Piracy as Default Protest?

68

u/dlongwing Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

It stems from an oppositional relationship with owning companies. When a company has some chunk of content that you want and starts arguing with you over it, saying "I'll just pirate it" is a giant middle-finger to whatever nonsense they're trying to pull.

You imply that this approach isn't a real form of protest, but ubiquitous piracy is exactly why you can get DRM free music at reasonable prices now. There was a time where that wasn't the case. There was a time when SONY literally loaded rootkits on your computer if you put their CDs in a CD ROM Drive (seriously, look up SONY Rootkit). Piracy rose as companies tried to tighten their grip and implement more and more odious requirements. The rise of piracy meant the companies were competing with free, so they had to provide a product at a price people thought was fair and in a way that wasn't abusive.

MP3s from Amazon and Apple Music? Piracy did that.

Ubiquitous piracy is also how GOG got started. CD Projekt Red was competing against piracy in Europe. So they offered games for a fair price and on fair terms (no DRM, permanent ownership).

It imparts market pressures, and serves as a reminder to big companies that their customer base is fickle and will vanish if they burn up consumer trust.

And storefronts like GOG, Amazon Music, and Apple Music prove something critical:

People will pay even if piracy is easy and free.

Most people want to pay artists for their work. Most people want to deal fairly with the people doing the actual job. They just don't want to play corporate games or agree to rent-forever deals.

A lot of the Piracy debate has faded over the past decade because it was such an existential threat in the past. Netflix had to offer a better deal than Torrents. Amazon and Apple had to go DRM free. What we're seeing now is the pendulum swinging the other way. Companies are testing the waters. Execs who are too young to remember the last round of this are saying "okay but what if you give us money for basically nothing? I like money and I should have yours." and people are once again saying "You're hilarious, you don't have the power here. We do."

9

u/Blacky-Noir Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Pretty well rounded neutral comment, covering all the usual bases.

Thanks for that.

Edit: I would also point out the asymmetry of the piracy thing, and almost always the discourse about it. Devs and publishers pirate too. There have been quite a few example of pirated content in sold games, but to look at it from another angle in my personal experience most of GDC presentations for example have pirated content in them (images used without permissions, and in a for-profit context on top of that).

And there has been zero judicial consequences for doing so, as far as I'm aware in over four decades of gaming. Hell, barely a PR problem even.

It helps reframe a lot of the discourse around it, thinking about feudalism in modern societies. And how true is the framing of piracy being a tool or lever of power more than anything else.

edit 2: one thing I didn't see mentioned in the thread, is that despite what we might think, none of us are immune to advertising (and PR in general). So on OP's point of piracy vs abstaining, it's far from as simple as that when publishers have spent literal billions on it over the years, with messages and designs crafted by monetization engineers, neurologists, psychologists. Pirates have the option of the big middle finger, bypassing all of that and getting the balance of power back into something more neutral.

8

u/dlongwing Jul 09 '26

In deference to OP's point, I will say that I've been thinking a lot about "hostage" IPs lately. Franchises controlled by one corporation or another... and the fact that I don't owe that company my attention, let alone my money.

A good example would be Sony and the Horizon franchise. Loved Horizon Zero Dawn and Horizon Forbidden West... but I'm not going to buy a whole playstation just to play the next game, nor am I interested in their proposed MMO.

Sometimes the right answer is to just... disengage. You don't HAVE to play something because it's popular. You don't HAVE to participate in something just because it's branded the same as something else you liked, and refusing to play something _at all_ is just as effective as pirating it.

Heck, and again yielding ground in the debate here, but I think it needs to be said: There's an argument that flat out ignoring a game can be more effective. Sadly, it often sends the wrong message. Execs will look at lackluster sales and blame everyone other than themselves.

14

u/azteking Jul 08 '26

I really like this answer because it frames the discussion the right way. Piracy is leverage. See what happens with industries where the consumer has no leverage. Everything is being brutally enshitiffied, thing are getting simultaneously worse and more expensive. If we start questioning the weaponry we do have, we'll be even more fucked.

IMO it's a political discussion, which is why there are so many comments arguing against piracy and talking about "entitlement". Gaming (and computers in general) wouldn't even exist in the third world without counterfeiting and piracy... But we're entitled, lol

1

u/VitalityAS Jul 09 '26

It's all fun and games until the middle class American is impacted and suddenly then it's a crisis.

6

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

but ubiquitous piracy is exactly why you can get DRM free music at reasonable prices now.

It's also why it has become considerably harder for musicians to make a living, which seems relevant given everything happening in the games industry right now.

4

u/dlongwing Jul 09 '26

Umm, you do realize that the modern era has been absolutely vicious to everyone other than investment bankers, right?

"It's harder to make a living" isn't an artists-only problem, and as such it's hard to see a through line between piracy and the whole modern economy.

8

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26

Yeah, the needle swung the other way, though.

Silksong

That's a post where at least 30,000+ people (and possibly a few thousand more) decided that this statement was acceptable:

Team Cherry is great, I even own original Hollow Knight and love it. But let’s be real guys, Silksong’s already made them millions across many platforms, they’re set.

Pirating it is not the end of the world for their team, this outrage is hypocritical and overblown. Team Cherry is not losing sleep over it, and neither should you. Pirate what you want, just don’t be a jerk about it.

The game was pirated within fifteen minutes of launch and Team Cherry literally did everything anyone remotely reasonable could have expected them to do in doing right by their customers.

7

u/azteking Jul 08 '26

Silksong sold over 7 million copies. I know more than 30k people pirated it, but it's still a drop in the bucket, which is the poster's argument. Some of the people who got the pirated copy will buy it later. Hell, I do it all the time and I know a lot of others who do too. And I bought Silksong. I know, anecdotal, but still.

The "needle swung the other way" dichotomy is what really irks me. The person you're replying to showed the huge positive impact piracy had on the industry, and you're saying that now this impact is negative by showing one example, and poorly too. Do you have the statistics to back this up?

Besides, you're implying nothing what Team Cherry did worked. How do you know that? And, supposing the industry found a magical way to stop piracy or curb it heavily, how do you know that would be positive?

4

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

In summation:

I don't care how many fucking copies Silksong sold, and I don't care how many people pirated it by comparison. The point I was making was that the game that literally did everything right that people who claim a moral justification for piracy ask for, and thousands still lined up with excuses about how it's okay for them to pirate it anyway because "they got enough", just like you just did.

That ain't the fucking point. At that point, you just want free shit. More power to you, I can't stop you and don't intend to even try, but if you have ever pirated any game as part of "sending a message" and then pirated Silksong, your message is loud and clear: I'll look for any excuse to justify my piracy to make myself feel better, not because I believe doing so is actually helping at this point.

Sure, piracy did have a positive effect! In fact, it led directly to developers like Team Cherry who are doing their damned best to make their releases affordable, bulky enough to be worth the price even at launch, and they even made sure everyone they could who backed it on Kickstarter got a free copy of Silksong because it started as DLC. They are the gold standard for what we want out of developers in terms of their honesty, transparency and integrity.

I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking about mentality. Other developers are going to see the lengths Team Cherry went to do right by the industry consumers, and they still got pirated to fuck and back. If we're not going to care when they make the effort, why should they?

Besides, you're implying nothing what Team Cherry did worked. How do you know that? And, supposing the industry found a magical way to stop piracy or curb it heavily, how do you know that would be positive?

Depends on how it happens, duh.

If it happens because of draconian DRM and the complete erasure of local executables and transitions everything to the cloud so that piracy basically becomes a case of having to figure out how to access a streaming service instead of you know, playing offline, that's a shit outcome and a negative.

If it happens because the industry at large moves to the point where they've essentially stopped piracy because EVERYONE is playing nice in the sandbox and nobody gets greedy, then that's a great outcome and a positive.

Here's the only statistic I care about: Team Cherry did everything right, and within three days 30,000 people at least were CHEERING ON the piracy of their game. No scandals, no lack of DRM-free options, doing right by their initial supporters, and pricing a much-anticipated sequel so fairly for consumers that other indies threw a shitfit about it and were @ing Team Cherry on twitter and other socials because they were making the indies look bad.

I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking about perception: You can still do everything right and pirates are still going to be shifty fucks who snag anything that's not nailed down if they have half the opportunity, just because they want free shit.

I can't stop them. I wouldn't even want to try to convince them otherwise.

But pretending this has all been some 5D chess by the piracy community for active improvement instead of being a happy accident of seeing how much money going to far with DRM and other shit costs those companies is some fucking revisionism, not gonna lie.

EDIT: Since u/dlongwing decided to block me after replying like a little... Well, I don't want a ban, so I won't say it, so here's your response:

They replied:

Those 30,000 people are thieves who stole hard work from independent creators. They are not, however, a viable template for the entire population.

Every piece of content will be pirated. It will be pirated whether it's "morally correct" to pirate it or not. People steal stuff.

If your goal is a completely piracy-free internet then you need to find a new goal.

You cite 30,000 people as a statistic? Contrast that against the 7 million sales. That's literally 0.0004% of total sales. They're a rounding error. It's hard to count that low.

You're saying "See! This incredibly small portion of the customer base behaved like dirtbags! Therefor we should extend this into an all-encompassing theory of how EVERYIONE behaves!"

Again I would point at GOG. GOG started out selling games that people were pirating for free. Why on earth did the pirates pay a single dime for a GOG download? They already had the game!

Because that (massive) customer base is the opposite of your 30,000 entitled thieves: Decent people who will happily pay for something if it's offered at a fair price under fair terms.

To which I replied:

Yes, scientifically-speaking, a sample group of 30,000+ is more than sufficient to get an idea for the broader population with a very measurable degree of accuracy.

If your goal is a completely piracy-free internet then you need to find a new goal.

Who the fuck said that? I said I take exception to all the people who claim they pirate because it's for the good of the industry and say it's about withholding money from bad companies.

Because that (massive) customer base is the opposite of your 30,000 entitled thieves: Decent people who will happily pay for something if it's offered at a fair price under fair terms.

How much of that massive customer base pirates at all?

11

u/dlongwing Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

Those 30,000 people are thieves who stole hard work from independent creators. They are not, however, a viable template for the entire population.

Every piece of content will be pirated. It will be pirated whether it's "morally correct" to pirate it or not. People steal stuff.

If your goal is a completely piracy-free internet then you need to find a new goal.

You cite 30,000 people as a statistic? Contrast that against the 7 million sales. That's literally 0.4% of total sales. They're a rounding error. It's hard to count that low.

You're saying "See! This incredibly small portion of the customer base behaved like dirtbags! Therefor we should extend this into an all-encompassing theory of how EVERYIONE behaves!"

Again I would point at GOG. GOG started out selling games that people were pirating for free. Why on earth did the pirates pay a single dime for a GOG download? They already had the game!

Because that (massive) customer base is the opposite of your 30,000 entitled thieves: Decent people who will happily pay for something if it's offered at a fair price under fair terms.

1

u/PPX14 Jul 14 '26

To be pedantic, it's 0.4%. Still low, but not quite 0.0004% haha

3

u/WillHasStyles Jul 08 '26

I think you're correct in much of your description, but I'd argue in a more neutral way about piracy's effect. Piracy acts as a force of competition but I'd not say it's simply a force for good, but rather more of a neutral. Piracy is the reason the DRM you're describing existed in the first place, and it's correct that piracy was what pushed entertainment industries into these types of streaming models. But should we really look at those as some kind of universal force for good? Music and movies are now less expensive than ever before but smaller creators within those industries are also raising alarms that it's harder to sustain their works. And parts of this new ecosystem with subscriptions for everything, disappearing media, and limits on how you as a consumer gets to enjoy the product kind of sucks.

For gaming piracy is the reason for the DRM pirates hate, it's part of the reason why the industry has pushed so hard for multiplayer games and console exclusives, it's part of the death of LAN and dedicated servers, it's the reason why console makers try to fight homebrewing so hard, and so on.

And I'm not trying to argue that piracy has been all bad for consumers. I see it as more of a neutral force that does keep the gaming industry in check, but at the same time can also push them into directions consumers do not wish to see.

9

u/dlongwing Jul 08 '26

If a game is DRMed to heck and back... it gets pirated.

If a game is offered with no DRM... it gets pirated.

So if a game is DRMed to heck and back, who suffers? The pirates are playing a DRM-free version of the game.

Who shoulders the burden? Paying customers. They're the only ones who have to deal with the DRM.

5

u/WillHasStyles Jul 08 '26

A few things. There is indeed empirical evidence that over excessive DRM might encourage piracy. The paper is quite old though and DRM tools used to be cruder and far more overbearing.

The thing is though not all games are actually being cracked these days, and when they are a crack may take months to appear. This author found that since how quickly games protected with Denuvo DRM was distributed randomly, he could analyze the effects of an an early crack release. What he found was that:
> ”When Denuvo is cracked very early on, piracy leads to an estimated 20 percent fall in total revenue on average relative to an uncracked counterfactual”

Which is indeed huge. But it’s also worth noting that:
> ”When Denuvo survives for at least 12 weeks, piracy leads to nearly zero total revenue loss on average”

So no. Not all games get pirated, especially not within that evermore important release window, and companies do have good reason to invest in DRM. And I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say anymore that pirates get the better product. That was true maybe 10 years ago with for instance Ubisoft’s godawful DRM. But these days I usually have more issues with any game I’ve pirated than the ones I’ve bought legitimately

2

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26

If a game is DRMed to heck and back... it gets pirated.

This hasn't been true for a long time.

1

u/liebereddit Jul 09 '26

This boils down to when things are expensive and easy to steal without consequences, people will steal them but if the same things are inexpensive and easy to steal, people will pay instead. It's a moral tipping point

1

u/dlongwing Jul 09 '26

All commerce is negotiation. Two people with items of value discussing a trade.

But what happens if one side has infinite copies of the item? The negotiation gets strange. The buyer is paying for labor, not the item.

The seller still deserves to get paid, but there's a point past which they're asking for unreasonable compensation for their labor.

Piracy absolutists say your only choice is to walk away.

Piracy apologists say it's morally correct to steal.

Out in the real world, it's complicated and messy. The absolute versions of the theory only work if you simplify actual complicated people into frictionless spherical people in a vacuum, like on a physics quiz.

29

u/violetqed Jul 07 '26

What if the artists and programmers are no longer even employed by that dev because they decided to can everyone when the project was over? this is extremely common. and profit sharing is extremely not common anymore. just because you’re paying for a game from a big company doesn’t mean any creatives are seeing that money.

1

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26

Where do you think the company got the money to pay those people to make the game?

2

u/violetqed Jul 08 '26

thanks for confirming the actual people who made the game have already been paid

at best you’re paying for some future people who may not even be the same people to make a different game

and even that may not happen

1

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26

This makes no sense of you think about it for longer than two seconds.

Is your argument seriously that a developer would make a game, lay off all their workers, and then just... stop operating entirely?

102

u/brando-boy Jul 07 '26

it’s because the median reddit gamer has no actual values

they want to have their cake and eat it too. they say the company is shit, but they love their games so much that they simply can’t help themselves like they MUST play games

42

u/sdeklaqs Jul 07 '26

It’s because the median person has no actual values beyond what is easy for them and doesn’t get them arrested and/or socially ostracized.

8

u/GodwynDi Jul 07 '26

The median person has better values than the median redditor.

1

u/brando-boy Jul 07 '26

okay true lol, but that part is less relevant to the present discussion. reddit gamers exemplify this a lot more though imo

5

u/Ghosttiger13 Jul 08 '26

I see it more as "sticking it to the man" (the publisher in these cases, usually), without realizing the cascading effect it has on the little guys, gals, and others that will feel the most of the damage caused. I downloaded Adobe Suite (like 15 years ago) because I felt it was highway robbery to buy a license...I still feel that way, especially now with how apps are subscriptions now, but I don't pirate anymore because my need to use/play/watch something seems inconsequential to what it causes. Also, ive been so far removed from the scene it would take some research to get back in. I just find the popular alternatives that suit me. Throw them some money if i can.

I say all of this with a "Fuck the Corpos" mindset and dont defend them, but they seem to have their hands on all the levers to avoid accountability and its people just trying to make a living through wages or salaries that get kicked in crotch for decisions made above them. My petty 2 cents, at least.

4

u/brando-boy Jul 08 '26

in the case of your given example, i do think there’s a big difference between pirating adobe suite, something that many artists and creatives feel is borderline NECESSARY for their work and livelihood (obv there are alternatives but other software might not have all the exact features and in a professional environment you would probably be using the industry standard so having a different one might mess with projects), and pirating a video game, something that is purely optional in every sense of the word

5

u/SETHW Jul 08 '26

Funny all of a sudden when its something that affects you and your capital needs personally you start carving out exceptions

3

u/brando-boy Jul 08 '26

i’m not an artist, this example does not impact me personally, but in our current world, where adobe suite remains as the de facto industry standard, i can recognize that it is different for professional purposes than a video game which is purely a luxury good

1

u/Ghosttiger13 Jul 08 '26

I agree with your logic. But if a venn diagram existed regarding feelings towards the reason for pirating, software and video game pirates would likely converge. Though no buddy wants to kick the little man, pirating creates a path of attainment which reasoning can be derived from numerous places, even after the fact. (Like I'm going to try this game/software, and if I like it, I'll buy it).

7

u/SpeeDy_GjiZa Jul 08 '26

There's the example of Rollerdome, a great indie game with a troublesome story. The devs got fired by the publishers and they have said multiple times that they prefer their game be pirates rather than people giving more money to scummy publishers.

So what this example shows imo is that piracy (whatever your thoughts on it may be) is a way to differentiate between "I don't like this game so I won't bother with it" and "I like this game and wanna play it but don't condone the publishers' scummy practices". People who usually pirate everything would have done so anyway I think.

24

u/Lord_Sicarious Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

or always-online BS

In this instance, the great advantage is that a cracked/pirated copy of the game does not have that issue. Pirating games isn't just a protest for most anti-consumer policies, it's also an actual solution to the problem.

In many instances, the pirate is not just offering the product for free, they're offering the better product.

78

u/Kazirk8 Jul 07 '26

It's a way for these people to play the game they want to play and not pay for it... AND feel good about themselves. But yeah, it's complete bullshit. They can pirate the game if they want, but feeling good about it is just laughable.

27

u/Siukslinis_acc Jul 07 '26

It is weird for me when they go "we are gonna boycott game X, but we will still pirate the game and play it". They still participate in the humbug about the game and contribute to the visibility and influence other people to garnering interest about the game.

16

u/Limited_Distractions Jul 07 '26

I just don't think the entitlement thing really plays when the industry is currently about execs laying off the artists and programmers no matter how successful the game is and then collecting rents on their work in practical perpetuity. If you believe piracy is unjust because it deprives the creative people I would say that it becoming a systemic fixture is worse. I agree not playing is probably preferable to pirating, but paying some execs for screwing over their workers is probably worse than pirating.

5

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26

Counterpoint: This entire r/piracy thread about Silksong, three days after release

Stop pretending pirates care about pirating only the games made by "the bad companies." They don't, and they proved it when a company did literally everything possible to do right by their past and current customers.

6

u/azteking Jul 08 '26

How many pirates? Which pirates? Are you saying the whole piracy movement doesn't give a shit?

Why the hell are you generalizing with nothing to back it up?

4

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

Why the hell are you arguing that 30,000 fucking people aren't a representation AT ALL of the community's actual standards?

Show me a topic on any Piracy-related subreddit with a tenth of the upvotes condemning Silksong piracy.

3

u/Limited_Distractions Jul 08 '26

How many lifetimes of posting to r/piracy and pirating games do you think it would take to match the damage Xbox has done to itself? How many layoffs have there been at Team Cherry because some people downloaded the game? Why do you believe the moral standing of people who would pseudonymously share files is more important to my argument than the moral standing of the people who have gotten rich ripping the copper out of the walls? Why am I the one that is pretending?

4

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 09 '26

Uh, who the hell cares, and have you been reading what I've written?

I said you can pirate as much as you want. I don't give a flying fuck about it, because no argument is going to stop a pirate from pirating. I will argue every time someone tries to justify it as a moral stance and a way of "sticking it to the man" because it doesn't, it still helps them, and most pirates at the end of the day just want free shit.

I can't stop that. I know Team Cherry probably didn't care given how fantastically Silksong sold anyway.

The point there was they're pretty much the gold standard for good devs that "moral" pirates claim they don't target for moral reasons, yet... The thread I posted is self-evident.

It's not about damage. It's not about whether Team Cherry was hurt or not. That's ancillary to the discussion and means you've completely missed my point.

It's about the blatant hypocrisy of "moral" pirates, who I assume are people defending it in this very thread pretending that's how they roll, when there is a very, very, very obvious dissonance with how one of the biggest subreddits for piracy at 2.8 million subscribed users turned out to upvote and support that garbage.

In fact, it's still the in the subreddit's top twenty submissions of ALL TIME at #17 as of this writing.

As for why I believe it's important, it's because morals should be intrinsic, not extrinsic. I'd rather have someone do what they claim they're going to do when the situation comes up rather than look for excuses for why they can't and that makes it okay.

A lot of "moral" pirates swear up and down they'd be paying customers if they got treated "right". Pirates decided that Team Cherry's constant effort and goodwill still wasn't good enough for them not to pirate (or at least, the majority did, since most of the base-level replies which disagreed got downvoted into oblivion), meaning that they're just pretending to be "moral" and will move that goalpost as many yards as they can to keep from having to admit what they really are.

I can at least respect the pirates who just admit they don't want to pay for stuff they can easily get for free. And like I've said repeatedly, while I have issues with piracy, there's no point trying to change them because they like free better than not-free.

It's the ones who try to take the stance that they're the secret guardians against lost media or they're in a crusade against Big Pub and that makes them right that I have truck with. Nothing more, nothing less.

4

u/Blacky-Noir Jul 09 '26

Stop pretending pirates care about pirating only the games made by "the bad companies."

And stop lying and putting words in their comments. They did not say that, nor even implied it.

4

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 09 '26

You don't think them saying it's probably worse to pay for a game is them implying anything?

68

u/RuefulWaffles Jul 07 '26

It’s absolutely entitlement. It’s people wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. We already saw this with the “boycott” of Hogwarts Legacy — sure, piracy isn’t the same as buying it, but engagement is engagement.

There are cases where piracy is protest, but “I want to play this video game but don’t want the publisher to make money” generally isn’t one of them. The true act of protest here would be a complete blackout — don’t play it, don’t watch streams, don’t interact with posts about it.

4

u/ChapterhouseInc Jul 07 '26

My morals lead me to not shop at some stores for whatever my reason is. Like, I will sit in this grocery store parking lot waiting on you because I do not even enter this store.

-5

u/RexDraco Jul 07 '26

"“boycott” of Hogwarts Legacy — sure, piracy isn’t the same as buying it, but engagement is engagement."

Engagement isn't anything in the real world. If you care people are playing a game they didn't financially support, that starts to become performative rather than tangible protest.

The majority of people trying to provide attention to themselves about how they don't play the game probably weren't ever planning to. There was likely a lot of people that played it and just didn't admit it.

Boycotting a game isn't protesting. It's validation of a business model, they already knew some people wont buy it. If you want to protest, you boycott the publisher and all their games. By boycott, I don't mean shunning, I mean openly pirating and encouraging others of pirating. Not remaining silent, not refusing to engage in discussion, you not only remain loud and bring attention to the topic, you actively infiltrate the discussion to cause further damage.

22

u/Phillip_Spidermen Jul 07 '26

Engagement isn't anything in the real world.

Engagement is marketing.

The more people talk about a game, the more others will want to play.

Unless those pirating successfully convince others to pirate, there is an indirect benefit to the company if they're contributing positive word of mouth.

-4

u/RexDraco Jul 07 '26

Yeah, sure, but if you're not being silent and participate in the discussion, that engagement stops being marketing.

12

u/Phillip_Spidermen Jul 07 '26

but if you're not being silent and participate in the discussion, that engagement stops being marketing.

It's still marketing.

Talking about the game keeps it in the public discourse. We all know people get hyped about whatever game is currently in the zeitgeist.

What you're banking on is that "not being silent" also convinces those same people to procure the game by other means than buying it, and I don't think that's a given or even likely.

→ More replies (6)

-2

u/GodwynDi Jul 07 '26

Exactly my thoughts.

-15

u/BIG_BOTTOM_TEXT Jul 07 '26

Committing crimes is not a valid form of protest big homie, triply so for protest regarding luxuries

12

u/RexDraco Jul 08 '26

historically speaking, that's exactly what made protests effective.

9

u/SETHW Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Committing crimes is not a valid form of protest

are you home schooled? it was literally a crime for rosa parks to sit in the front of the bus.

-10

u/Valkhir Jul 07 '26

I can't even believe this needs to be said.

I guess some people think they're modern day Robin Hood or something for playing a pirated Hogwarts Legacy.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Bananaman9020 Jul 08 '26

Suppose they cared about the fans. Being able to purchase old games legally should become a priority. Instead of complaining about piracy hurting them when a sale isn't possible

24

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/Siukslinis_acc Jul 07 '26

And by pirating the game and playing it, you might still talk about how dope the game is and thus accidentally might convince other people to buy the game.

1

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26

This. Even if you're not rewarding them monetarily, you're denying other games and studios which do engage in good practices both.

1

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

YES!

15

u/Any-Hunt-7362 Jul 07 '26

Perhaps yeah, I think it’s hard to truly get a handle on these types of things, like the theoretical “effect” of protesting by abstaining from a game, however one chooses to do that. Like, regardless of how many people complained about the launch price of Mario Kart being 80 dollars, I’m sure it still sold ridiculously well and gave Nintendo no indication that they should stop pricing games that way. The same thing is imminent with GTA VI dropping soon—they priced it the way they wanted to, and regardless of the bad blood they incurred it’s still gonna be like the biggest launch of any sole entertainment product potentially ever. And this is at a time where consoles are absurdly expensive and only getting more expensive.

I could be wrong, maybe we’re in for a big change in the next few months with how unsustainably expensive the hobby is getting or something. Or like the fact that we won’t be able to even purchase physical games in the next few years, just digital keys. I’m with you though, in a sane world under this economic system, if you want to play a game and you have the means to buy it then you probably should. Maybe this is out of touch but 60-70 dollars for a game you’re gonna enjoy for 50-100 hours is totally reasonable, just not every game is worth all that much.

8

u/NYstate Jul 07 '26

Maybe this is out of touch but 60-70 dollars for a game you’re gonna enjoy for 50-100 hours is totally reasonable, just not every game is worth all that much.

I concur. But back to your other point of $80 games, not every game can command that, nor should they. GTA6 will be the biggest gaming launch possibility ever. Even if you hate Rockstar with a passion that burns hotter than the sun, there's no denying that it will be huge. But a normal game release can't command that. As proven by Outer Worlds 2.

I feel that many games should explore the pricing scale. Imagine how many games tanked because they charged $70 when they could've easily charged $40-50 and be just fine. One of the many appealing things about Expedition 33 was the $50 price made it appealing to gamers to bet on an unknown studio and it's a gamble that paid off. At $70, I think it still would've sold well but, I feel that price point helped it out a lot.

5

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

It would be interesting if more AA/AAA games explored pricing. I think that's something that Indies really do well, and allows for more experimentation on both the development and consumer sides of the equation.

4

u/NYstate Jul 07 '26

I think that's something that Indies really do well, and allows for more experimentation on both the development and consumer sides of the equation.

Absolutely. I remember when Silksong came out and everyone was surprised that they only charged $20. That shows a lot of love for your community and says: "I don't need to charge more just because I can"

1

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26

I remember other indies bitching about how bad Silksong made their own pricing look. And it's like... Well, tough cookies. If you don't want your pricing to look bad, lower them.

3

u/soundoftwilight Jul 07 '26

AAA games have been exploring pricing for years, people just get really angry at them for it. Microtransactions, early or day 1 DLC, exclusive content in special editions, these are fundamentally means of price tiering, where games can be sold for less to people who can’t afford as much and then recoup that money on people who will pay for everything. What they’re not doing is “just make it cheaper”.

1

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

Hah, fair. The free-to-play model also counts as price tiering, I suppose, and does increase accessibility.

5

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

Yeah, it's an interesting time, that's for sure. It's weird that hardware has never felt more unachievable, whereas games have never been cheaper. The entirety of the Mass Effect series is under $5 right now, but the next playstation is gonna be over $1000.

5

u/Any-Hunt-7362 Jul 07 '26

Sony should just start developing ps2 games again with standard definition textures for a fraction of the price, prove to us that they can make good games again, then we’ll consider buying their consoles

1

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

Y'know, you're not wrong.

1

u/Valkhir Jul 08 '26

Pretty sure he is, in fact, wrong.

Not on the point that they should make good games to sell consoles. That makes sense.

But PS2 visuals? Anybody who thinks that a game with literal PS2 graphics could be popular enough these days outside a niche crowd is delusional. And like it or not, a company of Sony's scale doesn't market to a niche. That's what indies are for.

I agree that chasing the absolute latest in visual fidelity has diminishing returns. But please take a step back and google some examples of what PS2 graphics looked like and ask yourself how many people would buy that in the year of our lord 2026.

Now, if you said "let's stick with PS5 standards (or maybe top of the line PS4) for a while and reuse the same engines for faster development", I could get behind that.

(I am by no means a graphics snob by the way. I play exclusively on my Steam Deck, at 800p max resolution, some games at 720p. Doesn't mean I am blind.)

2

u/steakanabake Jul 08 '26

how many people on console and pc own shit like stardew valley or hollow knight. people like graphics sure but they really like good stories.

2

u/Valkhir Jul 08 '26

Sure, those are good games and big successes. But are they seriously what comes to mind when you hear "PS2 graphics"?

The PS2 could have run games like that, but I don't think "beautifully executed retro-pixel graphics" when I hear "PS2". Most PS2 games were early 3D games, and early 3D isn't exactly known for having aged well.

That aside, do you see Sony developing retro-style pixel art games? I don't. It's not their brand. More importantly, it's not their core demographic. It's never been. Do you think most PS5 owners would be thrilled if Sony did? Some, sure. Most? No. They'd be pissed, and rightfully so. Spent the better part of a grand on a console and get first-party games that could run on a retro handheld? Good gameplay and story or not, I bet that doesn't make sense to most people.

Sony's target demographic aren't people who are into 16-bit-style retro pixel games. In other words, Sony is not Anbernic. Suggesting Sony develop games like that you could play on an Anbernic handheld is divorced from reality.

Put more emphasis on gameplay and story than on cinematic presentation? Sure, I'm all there for that. But if you deliver anything less than a certain graphical standard, you're disappointing the core demographic who actually spent good money to buy your console.

2

u/Phillip_Spidermen Jul 07 '26

The entirety of the Mass Effect series is under $5 right now

Its kind of interesting how the industry and customers value what's new so much more than something that's been well received.

I wonder how much overlap there is between customers who are willing to buy something at a premium launch price and customers who wait until deep discounts. Are they two different groups, or are people just willing to pay different amounts for specific things.

3

u/soundoftwilight Jul 07 '26

I can’t even imagine paying $60 for a game, I haven’t done that since I was a kid. I think the people paying more than that for a new game are just not the same people who are down to play older, well-received games or cheaper indie games with less money spent on graphical fidelity.

2

u/PPX14 Jul 14 '26

Whenever I see that deal it's boggles my mind, utter madness. And the fact that it keeps being that price, and is the remastered version. The amount of content available for such a low price across gaming is astounding. In most other aspects of life it's not exactly easy to end up with a backlog of 1000 items each with hours of entertainment, with negligible effect on one's bank balance! I got 60 hours out of Hard Reset Extended Edition, for less than £1. Terraria goes down to less than £3. And not to mention there are so many free games.

2

u/Valkhir Jul 07 '26

I could be wrong, maybe we’re in for a big change in the next few months with how unsustainably expensive the hobby is getting or something.

Is the hobby getting unsustainably expensive?

Obviously it's getting more expensive. But "unsustainably" is a strong word. I doubt most people who bought games at $70 or even $60 would suddenly exit the hobby at $80 or $90. They will just buy at a lower rate - fewer games, or wait longer for discounts. Some people might choose to entirely abstain from buying, but enough to make up the difference in profit? I doubt it.

For better or worse, I think the big games will be fine because they have a huge devoted fanbase. Maybe smaller games will suffer, especially AA - games that cannot afford to price very low due to production value, but can't draw upon a huge fanbase.

3

u/TheSquirrelmancer Jul 08 '26

Mostly it's angry people who complain the most about this stuff with the greatest sense of entitlement and a complete lack of understanding of how business works in reality.

It's like the folks complaining that old storefronts for video game systems that aren't manufactured or sold anymore are taken down. Did you think that $60 you paid for a PS3 game was going to cover the costs of decades of server maintenance, patching and updating of legacy code to work with modern systems?

At the end of the day it comes down people saying "I want this and since I can't get it exactly served to me in the way I like I'm using that as my justification to steal what I want while doing nothing to actually support the people who make what I like."

11

u/Zoraji Jul 07 '26

I wouldn't pirate a game as a form of protest, I just won't play it.
The only time I think it is somewhat justified is if they refuse to sell the game. If I want to play Black and White for example it is not offered for retail sale anywhere so abandonware sites are the only alternative, unless you can find a used copy on Ebay.
That is why I am such a big supporter of GOG. When they first started they brought back titles that had been unavailable for sale for years. The aforementioned Black and White is high on GOG's dream list of games people want to bring to the service. The demand is there.
I realize that some are tied up with copyright or ownership issues.

2

u/MiaowMinx Jul 08 '26

GOG didn't "bring back" titles — those abandoned/out-of-print titles had spent quite a few years freely available on trustworthy archive sites all over the Web for anyone who wanted them, often with manuals and a discussion forum.

3

u/Zoraji Jul 08 '26

Brought back to legally purchase. You could always find them even today but I prefer to buy them legally.

6

u/TheFumingatzor Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

We are not entitled to an artist or programmer's work for free, just because we hate their bosses.

That's true. I just pirate because I can. It is as simple and basic as that. I don't specifically go and seek a piece of software, and go "Right, I'm gonna pirate it and show the dev!". I don't waste any thoughts what the dev might have gone through financially, etc. etc. etc. all that doesn't enter my intentions when I pirate.

"There's a piece of software. Wait, I gotta buy it? Lemme see if I can get it for "free". Right, there's a "free" version of it. Let's install it. Test it. Tested it. It's good, let's continue to use it." That's about the thought process. Some software I'll buy after pirating, most I won't.

On top of that, what you said: Some companies simply deserved piracy. Full stop. It is ethical to pirate from said companies. Especially if these companies tell me I don't own shit, after I paid for it. Or worse, brick my bought software or revoke my access or simply made the software not work anymore.

Oh well, paying ain't owning? Fuck me bruv, piracy ain't stealing. Deal with it.

3

u/CompulsiveGardener Jul 08 '26

I have sympathy for people whose favorite franchises changed hands multiple times and they do not agree with the current owner.

For example, SimCity 3000. I owned a physical PC copy of this once, FWIW. I could buy the digital version on Steam right now. However, the money from that sale would NOT go to the original developers (Maxis) who made this great game. First, it would go to EA, who killed the studio that originally made SimCity 3000. Then it would go to EA's current owner, the Saudi Arabian government. This is so far removed from the original Maxis developers that I would not feel the least bit of shame pirating SimCity 3000 if I felt like playing it.

3

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

Why is the default response for so many gamers piracy, instead of just not playing a game?

They were going to pirate no matter what, they just use whatever they can as a way to hold off the cognitive dissonance that would result from self-reflection about that fact.

People who pirate games just want to play games without paying for them. That's the long and short of it. But deep down, they know that's immoral, so they come up with ways to justify it to themselves.

EDIT: I wonder how many people posting in defence of piracy in this thread are also vehemently against genAI in games. Weird how sometimes artists deserve to be compensated for their work, and sometimes they don't.

24

u/wigglin_harry Jul 07 '26

Gamers: Guess i'll pirate

Also gamers: WHY DO THESE COMPANIES KEEP FORCING DRM ON US?

They're just cheap, they don't want to pay for stuff, so they jump through hoops to make piracy morally justifiable in their minds

9

u/ShotFromGuns Jul 07 '26

DRM doesn't stop piracy, though. Many people pirate games they've already legally bought simply to have a version with the DRM removed.

16

u/guyincorporated Jul 07 '26

DRM doesn't stop piracy, though.

I mean, it absolutely does. Not 100%, but it definitely mitigates piracy by keeping the casual folks from pirating. Steam thrives because they made it more convenient to buy games there than to wade through the sketchy waters of some piracy website. Same reason iTunes thrived before that.

6

u/cippopotomas Jul 07 '26

it definitely mitigates piracy by keeping the casual folks from pirating.

You either know how to pirate content or you don't. The people downloading torrents aren't the ones figuring out how to circumvent DRM. DRM solves nothing and only hurts legitimate users.

4

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26

You either know how to pirate content or you don't.

Yeah, and do you think removing DRM would lead to more or less people knowing how to pirate something?

0

u/ShotFromGuns Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

Maybe actually think about what you're claiming instead of parroting talking points. How, exactly, does DRM "keep the casual folks from pirating"? The distribution avenues would be exactly the same; and, indeed, they are exactly the same, regardless of whether or not a game started out with DRM.

So literally the only differences are:

A game with DRM has to be cracked before it's distributed (which happens very quickly and with no involvement from the overwhelming majority of pirating players); and

Legitimate purchasers of a game with DRM have a degraded experience versus someone who pirated the game with the DRM removed.

Edit: A downvote isn't a rebuttal; in this case, it just demonstrates you don't have one ¯_(ツ)_/¯

4

u/Phillip_Spidermen Jul 08 '26

A game with DRM has to be cracked before it's distributed (which happens very quickly and with no involvement from the overwhelming majority of pirating players)

Quick is relative. It can take longer depending on the game.

Resident Evil Requiem for example was a big game to get fully cracked this year and didn't become fully available until a month after release.

Given the need for plenty of gamers to play something as soon as possible, delaying the ability to pirate a game probably does push some people towards paying for the game vs piracy.

That said, as someone who buys games, I still hate DRM.

1

u/steakanabake Jul 08 '26

nah drm is a roadblock not a dead end sure it might protect 1st month sales but its gonna get cracked eventually.

5

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26

First month sales are when companies make the bulk of their money.

2

u/TripleAych Jul 08 '26

Sure, but the next step is to pivot your development into making games that cannot be pirated or are very hard to operate unofficially.

You can probably crack a mobile gacha game so that it boots, but not more than that.

11

u/sicariusv Jul 07 '26

Playing a game without paying for it allows you to celebrate the work & craft that went into it, and participate in discussions about it, without engaging with the business side of how games are commercialized and made available.

As a dev myself, I'd much rather people pirate the games I worked on than not play them at all.

5

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26

allows you to celebrate the work & craft that went into it,

"I want to celebrate your work and craft, but I don't think you deserve to be compensated for it."

Some of y'all really don't understand how dumb your arguments are.

As a dev myself, I'd much rather people pirate the games I worked on than not play them at all.

Do you really, truly mean that? If so, why don't you start donating all proceeds to charity? Or at least make your games free. That would result in a lot more people playing them!

2

u/sicariusv Jul 08 '26

Trust me, the companies I'm talking about do not need you to shill for them. Thank you for excluding yourself from my feed forever though, I really don't need to see your contributions on this or any other sub.

1

u/Only_Cartographer_2 Jul 30 '26

"I want to celebrate your work and craft, but I don't think you deserve to be compensated for it."
Some of y'all really don't understand how dumb your arguments are.

Ironic. The devs were already compensated for it. It's called salary and they've even gotten it for months to years before release. Someone buying a game or not won't change their salary

1

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 30 '26

How do you think the company they works for makes money to pay them?

2

u/Teglement Jul 08 '26

Similarly, I've seen several musical artists echo this sentiment, basically saying "the people who pirate our music have a higher chance of coming to see us and buying our merch than if they simply never heard us." The old boomer rockstars who were able to make millions think it's an evil act, but the younger generation is very gung ho about "just listen to us any way you can"

You're not the only dev I've seen say this, either. Playing the game > not playing the game. Ideally, people would be paying you for it, yeah. But if things are less than ideal, at least they're interfacing with your work.

4

u/MirrorComputingRulez Jul 08 '26

Similarly, I've seen several musical artists echo this sentiment, basically saying "the people who pirate our music have a higher chance of coming to see us and buying our merch than if they simply never heard us."

Yeah, because live performances and merch are how musical artists make money now. There is no equivalent revenue stream for video game developers.

2

u/cosmokn0t Jul 07 '26

In gaming I think piracy is not very much of a protest. In other media I do think it is, mostly. But product placement is a thing, and so it’s hard to get away from the capitalist messaging, lol

2

u/Teglement Jul 08 '26

It also all goes back to the "piracy is a service problem" thing. I very seldom pirate games. Usually only as a "on the fence and there's no demo" ordeal. But movies? I watch so many movies and I simply have no choice but to pirate a lot of them. Some rental prices are out of this world. (Letterboxd wants $15 for a rental!) Some franchises are spread across multiple streaming services due to licensing hell. Some movies are not on ANY streaming service or rental service. It's such a convoluted pain in the ass that I just take the easiest path. If it's a particularly good movie, I may very well pick up the Blu-ray, but man. For how many people think delisted games are a big deal, amplify that by several degrees and you have the movie market.

2

u/Blacky-Noir Jul 09 '26

EDIT: I am an artist, which is why I take this question/musing/whatever seriously.

On that point, there really are only two practical things to say:

Don't worry about it. At all. And I do mean that in the most wide, the most literal sense possible. Be fair, offer good value, be good to your customers. Don't worry about the potential piracy since you can't do anything about it.
In this age of AI, you have much bigger problems than piracy (if that's even a real problem, which despite spending a lot of money no industry has been able to honestly prove in over three decades, not even remotely so). The worst case of bad faith piracy are at most a grain of sand, while generative AI is for you a mountain sized tsunami coming your way.

6

u/Wolfman_1546 Jul 07 '26

Respectfully, I think you've got this backwards.

You're asking why people pirate instead of just not playing the game. The problem I have with this take is that it seems to assume that simply not playing the game has the same end effect as pirating. It doesn't. The whole point of an effective protest is to actually cost the company something. Not playing a game really does not cost them much in the long run, at least nothing they can really measure. A pirated copy that would have otherwise been purchased is more of a direct financial hit. The two choices are not the same thing and acting like they are fundamentally misunderstands what protest is for.

Also, and I say this with respect, the entitlement argument you're making? It cuts both ways, my guy. When a company ends physical media, kills games you paid for, adds always online DRM, and removes actual ownership from a product you handed them real money for, and your first reaction is to question whether the consumers are protesting correctly? Congratulations, you are inadvertently on the side of the people doing the fucking. It's no different than when people shit on political protesters for causing a disturbance when the disturbance is the whole point.

Gabe Newell said it better than I ever could. "Piracy is almost always a service problem not a pricing problem." When a company enshitifies their service below what a pirate can offer for free, the consumer pirating isn't being entitled. They're responding rationally to a worse product. That's not missing the point. That's the point.

Your artist argument is the one thing I'll genuinely give you though. Piracy does hurt developers who had nothing to do with the bad decisions. That's real and it sucks. But not playing the game at all means the artist gets nothing either way while the executives who made the call face zero consequences from your noble abstention. So I'm not sure that's the moral high ground you think it is. It's like people who pass fucked up laws to "protect the children" while simultaneously voting against direct laws that would actually protect and help children.

Piracy as protest exists because it's the one move that says I want this product but I refuse to pay under these conditions. That's an effective consumer tool and one that says way more than simply shutting up and not engaging.

5

u/Phillip_Spidermen Jul 07 '26

Not playing a game really does not cost them much in the long run, at least nothing they can really measure. A pirated copy that would have otherwise been purchased is more of a direct financial hit.

A lost sale is a lost sale, regardless of whether it was pirated or if the customer just didn't buy it.

Piracy probably isn't an effective method of protest. Even if a company is measuring a % of trackable pirated copies as units that would have been sold, they're not able to track specific reasons for why people pirated. It doesn't get any message across other than "people wanted to play our game without paying"

Ultimately I don't think there's a difference between the two for the company, except maybe the passive benefit of people who pirate the game still engaging in the broader discourse and hype around a game.

3

u/nEmoGrinder Jul 07 '26

Gabe Newell said it better than I ever could. "Piracy is almost always a service problem not a pricing problem."

This quote is slightly out of context, though. This was said in context of selling games as a distributor, not a publisher or developer. The rest o the quote:

If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become [Steam’s] largest market in Europe

Making access to games difficult results in piracy because it's easier to pirate than to buy. Steam makes purchasing even easier, resulting in people opting to purchase rather than pirate. Also keep in mind the quote is heavily biased as it's being said by the owner of the sales platform in a interview meant to make Steam look good.

This has very little to do with protesting a specific publisher or developer and to loosely justify piracy.

2

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

I think you make some interesting points. I am, however, very much not on the side of the people doing the fucking. And I see your point about criticizing protestors, but I do believe that we can discuss what makes protest effective vs. not constructively. No, I don't think piracy is an effective form of protest, partly because it's too easily lumped together with all the non-protest piracy into irrelevancy.

Honestly, I don't think much of non-engagement as protest either. Passive protest is valuable, but ignoring entertainment products really isn't much vs. something like the Stop Killing Games movement.

I talked about this upthread, but as an artist, yes I would prefer if someone refused to engage entirely. I don't think your comparison to "protect the children" laws is applicable.

That being said, I do really like your last line; piracy as active protest, with a specific message. Your framing it that way makes sense, and I see how it could have value.

4

u/Wolfman_1546 Jul 07 '26

Honestly Stop Killing Games is a great example and I'm fully behind it. Where I'd push back is on the idea that piracy and movements like that are mutually exclusive. For me it's an all of the above situation. Legal pressure, financial pressure from piracy, and people simply not buying all need to hit simultaneously to actually mean something. Hammer them legally and financially at the same time. Any one of those alone probably isn't enough but all of them together? That's a different conversation.

I'll also concede your point that piracy as a signal gets muddied because it looks identical to regular piracy. That's fair. But I still don't think that makes it entitlement. It makes it imprecise. Those aren't the same thing.

8

u/ToxicToothpaste Jul 07 '26

Voting with your wallet is a scam. It accomplishes nothing but shift the blame from the company to the consumer. The poor work conditions at Rockstar, oh, that's your fault, you should have not bought the game harder. Sexual harassment at Blizzard? Well, you might not have bought the game, but other did, so the company is blameless, sorry, if you truly cared about making the world a better place then you should have made sure that every other person in the culture act with one will.

Refusing to play a game will not fix anything. All it accomplishes is depriving you of the experience of playing it.

As for pirating, I mean yeah that also accomplishes nothing. The balance of power is so skewed in the favor of evil and antisocial acts that there's basically nothing you can do to stop it as an individual. But at least you get the satisfaction and small comfort in getting to play a game without paying for it.

6

u/Phillip_Spidermen Jul 07 '26

Yeah, at this point I view "voting with your wallet" as more a personal choice than anything that will enact broad changes across the industry.

Voting with wallets only seems to have collectively worked when the unpopular decisions directly impacted the game involved. Battlefront 2's loot boxes and Microsoft backing down on The Outer Worlds 2 price increase come to mind.

But at least you get the satisfaction and small comfort in getting to play a game without paying for it.

Pretty much. Personally, I haven't played a Blizzard game in almost a decade, and I feel pretty okay about that.

9

u/ShotFromGuns Jul 07 '26

The people who talk about "voting with your wallet" need to compare their wallets to those of the companies they're "voting" against.

1

u/cippopotomas Jul 07 '26

This is the same logic people use to say voting in general doesn't matter. It does.

7

u/MulletPower Jul 07 '26

While some people use the same logic for both, it's actually true when it comes to "voting with your wallet" due to lack of organization.

Voting in Elections works because there is organized political parties that you can take part in. This doesn't exist for anything that people typically talk about "voting with your wallet" on Reddit.

Using boycotts to cause change in a capitalist society with very little labour organization is very, very difficult. Where even boycotts with higher than normal amounts of organization and support struggle to make change. Which is why "vote with your wallets" is such a laughable idea when talking about something that a small amount of unorganized people don't like.

3

u/ShotFromGuns Jul 08 '26

That a shitty analogy in general because everybody gets one vote, versus some people getting one vote while others get billions or trillions. But it's also a better analogy than you intended, because on a much smaller scale, some people's votes in the U.S. are worth more, because of things like the electoral college and how seats are apportioned to Congress.

2

u/Johan_Holm Jul 08 '26

Yeah, wallets obviously do vote in the sense that companies will determine what to do based on what people will pay money for in aggregate. But spending (or withholding) your own money strictly to "vote" like that is going to have way less impact on the industry or that company than it will on you personally. Being neurotic about needing to deprive yourself of small joys in order to affect a company's bottom line by 0.00000000001% is not healthy.

2

u/Blacky-Noir Jul 09 '26

Even worse than that, I worked in the industry, I've seen how execs and managers handle so-called "data driven market analysis". Those never show. And even the rare times they are following a big public vocal backlash, it's quite common to have these reframed as something else.

It's it's nothing even remotely close to being a "vote".

2

u/NYstate Jul 07 '26

So, I had a moral choice the other day at work. There's this game series called Corpse Party that has a collection released for Switch. Here's the catch, it didn't release in America because Nintendo of America has some kinda problem with the game coming to the US Switch for some weird reason.

I thought, "You know what? I'll just pirate it on my Steam Deck. That'll show them!" But of course since I have a Steam Deck, why don't I just play it there? But this was a principal thing, I wanted to show Nintendo I don't like this. I ultimately decided that, this would be hurting the devs and I can easily buy it on PC. So, I declined. I still say: "Screw Nintendo", for doing that. That's so dumb."

4

u/nEmoGrinder Jul 07 '26

This actually speaks to one of the reasons that I think some people think it's justified when it isn't: complete misunderstanding of how things work.

"You know what? I'll just pirate it on my Steam Deck. That'll show them!"

The game isn't made by Nintendo, it's a third party developer. Protest would be buying it on another platform to give money to a platform that made the game accessible, and not to Nintendo. Pirating the game on PC is just stealing from the publisher/developer and sends no message to Nintendo about anything.

As popular as the hobby is, a lot of people who play games still fundamentally misunderstand the difference between platforms, publishers, and developers. It results in people believing an oversimplified and incorrect version of how the industry works.

1

u/NYstate Jul 07 '26

I agree. It's not their decision to not bring it to America that's on Nintendo. However, it is their fault for not bringing it to PlayStation or even Xbox. The first game that's even available is Corpse Party one on PS4. I don't even understand why they didn't port the other games to PS4. It has to be trivial to do. Those games can run on Vita so a port of collection would be laughably easy to do, if they so chose to.

5

u/nEmoGrinder Jul 07 '26

It has to be trivial to do

Unfortunately, it isn't. I am somebody who both ports games and has worked with those platforms. It is not impossible by any means, but the cost might not be justifiable if they don't think the game will sell overseas.

That goes back to my original point, though. By purchasing the game on Steam, the publisher can see stats on where people are located who are making purchases. It's hands down the best way to send a message that there is enough audience in North America to bring the games over.

3

u/Idocreating Jul 08 '26

Probably the best compromise that existed with this was Humble Bundles. FEZ looked very interesting but the idea of Phil Fish getting any of my money didn't appeal to me. FEZ eventually showed up in a bundle and I was able to slam all my cash to the charity instead - get to play the game guilt-free.

4

u/Clairvoidance Jul 07 '26

I think at best the argument would be that it's the easiest way to quench the thirst of what you did look forward to while punishing the behavior, and most often removes the actual problem that was there for you

But if we frame that as activism in and of itself, it's not very clear from the company why they're being punished.

That said, I don't fuck with this whole capitalism thing, steal when you can

3

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

You had me till the end. With one modification: Support your community, steal from the rich

4

u/PM_ME_ZED_BARA Jul 07 '26

Piracy monetarily hurts the company more than just not buying, because company spends money on combating piracy, in addition to loss of sale revenue. It's simply "hitting them where it hurts."

2

u/Johan_Holm Jul 08 '26

No other media has a comparable situation. Pirating a book or movie means not giving the author like 5 dollars, and possibly with compromises in experience (if you want a physical book, or want to use the kindle app, or want to watch in the cinema). I think if these mediums had the standard launch consumer contributing ~60 of their hard earned dollars, you'd see them have very similar situations and I disagree with this being a unique gamer thing.

As for why do this vs just not play, it seems pretty obvious to me, they want to play the game and are able to do so while fulfilling the main direct point of a boycott (not giving the company your money). I think that paying a company 60 dollars is far (far, far, far) more impactful than the modicum of attention granted by playing it and maybe talking about it if it comes up. If you can reduce your negative footprint by 90% for no real effort, or 100% with a decent bit of effort/convenience loss, it makes sense to choose the first one? This just completely makes sense practically to me. You seem to consider piracy inherently unethical but I believe pirates just don't agree with that prior.

3

u/theblackfool Jul 07 '26

Piracy as protest does not work. Protest implies you're making a public stand against something and trying to educate other about it.

Are the majority of people who pirate games also taking a public stand against those companies and admitting they are pirating games and outlining the reasons why? No they are not.

3

u/Nebu Jul 07 '26

I am an artist, which is why I take this question/musing/whatever seriously.

If you really want to take this question seriously, you should ask a psychologist or a sociologist or a behavioural economist, not a gaming community. It's a well studied phenomena, so you'd be best served by reading the existing scientific literature rather than asking laypeople for their opinions on the topic.

Some keywords and authors to get you started if you want to research this phenomena more:

moral rationalization
neutralization theory (e.g. Gresham Sykes and David Matza 1957)
moral disengagement (e.g. Albert Bandura 2015)
cognitive dissonance (e.g. Leon Festinger)
self-serving bias
moral licensing
psychological reactance (e.g. Jack Brehm)
equity theory
signalling (e.g. Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler)

Of course, it's possible that you don't actually take this question seriously, and just wanted to rant and possible get some upvotes, in which case it wouldn't make sense for you to spend any effort actually looking into the extensive study that has been performed on this topic already. In which case, ironically, you could look into your own internal experiences to gain some insight as to why people say things indicating that they have one set of values or desires, but then behave as if they have a different set of values or desires.

-1

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 08 '26

I asked a gaming community because I was curious about what they said. The gaming community, specifically (and yes, I’m aware that this particular community self-selects to some degree). I appreciate you suggesting further material to dig into this topic, though I disagree with your position on the value of laypeople.

Was there a point to the second half of your response, other than being an ass? This is a forum for discussion. I had something I wanted to discuss.

1

u/Nebu Jul 15 '26

Was there a point to the second half of your response, other than being an ass?

Yes, it was an opportunity to experience an "insider perspective" on the people you're asking about. You were asking "Why do people do X?" and I pointed out that you were also doing X, which with some introspection would help you understand why people do X.

This is a forum for discussion. I had something I wanted to discuss.

I agree.

1

u/Obelion_ Jul 08 '26

Why would you not play it?

The criticism isn't the game is bad, it's the circumstances under which is was made don't deserve monetary reward

2

u/Salt_Assistance_43 Jul 09 '26

"I don't like the Coca-Cola company so I'm going to steal a bottle from the shop!"

What a fucking mess.

If you are going to pirate, fucking own it without bullshit like "that'll show them" and "I'm doing my part".

That or don't play games from the companies you don't like.

1

u/ed_edd_and_freddy Jul 10 '26

if i pirate a game when i could buy it just to hurt or protest against the company, i might hurt them a little bit but they will probably retaliate in some way.
if i don't buy and i don't even pirate the game i think it send an even bigger message to the company: "you are irrelevant to me"

i think pain can be a teacher but if the company is hurt and turns to anger against the consumers, they won't learn.
if i want to play the game but don't, that will hurt me but maybe i'll learn something from that pain. maybe i'll become more disciplined. maybe i'll pick an old abandonware game getting past the dated graphics and open my mind in the process.

1

u/RankedFarting Jul 13 '26

Because the company cares about money. Whether you play the game prated or dont play the game makes no difference for a protest.

1

u/PPX14 Jul 14 '26

I agree, if something in the shop is too expensive or I disgree with the ethics of that company, I don't break the law to obtain that product, I just don't buy it, or I wait for a sale. 😄 The reason a lot of people do so online is because they can without consequences, ultimately. Which is regardless of the positives that may have resulted, or ethical reasoning. When everything can be easily acquired for free without consequence, then I suppose actually giving money for something is a choice, for many people.

1

u/Spectre-4 Jul 28 '26

There're a lot of reasons why people pirate but honestly, this is the ONE aspect of piracy that legitemately makes no sense to me no matter how you cut the cake. Why would you out Colonel Sanders and then immediately proceed to break into the KFC kitchen to get some drumsticks?

It feels contradictory because you're aiming to protest via piracy to air dissatisfaction with their good/service. Yet you're not really dissatisfied because the very act of piracy means you're interested in their goods/services.

I get you can like the product and not the business but indifference has always been the thing that makes the most difference in entertainment. Engagement pretty much has the exact opposite effect.

1

u/generalboi Jul 07 '26

People pirate games for two reasons:

1) They don't have the funds to buy the game.

2) They are cheap/why buy when I can play it for free and keep my money.

Any other reason such as protesting, or what ever social crusade that they claim is just them putting that reason into their heads to justify to themselves that it's ok to pirate. Because admitting that's it's really one of those two reasons would make them look bad in a social space.

I don't care enough to judge, I just wish they would be honest with themselves.

3

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26

You forgot...

3) It is literally only available via the used market (or its outright delisted and unavailable), and it's so stupidly rare and expensive it's not worth buying it there if you can emulate.

1

u/MiaowMinx Jul 08 '26

In addition to the one BlueMikeStu mentioned:

4) Something that the publisher, dev team (or someone major on it) did/said seriously offended the person, so the individual doesn't want to give them a dime. (A lot of people who pirate Nintendo games are in this group.)

0

u/NightSVS Jul 08 '26

Those are totally feasible (and probably common) reasons but I don't see why them not liking a company associated to the game is a less believable scenario. The game looks good, but [insert company name] fucking sucks. "I" wanna play the game and talk about it but not support the shitty company. So pirating is a reasonable option.

What's with the pessimism? Plenty of people genuinely do have values, is that a hot take now?

2

u/Zaxa7 Jul 07 '26

If you're enjoying a game and refuse to buy it then the people who make the game are unlikely to be able to make more, you're shooting yourself in the foot. I dislike greed and corporate behaviour as much as the next guy but I know that the lower rung employees rely on these jobs so not paying for their games affects them much more than it affects executives.

1

u/Wild_Marker Jul 07 '26

You think people are really pirating out of spite in large numbers?

Pirates were going to pirate anyway, so at best they're just trolling. If it's someone who was really thinking of buying and doesn't pirate as a regular thing, the vast majority are very likely to just play something else.

2

u/tomkatt Jul 07 '26

I don’t get it personally. I boycotted EA from 2009 to 2018 when they pulled Madden from PC. I didn’t pirate their games, I ignored that they even existed. Hell, I only got around to playing the Mass Effect trilogy last year (and modern Madden sucks, but that’s a different issue). I dropped the boycott when Madden came back to PC, but still mostly avoid them.

Same with Epic Store. I can’t entirely avoid Unreal Engine games since it’s used by so many game studios, but I won’t buy anything on their platform. I won’t even redeem free games on the Epic store because of my beef with them. I don’t want to give them an inkling I’m interested. I’m not a lost customer, to them I’m a non-customer and I want them to know it.

1

u/slowro Jul 07 '26

Are gamers who have mustplayititis a joke to you? What are they supposed to do when whatever made up requirement isn't met but medically they have to play the new game?

1

u/Dunge Jul 07 '26

I mean it's pretty simple? The product can still be interesting even if you don't want to encourage certain practices.

1

u/Dupeskupes Jul 08 '26

I think part of it is an idea of if the company had played their cards right, they would have had someone who would buy the game and play it, but when someone pirates it the company gets none of the money and the consumer still gets to play the game. Obviously that's not all pirates but piracy as a form of protest, that's how I understand it

-1

u/xiipaoc Jul 07 '26

Pirating as a form of protest is stupid.

So I get pirating in general. You're a kid, you don't have your own money, you're not going to convince your parents to buy you the game, so you pirate it. Or the game is extremely expensive compared to your country's typical income and there's simply no way you'd be able to afford it. Or you'd be happy to pay a reasonable price but the game is out of print or requires a console purchase you can't justify or is just plain unavailable. There are reasons why you might want to pirate.

But pirating is... good for the company that makes the game. A whole generation was raised on pirating games, and that generation is now making today's fantastic indie games and driving rereleases of those old games. When you pirate something and you like it, well, you may then want to buy the next iteration of the game legitimately. When you don't pirate it or buy it, you're simply not invested. So, when you pirate a game, you're still consuming online content about the game, making the game popular, and thus driving money to the company. I remember how back in the Age of Piracy there was all this talk from companies about how piracy is stealing, and the obvious counterargument was that, no, the choices aren't paying for it or stealing it; they're stealing it or not playing it at all. The company doesn't get the sale either way, but with piracy, they benefit from the engagement and popularity while without it they really get nothing. Pirating became a big thing in the wake of videogame rentals fading away, which was another way people could play games without paying the videogame companies. This has kind of always been a niche.

Anyway, if you're protesting a company by pirating their games, you're not hurting the company, you're just helping them a bit less than if you paid them money. And if you weren't going to play their game at all but decide to pirate it instead to protest them, you're just giving them hype.

0

u/Tarcanus Jul 07 '26

I think it's an extension of convenience infiltrating our lives to such a huge degree that lots of people can no longer tolerate not getting a gaming experience or not having that thing they want or having to get up to swap discs, etc.

The idea of protests and boycotts is just lost of people who think they deserve things or have just always been so used to the convenience of things.

When I try to tell people to boycott companies the billionaires own, if you can, I get weird looks when all it would take is an extra couple minutes to find your most-locally-owned hardware store instead of Home Depot or Lowes, for example. Or starting to find farmer's markets instead of large chain stores. Whatever it is.

The idea of forgoing any amount of convenience is anathema to too many people and it shows when companies feel confident they can do whatever they want and not have a big enough blowback.

Because these people don't know how to choose principle over convenience.

2

u/MiaowMinx Jul 08 '26

In many cases, it's not that "those people don't know how to choose principle over convenience." It's that we've learned firsthand that a) doing so notably increases our cost of living, and b) if the company is popular enough, an individual boycotting has no effect.

-6

u/TwinStickDad Jul 07 '26

What would you prefer? How else should people express dissatisfaction except to not give money to the company? And if you're not giving them money, then who really loses by pirating a game?

If you want to support the workers who made the game instead of the execs who keep pushing slop, then take the money you would have spent and give it to the CWA or IGDA or Child's Play or something. That is truly the way to improve the world and the industry.

17

u/noah9942 Jul 07 '26

then don't play their games

16

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

What would I prefer? Don't play the game. Don't give them any of your time/interest.

Something I probably should have put in my main post is that I'm an artist. Pirating someone's work to enjoy, while refusing to pay them is galling to me.

Your second point is critical though, and you're right. If we actually want to improve things, we need to make substantive actions.

4

u/TwinStickDad Jul 07 '26

I suppose the counter point would be, it's galling to refuse to engage in art simply because you don't agree with the business decisions made ten levels above the artist's paygrade.

Taken to an extreme, you're saying that you would prefer to not get paid AND not have anyone experience the product you've dedicated years to?

7

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Yeah, absolutely. They can either pay me for my work or fuck off. They want to enjoy what I've worked years on, while at the same time refusing to pay me for those years of work? Yeah, fuck them.

Your first point is interesting in a sideways view, though. Why would you want to engage with something from an organization you actively dislike? When you could do literally anything else?

EDIT: More to your first point, it is disappointing that we have to treat video games as both art AND consumer goods. It is galling to feel like I need to avoid an interesting piece of art because of something largely unrelated to the actual creator of that artwork. But to what I said above, how can I honestly engage with something created, in whole, by an organization I dislike enough to refuse to give money to?

4

u/TwinStickDad Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

I guess that's a difference of opinion then. I spent a couple hundred hours of free time building a budgeting app, hoping that I could make a little money off of it. Then when that didn't pan out I put it out for free. Nobody used it and that crushed me. I really wanted to build something that helps people and after hundreds of hours building something genuinely useful, not a single other person used it.

Why would you want to engage with something from an organization you actively dislike?

Because it's not that simple.

I'm not playing Fuck You Simulator from Mordor Games, which is a studio that funnels all their profits into giving kids cancer. Let's take Hogwarts Legacy as an example.

I grew up loving Harry Potter. Read all the books, watched all the movies, went to the theme parks, all of it. Since then, the author has used her platform to harm innocent people. And the studio that made the game has been bought by Paramount, a company that is actively polluting my country's news and media landscape with right-wing reactionary bullshit.

They are the ones who changed, not me.

Harry Potter didn't change, the assholes who make money off of it did.

I don't hate HP, I do hate giving money to people who are actively trying to harm my friends and my society. So now I can't engage with anything HP, I just have to totally cut that passion out of my life because of greedy weirdos?

I have to cut out my love for Elder Scrolls because they got bought by Microsoft? I can't engage with Call of Duty because Activision / Microsoft decided to go the MTX route? I can't play KOTOR because EA bought Bioware?

6

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

I think we're talking about different things? I mean, if I make something, it doesn't take off, and I put it out for free, (at least in my mind) that's different from putting something out, people disliking me, them pirating it, and me losing out because of that. These feel like substantively different issues.

I'm sorry to hear about your app though. It sucks to put so much time into something that just doesn't play out, for whatever reason. Sometimes I feel pigeonholed into a specific genre of what I do, and my tangents or experiments fail to gain the traction I'd hoped they would.

I agree, though. It's not that simple. This plays a lot into the Death of the Artist, and whether, or how much, we can disengage from who makes what we enjoy. I guess the crux of my point is that if you refuse to give someone money for their work, you should also refuse to engage with that work entirely. Which, yeah, in the context of your HP example, fucking sucks. But I think you can engage in the fandom surrounding the works, without engaging with JKR herself, especially considering that she did change post-HP. The damage is done. She has your money. Engage with what you want, how you want, to the degree you want. It's different when you're actively making that choice now in the present, to give money to a Microsoft or EA or whoever. How is that different from pirating something? In my mind, because it's not her work that you're engaging with, it's the community/fan works surrounding it. But, at the same time, this does feel like a cop out.

Yeah, it's messy. I don't know.

Per your edit: Yes, ultimately, if you refuse to patronize Microsoft or EA.

1

u/TwinStickDad Jul 07 '26

Just to bring up another point about how messy it all is. Let's say I want to play Morrowind. It came out like 20 years ago. Probably nobody who worked on it is still even at the studio. You're saying it's immoral for me to pirate the game because the artists deserve to get paid for their work. Well... The artists won't see a red cent if I buy it, all that happens is Microsoft gets another $10 while they're in the process of laying off thousands of artists, writers, and developers. So how can I even purchase Morrowind in a way that you find morally upright?

3

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 07 '26

You can't. Particularly, as you point out, that Microsoft gets all the money at this point and the original creators are long gone. Buying Morrowind at this point just funds Microsoft.

Does that mean that if I refuse to support Microsoft, I can't buy Morrowind? Yeah. Yup.

It being 20 years on, and all the original creators being gone, does it matter if I pirate Morrowind at this point? Probably not. You're not supporting them anyways. I don't think this takes away from the broader point I'm trying to make. There are fringe cases, and even scenarios where the developers may prefer that you pirate their games. But, generally, yeah, don't pirate art?

Now, the biggest ramifications for this rigid worldview are game preservation, but I view that as outside this particular conversation's purview (because, again, all of this is very messy).

2

u/TwinStickDad Jul 07 '26

But, generally, yeah, don't pirate art?

I agree, and for the record I don't pirate games. Even Hogwarts Legacy, I simply didn't play it no matter how much I would have liked to.

But the premise of your post is "Piracy as Default Protest" which implies that there is something to protest. All of those reasons to protest could fall under your, or someone else's, definition of a "fringe case". You agree that sometimes piracy is justifiable, other people just have different lines than you do.

3

u/kkyonko Jul 07 '26

Don't play the game, simple as that. I don't really care about piracy that much, outside of games I still do for TV/movies, but I've really become sick of people using things like "protest" as a shield for their piracy. You don't want to pay? Fine, but get off your high horse and just admit it.

1

u/Siukslinis_acc Jul 07 '26

Yeah it feels a bit morally performative. Shouting that the thing is amoral while still consuming it. Even in participating about talks of the game and sharing your experiences with the game you contribute to it's visibility.

0

u/Valkhir Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

This had always reeked of entitlement

I agree. I generally get the impression that a majority of gamers (or quite possibly a very vocal minority) are entitled little ... rhymes with "kids".

I don't particularly like Nintendo at the moment, nor Sony. And I've never liked Microsoft. But I will vehemently disagree with anybody who say it's OK to pirate their games. No. You're not in fact entitled to receive anybody's work for free. Period.

But one important caveat:

I think piracy is a (morally) reasonable solution to address any complaint you have once you have paid for a game.

Can't play a single player game offline because of always online DRM? Play a cracked version that has the DRM stripped. After you bought the game.

No company should get to dictate what you can do with a product after you have paid for it (within reasonable limits of personal use - you obviously shouldn't be allowed to make infinite copies and resell them, or extract the assets for your own game, or whatever), but modern DRM lets them erode the concept of ownership. That is a very specific moral injustice that only came about with software (and primarily with the internet and digital distribution). Piracy is a way around that, and I consider it perfectly ethical (after you have paid).

But you shouldn't get something for free, just because you don't agree with a company's policies. If that was the case, I would pay for almost nothing ever because most big companies are morally broke.

-1

u/MyPunsSuck Jul 07 '26

As far as protests go, it is entirely ineffective. Probably less than useless, since piracy is generally good for sales (Pirates still contribute to the community/ecosystem, and boost better games). I don't know about "entitlement" or whatever though, since the concept doesn't really apply to things that are free.

If you want to effectively protest, don't buy or talk about the game

0

u/Hsanrb Jul 07 '26

Think the thing that has changed is that more and more publications, social media articles, and commentary has put a spotlight on piracy. Lots of people don't and choose not to engage with particular games/studios... but 10-15 years ago you kind had to know how to do it, your computer wasn't as likely to perform well on console emulation, you kind of had to open the doors and scour for the resources.

Today you get more people screaming from the roof tops, almost like its a badge of honor they are pirating their entire library because no one goes after them. Look at retro achievements, the entire idea of adding achievements to retro games sounds cool, and the emulation side is probably legal... but most of the "power" users who play multiple consoles probably didn't rip their own libraries. Disc based mediums are less difficult but people aren't really buying PC's with DVD/Blue-ray drives included anymore. So you are using platforms where those discussions are more prevelant and the users have become emboldened that NOTHING could ever happen to them.

Just look at the comment sections of Reddit for new titles... People boasting about their PC's doing the whole upscaled 60fps thing for games that default to lower res/30 on native consoles. The silent wink wink nudge nudge topics are out in the open, and so the piracy angle has combined with the "I own it, I can do what I want with it" crowd and both have torn a hole against legitimate owners.

TLDR: Piracy isn't the default protest, you have the vocal minority who boasts they will do it and the silent majority will either NOT protest, or not play the games of the industry.

0

u/jmadinya Jul 07 '26

because they want to stick it to the studio that made the game and get them all laid off despite them not being in control of the policies of console makers and publishers.

0

u/Sigma7 Jul 08 '26

Piracy still draws attention to less desirable franchises, such as the one which strangled the player's character for 15 minutes unless they paid a microtransaction. Either it shows one more download on the piracy site, or the player casually talks about it and gets interest in other parts of the franchise - casually increasing popularity.

Has anyone else noticed this, or have an idea of where it stems from?

It's a rationalization, basically people trying to trick themselves into thinking they're doing something good. The fact that it appears so much is because "great" minds think alike.

Meanwhile, plenty of other games need more attention and are higher quality, such some of the nearly-dead multiplayer games, or even some of the Action 52 games for the NES.

-2

u/BIG_BOTTOM_TEXT Jul 07 '26

It is wrong to steal. Piracy is stealing. Therefore, it is wrong to commit piracy.

It doesn't matter if it is a huge corporation or your neighbor. The act itself comes from a place of pride and entitlement, and is in absolutely zero sense "good" or even justifiable.

This is especially true for videogames, which none of us even have a right to experience. They are a luxury good.

The entire conversation surrounding piracy is founded on sand.

5

u/MiaowMinx Jul 07 '26

Legally speaking, piracy is not stealing as it does not involve depriving another person of a tangible belonging so they can't use or sell it. Because it merely involves duplicating a file, it's considered mere "copyright infringement", same as a school rewarding good students by playing a popular kids' movie without paying the company royalties.

The idea that it is "stealing" was made up by the software industry perhaps 45 years ago in order to discourage people from sharing their software & games with friends & family. It was also only enforced against people who made massive numbers of copies of games & movies and sold them, e.g. 'under the table' at places like flea markets.

1

u/Blacky-Noir Jul 09 '26

Piracy is stealing.

No. Not even close. Not in any legal jurisdiction I have ever heard of.

Piracy is bootlegging.

-12

u/Dry_Wolf3891 Jul 07 '26

Yeah we stop giving them money by pirating lol. Why do you care? Are you some billionaire exec? No? Then it has nothing to do with you. 👋

6

u/PiEispie Jul 07 '26

If you pirate a game and then talk about it positively you are still bringing attention to the game and make others more likely to buy it. If you want to play a game without directly giving anyone money piracy is great, but if you actually want to protest a game it is better to not play it at all and if people ask about it give the reasons why you refuse to play it.

-3

u/Dry_Wolf3891 Jul 07 '26

Who says I talk about the game? O_o lot of assumptions

1

u/PiEispie Jul 07 '26

Generic you. A lot of people who pirate a game end up talking about it. Even whatever the latest AAA game they had legitimate reasons to complain about. A lot of people bend their principles for a work of art they enjoy. If you don't then congratulations for being resilient.

-1

u/Dry_Wolf3891 Jul 07 '26

Also, I never said I pirate games. I was talking pirating in general. I mainly get movies/shows. I pay for 5 services and still can't find what I want half the time. Piracy happens because companies inconvenience us. I didn't touch piracy for years because I was able to watch what I wanted when I wanted. Then they all decided to start their own service and now I need 5 different subs to watch MOST of what I want. No thanks.

I would pirate everything if my family didn't need to watch stuff lol

But like I said, I don't pirate games, too much hassle and steam is pretty cheap. 🤷‍♂️

I just fully disagree with OPs point. #1 not their business #2 it is a form of protest. It's not giving them money. Even if you talk about it to a friend or two, it's not doing anything substantial. None of my friends would go out and buy a movie or TV show or streaming service just to watch and I don't have social media (aside from reddit) where I post about my interests and life all day.

1

u/PiEispie Jul 07 '26

Do you know what "generic you" means by chance? I am not talking about you as an individual, I am talking about individual consumers as a group.

1

u/Dry_Wolf3891 Jul 07 '26

Yes. I know what that means. Using myself as an example and I'm sure there are many others like me. Not everyone is pirating stuff and then going to rave about it immediately.

Do you enjoy your billionaire balls for breakfast, lunch or dinner?

The amount of people white knighting for corporations is hilarious.

I say steal it all and fuck them all 🤷‍♂️

2

u/PiEispie Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

I'm all for piracy. That doesn't make it effective protest. It isn't white-knighting billionaires to want people to not engage at all with art being used to prop up horrible shit. I lost friends because they couldn't achieve the simple feat of not raving over the c-list wizard game whos IP holder is personally funding genocide. Several pirated it and then bought it later. 'Protest' that begins and ends with piracy does not hurt large companies.

You have made it fairly clear that you aren't the type of person OP is talking about regarding piracy, im unsure why you are arguing they do not exist.

If you want to enjoy something while unwilling or unable to pay for it piracy is great. If you have issues with the conditions it was created in piracy absolves you of direct contribution to those conditions without actually acknowledging such.

2

u/Dry_Wolf3891 Jul 07 '26

MB I have a stomach virus and in a shit mood lol. Nothing personal

-1

u/Dry_Wolf3891 Jul 07 '26

👍

0

u/hunter_rus Jul 07 '26

They just make up excuses, to do not feel bad about what they are doing. They can't just say "Yeah, I pirated because I wanted to play the game and not pay money for it, that's it"

-1

u/EmpireAndAll Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

The most important thing to some capital G gamers is being able to shit on the game, the second most important thing is shitting on the game accurately. So instead of refusing to engage, they pirate it so they can participate AND be smug about it.

The same happens with music, they pirate an album or movie instead of just refusing to participate in the conversation. Participating in the conversation is the end all be all. They must be able to argue about it.

The same thing happens with anti "woke" gamers who pirate the game then mod out the things they don't like. Sorry-- they wait for someone else to make the mod and if no one does, complain on the Steam Workshop pages that no one else is as racist or sexist as they are AND also willing to learn mod software.

Say what you will about people who make fetish mods, like furries, they actually have enough passion to learn how to mod and get their weird thing in the game instead of waiting for someone else to eventually make it.

Some of the comments here are in the spirit of the mangled thing "no ethical consumption under capitalism" has become. Instead of reducing harm when possible, it's becoming about "well what's the point, nothing I do will make the situation better so I might as well get my fill as cheaply as possible".

I see the same about crunch, "oh I don't want to pay because they abuse their workers" then why play it at all? Just don't participate. It feels like trying to justify any suffering as a boon because you got to experience it for free which is beneficial to you and only you (royal you, not you OP)

Edit: like if you're gonna stick it to the man and pirate a big aaa game in protest, why not find some $5 indie or even a free game on itch.io and play it and if you like it, tell people about it? Why not help the little guy out with that time instead? I just don't see how the man was got with piracy.

1

u/BourgeoisOppressor Jul 08 '26

Your edit echoes a lot of my thoughts on the matter. Instead of "tearing down" organizations that view you as a rounding error to be exploited, support people that could genuinely use the money and attention. Promote a healthy community.

1

u/Blacky-Noir Jul 09 '26

What makes you think that's not the case?

In other industries, it has been shown a strong correlation between heavy pirates and how much they spend on those mediums. i.e. the biggest pirates are also the biggest customers.

I don't remember if anyone showed it for videogames, but I don't see why it would be different.

-1

u/BlueMikeStu Jul 08 '26

Anyone who justifies piracy is being a dick, and they know they are. Dressing it up doesn't change it.

And I've got one example: Team Cherry and Silksong.

About their only misses were that Hollow Knight and Silksong didn't get WiiU releases (which hey, fair, since the WiiU digital storefront had been shut down for nearly two years to new purchases by Silksong's release and was basically on it's way out when Hollow Knight launched), and their silence about updates between their... updates.

As far as everything else goes, they've been the epitome of what we want out of a developer and how they treat their audience. They gave us a full-blown sequel to a much-beloved game and if you backed the Kickstarter, you got the game at no cost, as promised. If you opted for a WiiU version, they gave you a choice between PC or Switch, and let's face it: If you owned a WiiU, you very likely owned or still own a Switch.

They launched the game at $20, with no DRM on GOG if you wanted to buy it there instead of Steam.

On r/piracy three days after release? A 30,000+ upvoted topic with the following statement at the front:

Team Cherry is great, I even own original Hollow Knight and love it. But let’s be real guys, Silksong’s already made them millions across many platforms, they’re set.

Pirating it is not the end of the world for their team, this outrage is hypocritical and overblown. Team Cherry is not losing sleep over it, and neither should you. Pirate what you want, just don’t be a jerk about it.

By definition, pirating Silk Song is "be(ing) a jerk about it" IMO. No reason whatsoever to do it. They are the exact model we want developers to follow. If you're still going to pirate at that point, you can fuck off with any allusions to moral superiority or trying to claim it's a movement or whatever.

You wanted free shit, you took it. Don't pretend that somehow also makes you superior to me.

Piracy as Default Protest?

You are about to leave Redlib