Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Discussions > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2012, 12:37 PM   #271
aso
 
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Reputation: 10
Posts: 50
And here I was thinking that uPlay was supposed to stop this
aso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:39 PM   #272
exoriority
 
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Reputation: 87
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojimboo View Post
I stopped reading at this point. It takes a special sort of person to say that a 95% piracy rate means that DRM is 5% succesful.
Then your boss is quite a special person. I just quoted his words.

Or do you have really any MORE factual data about how DRM are successful against

Last edited by exoriority: 08-23-2012 at 12:48 PM.
exoriority is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:41 PM   #273
flava_clown
 
Join Date: May 2010
Reputation: 827
Posts: 2,015
Quote:
...but normally on PC it's only about five to seven per cent who pay anyway, the rest is pirated. It's around a 93 to 95 per cent piracy rate...
I like completely unsubstantiated statements like this from the heads of companies with a vested interest in the matter.

Truth be told, I really don't know Yves Guillemot, but he should quote some figures at least.
flava_clown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:43 PM   #274
Ace42
 
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Reputation: 699
Posts: 2,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojimboo View Post
Peitz et Waelbroeck (2006), Piracy of digital products: A critical review
of the theoretical literature,Information Economics and Policy 18 (2006) 449–47:
In the three setups the follo wing two questions are raised:
2
• Do firms suffer from the existence of copies?
• Does the availability of digital copies increase or decrease welfare?
The answer to the first question is an unambiguous “yes“ in the first setup. In the
second and third setups, firms may gain when digital copies are available.


Peitz says in one hypothetical model the answer is unambiguous, and in the other two, the firms may gain. 2/3 in favour of my position, there. Your "most striking finding" is cherry-picked and not representative of the article's broader conclusion.

Quote:
Sundarajan, 2004,Managing Digital Piracy: Pricing and Protection
While entertainment industry estimates of lost sales from piracy, pegged at up to $10 billion annually (Murphy 2003), may be overstated, there is evidence that access to file-sharing networks may reduce the probability of legal purchases by up to 30% (Zentner 2003), and that piracy reduces both legitimate revenues and the pricing power of sellers of music (Hui and Png 2003).

Without knowing what the "probability of legal purchases" are for individual products, we have no way of quantifying how much reducing that figure by 1/3rd actually is. For products where the probability of someone purchasing it is 1% already, reducing that by a third (to 0.67%) is not realistically going to mean the difference between them buying it or not.

Notice the numerous caveats and qualifiers - "may do, up to, etc."

Also, if you want to use Zentner's figures and research, use Zentner's figures and cite them. It serves no purpose whatsoever to merely go "well, this scholar points out that another scholar says..."

Lastly, from the same article:
the model in this paper views pricing strategy and
technological deterrence as alternative instruments a
seller can use to manage piracy, which is consistent
with the model in Png and Chen (2003) and also
with the observation that a software publisher can
reduce piracy through
increased deterrent controls or
by reducing market price (Gopal and Sanders 1998).


The article in question is filled with statements that contradict your position.

Quote:
Hill, 2007, Digital piracy: Causes, consequences,
and strategic responses, Asia Pacific J Manage (2007) 24:9–25
DOI 10.1007/s10490-006-9025-0
Can't find a copy of it, but given your misrepresentation of other sources, I am not confident your conclusions based on the citation, or even its use, is valid.

Also, no way to check the methodology, or else determine if there is an agenda at work, as I can't even find biographic references to the author.

Again, notice the caveats "gives rise to the possibility; could mean; etc" used in it.

Quote:
Hui et Png, 2003
It amuses me, with you having said that the music industry is irrelevant to the discussion, you directly cite a reference to audio CDs.

Previous theoretical research has emphasized that piracy could potentially increase the legitimate
demand. As we showed in the an alysis leading to (7) and (8), the extent of piracy is endogenous
– it depends on the price of the legitimate item a nd the expected penalty. Accordingly, to study
the real impact of piracy, it is important to begin from the underlying variables that shape the
demands for the legitimate and pirated items. It would be wrong to treat piracy as an exogenous
factor and directly relate the legitimate demand to the extent of piracy.
- ibid.

The only available sources of data on piracy were studies by
the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), and the BSA (Business
Software Alliance) and SIIA (Software and Information Industry Association).
- all highly suspect.

See:
The IFPI ( http://www.ifpi.org /), with a membership of 1,500 record producers and distributors in 76
countries, represents the international recorded musi c industry.
- ibid.

Also, it is dealing with physical copying (CDs) from the late 90s; not contemporary digital piracy, which is qualitatively different.

By contrast, we estimated the true loss to be only around 42% of this quantity, or specifically 0.0954 (± 0.0569) unit per capita.

- that's less than one lost sale in a thousand, even if you accept their methodology and think it applies universally to the digital market.

the average revenue lost to piracy would have been
(...) 6.6% (...) This estimate under-estimates the actual
revenue loss because, as we discuss below, we expect the recording studios to have reduced prices in response to piracy.


I have seen no significant reduction in the cost of games; ergo according to their model, if we are to assume the same percentage as you apply, it would be less than 7% loss of revenue.

The first stage regression in the 2SLS es timation also shows that our piracy instruments
may not be satisfactory
. Clearly, finding good measures of piracy and appropriate instruments is
a major challenge in any research into piracy of information products.


We inferred from the negative piracy coefficient that the “positive” influences of piracy
on legitimate demand were outweighed by substitution of pirated items for the legitimate product
(“theft”). However, we admit that our empirical analysis did not effectively address the impact
of piracy through direct network and demand-side externalities, wh ere piracy increases the user
base and thereby directly stimulates the demand for the legitimate item
(Conner and Rumelt
1991; Nascimento and Vanhonacker 1988; Shy and Thisse 1999; Takeyama 1994).

IPL Png, 2006 - Copyright: A Plea for Empirical Research has some interesting ideas about the societal costs that copyright protection can cause, coincidentally.

According to Hui and Png 2005, the BSA methodology for acquiring data was consumer and retailer surveys. So - "what your mates said" to the surveyers. As the BSA data is used as the basis for a lot of the above work, this - by your own argument - calls the entire validity of the core data into question.

So yah, the story the articles tell is pretty contrary to the conclusions you draw.
Ace42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:45 PM   #275
rojimboo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Reputation: 52
Posts: 494
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by exoriority View Post
Then your boss is quite a special person. I just quoted his words.

Or do you have really any MORE factual data about how DRM are successful against piracy?
Wow. Speeeeeciiiaaaallll.

How on earth is a 95% piracy rate proof that DRM is 5% succesful?

This is your statement, you are arguing this, at least expand on this broken logic.

I am merely laughing.

Oh, and of course, if you read my (or one of my 7) boss' statement, even he does not assert this.
rojimboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:49 PM   #276
KK_reborn
 
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Reputation: 1036
Posts: 5,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by exoriority View Post
you have proven yourself a true ubi zealot that will defend them no matter what, what else do you got to prove%
I want to stop the presence of ignorance and lies from people like you who wish to spread lies but not seek the truth. I mean it's a FREE app yet you still refuse.
KK_reborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:53 PM   #277
Ace42
 
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Reputation: 699
Posts: 2,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK_reborn View Post
That stuff takes time to develop. To develop and get users to visit a website to use the UPlay exploit will take a lot of time to do.
Says who? How much time? How did you calculate that?

Quote:
Needless to say since Ubisoft fixed the problem so fast
When did the browser plugin first hit the net? How long, exactly, was it between the plugin first going wild and the fix? When did the last person on the planet to be afflicted with the plugin either disable, or overwrite it?

No idea? Then you don't really know "how fast" anything happened.
Ace42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:58 PM   #278
flava_clown
 
Join Date: May 2010
Reputation: 827
Posts: 2,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK_reborn View Post
I want to stop the presence of ignorance and lies from people like you who wish to spread lies but not seek the truth. I mean it's a FREE app yet you still refuse.
there are some things that people don't even want for free, like a computer virus or spyware. just saying... i mean i respect that.

about seeking the truth, do YOU know if Settlers 7 still comes with the always online DRM as stated here or did they remove it there as well?
flava_clown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 01:07 PM   #279
exoriority
 
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Reputation: 87
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojimboo View Post
Wow. Speeeeeciiiaaaallll.
you sound desperate. And judging by this line only you already shifted your purpose here into trolling.

Quote:
How on earth is a 95% piracy rate proof that DRM is 5% succesful?

This is your statement, you are arguing this, at least expand on this broken logic.

I am merely laughing.

Oh, and of course, if you read my (or one of my 7) boss' statement, even he does not assert this.
Really it doesn't need a genius to conclude it. You didn't even provide a counter-argument.

Okay, let me explain to you... very... slowly... I hope you can get it... what's a DRM purpose actually? To prevent piracy and to secure the sales.

And he said only 5% was paid, 95% was pirated. And ubi was well known for its draconian DRM. So... according to what he said 95% of their DRM-ed games are actualy pirated. So 95% of their DRM-hardened games are actually failing.

Still don't get it?

It won't show up in your collection of paper, sales figures, theories and such, you just need a little common sense to see that, which by now, I assume that you're lacking much. And it's not my word. It's your boss' word. If you have anything against it... well, go ahead e-mail, phone him or something.

But what do I know right? Apparently you're way much expert about game business vs piracy than gabe newell himself. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by KK_reborn View Post
I want to stop the presence of ignorance and lies from people like you who wish to spread lies but not seek the truth. I mean it's a FREE app yet you still refuse.
Okay, I just want to ask you couple of things :

- if anyone got troubles with ubi's DRM will you take responsibility for it?
- how much did ubi paid you?
exoriority is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 01:11 PM   #280
rojimboo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Reputation: 52
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace42 View Post
In the three setups the follo wing two questions are raised:
2
• Do firms suffer from the existence of copies?
• Does the availability of digital copies increase or decrease welfare?
The answer to the first question is an unambiguous “yes“ in the first setup. In the
second and third setups, firms may gain when digital copies are available.
Care to expand on what the other situations are, when applicable and welfare is defined vs firms suffering unambigously from piracy, instead of yet again cherry-picking something that you believe contradicts in any way the original statement?

While entertainment industry estimates of lost sales from piracy, pegged at up to $10 billion annually (Murphy 2003), may be overstated, there is evidence that access to file-sharing networks may reduce the probability of legal purchases by up to 30% (Zentner 2003), and that piracy reduces both legitimate revenues and the pricing power of sellers of music (Hui and Png 2003).

Quote:
Without knowing what the "probability of legal purchases" are for individual products, we have no way of quantifying how much reducing that figure by 1/3rd actually is. For products where the probability of someone purchasing it is 1% already, reducing that by a third (to 0.67%) is not realistically going to mean the difference between them buying it or not
. Read the methodology instead of getting figures out of your . You need to provide papers countering them, not make numbers up.

Quote:
Notice the numerous caveats and qualifiers - "may do, up to, etc."
Yes, because in science we say "And there was light. STOP QUESTIONING IT".

Quote:
Also, if you want to use Zentner's figures and research, use Zentner's figures and cite them. It serves no purpose whatsoever to merely go "well, this scholar points out that another scholar says..."
I did quote it from the only paper you seem to have access to. If you object to its methodology, or more importantly have found a paper refuting, do tell.

Quote:
Lastly, from the same article:
the model in this paper views pricing strategy and
technological deterrence as alternative instruments a
seller can use to manage piracy, which is consistent
with the model in Png and Chen (2003) and also
with the observation that a software publisher can
reduce piracy through
increased deterrent controls or
by reducing market price (Gopal and Sanders 1998).


The article in question is filled with statements that contradict your position.
Soooo...I just re-read that a couple times just to make sure and am unable to how it contradicts the position that piracy is not beneficial. Maybe you missed a quote or an explanation there...?

Quote:
Can't find a copy of it, but given your misrepresentation of other sources, I am not confident your conclusions based on the citation, or even its use, is valid.
Yes, I am clearly the one misrepresenting, misunderstanding and cherry-picking these 20 page papers.

Quote:
Again, notice the caveats "gives rise to the possibility; could mean; etc" used in it.
It's the language of science. There is even a paper about how the Earth could be hollow.

Quote:
It amuses me, with you having said that the music industry is irrelevant to the discussion, you directly cite a reference to audio CDs.
Misrepresenting what I was saying about your Radiohead example, where I was simply comparing it to the same as any DRM lost/gained sale example. Having said that, the DRM arguments for the music industry and pc gaming industry do have differences which is what I was referring, to which you maybe referring to. Not the effects of piracy however. You seem confused.


Quote:

Previous theoretical research has emphasized that piracy could potentially increase the legitimate
demand. As we showed in the an alysis leading to (7) and (8), the extent of piracy is endogenous
– it depends on the price of the legitimate item a nd the expected penalty. Accordingly, to study
the real impact of piracy, it is important to begin from the underlying variables that shape the
demands for the legitimate and pirated items. It would be wrong to treat piracy as an exogenous
factor and directly relate the legitimate demand to the extent of piracy.
- ibid.

The only available sources of data on piracy were studies by
the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), and the BSA (Business
Software Alliance) and SIIA (Software and Information Industry Association).
- all highly suspect.

See:
The IFPI ( http://www.ifpi.org /), with a membership of 1,500 record producers and distributors in 76
countries, represents the international recorded musi c industry.
- ibid.
If you are implying a shortcoming in their methodology do tell. As it stands, those sources are still the most comprehensive global piracy rate estimates.

Quote:
Also, it is dealing with physical copying (CDs) from the late 90s; not contemporary digital piracy, which is qualitatively different.
Exactly, which is why it also demonstrates the positive network externality effect.
Quote:

By contrast, we estimated the true loss to be only around 42% of this quantity, or specifically 0.0954 (± 0.0569) unit per capita.

- that's less than one lost sale in a thousand, even if you accept their methodology and think it applies universally to the digital market.
Your maths needs some serious work. One in ten.
Quote:
According to Hui and Png 2005, the BSA methodology for acquiring data was consumer and retailer surveys. So - "what your mates said" to the surveyers. As the BSA data is used as the basis for a lot of the above work, this - by your own argument - calls the entire validity of the core data into question.

So yah, the story the articles tell is pretty contrary to the conclusions you draw.
In surveys, you have statistical methods and methods to reduce the uncertainty when constructing the survey.

You have 2 friends. So you say.

You still have not argued how piracy is beneficial, with any proof?

You really are a climate denier - this is exactly what would happen when arguing with one, they claim (mistakenly) that the burden of proof is only on me, and just nitpick and cherrypick and pick all sorts of things, without actually arguing their own case.

Please robustly and rationally argue the case that piracy is beneficial.

Last edited by rojimboo: 08-23-2012 at 01:14 PM. Reason: quotes issues
rojimboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 01:22 PM   #281
Ardbug
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Reputation: 534
Posts: 2,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace42 View Post
@rojimboo

Yet another example is you quoting a large chunk of Jain's conclusion which broadly supports my position, and broadly contradicts yours, whilst still maintaining that "your source" bears out "your argument".

But thanks for providing that citation for everyone to see; it somewhat demonstrates my charge against you, that you are incapable of providing salient sources, that when given the opportunity to find a direct statement that agrees with you, you fish out one to the contrary.
Yep that was the exact same conclusion I arrived at when I discussed this with Rojimbo through walls upon walls of texts and quotes.

Basically he said that the only form of DRM that could be called intrusive in his opinion, was if said DRM required some sort of electronic scanning device such as retinal scanners, fingerprint readers etc etc, which off course is absurd, because there is zero research to back this up since no game has ever shipped with such devices to a customer, and thus no data could have been collected to back his position.

Yet all his "proofs" from peer reviewed sources, clearly concluded that DRM is effective until the consumer of the product find it intrusive, which in the case of Ubisoft clearly has shown that is does not require retinal scanners etc to be perceived as intrusive by consumers, their lost sales speak for themselves loud and clear.

His sources either contradict his own position, or else they are complete nonsense like the chunk of text he quoted below this statement from post #268 :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rojimbo
Furthermore, Hill's paper/book is far clearer on this point if you choose to omit Jain's paper, with the standard marginal cost curves:
If you read through the entire chunk you will soon find, that it points to charts and graphs that is nowhere to be found in his post, with reference numbers and abbreviations that are probably shown on that chart, but again nowhere to be found in his post.
How is anyone supposed to understand the meaning of a post that refers to undisclosed charts and graphs ?? after the first reference all meaning is lost, because the author continues to talk about something we the readers have never seen.

Nonsense lol
Ardbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 01:23 PM   #282
rojimboo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Reputation: 52
Posts: 494
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by exoriority View Post
Really it doesn't need a genius to conclude it. You didn't even provide a counter-argument.

Okay, let me explain to you... very... slowly... I hope you can get it... what's a DRM purpose actually? To prevent piracy and to secure the sales.

And he said only 5% was paid, 95% was pirated. And ubi was well known for its draconian DRM. So... according to what he said 95% of their DRM-ed games are actualy pirated. So 95% of their DRM-hardened games are actually failing.
Omg. So simple. Why did nobody realise this? The answer was right in front of us!

I mean, look at the Sun. It looks so small in the sky, going around us. Surely this proves that the Sun rotates Earth and is smaller. It's right there, so simple. Gaaaawwwwddd.



Sorry I couldn't resist.

But yeah (I can't believe I even have to type out this completely obvious reasoning) the reason why you cannot say that is because we know Ubi has DRM free games, we know that there are multiple factor influencing piracy rates other than DRM like the popularity of the game, the price of the game, the reviews and public perception of the game to name but a few.

Thus it in no way represents the success rate of DRM.
rojimboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 01:28 PM   #283
rojimboo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Reputation: 52
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardbug View Post
Yep that was the exact same conclusion I arrived at when I discussed this with Rojimbo through walls upon walls of texts and quotes.

Basically he said that the only form of DRM that could be called intrusive in his opinion, was if said DRM required some sort of electronic scanning device such as retinal scanners, fingerprint readers etc etc, which off course is absurd, because there is zero research to back this up since no game has ever shipped with such devices to a customer, and thus no data could have been collected to back his position.

Yet all his "proofs" from peer reviewed sources, clearly concluded that DRM is effective until the consumer of the product find it intrusive, which in the case of Ubisoft clearly has shown that is does not require retinal scanners etc to be perceived as intrusive by consumers, their lost sales speak for themselves loud and clear.

His sources either contradict his own position, or else they are complete nonsense like the chunk of text he quoted below this statement from post #268 :



If you read through the entire chunk you will soon find, that it points to charts and graphs that is nowhere to be found in his post, with reference numbers and abbreviations that are probably shown on that chart, but again nowhere to be found in his post.
How is anyone supposed to understand the meaning of a post that refers to undisclosed charts and graphs ?? after the first reference all meaning is lost, because the author continues to talk about something we the readers have never seen.

Nonsense lol
Oh no it's you.

Regarding Hill - whilst I am ok with quoting the theory from the book, I'm not going to start pasting figures, seeing as it is available to anyone with a library card.

Regarding your points - I addressed them then, but briefly, you completely misrepresent my point, especially since I fully agreed with you and quoted the author's papers findings that a low-level intrusive DRM was found to be the most beneficial.

You then started to say that DRM that requires authentication and an initial online login was Draconian, and I merely stated most people on STeam would disagree with you. Seeing as, that's how Steam operates.
rojimboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 01:34 PM   #284
B33 ENN
 
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Reputation: 5375
Posts: 5,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trashcantoy View Post
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...acy-rate-on-pc

Maybe its the god awful DRM...? I think PC gamers are voting with their wallets and this dude is completely out of touch.
I think that press statements like these are designed more for the shareholders ears than for their customers or the industry. They need something to pin potential losses or poor performances on, and piracy is a nice sensational catch-all that doesn't demand proper scrutiny to be accepted.

No DRM system has ever been a factor in my decision to buy a game, and that includes Ubi's unfair system. I have, and will continue to, by their or anyone elses games if I like the game enough. I believe that the majority of customers think like that relative to ones that may boycott or do otherwise.

Their desire to move to F2P is not some result of a dedicated survey into piracy, but is the result of market research showing many of their competitors benefitting from such a microtransaction model in the very delicate economic climate of the past few years.

In fact, they are late to the party, and they know it; so this is a convenient explanation for why it makes sense all of a sudden.
B33 ENN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 01:41 PM   #285
Ardbug
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Reputation: 534
Posts: 2,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojimboo View Post
Oh no it's you.

Regarding Hill - whilst I am ok with quoting the theory from the book, I'm not going to start pasting figures, seeing as it is available to anyone with a library card.

Regarding your points - I addressed them then, but briefly, you completely misrepresent my point, especially since I fully agreed with you and quoted the author's papers findings that a low-level intrusive DRM was found to be the most beneficial.

You then started to say that DRM that requires authentication and an initial online login was Draconian, and I merely stated most people on STeam would disagree with you. Seeing as, that's how Steam operates.
Yes but we are not in a library are we ? So how is anyone supposed to understand that quote in the forum we are discussing it in ?

I am a Steam customer, so naturally I accept a certain degree of DRM, we already went over this, you however argued that DRM was not "draconian" unless it involved some form of physical scanning device.
And not one of your quoted sources backed you on that.

But I was not addressing you, I believe we finished our conversation long ago when you made it clear what you considered "draconian" DRM.
Ardbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Discussions > Off Topic


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site Content Copyright Valve Corporation 1998-2014, All Rights Reserved.