Indie Game Developers Would Rather You Pirate their Games Than Buy From Key Resellers

[Arika]

I know quite a few people that will use this as an excuse to pirate games "oh the devs are fine with piracy". Completely ignoring the context.

[ARikozuM]

30 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

they already got what they expect to get when the game was sold off the first time. What happens after to that product (destruction, resale, use, or whatever) is none of their concern.

And protection from what?

So what would be the solution? I couldn't care less about the big bois, like EA and Activision, but I can understand protections, even if it's only a 5 dollars for the smaller devs, like [redacted].

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

So what would be the solution? I couldn't care less about the big bois, like EA and Activision, but I can understand protections, even if it's only a 5 dollars for the smaller devs, like [redacted].

there is no solution cuse there is no problem.

Dev makes keys, people buy keys. Done. That's their profit and it stops there.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

there is no solution cuse there is no problem.

Dev makes keys, people buy keys. Done. That's their profit and it stops there.

Problem with that is that the key is my property. I'm allowed to resell it. First sale doctrine says that any time I purchase a product, all rights to that specific instance are mine. This applies to physical and digital media. I am not allowed to copy it, but I am allowed to relinquish my rights to it by giving it to another individual. 

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

That's flawed, you can't have something freely available and accessible by a fee at the same time,  all you get then is those who pay essentially becoming donators to a charity, in which case you end up with a bias because those who pay can start to leverage what content gets published.

Uh not really, and if you think that then clearly you don't believe curation has any value... in which case why should we care if these journals survive...?

 

There are plenty of examples of things that are available for free but are still successfully sold because people value the service, like RHEL.

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again, what is better than the current system for addressing bias?  how do you maintain journals and keep up the integrity they are striving for if you take away the only revenue stream that doesn't compromise a journals integrity?

Where's the bias if everything is freely available? If anything there would be LESS bias because researchers wouldn't have to worry about writing something that is likely to be published by journals, effectively it would even the playing field for everyone and the focus could remain on pursuing interesting research instead of what is likely to make money.

 

You said nobody would be willing to pay if not for "charity" for the services these journals provide, maybe you should make up your mind on whether they offer something of value or not.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Uh not really, and if you think that then clearly you don't believe curation has any value... in which case why should we care if these journals survive...?

 

There are plenty of examples of things that are available for free but are still successfully sold because people value the service, like RHEL.

Where's the bias if everything is freely available? If anything there would be LESS bias because researchers wouldn't have to worry about writing something that is likely to be published by journals, effectively it would even the playing field for everyone and the focus could remain on pursuing interesting research instead of what is likely to make money.

 

You said nobody would be willing to pay if not for "charity" for the services these journals provide, maybe you should make up your mind on whether they offer something of value or not.

you have missed the core issue, Where the funding comes from influences the activities of the journal.  If your funding comes from a lot of small payments from users then no one user holds any sway over others,  but if force them to seek funding from business or personal donations then you narrow the sources of the funding thus increasing the potential for bias.

 

[TechyBen]

9 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

@TechyBen Copying and pasting a licensed product without the direct consent of the copyright holder is indeed pirating.  If your friend paid for a copy of the game it is licensed to him, not you.  Sure, you could in theory play it on his account and the dev probably wouldn't give a shit, but if you copied it to play on your own device that's where you and him are both violating the license agreement which can land you in legal trouble and probably your friend to.

I never said it was not pirating!!! I asked what the point of caring is. As in. Why should I care a raindrop drops... should I try to legalise against the rain? I can try to protect against it, but I cannot stop it raining.

 

Why try to stop piracy? When changing a business model, changing your engagement with the community/consumer and changing the product make much much better results.

 

Me? I don't buy/use products/services that have unfair, unenforceable and unmanageable/atainalbe terms and conditions requests (remember, a lot of T&Cs are overridden by law/courts anyhow, so the friend/piracy/copyright holder interaction is more complex than just the first ability to make/suggest a consumer agreement).

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

you have missed the core issue, Where the funding comes from influences the activities of the journal.  If your funding comes from a lot of small payments from users then no one user holds any sway over others,  but if force them to seek funding from business or personal donations then you narrow the sources of the funding thus increasing the potential for bias.

I think you're the one missing the point - having a freely available dump of all research papers doesn't impede this in the slightest. It doesn't even need to be all in one place, so long as it's available somewhere.

 

Funding for research should come from the relevant institutions and shouldn't depend on the results - the scientists work full time and should be compensated accordingly. That's kind of what universities are for.

[The King of the Undead]

I'm callin the mods! @Crunchy Dragon @SansVarnic @PCGuy_5960 @Slottr

[Jito463]

8 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

that doesn't make sense at all

why should the dev get the possibility to double dip on an already sold product?

It's like going to a used car sales an for some reason VW should get half of what i payed for the used car because... reasons?

I think what @ARikozuM was saying, is that the money Valve would get from the sale of the key (much like the cut they take from the sale of skins) should be split between Valve and the developer.  Not that half the cut from the overall sale should go to the dev.

[Anomnomnomaly]

Revisiting the whole 'scientific papers behind paywalls'  that was mentioned a while back.

 

Did you know that 100% of the fees collected by those publishers goes to the publisher and 0% goes to the author of the paper.

 

However, if you ask the author for a copy of the paper, they will send it to you and are very happy to do so... They're not happy with having their worked ripped off and they are not bound to collect any fees for their work... nor are they barred from sharing it.

[maartendc]

It has been known for a while now that all these key reseller websites are shady at best, and straight up illegal at worst.

 

I thought the most common form of abuse was people buying cheaper keys in one region, and selling them in another region. There have also been numerous reports of stolen keys.

 

One thing I had not heard about was people actually using it as a money laundering scheme: you buy a bunch of keys with a stolen credit card, then quickly sell them on a key reseller website (G2A among others), before the card is blocked. By the time the card is blocked, you've already got your money, and the keys end up being sold to unsuspecting people. Apparently these keys don't get revoked in most cases (not sure why, perhaps it is not technically possible once it is released?).

 

I would not care one bit if all of these sites are closed down. The easiest thing for Steam and other storefronts to do is just not allow any keys other than the keys that are sold directly through them.

[Anomnomnomaly]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because you're stealing someone's work.   Imagine you worked on something all day, and someone didn't pay you for it and didn't care that they didn't pay for it.  Is that fair to you?  Because that's what you're trying to defend.  Maybe put up a sign saying you work for free and nobody give a shit about your hardwork.  I do not care that Techyben worked hard on it I am entitled to his product for free, and why should I give a fuck if he wants money for his product?  Not my fucking problem.  Seriously, I find your defense unfair and I'm entitled to your stuff for free.  Also, not every court system sides with you.  Fun fact, here in the US we have some states that back license agreements and even EULAs in court.

Seriously, where do you work?  I'm entitled to free shit from you, and I don't care if you want money for it.  It's not my problem.  Why fight theft?  -This is what you're defending.

So, if someone else doesn't agree to the new business model/find it unfair then they're entitled to pirate it?  Sounds more like you're trying to defend piracy and your entitlement to do so.  So, I really don't see a problem with someone stealing from you if they don't find your business model or rules fair either.  Actually, I just feel entitled to it.  Don't fight the theft, TechyBen, just embrace it!

OK, let's look at it this way... and this is an actual experience I've had with a games publisher.

 

 

I bought a game, the game I bought was not the full version because the game company pulled a bait and switch... They labelled every other game a certain way with the version name I purchased (Base/Normal/Delux) with the latter being the entire game with all DLC/Season Pass included... They then rename them so that the unsuspecting buyer gets caught out if they don't read the tiny,. tiny, tiny small print buried away at the bottom of the page. Upon discovering this, you contact them and ask to pay the extra to get the full fat version of the game... they ignore you and weeks later respond after the sales have ended and refuse to do anything because you 'launched' the game... never played it.. just started it, realised 60% of the game was missing and uninstalled it immediately... Even though you offered to purchase the rest and pay the price difference.

 

They ignore you... and won't refund you... Which is directly in opposition to the UK's sale and supply of goods act, as well as the distance selling regulations.  So you get your money refunded through the bank/paypal insetad and keep asking them to remove the game which they eventually do a month later after you ask them if they are you letting them keep it as a freebie for the problems they caused.

 

Then a few months later, the game is on sale again... so once again you buy it... they fail to deliver the game... It's never added to your account. You can't download and install it.  You repeatedly ask for it to be resolved after all they've taken the money from your account.  but once again you are met with a deafening silence and a complete lack of action.

 

So you once again enforce your consumer rights and have your money refunded... in spite of threats against your account by said company and their demands that you relinquish your consumer rights before they will even look into it... But it's already too late because they took weeks to respond and you'd already started the refund process through bank/paypal and so forth.

 

Given that I've paid for the game twice... and been conned the first time and ripped of the second time... and both times the company have shown nothing but utter contempt for the consumer... blatantly ignore consumer laws and do nothing at all to try and resolve issues of their creation... The old adage... fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice, shame on me.. applies... there will never be a 3rd.. So would I be aggrieved enough to feel justified in obtaining said game by another method?  Sure the legality side of it is the same... and it's a civil offence, not a criminal one to download (in mine and most countries)... But only a criminal one if intentionally uploading to share with others (bit torrent doesn't count unless you created the torrent) So please get that distinction right when applying criminal language to civil offences... But I tried to GIVE THEM MY MONEY and they wouldn't give me the product I wanted and paid for... and can prove it with receipts and bank statements.

 

Moving on to general copyright infringement... If there's a TV show you want to watch but it's not available in your region... It's not out on DVD/BD and no TV channel is broadcasting it... You're not sure if you will enjoy the show but want to check it out and see if you do. How else are you supposed to do that?

 

Then there's the odd sporting event... I used to follow the F1, have done since a kid... roughly 40yrs of following races and drivers. Only to have the sport ripped out from under us and delivered to a nice premium satellite service. So if I now want to watch those races... I have to purchase the basic TV package, plus the HD package plus the F1 package... bringing the total cost to around £50 a month  probably more. Just to watch 2 races a month for 10 months... Not interested in anything else they broadcast as I can still get  a few dozen broadcast channels over the air.

 

This is what creates the environment for copyright infringement... and it's pure greed and nothing more. People will always get to a point where they say ENOUGH! and when companies force them into those situations because of pure greed and exploitation and wilful obstruction of the laws... All bets are off, and people will and do feel entirely justified in downloading a song/movie/tv show/sporting event/game. I'd feel justified in thumbing my nose at the greedy wankers... but I simply stopped watching the sport, greed has killed my enjoyment of it.

 

 

Ethically... they would be crossing a line and putting themselves at risk of civil action... But morally.. it's very easy to see how they're fine with that you can't reasonably disagree with that point of view.

[suicidalfranco]

12 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Problem with that is that the key is my property. I'm allowed to resell it. First sale doctrine says that any time I purchase a product, all rights to that specific instance are mine. This applies to physical and digital media. I am not allowed to copy it, but I am allowed to relinquish my rights to it by giving it to another individual. 

 

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I think what @ARikozuM was saying, is that the money Valve would get from the sale of the key (much like the cut they take from the sale of skins) should be split between Valve and the developer.  Not that half the cut from the overall sale should go to the dev.

Well if that's the case, i disagree there too. As he invoked that "first sale doctrine", which i completely agree with, there is no reason why the devs should get a cut from a resale of the after the initial purchase, Valve gets a cut because they act as a middle-man and set up a platform that allows the exchange to happen. The devs shouldn't be and aren't, rightfully so, entitled to a cut of that share.

[ARikozuM]

18 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

Well if that's the case, i disagree there too. As he invoked that "first sale doctrine", which i completely agree with, there is no reason why the devs should get a cut from a resale of the after the initial purchase, Valve gets a cut because they act as a middle-man and set up a platform that allows the exchange to happen. The devs shouldn't be and aren't, rightfully so, entitled to a cut of that share.

This really needs to be doable. I can't figure out a way that pleases everyone, but I can say that I would rather have the ability to sell without the devs losing out on their profits.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

This really needs to be doable. I can't figure out a way that pleases everyone, but I can say that I would rather have the ability to sell without the devs losing out on their profits.

the only thing that can be done in that case is find a way to stop online purchases done with stolen CCs. Which either means for banks/card processor make it mandatory to have a two factor authentication with passcards or token generators (cheap, offline, physical solutions), cards no longer having the card number and CCV number printed on them, two factor authentication through SMS or mobile apps, and slowest one of all: holding the sale till everything is confirmed and if after the confirmation somehow it still pops out that the card was indeed stolen, the merchant and the client shouldn't be the one to bare the loss, the bank/card processor should eat the cost for doing a terrible job at checking that everything was good.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm not sure how it works in every country, but the US has kind of a fucked up law on things that are abandoned.  The Bitmap Bros gave up on Magic Pockets like nearly 15 year ago, and it's not considered abandonedware or whatever it is called.  Anyways, in the US a copyright is still held in that scenario for 75 years.  So, unless I get direct consent from the copyright holder/s I cannot play Magic Pockets unless I buy a used physical copy/floppy disk then played it properly which is a super fucking huge headache.  I don't remember seeing it ever loaded onto Steam or GoG, but at least both have Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure.  On the plus side I have the floppy in storage somewhere.  I just need to use some form of a floppy drive and probably a DOS Box to get it running.

Copyright needs to change. IF you want your product PROTECTED, you must offer support for it for the entirety of the protection.

 

Imagine playing an MMORPG, paying into the system, and one day, it closes. The players should be allowed to carry up the torch if the publisher wants to disavow itself from the project. If there are costs involved in doing so, the players should be allowed to be compensated by the community for those costs. Server code must be given to the player should the servers go offline. You do not get to sell us a product and then hide behind a service to block the product's future use. If you can't make your next product compelling without locking the old product, you're not a good business. 

Spoiler

Vanilla WoW (I forgot the server name) was a great example of people wanting vanilla and taking it into their own hands. Blizzard did not want to allow its continuation, but they should not have had a say unless they were going to continue supporting the project according to the community's desires. 

 

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

the only thing that can be done in that case is find a way to stop online purchases done with stolen CCs. Which either means for banks/card processor make it mandatory to have a two factor authentication with passcards or token generators (cheap, offline, physical solutions), cards no longer having the card number and CCV number printed on them, two factor authentication through SMS or mobile apps, and slowest one of all: holding the sale till everything is confirmed and if after the confirmation somehow it still pops out that the card was indeed stolen, the merchant and the client shouldn't be the one to bare the loss, the bank/card processor should eat the cost for doing a terrible job at checking that everything was good.

I'm not even talking about selling through a stolen CC. I'm a member of Humble Bundle, GOG, IndieGala, itch.io, etc. I frequently purchase a few codes for giveaways, even at full price, just because I want the game to get out there. I've got 6 Celeste keys from the Spring Sale. Purchased legally! I should be allowed to sell the keys through Steam for whatever the community buying price is. If I want to sell any of my 1200 games, I should be allowed to relinquish my key and access to that game and put it up for sale.

 

2FA, stolen CCs are not the only issue at hand. 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

That happened with Halo CE on PC.  People made the game playable on PC cuz the install disc wasn't working on newer versions of Windows, and 343i or Bungie lost their shit over it and closed that down.  Plus, they forced a server offline that kept the PVP going from what I was told.
 

I kinda feel like abandonware should just be free, but at the same time it can still get you in legal trouble if you pirate it due to "75 years regardless".  It's one thing if the family/estate/whatever is profiting and making a comeback with the product, but when the dev or whatever outright stops producing it and enters it as abandonware then wtf is the point?  You're not making money off it, and the consumer just wants to play/use what you made yet you aren't really giving them the option to obtain it outside of maybe the used market or piracy.

I don't mind paying Nintendo for an SNES cartridge of Super Mario World. They aren't selling them, are they? If they aren't, they do not get any say in removing those games from ROM sites. There's a clear demand in getting that game. They can easily capitalize by selling the ROM themselves. They can supply a first-party emulator for profit. They do not get to remove third-party emulators. If you want protections, you must support your products fully and for the life of those protections. 

 

If Bungie was selling the game, I could see why they should be paid for the game. But they must support the game fully and not in part. If abandoned, it's protections are abandoned in kind. 

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because you're stealing someone's work.   Imagine you worked on something all day, and someone didn't pay you for it and didn't care that they didn't pay for it.  Is that fair to you?  Because that's what you're trying to defend.  Maybe put up a sign saying you work for free and nobody give a shit about your hardwork.  I do not care that Techyben worked hard on it I am entitled to his product for free, and why should I give a fuck if he wants money for his product?  Not my fucking problem.  Seriously, I find your defense unfair and I'm entitled to your stuff for free.  Also, not every court system sides with you.  Fun fact, here in the US we have some states that back license agreements and even EULAs in court.

Seriously, where do you work?  I'm entitled to free shit from you, and I don't care if you want money for it.  It's not my problem.  Why fight theft?  -This is what you're defending.

So, if someone else doesn't agree to the new business model/find it unfair then they're entitled to pirate it?  Sounds more like you're trying to defend piracy and your entitlement to do so.  So, I really don't see a problem with someone stealing from you if they don't find your business model or rules fair either.  Actually, I just feel entitled to it.  Don't fight the theft, TechyBen, just embrace it!

You must stop other people stealing because your stealing other peoples work? I said. I'm not defending piracy.

 

I'm asking, if I am a media creator, why should I care about piracy. At all. In any shape or form? And not instead make sure my business model is reliable, enforceable/agreeable or sustainable? 

 

Quote

 Imagine you worked on something all day, and someone didn't pay you for it and didn't care that they didn't pay for it. I do not care that Techyben worked hard on it I am entitled to his product for free

Is piracy not paying for work done? If I write a book, and sell it. If someone lends/copies/distributes. Are they failing to pay me for my work? As said, I want a fee for this post of $1,000. You must pay it now, because you read my post. Does it make it wrong for you to read it for free? What if LTT/regulation/social acceptance is you pay that fee. Should I be allowed to enforce payment for my postings and your readings on you?

 

Quote

So, if someone else doesn't agree to the new business model/find it unfair then they're entitled to pirate it?

Nope. But if I regulate against the rain. Have a business model of leaving ice out in the sun, and then complain. What would you think of me? Would you suggest I change my business model, or insist everyone pays me for my hard work?

 

I agree, media (books/movies/games etc) is well worth the payment and hard work for many and at many times. I agree, bad book/video/games are no excuse for piracy. But once created, they are out there. They are distributed. Trying to regulate it back is difficult.

 

Privacy is also a difficult thing to fix after the fact. The group that want to help the victims of the breach will work with them. The group against them tends not to, except in threat of punishment. The best defence though, is for my not to put my personal photos online. The best defence against piracy, is finding customers who want to pay.

[suicidalfranco]

17 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I'm not even talking about selling through a stolen CC. I'm a member of Humble Bundle, GOG, IndieGala, itch.io, etc. I frequently purchase a few codes for giveaways, even at full price, just because I want the game to get out there. I've got 6 Celeste keys from the Spring Sale. Purchased legally! I should be allowed to sell the keys through Steam for whatever the community buying price is. If I want to sell any of my 1200 games, I should be allowed to relinquish my key and access to that game and put it up for sale.

 

2FA, stolen CCs are not the only issue at hand. 

ok then why do you want for devs to get a cut from your second hand sale?

the issues brought by this thread was G2A not giving a fuck about how and where keys sold through their store and the only solutions without shutting down is to go at root of the cause: stolen CCs.

Your solution was for some reason give devs a cut from second hand exchanges, which, unless that cut is equal to the total amount spent on the key, wouldn't fix the problem

So far your best bet to resell the extra keys you have is through these grey markets.

Would love to see Valve expand community market to game keys and not just cosmetics and cards. They could make it so that a maximum number of 3-5 games may be added to the second hand market from your account per month, with the requirements "Played more then 2 hours" and "haven't been played in X days".

But for keys you bought but never activated, things become trickier.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Nintendo is honestly the only one giving a shit over roms/emulators, in fact they have an entire legal section on their website dedicated to bitching at people over it.  https://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp  They sell digital versions on the eshop plus there was the SNES classic.

My opinion: They must be supported in their original format. Releasing eShop formats makes them new products as they're on a new platform and medium. 

 

People will say my views are backwards because it means less innovation or less drive to innovate. Where are we, right now? We're at a point where the majority of publishers are doing yearly releases. If this means that those releases die down and we get better value out of our games, so be it. That is better than saying those protections stay regardless. Let them spend their money protecting and supporting products. 

 

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

ok then why do you want for devs to get a cut from your second hand sale?

the issues brought by this thread was G2A not giving a fuck about how and where keys sold through their store and the only solutions without shutting down is to go at root of the cause: stolen CCs.

Your solution was for some reason give devs a cut from second hand exchanges, which, unless that cut is equal to the total amount spent on the key, wouldn't fix the problem

The smaller devs are being penalized with chargebacks and it is unfair. The charge back should be covered by Valve or not allowed in the first place. The larger publishers can take the hit, but smaller devs like Lupiesoft or HunieDev cannot. It is unfair to penalize them for crimes they did not commit. 

2 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Would love to see Valve expand community market to game keys and not just cosmetics and cards. They could make it so that a maximum number of 3-5 games may be added to the second hand market from your account per month, with the requirements "Played more then 2 hours" and "haven't been played in X days".

No requirements. Me watching Terminator 2 nearly 100 times does not remove my ability to sell my DVD/VHS. 

2 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

But for keys you bought but never activated, things become trickier.

Does not matter if they were activated or not. They are bound by first-sale doctrine. They are my property and the developers relinquish their rights to their use. 

[suicidalfranco]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The smaller devs are being penalized with chargebacks and it is unfair.

hence my solution for stolen CCs. and even if they got a cut as i mentioned above: if the cut isn't as big as the full price of the game, it will not fix the issue.

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

No requirements. Me watching Terminator 2 nearly 100 times does not remove my ability to sell my DVD/VHS. 

and then you open up the system for abuse, and people will find ways to abuse it and since "everything Valve does is bad" rhetoric exists, valve will take all the blame for people abusing the system, they will either resort to remove it or make it shittier as it has already happened in the past. Requirements and limitations sucks. i know i would love for it to similar to real physical situations, but they are a necessity to allow such a system to exist.

10 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Does not matter if they were activated or not. They are bound by first-sale doctrine.

And now you open up Steam to the same abuse G2A is facing.

12 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

They are my property and the developers relinquish their rights to their use. 

exactly why i stand with: devs shouldn't get a cut from second hand sales

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Well if that's the case, i disagree there too. As he invoked that "first sale doctrine", which i completely agree with, there is no reason why the devs should get a cut from a resale of the after the initial purchase, Valve gets a cut because they act as a middle-man and set up a platform that allows the exchange to happen. The devs shouldn't be and aren't, rightfully so, entitled to a cut of that share.

While true, if Valve were to enable a method for people to transfer licenses on Steam, giving a portion of the fees to the original dev/pub would engender some good will with them.  We've seen with consoles how much devs/pubs (not to mention the console creators) have railed against the 2nd hand market.  We'd probably be seeing the same on PC if it weren't for the rise of digital distribution.  Adding license transfers to digital distribution would almost certain lead to complaints about loss of profit.

 

Having said that, this is all hypothetical because I don't see Valve even considering such a move, much less moving forward with it.  There's no incentive for them to do so, as they make more money from the sale of a full license while the back end cost would remain the same (actually, it would increase).