Community Feedback Poll - Game Piracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='darthbudge']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.[/QUOTE]


That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..
 
[quote name='DJSteel']it's called a demo..try it out.. if you like it.. buy it.. if not then don't.. simple as that[/quote] and how many times has a demo come out 3 months after the game. or a month after the game??
 
[quote name='DJSteel']That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..[/QUOTE]

Well it is functionality. Personally, I want my game to function if I install it more than 3 times.
 
Games that have been pirated may not be indicative of a final retail product. So no, reviews of pirated games should not be allowed.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..[/QUOTE]
What?
I said its seen as better because it strips protection (ala starforce and drm) and you still get full content.. not extra content.
 
(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?
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Well it is functionality. Personally, I want my game to function if I install it more than 3 times.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
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 am just curious Cheapy, has any potential advertisers or so on, contacted you with concerns because some users might have been pirating games?
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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 :)
 
[quote name='DJSteel']it's called a demo..try it out.. if you like it.. buy it.. if not then don't.. simple as that[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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..[/QUOTE]

Ok sure. Must be nice living in another reality.

[quote name='manthing']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'?[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='DJSteel']That is not game functionality.. that is just file protection software.. I'm talking about game content..[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='DJSteel']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?[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='kingsoby1']Yes. Piracy is illegal, but reporting your impressions of a pirated game isn't. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mietha'] 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.[/QUOTE]

Que?
 
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 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 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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']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.[/QUOTE]

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..
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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...)
 
[quote name='smoger']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...)[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']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..[/QUOTE]
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Only to you...because you seem to really want it.[/quote]
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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 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.
 
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 ??
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

:applause::applause::applause:

Good Stuff. I feel the same way.
 
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]
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='corrosivefrost']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top