99 lancer bundle, the $79.99 Resistance 2 Special Edition, and the $89.99 Metal Gear Limited Edition. People love certain franchises and are willing to pay. Corrosivefrost is niave enought to believe otherwise. To have a $149.99 lancer be your number one purchase off of a cheapass website only proves this, why wasn't a cheaper game number one for a website that loves cheap games? It's because people love franchises and cheapassgamer was one of the first to post the deal do to the community.

All games are street dated. Just like all music and movies are. For whatever purpose, everything has a street date. And just cause some CAGs will pay full retail on day doesn't mean they all do.

Borrowing and renting do nothing for the game publisher/developer. Used game sales do nothing for them. They get no $$$ to pay their employees and fund bigger and better games that you want to play. All of these are "legal" in the eyes of copyright laws, but in terms of the "effects of piracy", they all play out the same.

First off, you obviousley do not work in retail. All games are not street dated like Movies and Music. If you go to Gamestop to pick up Dragon Quest IV for the DS, they will most likely get the game the day after it ships. For other retailers such as Target, Wal Mart, and K-Mart they will receive it at there Distribution Centers the day after it ships. After they get it at the DC's it takes time for them to process it and get it on a trailer to their stores. For Street Dated items, everyone usually has the title in store about a week before the street date with big stickers that say "DO NOT SELL UNTIL OCT 17, 2008. Gamestop always brags about being the first to get the game, that is because they get the games shipped straight to the stores. Only big releases have a Street Date, not every game. Your not going to see a Target or Wal Mart employee turn you down if your trying to buy Cooking Mama 2 for the Wii when it comes out.

Also, borroring and renting is legitimate, it can act as a trial for a game before people commit to buy. It helps to determine if someone wants a game, sure there are those people out there that just mooch off of their friends, but at least the game was purchased in legal means. I believe that if there where restrictions on renting and borrowing, it would only create a bigger piracy problem.

[mightymaxx]

I said no, because you cannot knowingly allow any pirated game to be reviewed on your site. Nothing good will come of that for sure. There will also be no easy way to figure who pirated and who didn't with out some invasive procedure that will only discourage people from posting reviews early at all. Not to mention it'll put extra work on somebody to have to constantly verify receipts and it would all for nothing because I could photoshop you a nice receipt from gamestop in about 5 minutes. What I suggest is to allow CAGs to post early reviews, and just make it policy that their IP's are logged and kept in case you ever need to cover your ass, if you were ever legally questioned. Leave it to the CAG who published the early review to prove to the publisher that their early copy is legit, if it ever came down to that. Cag gets to stay the neutral 3rd party.

[crystalklear64]

Saying that we shouldn't allow this because it will encourage piracy creates the following situation:

Oh they voted yes on the poll and now I can post my impressions about games that I pirate before street date. I just have to not actually mention I pirated the game and all is well.
HOT DAMN I GUESS I BETTER GO PIRATE SOME GAMES SO I CAN POST EARLY IMPRESSIONS OF THEM ON CHEAPASSGAMER!!