Open Letter to Steam and Firaxis Games

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Ming, theft is part of any business model. You must be American, seeing the world in pure black and white, without shades of grey. 'nuff said.

[rah]

Ming, theft is part of any business model.

And minimizing it is also.
Which is why they chose Steam. Steam makes it harder to pirate and as stated by a poster, the more of a hassle it is the less likely he would be to do it. I agree. It's like deadlock bolts vs regular locks. Deadbolts deter some thieves but won't stop everyone, but the amount of theft is usually reduced overall by using deadbolts

[Diatsub]

(Sorry for my English)
I have the game on DVD a few days ago. For some unknown reason the Steam application refuses to install on my Mac with all the items correct. I am reading the pages of Steam's support, learning about firewalls and ports in router and asking to steam support group, but not playing, than is the only thing on what I am interested.
I had played all the Civ Games (I do not know if the V) but if the next is sold with Steam I do not play it.

[rah]

Sorry to hear it. Yes, my biggest issue with steam was support.

[Ming]

Ming, theft is part of any business model. You must be American, seeing the world in pure black and white, without shades of grey. 'nuff said.

Yep... theft is part of any GOOD business model... that doesn't mean that you make it as easy as possible for people to steal it.

Plus, you must come from some other country since you think theft is ok. If somebody broke into your house and stole your computer, you would whine like a stuck pig... but it's OK if you steal game software from someone else... Nice attitude. 'nuff said.

[Arrian]

I don't really understand the fuss. I didn't find it to be much hassle. A little bit? Ok, sure, I had to set up a username & password (ok, who's the bastard who already took Arrian?). All things being equal, I'd prefer not to have to use Steam. But it's a minor thing.

More irritating, to me, is the whole "extra civ for five bucks!" thing. And even that's not bad enough to get worked up over.

-Arrian

[MontyMustDie]

Well, first, I'd like to thank Ming for taking the time to refine and deepen his argument, thus truly improving the quality of the debate.

Secondly, I'm going to take his arguments apart.

No misrepresentation at all... you are the one that said "When I was a kid, I liked playing games, but I had no money. So I took the hassle of getting a hacked copy." In other words, you stole the games because you couldn't buy them. Not having money is no excuse for stealing computer games. The fact that you started buying games later doesn't change the fact that you stole them before.

Well, there are a number of issues here, both legal and principal.

Firstly, I take issue with your constant insistance of defining "theft". Theft implies that value goes only one way in an illegitimate manner, and I will demonstrate that this is not the case here.

I'd like to put the following question forward: From who did I steal the game? Nobody lost their copy! No material damage happened. The game, or rather to keep this on a principled level, the idea, was merely duplicated.

What happened was that myself (and millions of kids around the world like me) were communicated an idea in the shape of a shared disk, and obtained an interest in it. Much in the same way as you go to the library to read the book to get the message, we shared disks and got the game - or rather, to keep this argument to principle - the idea across.

Many (myself included) took interest in the code and inner workings and started modding (the start of what is now included in many games as various sandbox options). Thus, we didn't merely obtain those games for personal gain - we added value to them. (My ideas were all crap and were rejected, but examples are plentiful of additions by hackers being implemented either in new games, other games or later game editions).

Secondly, word-of-mouth was generated, adding value to the product in terms of ripple effect. Value does not only exist in the disc in the box - it also exist in reputation and brand recognition (amongst other things). That's why you buy Coca-Cola instead of Regular Joe Coke from your local soda maker (or the other way around, depending on what goes in your particular neighbourhood).

You could argue that there was a material loss in terms of income from the sale of that one copy back in the early ninetees, but as I've pointed out in an earlier post (in a vastly shorter form), I think it's plain wrong to think in those terms, and I'll explain why.

Firstly, playing those copied games got me interested in gaming in the first place - triggering a number of sales further ahead. In many ways, they worked (unintendedly) as the first shot of heroin offered by the pusher for free...one copied game then = five future sales. I've not seen any proper studies (and would love to see one!) on this but I think it is an intriguing and interesting observation.

Secondly, and I think this is very significant, many of these games (Civ being a prime example) built a pretty solid and loyal fan base. I'd probably never play Civilization now (on a "legitimate" copy bought from a store) if it hadn't been for such a copy. (And I'd like everybody for this is the case to raise their hands!) Again, value does not only exist in the disc in the box! (or the megabits through the broadband, for that matter).

To put it simply in a way very understandable for Civ'ers: "There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about."

Third, since the fact that there were no money for the purchase of games at the time means the copy would never ever been replaced by a copy paid for. It was either a copied game or no game at all - meaning the developer would have lost all gains mentioned above (and most likely all future gains from future sales).

In conclusion of this part of the argument, I think while your insistence of defining copying games as "theft" may be correct in a very strict legal sense, it is wrong insofar as to theft regarded in a moral and economical way.

Theft implies that value streams only one way. Clearly, the above demonstrates that those who copy ideas and thus spreads the game designer's idea (and recognition of their idea) more widely than pure sales could ever muster bring value back to the idea (and, for the keen and intelligent profiteer, to make money from) in a not insignificant manner.

Secondly, law brings it legitimacy from and finds its sources several places, not only from the written paragraph. One very important source of legitimacy and source of judgement is the law seeking to be in tandem with the general morality of the public and in keeping with the public's sense of justice. (I have to apologize, as English is not my first language, I don't know the name of this principle in English).

At the time, copying games were plainly not seen as wrong! It was what you did. Much as downloading free music in repeated surveys are not seen as wrong by today's teenagers. Thus, I would say that the problem here is not with the action, but with the law on intellectual property - it does at this point not represent the public's sense of justice (as seen in the public reaction to the draconian multi-million dollar lawsuits made against teenagers download a couple of Metallica tunes - pure harassment), and it is also out of date with regards of the new reality of electronic communcation.

Intellectual property laws still are made for the age of cassette tapes and Xeroxes - they are protecting sail ships in the early age of steam. These laws are in need of major overhaul!

However, if the amount of hassle in buying a game increases - say, with the introduction of intrusion, surveillance and near-pointless third-party software - I would think that regular Joe computer users LIKE ME

(Ming's upper case)

would start looking into a more hassle free solution.

It stems from the above that this is the description of consumers - me being one - acting in a rational and efficient manner to game publishers acting in an irrational and efficency-depriving manner.

First... a still don't understand the "hassle" argument. You go online, buy the game, and you download it. When the game gets updated, your version gets updated, no hassle (I do wish they gave you the option to delay the update so you could finish any game you were playing and not worry about not being able to play it any more, but that's a different discussion) THERE IS NO HASSLE in "buying" the game.

Well, if a game company adds third party software with the intention to monitor and control the computer owner's actions, that would to me represent a rather major intrusion into the privacy of the computer owner. Movie studios don't install video surveillance in the living room of those buying their movies, do they?

So, me, I'd say that level of intrusion constitutes a not insignificant amount of hassle. Others would point to Steam stealing computing resources. Others again would point to the nuisance of advertisment. Future expansions are, I'm afraid, not going to simplify this matter, but rather make it worse.

What I'm talking about how consumers are going to act - letter of law or not (a law that is outdated anyway, as shown above) - when the "hassle" curve of buying rises above the "hassle" curve of copying. That's descriptive, not a moral judgement. Separate the two, please!

Anyway, where this crossing point exists is obviously different for every single individual gamer, but it will happen at some point for everyone - I'll hazard saying even for you, if it's bad enough!

(Or people will stop buying the game and stop talking about it - which will constitute an even worse loss for game studios.)

You say "introduction of intrusion, surveillance and near-pointless third-party software "... I just laugh. What operating system do you use for your computer?
If you use microsoft products, you already have surveillance and intrusion. Heck, most computer manufacturers include it as well... so I have to laugh when you use the term "introduction"... Most people have third party software already on their computer... and many don't even know it

Very true. And the same as stated above goes for those products. Having used both privately and/or professionally Microsoft products ever since Win 3.11 and all the way up to Win 7, I'd have to point out that the most consistent trend in Windows over these years is how power and possibility to modify the operating system is taken away from the consumer and turned into developer control and surveillance over the consumer.

However, this does not eliminate the fact that other systems (like Steam, amongst others) add more intrusion to your system. Intrusion is not a yes/no-variable, it's a slider size. You can always get more intrusive.

Third... If you don't want to add Steam to your computer, that's fine... don't buy the game.

I don't think that bring any good to the developer (see above). And it certainly wouldn't do Steam any good.

But just because you and other "average joe computer users" (and I would argue that the average computer user doesn't give a damn, and that your point of view isn't shared by the average joe) thinks Steam is a hassle, that doesn't give you the RIGHT to steal the game to avoid the hassle. It's still theft, no matter how you want to position it.

I'd argue that the average Joe computer user doesn't really have a point of view on privacy - untill they experience a level of intrusion that crosses the unacceptable, that is. Those that cross that threshold will, if resourceful enough to do so, take steps to protect themselves.
Where that level of unacceptability is to be found is very personal I think. It is (sadly) true that we live in an age of surveillance, and currently the pendulum is swinging towards more acceptance of it. However, I think (and hope!) that there's a backlash due somewhere.

Again, I take objection to your definition of "theft". As I started the argument with - this "piracy is theft" rhetoric is getting very, very, very old indeed.

I think it is imprecise, unfunctional, backward and economically wrong to define the copying of games as "theft" and "piracy". It is dementrial to the game industry and to the development of value.

The solution, I think, is in accepting that game designs are not physical, resellable items like lumber, soap or oil bins, but immatrial ideas - just like "Of Mice and Men", communism, "Greensleeves", and green representing 'go' while red represents 'stop'. You can't really own an idea - they are, like it or not, for sharing - nor can you, in the long run, stop it from spreading, duplicating and transforming. Just ask Gorbachov.

I'm not objecting to the creators of ideas making a living of it. Quite to the contrary, creative people - like the Civ designers - are much needed in our society and should be able to make a living for themselves and their family out of it. But I think it is unrealistic due to technology and unhelpful based on the principle of free flow of ideas to do so by impeding the flow of ideas with tools such as Steam (and many others).

So how should game designers earn their money in the future? I don't have the final answer, but I think new business models, where trust in the consumer, relying on their loyalty (a big leap of faith for publishers!) and building a community around the game will be at least part of the solution.

I'll be the first to accept that this is challenging for a young industry. But I do think that my point is valid - branding some of those who take to and spread and enhance ideas pirates and thieves are unhelpful, backward and in the long run will end damage to the industry and the computer games we all enjoy.

[Ming]

Take exception all you want to the term thief... but that's what you are if you steal software. It's that simple. You can talk all you want about it not being a physical good, but somebody did create it, and you OWE THEM SOMETHING FOR IT. Your word of mouth and other crap about how a THIEF adds value is just that... crap and lame excuses. You want something, go buy it like everybody else.

And yeah, you have no solutions that justify your theft of products. The developers rely on people buying the product so that they can PAY THE PEOPLE THAT WORK HARD TO DEVELOPE AND CREATE IT. But yeah, you aren't hurting anybody at all by simply stealing it... you know, since it's not a physical good and all. The developers don't deserve anything for their efforts.

I only wish you were a game developer or a somebody who has their IDEAS stolen so that maybe you would get it.

And your excuse that everybody does it is really lame. There are tons of people driving drunk, stealing from people, killing people, but I guess it's ok for them to do it since others are as well. Just admit you are a thief... you don't seem to have a problem with stealing, so just label yourself for what you are.

And when those software developers who design the games YOU LOVE but steal don't get raises, or get fired because of the actions of pirates, and can't feed their families... don't worry... remember, you claim nobody is harmed.

There is a word for the average "joe" and people who steal software and ideas...

THIEF

Deal with it.

[wodan11]

MMD, you put a lot of positive "spin" on it, while Ming is pretty bald (pun intended) and to the point. I do think he's closer to an honest assessment than you are.

Here's another way to look at it. Say you are Apple. Do you think any knock-off company over in China should be able to make iphones and sell them at half price, with the iphone name and Apple logo on them to boot? Or, say you are George Lucas... should Netflix be able to stream all the Star Wars movies for free to everyone in the world, without paying you a dime?

Intellectual property is real. Despite your claim that anything lacking "material" aspects should be free to exchange, if we didn't have intellectual property rights then more than half the research in the world wouldn't ever get done. It's no coincidence that the past couple hundred years have seen more technological advancement in human achievement than the ten thousand before that... it happens to coincide with invention and the concept of owning an "idea".

ps please learn to express your thoughts in less than a dissertation. Volume is a negative, not a positive.

[notyoueither]

:grabspopcorn:

[Ming]

Intellectual property is real.

Yep, so true!
I've noticed that in most cases, those that don't create Intellectual property feel that it's ok to steal it.

[gdijedi7]

Hmph. Internet Piracy is no different than walking into a store, grabbing a game, and taking it without paying. Not having a physical copy doesn't change what you're doing. You can rationalize it away with whatever excuses you want to give yourself, but you're just trying to justify theft.

I grow less and less impressed with Steam every day, but theft over the internet is still theft, even if I don't like the way the game I want is being sold.

I also dislike Walmart, but that doesn't mean I just walk in and take what I want, just because I dislike the place it's sold at.

[Ming]

Like you, I'm not a big fan of Steam... but that doesn't give me the right to go out and steal the game simply because I don't like Steam.

[Quick]

Ming, theft is part of any business model. You must be American, seeing the world in pure black and white, without shades of grey. 'nuff said.

American and young. I am American and I saw the world in pure black and white until I was about 23. And then it was a three year process to see and understand the shades of gray. Now I deal with it on the job on a routine basis.

I help stop theft as well as other problems in my part of the company. In order to get things done in emergancies, rules need to be bent. But then documented with the reason why and the propper management notified.

Theft and wrong doing happen in many ways for many reasons. Theft can not be completely stopped. Cost of protection is compared to cost of loss. Some lose needs to be written off as being cheaper than the cost of protection. Some thieves caught are fired, but not prosecuted as prosecution costs more than the benifit. Some thieves get off with only being watched if restitution is made. Of corse in this last case, it also affected promotions and transfers to some parts of the company. I work with a lot of ethical people. But we still loose some every year who think they can get away with something.

I long for the days of pure black and white. Life was so much simpler.

[fetustoast]

:grabspopcorn:

It was much more interesting when Zoetstofzoetje's post threatening to give Ming as wee holiday was still there.