Becuse the pirated version is usually cracked and more user-friendly. If I have a choice between a game that requires me to constantly pop in a CD, may randomly throw hissyfits because of something on or in my system, and/or require me to be online, vs. a version I never have to be hassled by... hmm, that's a tough one.
No! If you want to crack your legitimate copy, you would download a crack, not the whole game. Also, cracking a game's DRM is illegal under the terms of the DMCA and it's derivatives. You may be living in another country but your posts here are stored on a server in the United States so essentially, you are risking a lot by implying that cracking DRM and breaking the law is a good thing.
First, I wouldn't put much stock in that article's numbers. The source and methods used for their numbers are pretty shoddy (really, anything that reports to have accurate numbers of bittorrent downloads are either lying, have an agenda, or are themselves duped; this is not a normal download scheme where you can just look and see how many requests for downloads were made and how many of them were completed, and how many where from the same person/machine).
Where is your evidence that their data collection methods are shoddy? Bittorrent is NOT private! The moment you plug that tracker file into the client, your IP address is distributed to every single person with that same torrent and the people that maintain the trackers. Also, it is not too difficult to get a rough estimate of downloads by finding out how many times the tracker file has been downloaded, which is exactly the method the article writer uses to gather the figures above the "top 10" image. Of course, this can be over-estimated by some users downloading the file multiple times, but it can be just as easily under-estimated by downloaders giving the download to their friends and family and some users prefering to use "magnet links" instead.
Additionally, the article writer's "Scale of Piracy" section is not based on merely one picture and one investigation, it consists of a large number of sources and findings condensed into one page. So clearly, it looks like you are dismissing the accuracy of these findings before you have even done an investigation of them.
That article is quite anti-piracy, and repeats a number of falsehoods spouted by pro-DRM groups, and ignores many pertinent claims made by anti-DRM groups. I can't take it seriously.
Such as? The article has gone to great lengths to note it's sources and prove it's accuracy. If you think that it is misleading, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. And anyway, what's wrong with being anti-piracy. If one is a real gamer and not some blood-svcking leech, they would recognise the negative effects that piracy has on PC gaming and also oppose it.
EDIT: And another thing, just in case there is some confusion: Anti-piracy != pro-DRM. The article notes on numerous occassions that DRM is not a desirable solution to piracy. I don't like DRM or piracy and I know a number of people who have the same attitude (eg: the moderaters of the Nexus sites).
Second, you cannot measure how much piracy cost in game sales any more than you can measure how much some bad reviews did. Most people who pirate a game will not buy the game. There are people who will buy the game if they can pirate it (to get an actual representation of the finished game; a demo rarely does, if you're even lucky enough to get one), and as mentioned before, there are people who pirate it after buying it. There are also people who won't buy the game if it has DRM, regardless if it's been cracked. The question to ask is how many people would buy the game due to the lack of "zero day piracy", compared to those that don't because of the DRM (from either an idealogical stance, or because it just prevents the game from working right and they need to return it). Also factor in the added cost of implementing, testing, and support for a given DRM scheme.
Okay, I'm not going to say anything in my defense because most of this paragraph is countered by:
...except that I neither claimed that 1 piracy = 1 lost sale nor did I attach a dollar-loss figure to piracy.
...and neither does the article in question:
Economic Loss
The argument is straightforward and both intuitively and logically sound: for every pirated copy of a product, there is some potential loss of income to the producer of that product. This is not the same as saying that every pirated copy is a lost sale. What it actually means is that firstly some proportion of the people who are pirating a game would have bought it in the absence of piracy. Equally as important however is the fact that even those who would never have paid the full purchase price for one reason or another may still have paid some lower amount to purchase and play the game which they pirated. This is because by the very act of obtaining and playing a game, they've clearly demonstrated that they place some value on that game. After all, if something is truly 'worthless', consumers won't bother to obtain or use it in the first place, regardless of whether it's free or not. Even if a game only gives the pirate a few hours of enjoyment, that's still worth something. In the absence of piracy they may have purchased the game at a discount several months after its release, or bought it second-hand for example. So the existence of piracy results in some loss of income to PC game developers, publishers, retailers and even other consumers.
Finally, game companies have been using DRM systems for decades, so clearly they know what to expect from it. Obviously, they know that the cost of implementing some types of DRM (ie: the less hated ones) in their games will be offset by the income from potential pirates buying the games instead. If that were not the case, they wouldn't use it, simple as that. Besides the potential of improving sales, DRM provides absolutely no benefits; to neither consumers nor the game companies that use it.
To me, it seems DRM is usually used because companies are forced to, or because it makes them feel good, not because it's been particularly good at anything.
Actually, the article mentions a number of examples of people involved in the gaming industry comming forward to say that they don't like DRM any more than the consumer. From the last page:
Suffice it to say that as shown earlier, various developers and publishers have openly stated they don't like DRM, and there's every reason to believe them. I have no doubt they don't like paying hefty fees to Sony, Macrovision or Valve for example to implement SecuROM, SafeDisc or Steam DRM for their games. They consider it a necessity, especially against day-zero piracy, otherwise they quite simply could do without the added expense and negative publicity.
Anyway, you've created a very puzzling situation. In the previous paragraph, you go to great lengths to illustrate how expensive it is to implement DRM in a PC game. Then you turn around in this paragraph and state that game companies possibly put DRM in their games just because they felt like it. This is either a contradiction or bad logic!
We know many games have succeeded despite the lack of copy protection.. even ES itself. Hell, Oblivion was long touted and praised for being DRM free with no copy protection (that dumb CD check does not in any way prevent copying), and it was Bethesda's most popular title to date. And it came right off the heels of another of their game with the exact same stance on DRM (Morrowind), and it too was their best selling game at the time. Why think this will suddenly change and be an issue for the next game? Even games released by other companies since Oblivion that have been DRM-free still became top sellers.. look at Dragon Age. The Witcher 2 looks to continue in this tradition.
When did this discussion become about the success of various games? Oh wait, when you started it. Anyway, everyone knows that the success of Morrowind and Oblivion has nothing to do with their DRM, so don't come here saying that it is. The real reason those two games succeded is it's modability, which gives those two games an enormous advantage over almost every game that has ever been released. Also, just because a franchise is successful doesn't mean that it isn't massively pirated (and it is; I see at least one person banned from the Nexus sites per day due to piracy, and that's just the ones who are stupid enough to admit piracy. Additioally, Bethesda has stated that piracy adds up to 50% of their support costs, which again is only those stupid enough to call or email for support) or that Bethesda has a lot of money in their bank account. Only hard sales figures can reveal their real success.
DA:O is another game in the same league as Bethesda's games, in that it is very moddable, which explains much of it's success. Also, you conveniently failed to mention Mass Effect, another Bioware game that enjoyed massive success despite the fact that it used very intrusive DRM. Even Spore made over 1 million sales despite the DRM hysteria. The Sims series is another very successful franchise, despite the fact that The Sims 2 was the second most pirated game of 2008. And funny that you should mention The Witcher 2 because the article I mention notes that CD Projekt has now changed from being soft-on-piracy to http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-22-witcher-2-torrents-could-net-you-a-fine.
So, given how we know games can still sell really really well despite having no DRM... how many games can you list, with fact not speculation, that have been saved from low sales because of DRM?
You have completely missed the point of DRM and it's purpose. DRM is not about punishing the consumer or rescuing a failed game. The sooner you understand what the real purpose is, the sooner you can have a debate that doesn't turn into a one-sided cakewalk against you. Anyway, I might answer your question when you answer mine: How many games can you list, with fact not speculation, that have been saved from low sales because the developers refused to use DRM?
Finally, comparing your post to the article I have continuously linked to: The article is mostly neutral, professionally written and extensively provides sources for it's information. In comparison, your post seems to be biased, a bit sloppy, vague and lacking even a single citation. So in a decision of which one I would be more likely to trust, the article wins hands-down.
» Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:36 pm 
