25 replies to this topic

[Obrusnine]

You know, I'm honestly getting sick with developers use of tools to counter copying, piracy, and cracking. It's honestly just pointless, and only hurts the consumer. No matter what a developer does to protect a game, someone, somewhere, is going to break their idiotic encryption.

Let's take a look at a prime example: Diablo III

I state this as a prime example because it's anti-piracy measures directly hurt the consumer. The game REQUIRES that your connected to the internet AT ALL TIMES in order to play the game.

First, I would like to add that in addition to blatantly hurting the consumer (this pretty much intentionally kills the possibility of LAN Parties/Singleplayer), it also will not work. I guarantee that within 10 weeks of this games release, someone will have gotten right past this online only BS. The only reason people don't do this for MMO's is because MMO's generally rely on interaction with other players anyways, Diablo isn't an MMO, and while distinctly multiplayer oriented, the game can be played and enjoyed by oneself (at least, I'm pretty sure that's why MMO's aren't cracked for single-player).

My first 3 playthroughs of Diablo II were actually by myself. Back then, I was a kid who couldn't care less about interaction with other people.

Instead of doing what the developer wants this protection to do, someone's going to get past it and crack it so that people don't have to idiotically log in just to play by themselves. Diablo is a single-player game, and I will not be buying it if I can't play it by myself.

Not to mention, what about all the Diablo players who don't have the internet? Blizzard is going to alienate all of those Diablo fans. Playing on the go? Not gonna happen.

Blizzard has honestly (in my mind) stepped up their game on pissing off their customers in order to protect their investments (especially when it doesn't WORK ANYWAYS).

Not enough people speak out against it either, so the devs interpret this as permission to continue. They keep adding more and more measures to the annoyance of the players to stop piracy, that don't work anyways, and end up hurting their consumers far more then they even come close to stopping piracy.

There is a developer who understands this however, and I'll always respect them for it. That's Stardock.

Stardock doesn't use any form of DRM or Anti-Piracy Protection in their games. Because of this, the consumers don't suffer in a needless attempt to prevent people from illegally getting their hands on their games. Instead, you are just prevented from playing online without a legit CD Key.

More developers need to follow Stardocks example.

Besides, you know what? I pirated Sins of a Solar Empire. You know what? I ended up buying it because I enjoyed the game.

Developers need to understand that Piracy isn't hurting their industry. In fact, I bet you all that 90 percent of people who pirate games wouldn't have purchased them anyways. My feeling is that piracy is basically free advertising. Maybe these publishers and developers need to realize that.

Maybe they should also make all of their games free-to-play for a little while. Some people just want to try a game before they purchase it, which is something I completely reflect. I don't want to buy something before I've tried it first. I need to know that my investment is well made.

Developers just need to stop acting like Piracy is this huge problem that hurts the entire industry. What their doing is over-reacting to a problem that doesn't even exist. Piracy DOES NOT hurt the Industry at all.

So... what's your opinion on the matter?

Oh, I would also like to add that the only way Piracy could really hurt something is if it was a small game company's project that is getting pirated. Bigger ones can actually afford any loss in revenue, for small or indie developers, it's way different when even 1 percent of sales getting drained by piracy is a rather large number when compared with the rest of sales.

Edited by Niko Jose DelValle, 27 April 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[casper667]

I'm not so sure Blizzard is doing it to stop "all" pirates, but by making it harder and harder to crack and keep that crack working, less people will pirate it or at least consider purchasing it before they get bored of it and move on to the next game, which is their overall goal. It's important to remember that they didn't get where they are today by allowing people to obtain free copies of their products. You also have to consider that Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, which is owned by Vivendi SA, so they are most likely not the ones have the say over piracy protection decisions.

Big companies like this have to answer to people who own their stock, and these people only care that the money coming in increases or at least stays the same, which happens if fewer people pirate the game. The only thing that would make them reconsider is a boycott of the products, or some other way to make them lose money, which I do not see happening.

Plus, while these limits do affect the consumer, I do not think they have gotten to the point where it affects the consumer too much. For example, as long as you have a legit copy, you'll only have to have internet to play the game problem-free which is likely less hassle than a pirate has to deal with (unless the pirate only uses it for offline play, I guess).

Also, if this kind of copy-protection pisses you off, wait until you hear about the rumored new PlayStation's anti-used game ability: LINK

[Obrusnine]

I have heard of LINK, but just so you know the first rumor that surfaced was actually about the Xbox. I have a feeling that Sony/Microsoft intentionally leaked misleading information to test the waters and see customer response.

If they DO block used games on the next version, then I will not be buying the next-generation of consoles. The entire point of getting a console is saving money, and that doesn't help at all.

I would like to add that this opinion article wasn't directly addressing Diablo III, but rather using it as a platform to elevate the statement. Because Blizzard seems willing to take it a step further. Also needing the internet to play a single-player game "Problem-Free" is exactly the point I was trying to get at. What about people using their laptops moving around? What if they go to a place where they don't have access to the internet and want to play the game they legitimately purchased?

Not just Blizzard, but gaming companies in general are taking anti-piracy to far, and if we keep progressing down this path, it's just going to get worse. This is really light stuff considering what they could do, but if consumers keep enabling, it's going to get worse. It'll get to the point where every consumer has to go through strenuous processes just to access the products they bought. Just like I said, most of the anti-piracy measures don't end up working anyways. All they do is disrupt the paying consumer from enjoying the products they buy.

Some would even consider the processes we already go through far more strenuous then needed to access our products. Just look at Mass Effect's internet validation system, or Sony's disabling of the other OS function on the PS3 even though people could still jailbreak their PlayStation anyways. Sure, they only messed with a fraction of their consumers there, but still, it wasn't fair to the buyers who legitimately used the function within their legal rights.

It's getting to the point where everything we do is examined to make sure it's ours. I should have the right to modify, take apart, and mess with the stuff I own. It's the same thing those hackers were saying before the PSN went down (not the hackers who DID take it down). They complained that Sony was taking away their ability to do whatever they wanted to do with the things they purchased. I actually agree, and while I do not condone their pirating actions, they had every right to modify and screw with the product whatever way they wanted to.

I pirate because I have no other choice. But I don't even condone my own actions. But if I didn't pirate, I would never have had access to a great many things that others do because they can afford them. I wouldn't even mind these anti-piracy measures if they didn't interfere with the paying consumer, which I am still sometimes a part of.

So, in conclusion, while these measures haven't gotten to the point where they mess with the customer to a ridiculous measure (I tend to think messing with them at all is to much), Blizzard is on the edge. If other single-player developers follow their idiotic example, what are we going to do? It'll be far to late to change things.

Edited by Niko Jose DelValle, 27 April 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[Mephistox]

I have to say so, I have never bought a game, the only original game that I got was the Riddle's Chronicles that came with a joystick. And WoW, that I bought while the black friday promo the year of cataclysm release, and I paid for about 6 months with a money came from my scholarship, the rest of my games were gotten from the internet. To put some points in my answer, because for some people I'm a pirate, if you think that is bad or no-moral, well f**ck you.
---

Now the first question: the drm/anti-crack shit always affects the consumer, the perfect example that you gave was diablo III, or other games from blue byte (like the settlers series), that don't let you play without an internet connection, very bad if we see this from the point of a person that doesn't have internet (they exist), or want to create a backup of the game just in case, or want to share with a friend (THAT IS NOT PIRACY!!), and more if the consumer has problem with the drivers or that kind of things that happen for example with GAMES FOR WINDOWS or the ROCKSTAR GAME SHIT more problems and obstacles for the user.

About your second question, that's false is a myth, is what happen with music, the fact that the people download 1 UNIT of the game from internet (cracked), doesn't mean that the company would sold that UNIT, simply, they wouldn't sold that unit.

Even, I can say that 'piracy' helps the industry, the most of the times, in countries where the 'piracy' is like a taboo or is really low (because you don't have money to do that or you have your daddy to buy that nice game because your daddy has a lot of money), they try a game (because some companies are too lazy to offer a demo or beta), try the game and then buy it, it's like a marketing thing, the same thing that happen with music, they listen a song from a downloaded album then go to the concert, more for the artist, no?.

The last thing can be seen also in the non-official wow servers, what happen when you have money to buy the game? or pay the fee?, of course that you buy the game and pay the fee, marketing without spending a dime, gosh. (anyways they screwed up with diablo 3, and anyways, I'm pretty sure someone created a crack by there, just see TPB).
---

No matter how complex a secure anti-crack-piracy system is, somewhere, someone has cracked it.

Edited by Mephistox, 27 April 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[Obrusnine]

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Blizzard and other game companies are basically torturing the average consumer with anti-piracy methods that don't work. They use this to come up with even worse anti-piracy methods that still do not work!

It's not TO bad now, but if it keeps getting worse and worse, we're eventually going to have to fight the company just to use the products we purchase.

9 times out of 10 when I pirate a game, I have an easier time with installing and playing that game then I did with a legit copy that I purchase later when I have the cash on hand. That's a damned shame. Why would I have a smoother time with a pirated game then I would with a legit one? That's exactly the opposite of what they intend but they don't even realize it.

Seriously, I don't understand who approves these policies. If they had ever tried pirating their own companies game, they'd know that it was easier then buying it. They need to spend more time thinking of coming with with a good idea rather then constantly using bad ones and interfering with the enjoyment of the consumer.

Absolutely no one benefits from these policies, not the pirates, not the consumers, and not the company.

[shaz]

I don't know about the big games. My perspective is from a small game company, making shareware games (first hour free, pay to own it) for download, not for online play.

I see three groups of people
1 - those who will refuse to pay for a game and will go to any measure to get it for free, however they like to justify it
2 - those who are honest and will buy a game after the trial period because they know the developer has costs to recover, and they are happy to pay for something that's given them satisfaction
3 - those who want the game and will pay for it IF they can't find it somewhere for free

DRM does not affect group 1, and a small company is not affected by them either. If they couldn't get it for free, they wouldn't buy it, so they are not a "lost customer".

For the type of game I am talking about, group 2 isn't bothered by DRM - they pay for the game, they get access to it. It's an inconvenience if they get a new computer or reinstall their OS and have to re-register - some think they have to buy the game again; usually it's just a matter of requesting that their registration details be resent, and it's all taken care of. What's not right is if they are no longer able to register or activate the game because of something the company does (like going out of business and closing down servers that the DRM uses)

Group 3 are the people I want DRM to affect. If I'm selling a game, I WANT people to buy it. I don't want to make it freely available so these people can say "well, I COULD pay for it, and it'd be the right thing to do, but since they're not forcing me, I won't." And some of the people in group 2 might start thinking that way too.

Honestly, if you could release a game for a fair price, and know that everyone who played it would pay it, I would absolutely go that way. But that's relying on people's honesty, and sadly, that's just something that can't be relied upon.

I do agree that some companies take DRM too far, and that in those cases it hurts the people who are doing the right thing, while the people who are doing the wrong thing are not affected in the least. That's all wrong.

What is a good alternative? Freemium and microtransactions seem to be all the rage now, but they need to be included in game design right from the start, not added on later as an afterthought. And harder to implement in RPG Maker games, though I won't say impossible.

[Obrusnine]

I would like it if F2P games were taken a little differently. Maybe a good deal of the game free, but can buy full access with one transaction. But this isn't about that, it's about DRM.

I disagree that Group 2 isn't affected by DRM. Most companies make it a cumbersome process to "activate" these games. Seriously, DRM affects gamers so much that even legit users use cracks so they don't have to deal with it. It's not how it should be. These companies are so afraid of a problem that doesn't actually exist they inadvertently hurt their customers for no good reason.

For some reason this is obvious to us, but not to them. The fact that I have to "activate" a product I purchased at all is a great injustice. We never had to do it before the internet became popular, but now we're forced into it. The companies treat their customers like criminals, and it just isn't fair. No gamer belonging to Group 2 would understand why they would have to go to such extreme measures when they don't work anyways. Especially things like internet check-ins. It feels like you have to check in with a probation officer every few weeks if I can make the comparison.

Instead, these companies need to come up with a more intuitive solution. If not, then they shouldn't include the protection.

This is why I love Stardock. They realize this and seem to be the only game dev that can use common sense.

Actually, I think it's a bad idea to listen to investors. They're there to provide you money for your operations, not to dictate the solutions to your companies problems. Leave that to the people who are intimately familiar with the subject and worry about the investors later.

[shaz]

I didn't say group 2 isn't affected - I said they're not bothered. And I added the caveat that that's IF it doesn't make it unreasonably difficult for them to reactivate a game they've already purchased.

Having to key in a code you get in an email is no big deal imo. And as long as you can get that code back if you lose it, by contacting the developer, or some kind of online activation against email address or something, it's fine. It's when you can't get in touch with the developer, or they make you jump through hoops proving your initial purchase, or the online activation system is no longer available, that the customers get hurt. And I did say that's not good.


I'm assuming your comment about investors is a response to someone else, or a new line of reasoning, 'cause I never mentioned them.

[Obrusnine]

It was indeed a new line of reasoning, sorry I kinda said it out of the blue like that, lol

Your right, it's no big deal to grab a key from an email. But some things, like Mass Effect's internet check-in's, or Diablo III's Internet-Only, are going way to far. To many game devs feel that these are necessary when they don't help stop piracy anyways.

[藤原健太]

Let's do a little math shall we?
Take a look at Final Fantasy Reishiki for example (Available for PSP)
Its price is 94.90$ (Oversea) and about 55$ (Japan) and the current exchanging rate for USD to JPY is 1/80.73
So,these price can be converted into 7661.227 JPY (Oversea) and 4440.15 JPY (Japan) each 1 unit
Now, let's take a little look
Final Fantasy Reishiki was made at the same time with both Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Versus XIII (Since 4 - 5 years ago)
That means during this time, the developers (Square-Enix) doesn't gain any profit for these products right? But the company still have to pay for the designers (Programmers,CGI Programmers, 3D Modelers, Character Designers,Musicians,...). Let's take a Character Designer's salary for example first, he/she for the first time working in the company, will be paid about 225000 JPY/Month (And that's not high in Japan) and for an experienced designer, it's about 350000 JPY/Month, for Art Leader, it's about 420000 JPY/Month
Now, assuming that all of the character designers are new, and are all paid 225000 JPY/Month, and there are 4 Character Designer, so it's 900000 JPY/Month.It takes 5 years, so it's in total 54000000 JPY, now, how many copies does it take to pay for that? 54000000/7661.227 (Assuming all are oversea) = 7048 Copies (Nice number eh?)
But in real, they need 9 character designers and 1 art leader for the project, so, how many copies? 19148 Copies in total (Holy!!) But actually, the project need more than 100 People with the salary high than 225000 JPY/Month (Yes, they are All Experienced), so we will need over 250000 Copies to be sold, isn't that right?
But of course, that's just only the salary of the workers, you haven't yet mentioned the Taxes each month, Electric/Water Fee,... not to mention Holidays and Bonus Salary, and to be exact, they take 125% more of the copies, so it add up to 562500 Copies to be sold
But the Company also need it annual stock for upgrading/maintaining, and they need about 100.000.000 JPY for one project each year, so it's 500.000.000 JPY/Project (5 Years course) so it takes 65263 more copies, so in total, they need 315263 copies already
But they want to sell oversea, and they need 3 oversea departments (Asia/Europe/America) and each takes about 20% more of the total price, holy, that's 60% add up to the total, so it's 160% of 315263 = 504421 Copies, but wait, we need to advertise the project, holy! How could anyone buy it without knowing about it? But the advertising takes 50% more in price of each unit, oh great, so it must stands 150% of the total = 756631 Copies, god, I'm starting to get dizzy
But what about the stupid thing we called Taxes (When shipping oversea), they usually takes about 10% to 20% (In my damned country) so, it become 120% of the current total --> 907957 Copies
Now, let's say there are about 3 million players play the game (Hontou ni~ Reishiki isn't really that good, sorry Square...but I don't like the fact that everything is destroyed) and 90% are doing piracy, so only 300000 copies are sold...at the time when the game come out (First year)...Nice try, but you still have 607957 copies left to sell just to fulfill everything, so how will you get profit? Think about it!
You also forgot to mention one thing: to sell it oversea, it require translating (Yes, most of the players only know English, not so many know Japanese) and that phase require like 7 or 8 months, and so you need more copies to be sold (Exceed 1200000 Copies)
So, what do you think? Is that stupid Piracy a big problem or not? Unless you think the remaining number is a small number, let's convert them into USD shall we? Assuming that 900000 Copies were left...85410000 USD need to be paid, can you pay it?
Let me tell you one truth, game designing is not a very well paid job and it takes lots of skills,patience to make a great game, those need to be paid.Imagine, your work is there and others just use it freely without paying anything, but that takes you 1 year to complete, would you rather let them use it freely or try make them paid for a fair price?
Don't be selfish, think about the developers as well,piracy is illegal and it hurts the developers not you consumers.Thus, what is bad buying a game? You also get bonuses when you buy them, thus, you are able to support them, greatly encouraging them to create more and more games for you to play, isn't that a good thing? If you are not sure whether the game worth it or not, the demo is there for you to try out, so why need to pirate games? Think about it!

[Obrusnine]

First of all, that post had almost no relevance to this topic at all. This is your opinion about how DRM and anti-piracy protection hurts consumers more then it stops pirates. I wasn't supporting or condoning piracy with this post, but you made it sound like I did and also pretty much ignored every single relevant statement I made that was anywhere near relevant to what you said.

Anyways, I clearly clarified above why Piracy doesn't really hurt anyone but small game developers (which it doesn't). In addition, you actually mentioned a game that's far safer from pirating then any of the games mentioned in my OP. For one, it's a PSP game. Not as many people are going to be targeting it because of the difficulty acquiring the smaller disks. Secondly, it's a Japanese game. That's a niche genre.

It links directly back to what I said in my OP. Even with the very few people who would actually post copies of the game for download online, the amount of pirates would be pretty slim. Besides, the loss of profit would be miniscule. I said in the OP that I pretty much guaranteed that 90 percent of pirates wouldn't have bought the game either way. For a lot of people, the only way to get their hands on certain things is unfortunately through piracy.

So I say again, Piracy DOES NOT hurt game design companies much if at all.

Next time read what was previously said or at least the OP before you start making comments. Your posts degree of relevance to the topic is non-existant.

In addition, you just came up with a random number of people who pirated. When a game comes out, the percent of the games purchasers always far outmatches the pirates. Saying 90 percent were pirates is just dumb, it would never happen, and has never happened. It pretty much invaladate's your entire closing statement.

Edited by Niko Jose DelValle, 28 April 2012 - 08:00 AM.

[藤原健太]

For once my friend, come to Vietnam or China for God's sake
People go and pirate stuffs like there is no tomorrow and not only 90 percents, but 95 percents are pirating games, especially in Vietnam, there are even pirate shops where they sell pirate copy for just 1$ (Or even less) of software,games, stuffs,...don't say something that you don't know =.= I live there so of course I know, saying me dumb when you certainly have no clues about it, god!
And those numbers, they are not some kind of random, they are actually numbers came from Famitsu's Magazine and from Square-enix's official page (2 years ago), I remembered them because I accidentally read about it through their page
And Piracy as I have stated, DOES HURT the companies, no matter it's big or small, unless you are not smart enough to even recognize it.Think about it, without the Piracy stuffs, people will buy the official copies, and that will, however, increase their income.Comparing the current situation profit with the profit where piracy doesn't exist of course, there is a huge different, not just some random craps, got it?
Another thing, what's the differences between Japanese's Games and West Games? Tell me? Don't just go out there and say that Japan's are different and doesn't count, remember, Japan's have even twice the number of west games (There are new games coming out everyday now and then on different consoles,handhelds and PCs, though you won't know it because you can't understand japanese) and it's play the most important role in the game industry currently (Japan and Korea XD, one go for Offline games and the other just play Online lol, weird) and I did read your comments and topics and what you are cramming about is just how the anti-piracy system hurt the consumers, but you didn't even think about how the developers would feel, what I'm trying to do here, is to make it clear for you the reason why they would do that, got it?

[Obrusnine]

Uh, Japan's different and doesn't count. A majority of profits from any company comes from here in America. In America, Japanese games are niche and unique, not something that ends up getting purchased by a lot of copies. It doesn't matter where those numbers come from, their ridiculous and stupid. Especially considering your just considering your region, like your region actually matters in the grand scheme of things (which just so you know, it does not).

You are not in a zone of primary purchasing influence. Most people there pirate there because there are far less people with money. Devs and publishers do not target those regions, they target where the money really is, in places like Japan, the UK, and especially the USA, which has the largest group of gamers on the planet. So, yet again, Piracy does NOT hurt the companies one bit. A very large majority of those downloads would never have bought the game anyways, which you seem to be forgetting... over and over again. You act like every single pirated copy distributed would've been a legitimate purchase, which will not be true no matter how many times you want to beat around the bush.

I didn't say more games come out in Japan or not, but maybe you should actually link real numbers instead of acting like a know-it-all and just pulling them out of your ass. It wouldn't matter either way, because even Japanese developers primarily make money from us here in the USA. Seriously, combine their profits from all areas that aren't the US and you will get a number three or more times smaller then the USA. The USA has the largest community of gamers on the planet.

Japan's own region barely matters, because they will always end up with more people purchasing here then there. Just look at the situation with the PS Vita in Japan a few months ago.

About the anti-piracy measures, I clearly stated that I knew why they were doing it so if you were actually paying attention I understood, but what I am trying to outline is that every attempt for it is a clear mistake when it doesn't end up working in the long run.

[Naridar]

Blizzard's extreme measures aren't exactly new, the same was the case with Assassin's Creed 2 for the PC. If your internet dropped, the game ceased to work AND you've lost progress since your last save (Whereas, pirates didn't suffer from this, since their crack disabled DRM). Before then, Starforce copy protection killed many DVD drives and computers outright, and posed a real security threat (it enabled potential viruses access to the lowest-level system functions, also known as a "Ring 0 access", basically enabling total control over your machine). It had such an uproar Ubisoft decided to use SecuRom for Heroes of Might and Magic V instead.

[Nastara]

I'm not much of a pirate, but there isn't much you can do to stop them. Time and time again DRM just doesn't work. People will find away around. They always do and only the straight and narrow suffer. That isn't right.

What I do pirate I wasn't going to buy anyway. That's how it usually works.

[Obrusnine]

I concur, that's exactly why I pirate... I can't afford to buy the stuff in the first place.

I would love to not be poor, but that's just not how it is.

[Tsukihime]

So is this a money issue?
If you had money to buy anything you want, would you still complain about these protection initiatives?

[Obrusnine]

Yes. I explained that in my initial post, this isn't about piracy, this is about how the protection interferes with the consumer but leaves the pirate rather less annoyed.

[Tsukihime]

interferes with the consumer but leaves the pirate rather less annoyed.

I don't know about the kind of games you buy or the products you use that are causing you so much grief such that 90% of the time you're having technical issues, but I've never had a problem with DRM (yet), nor have I had issues with activation codes and stuff. Only time I run into issues is when I'm trying to hack the game, steal the resources, decompile the exe, or anything else that the dev's don't want me to do.

I would never consider Blizzard's online-only initiative to be anti-piracy (even if you can't go online cause you have a pirated copy). I consider it a different business model. It would be better if I didn't even have to install the game to connect, but I guess they're not there yet.

And when you say "consumer" do you mean anyone that uses a product or service? Or only the ones that pay?
Cause if you're not paying for a product and only using their resources, a lot of companies wouldn't even consider you a consumer that they need to care about. Which is of course a different business model which probably doesn't work out very well in the end.

Edited by Tsukihime, 01 May 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[Obrusnine]

You may not have encountered anything you consider excessive, but I played games back in the old days before DRM existed. I remember them better then most people to do, and I miss them. They didn't torture the customer.

When I pirate something, I find that I usually have far less problems with it. Hell, even if I do buy something, I still use Cracks on them.

Consumer means the one who pays for it, a pirate isn't a consumer because the money from the product doesn't reach the customer.

By the way, Diablo II didn't require the internet did it? You could play alone, or on LAN. It's not a different business model, it's a pure and excessive anti-piracy measure. Possibly the worst one I've ever seen. From what I've seen in the beta the game isn't even going to allow LAN parties. Even you have to admit that's ridiculous. A helluva lot of people played D2 on LAN. Hell, I STILL play Diablo 2 on LAN. But they're saying I can't just because they want to stop pirates?

Hell, look at Mass Effect. That's a SINGLE PLAYER GAME, they required you to do an internet check-in with your copy every like 10 days I think. Why do they have to double-check the product that I bought? This age were entering is an age where we don't have any true control over the things we own. It's not one I like either.

It's not going to stop pirates anyways, so yea, it annoys me. Diablo 3 is one of those games I probably would've pirated in the beginning and then bought it once I saved up the money. I end up doing that for a lot of things. If it still results in a purchase, why does anyone care?

I did that for RPG Maker VX, and is that such a bad thing? They still got my money didn't they? I did that for Sins of a Solar Empire, I did it for Age of Empires III... I've done it for a lot of things.

Honestly, the only game I've ever pirated that I've never bought a copy of of was Call of Duty. But I don't buy Call of Duty because I don't support the "recycle the same game every year" thing they've got going, lol