Maybe telling people they don't own their games and your usage is subject to their whims wasn't the best idea.
"Piracy is a service problem" - Gabe Newell
"Piracy is a service problem" - Gabe Newell
Gabes point is thay the balance of the two is overwhelmingly; yes some pirates will always pirate. Most win prefer to buy the game if the terms are reasonable. Being smart enough to undetstand this and run his business accordingly is why Gabe owns yachts.
That's kind of like saying places that suffer from dine-and-dashers suffer from a service problem. I disagree.
Some services can sustain subsidization. Google can "give out" GMail, people will be happy to have the service for "free". Smaller players who can't subsidize their service(s) with ad platforms may have to either charge money or offer fewer features and recoup revenue via features.
Gabe has the breadth and resources to practice his economics -many others do too; however, many smaller or more focused players don't have that liberty. Obviously we have companies who go to extremes to ruthlessly extract as much as they can from their customers. They are obviously deserving of criticism --but not everyone who wants can play by Gabe's philosophy.
This quote has been taken too far out of context from the original talk, which is worth viewing.
He was saying that piracy can be reduced by making the product easily available. When it was easier to download a pirated version from home than to drive to the store and back and unwrap a physical CD, piracy was easier.
That is not true today. The easiest path is to buy the game digitally through the service on the device and play it directly. Pirating it is more work and harder to do.
So quoting Gabe Newell in support is wrong. Saying it’s a service problem is also wrong when the piracy route takes a lot more work. The goalposts keep moving around (and I’m sure they’ll move more in the replies) but we have to eventually admit that a lot of pirates are pirating because they don’t want to pay for the game. It’s the most obvious fact on this topic but the comments are always full of mental gymnastics pretending the pirates are noble people doing the right thing.
I’m not sympathetic to this argument in the context of current generation gaming for titles where developers are trying to sell them and making them easily available digitally.
Could've sworn the original context was that he was referring to Russian piracy, where many of the games were not available there legally at the time, leaving piracy as the only recourse.
He was making a pitch for Steam in a different time where digital distribution was not a thing.
Now digital distribution is the baseline and availability and ease of use are in favor of not pirating, but his quote is taken out of context to justify piracy anyway.
For example, I can think of numerous instances in which people get pushed to piracy by, ironically, anti-piracy DRM software (e.g. Denuvo), which causes such inconvenience and performance degradation to the end-user that even if you have legitimately purchased the game, you will have a much better experience playing a cracked, DRM-free version of the game.
That would be a case where--for example--GOG might put forth their DRM-free versions of games as an example of how to successfully counter the "service" problem.
- pricing - for some kids some games are just too expensive, and they still want to play, and don't want to be left out;
- platform lock - this is more for emulation, where people don't want to buy a platform to play 1 or 2 IP;
I see Gabe's reference in both of those scenarios, because Steam always had good deals, while retailers didn't.
You might say: "in that case, some people are only willing to pay 0$ for a game, and they shouldn't have access to it."
While I understand it, I bet you a massive chunk of GTA V, RDR2, and soon GTA VI players that have available income now, had their first experiences with the series through piracy.
But I agree there's no nobility, just people that can't afford stuff, or don't value it enough to part with their money, but you can't assume they would be customers at the moment they get a copy.
This was me for a long, long time. I pirated games until I was into my late 20s simply because I couldn't afford to buy them. Now, with Steam, the idea of pirating a game is something I never think about.
Sorry, but that’s life. Saying something is too expensive but you still want it doesn’t change anything.
> - platform lock - this is more for emulation, where people don't want to buy a platform to play 1 or 2 IP;
How is this relevant? You can’t play a pirated PS5 game without buying a PS5.
This is just another variant of your argument above that people want things but don’t want to pay for them.
> but you can't assume they would be customers at the moment they get a copy.
You can’t assume that every pirate would not be a customer if they couldn’t pirate.
Which means the sales would be higher without piracy. Which means piracy hurts revenue. The rest is hand waving.
I can say the same. Other people don't accept the terms you do. Sorry, that's life.
And I'm not saying this to spite you, it comes from the same place, so much so there's a whole sub culture around it.
> You can’t assume that every pirate would not be a customer if they couldn’t pirate.
I never said that every pirate wouldn't be a customer, I'm saying the vast majority wouldn't be in the short term.
Of course I can't prove that in the long term, because what I know are anecdotes - but I'm pretty sure people develop nostalgia bonds with IP they pirated.
It would actually be an interesting study.
You cannot buy a game digitally. You can only rent a license. Once there are laws in place that enable me to sell a game I bought on Steam via ebay we can call it buying.