A common argument from pirates is that it's not stealing, because that person never intended to buy the game in the first place, therefore no sale was lost. Regardless of how dubious and absurd that premise is, let's take it a step further: when you rent a game, you also get to play the game without actually purchasing it. However, the publisher only receives payment for one copy of the game. I couldn't find any statistics about how often a single disc is rented one average. The exact same claim can be made about purchasing used games, except now the number of people playing the game from one disc is limited to two or three -- maybe highly successful games change hands more than that.

Minecraft is a good example because of the developer's tolerant stance on pirating: in 2014 the game passed 100M users, with roughly 14M copies sold. Today that number stands at 21M. It's one of the highest selling -- and most pirated -- games of all time. Assuming the # of users stayed at 100M (which is generous in the extreme, but it helps for the example), the ratio of purchases to pirated copies is 1:5. The game obviously can't be sold used on PC, but for console versions we'll use the completely fabricated estimate of 1:2, meaning the game store sold the game twice (once new, once used) resulting in two users from one disc. For rental versions, I don't think it's unfair to assume that the game could be rented more than five times. Summary:

Piracy: 1:5
Used: 1:2
Rental: 1: >5

So if piracy is arguably comparable to rentals (and almost certainly results in less copies distributed than both rentals and used sales combined), why is piracy seen as bad, and the others acceptable (and legal)? You do pay for rentals and used games, but publishers see none of that; is there even a difference between those two options and piracy, when all three result in a loss of sales to the publisher? What if piracy involved a nominal fee, such as $0.50 to download the game? Is the true issue that piracy allows everyone to play the game simultaneously, whereas rentals and used sales allow on one user per disc at a time?

I look at it in a much simpler manner tbh

If you buy a game, you paid to play it.
If you rent a game, you paid to play it for a short time.
If you buy a used game, you still paid to play it but someone else paid to play it first.

If you steal it, you are paying nothing to play it and you are a god damn thieving dindu who deserves the gibbet rather than gibs.

I personally like the ''''b-b-b-b-b-b-ut i'm trying it out to see if i like it/can run it abubububub''''
Steam has done refunds for a while now, there is no excuse.

This 100%, it really is that simple in my mind as well.

Demos also exist, as well as SystemRequirementsLab.com.

If you rent a game, you paid to play it for a short time.
If you buy a used game, you still paid to play it but someone else paid to play it first.

But you don't pay to play it; the publishers (and developers) get nothing from rentals or used sales. If you feel this way, how would you respond to my question about paying a nominal fee for a pirated copy? And at that point, how are rentals and used sales not worse than pirating, since those retailers get profit from selling the game, whereas people that upload copies of games make no money at all?

To be clear, I agree pretty much entirely with you; I'm trying to work this out in my own head, too.

All of them provide one common service: providing me with a valuable product, and that to me is worth money.

Same question.

Quote from: Töqi on April 08, 2017, 11:12:53 AM

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on April 08, 2017, 10:57:33 AM

If you rent a game, you paid to play it for a short time.
If you buy a used game, you still paid to play it but someone else paid to play it first.

But you don't pay to play it; the publishers (and developers) get nothing from rentals or used sales. If you feel this way, how would you respond to my question about paying a nominal fee for a pirated copy?

Someone also had to buy a copy, so they could make a copy of it and distribute it out.

Yes, just like a store had to buy a copy to rent or sell new the first time. So is that initial purchase justification for pirated copies just like it is for rentals and used games?

Is the justification in the scale of the distribution, i.e., one purchased copy may be pirated thousands of times, whereas a single rental disc may only be used a handful of times? At that point, when does rental becoming piracy -- 20 times, 50, 100, etc.? What if a user buys a game, uploads it, and it's only downloaded once?

But you don't pay to play it; the publishers (and developers) get nothing from rentals or used sales. If you feel this way, how would you respond to my question about paying a nominal fee for a pirated copy? And at that point, how are rentals and used sales not worse than pirating, since those retailers get profit from selling the game, whereas people that upload copies of games make no money at all?

Retail is a business, and like all business, you need a license to legally conduct it. I imagine this also applies to manufacturers. Does anyone have the right, ethical or legal, to "manufacture" (upload) copies of game software (because every download is essentially a new copy produced) and distribute them for free without any sort of licensing agreement? I don't think so--and if they do, they shouldn't.

Like I said before--I'm okay if the pub and devs don't make a profit as long as someone's palms are crossed with silver for the one copy, legally. The original copy was already paid for, just as Psy said, and now it's just trading hands, which is perfectly fine. Producing multiple copies without permit is probably the bigger issue.

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on April 08, 2017, 10:57:33 AM

I look at it in a much simpler manner tbh

If you buy a game, you paid to play it.
If you rent a game, you paid to play it for a short time.
If you buy a used game, you still paid to play it but someone else paid to play it first.

If you steal it, you are paying nothing to play it and you are a god damn thieving dindu who deserves the gibbet rather than gibs.

I personally like the ''''b-b-b-b-b-b-ut i'm trying it out to see if i like it/can run it abubububub''''
Steam has done refunds for a while now, there is no excuse.

This 100%, it really is that simple in my mind as well.

Demos also exist, as well as SystemRequirementsLab.com.

tbh systemrequirements lab is full of shit, youll run games at max it says you dont meet minimum requirements for and itll say you can max games with a toaster

i vouch for steam refunds though, especially if you use paypal you'll get the refund within an hour and two hours should be more than enough to see if the game works on your computer

tbh systemrequirements lab is full of shit, youll run games at max it says you dont meet minimum requirements for and itll say you can max games with a toaster

Maybe there's a better website, I don't know. Not a PC gamer.

Like I said before--I'm okay if the pub and devs don't make a profit as long as someone's palms are crossed with silver for the one copy, legally. The original copy was already paid for, just as Psy said, and now it's just trading hands, which is perfectly fine. Producing multiple copies without permit is probably the bigger issue.

On the other hand, an incorporated business isn't a requirement to sell or trade things; Craigslist and eBay are two examples of private selling mediums that are perfectly legal. And if, as I asked in the OP, pirates paid some sort of nominal fee (or maybe not even nominal; what if alternatives to Steam sold cracked game keys for competitive prices, like $30 for new games), would that justify it? Is the simple act of a transaction enough to eliminate the moral issues?

I think the bigger issue here is that used sales and rentals involve a single copy trading hands (and a rental is more or less like a repeated used sale), rather than a pirated version being highly distributed. But there's just something off about retailers making money off the sale of used or rented games. Surely anyone that copied or distributed any other form of IP for profit would be smacked with a lawsuit.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 08, 2017, 01:08:36 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 08, 2017, 01:02:18 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 08, 2017, 12:39:57 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 08, 2017, 12:35:24 PM

This is actually something I haven't thought of. Technically renting is worse than piracy.

But not in the least.

Why not?

I already explained above. Retailers are legally permitted to provide paid rental services.

Morally, why should I not be able to try out a game--or any product--before committing to a purchase?

It's consumer protection, if anything.

morally the pirates are in the right

morally you can suck my meatus

Businesses that rent out games probably have a license or something so they're authorised to be providing that kind of service, renting from said business is therefore no problem.