/games/ - Games

Due to the stuff with Sony no longer doing physical games and revoking licenses for digital purchases, a lot of people have been touting the line "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing."

This is a pathetic and shameful capitulation to copyright, and I would just like to remind everyone what the correct stance is, and provide a helpful piece of media to gently correct people saying this stupid bullshit in the wild. Copying is NOT theft (putting aside when theft is justifiable anyway) - it is a completely different thing and we need to combat copyright brain worms.

>>47318
>What is to be done
Stop buying, try to convince the majority of people to stop buying. Money talks, bullshit walks. Failing that, piracy + reverse engineering. Learn it, teach it, spread it.
>>47319
>If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing
>copying is NOT theft
it's the unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property, to which you cannot attain legal authorization of reproduction, because it doesn't exist. This is how the companies see things; Copying isn't theft in the conventional sense - you're not stealing an object that is then removed from another person's possession; Instead, you're duplicating a product without permission, and such permission is never granted, even when you put forth the cash to own a digital copy of that product.

The real problem with "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing" is that there was never any assumption or transfer of ownership taking place at any point prior to, during, or after the point of sale. You were always purchasing a license, which itself is subject to various stipulations and can be revoked if you are found in violation of those stipulations. This has always been the case, but with older consoles that primarily relied on physical distribution, the feasibility of revoking such a licence was both cost prohibitive and much too troublesome a prospect to have any real teeth behind it. Now, with digital distribution, that is not the case.

Personally, I am of the opinion that people should advocate for the mandatory inclusion of a second hand marketplace on every digital platform, so that consumers can trade or sell games from their library with other users, with no fees, and in exchange for actual currency. If a digital platform doesn't facilitate this, then they should be subject to whatever sort of appropriate punishment you can envision. It's the cleanest way of dealing with inflated digital prices, as far as I can see. If everyone has the ability to buy on the used marketplace a version of the latest game, at a price point set by users, then that allows the consumer to directly influence the trajectory of prices over time.

Why buy Red Dead, Dark Souls, etc. at FULL FUCKING PRICE in the year 2026 when you can get it from someone who doesn't want it for less than the price of a large two topping pizza? It only makes sense.
>won't users just price discriminate as hard as the online platform itself?
Not if they don't get any sales, they won't. People will naturally undercut one another and a price point for every game under the sun will eventually be determined by the market itself. Plus, you could always make trades without the use of money, right?

Of course, this might come with problems of its own that I can't foresee, but it's one small step in the right direction because it gives more power to the consumer, and the removal of digital distribution is both a calculated money saving move by console manufacturers, but also a method by which they can gain greater control over the software they distribute.

further evidence that video games are closer to silicon valley bullshit than art. you always could buy physical movies, music and books!

also doing this when drives are more expensive than ever and only getting worse is absolutely bloody hilarious

Why do people care so much about physical media. It is just a backwards and outdated way to get games that has become useless. I don't think any gamer on PC apart from retro hobbyists buy physical games, and there is no upside to it. Just download cracked games onto your SSD and you own them more than a physical release.

>>47324
>just spend $1000 on some ssd bro
have you even looked at the news? its so cute when performative leftoids try to seem le progressive (about consumer politics (!) of all things)

>>47325
Wtf is this ridiculous post? You can get a 1 terabyte SSD for like £40.

>>47327
>everyone lives in the country i live in
its always the namefags huh
bonus points for also having a flag

>>47327
I swear anglos are completely oblivious to how cheap their electronics are. Even being from yurop, getting 4x4 terabyte HDDs for my ZFS mirror set me back more than $300. SSDs start at about $150.

>>47329
>SSDs start at about $150
and thats the shittiest nand-less drives!

>>47325
>all my games come with X terabytes of data
This is the reason you should only play games released more than 20 years ago. I downloaded the entire PC-Engine catalogue and it only weighs a little more than 600 megabytes!

The piracy will continue until morale improves

Flood
Flood
Flood
Flood

>>47329
Don't call me an anglo. Anyway I bet you only care because you have a PS5 or something, you make loads of money from your german job and are too stupid to do anything but buy the newest console. Germany should have been wiped out after the second world war and then we wouldn't have to deal with people like you.

I think we have reached the peak of consumer technology. Every new breakthrough on whatever computing power or storage efficiency will only benefit data centers. Consumers will get scraps and old hardware. New hardware will not be compatible with what we have now. It's literally over.

>>47336
>anglo first-worlder third-worldist immediately deflects after making incredibly retarded posts
What a worthless human being.

>>47336
Sorry S, but that was literally one of the most anglo things to say to someone. I'm not like the other germs, so the only console i own is a hacked switch i bought in 2018.

>>47339
ugh I guess it was lol

>>47339
>hacked switch
holy cringe why didn't you just download a free pc switch emulator like everyone else with a brain

>>47321
>you're not stealing an object that is then removed from another person's possession; Instead, you're duplicating a product without permission
Yes, which is to say they are completely different things irrespective of whether you think either of them is bad.
>You were always purchasing a license
That's simply false, you used to be buying a physical copy of the software on a disc, much like you would buy a physical book.
>mandatory inclusion of a second hand marketplace on every digital platform
No we should just support digital piracy instead of creating some new variant of the NFT type of scheme where we make infinitely copyable data artificially scarce. The correct stance on IP is to abolish it. Limp reforms like transferable licenses is just changing the way that the consumers are restricted in their ownership and use of the software. It doesn't give more power to the consumers when they can just pirate the games already. If you're concerned about the economic viability of making games, then we need either a different sort of pricing scheme entirely (one that isn't based on gatekeeping the games from the players), or something like public funding for the arts supporting game development, and treating the output as universally owned wealth of society.

>>47343
>a physical copy of the software on a disc
if you read the back of the box it's a license that could technically be revoked at any time,it's just that they have to physically come take the disc

>>47347
>technically
meaning "not"

tbh i think companies moving away from physical distribution is good insofar as consumers can't conceptualize ownership the same way unless they own a physical commodity and the lack of physicality makes arguments against intellectual property and software licensing easier to digest. and also you're like 10 years too late because nintendo literally does not do physical distribution either, the cartridges no longer have game files in them. a bunch of ps5 games were the exact same, keys to access downloadable files.

>>47343
>stealing and piracy are different things
Eh, in some technical sense, but you're splitting hairs. What's happening in both cases is that a transaction is being circumvented; In the case of theft, a thief is doing so because they want the goods, but are unwilling to make a legal transaction to attain those goods, and is resorting to taking them from another person, who presumably made that legal transaction. The victim loses out of both the currency they spent on the goods in question and the time it took to earn that currency, as well as the goods themselves.

Piracy, on the other hand, is the circumvention of a legal transaction to attain a license for use of a good (or service), by procuring a 1:1 duplication of the good or service in question, thereby attaining an unauthorized copy. The end result is that the vendor of said good is not monetarily compensated for the use of the good or service in question, which constitutes a loss of revenue.

In both cases, there is a tangible loss and a tangible gain by the victims of theft and piracy, irrespective of whether you think either of them is bad.
>That's simply false, you used to be buying a physical copy of the software on a disc, much like you would buy a physical book
You're mistaken; when you purchase a book, you do not claim ownership of the work in question, merely the parchment upon which it was printed. In the same way, you claim no ownership of a physical video game, just a personal, non-transferable, non-commercial, license to consume it.
>we should support digital piracy
I support piracy, but you can't just dismiss that piracy is still illegal. If you want a legal solution, the so-called limp NFT variant scheme is a marginally effective proposal with little downsides. Make an actual objection of said proposal on some practical basis, why don't you. In other words, piracy is only a viable alternative for those who have no qualms about bending the law. I understand that many people don't care, myself included, but you can't assume that everyone is going to adhere to your sense of morality. I am not a moralfag in this regard, but any proposed solution to the digital only fuckery should presumably operate within the confines of the law.
>a different sort of pricing scheme
Like what?
>public funding for the arts supporting game development, and treating the output as universally owned wealth of society
I can get behind that.

>>47350
>What's happening in both cases is that a transaction is being circumvented
"Lost sales" is not a real thing. It's just wish casting. What's happening in the case of theft is the physical loss of an item. You don't have to be a merchant for someone to steal from you.
>The victim loses out of both the currency they spent on the goods in question and the time it took to earn that currency, as well as the goods themselves.
Piracy does not take anything away from the producer or seller that simply refusing to buy would not also "take away" from them.

>when you purchase a book, you do not claim ownership of the work in question, merely the parchment upon which it was printed.
Yes and you are free to do whatever you want with that. You can write in the margins, white out and replace text, remove and re-order or add pages, rip out pages to wipe your ass with, burn the book, copy parts of it etc. Digital licensed software has the capability to mechanically stop you from doing what you want with it.
>I support piracy, but you can't just dismiss that piracy is still illegal.
Normies already say "if buying isn't owning piracy isn't stealing," so you are behind them on this. I'm pushing them to be more radical in their outlook on property, while you're arguing to be more conservative than a lot of the average consumers.

>>a different sort of pricing scheme
>Like what?
There are plenty of alternatives that have been explored, from freemium and games-as-service on the more exploitative end to pay-what-you-want donationware on the other extreme. As technology for monetization advances and more people with disposable income look elsewhere than AAA, there will doubtless be more innovation in the field.

>>47351
>"Lost sales" is not a real thing. It's just wish casting
No, "wish casting" is when I imagine that Taylor Swift will personally break into my window in the middle of the night and say
<let's get out of here, loser. I'm here to save your life
What the corporations are doing are setting expectations for the "performance" of their product. You can argue that their desire to see 500 million copies sold, or whatever arbitrary number, is wishful thinking, and I'd agree. You can argue that they're not entitled to a profit if they've made a subpar product and no one wants to buy it, with which I'd agree. However, you can't say they aren't entitled to compensation for their work. Money is a resource, and some amount of money went into the production of the software in question; Labor paid to the proles who wrote the software; Licensing for third party software like physics engines and whatnot to be used in development, alongside physical hardware like computer components; Money put into whatever the advertising campaign cooked up, and post launch quality assurance, etc. The point being, there was an investment made with the expectation of some amount of return. They're not offering their product for free, and really, if you think you're entitled to anything for free, that's wishful thinking on your part, as long as we live in a capitalist system.
>Piracy does not take anything away from the producer or seller that simply refusing to buy would not also "take away" from them
Generally, when you pirate a product, you are not contributing to the recouping of those costs, nor are you contributing to any profit the product may have made. Again, I support piracy, because I believe the publishers and online distribution platforms are greedy scumfucks who will abuse the consumer at every opportunity, as long as it generates more revenue, because they don't care about integrity or art or anything else but the profit motive. That is a good enough reason to abstain from their shitty products all together, rather than waste time acquiring an unauthorized copy, but if you're so inclined, then fucking go for it.

However, piracy itself can never be a solution, because it's illegal, it will never will be legal (at least in the USA), and these corporations are working day and night to eradicate it. It's not a feasible solution that fits into the market. Piracy is opting to go outside of the market, for your own benefit. So, I ask you; What happens when they get rid of piracy for good? Then what? That's why you have to explore alternatives that fit into the market, like a second-hand digital marketplace. By all means, if you can come up with something better than that, then do it, but you're high on the fumes of revolution if you think that piracy is going to 1) destroy the video game industry 2) make meaningful change within the video game industry. Piracy is a crack in the wall, and something that they can deal with given enough time. You can't take piracy for granted as something that will always be available.
>Digital licensed software has the capability to mechanically stop you from doing what you want with it
Then lobby against DRM, because digital licensed software can also exist without such limitations.
>freemium games-as-a-service
>pay-what-you-want donationware
Both of those already exist within the current paradigm, and neither one is going to supersede the typical one-time-payment style of transaction in exchange for a license.

Anyway, all of this to say, here are some real responses to the current state of the market:

1. Do not consume, it's just that simple. If you don't support the products being made, then why would you want an unauthorized copy of such a product?
   
2. Pirate while you can. Piracy has been around for as long as the internet has been around, but who knows when that might change. Get your goods while the getting's good
   
3. Advocate for pro-consumer interests in varous forms, including solutions like a second-hand digital marketplace, the abolition of DRM, and punishment of anti-consumer practices (i.e. Steam's de facto monoploy is bad for the online distribution environment)
   

>>47318
>Other forms of media are already largely handled through full streaming at the point of access.
And they're successfully pirated because digital information is very easy to copy no matter what. The technical measures they come up with can only make it more of a pain in the ass.

>>47352
Mate, the whole point about digital only is that you cant get a used copy on the market. Sure piracy wont ever be legal in a capitalist society but why should they not clamp down on the second hand market also? Nintendo (or apple) can charge humongous prices for their software or hardware respectively and it sadly works. And sadly, it seems that in the current direction we are headed, key resellers (which have been becoming very popular for a while now) will become illegal at some point into the future.

>>47352
piracy HAS to work because it's not only a means of obtaining stuff, it's literally a means of archival. clamping down piracy worries me more than digital distribution ever will, because that means losing access to shitton of movies, video games and music IP holders have 0 interest in distributing in my country

This shit is so annoying!
I have no idea how anyone can be a capitalist in 2026

>>47359
at the end of the day all games are 1s and 0s so as long as nerds have the time and energy to decompile and/or crack games, they cannot be gatekept. As long as we have access to portable storage devices, we can share media, even if it has to go offline.

>>47363
a capitalist is a person who owns means of production and exploits workers. people like being capitalist because it makes them a lot of money. a capitalist is not simply a worker who "believes capitalism is the best system". that's called false consciousness.

>>47324
>caring about physical media
This is childish discourse. DRM is what should be talked about. For fucking decades physical releases have meant jack shit. So many physical games require online authentification and in today's age with the normalizing of half-ass releases and "redemption-arcs" so many games on release will be updated coutless time, having a physical 1.0 copy just doesn't make much sense unless publishers just want to make some extra coin off collectionists via fomo.

Crack a final version of a game to make it drm free, put it on a disk or portable drive. There you go, physical media. Hell, for a little extra money pay someone on etsy to make you a replica or custom box/case. The outcry for physical media is the outcry for corporate handholding. We don't need the corpos to enjoy games.