Debate: software prices vs. piracy

**dj_stick** · May 5, 2006, 08:26 PM

Ok here's my statement:

With the prices of some professional applications such as photoshop, logic, 3D max etc being exorbitantly high, people who can't afford the cost use pirated versions, whereas if the companies would lower the price to something much more acceptable, many people would by legal copies of the software.

Overall, I believe the net profit would still be the same, less revenue per copy sold, but there would be far more copies sold at the lower price than at the higher.

I want to hear what the rest of you think about that.

Drakon · May 5, 2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_stick

Ok here's my statement:

With the prices of some professional applications such as photoshop, logic, 3D max etc being exorbitantly high, people who can't afford the cost use pirated versions, whereas if the companies would lower the price to something much more acceptable, many people would by legal copies of the software.

Overall, I believe the net profit would still be the same, less revenue per copy sold, but there would be far more copies sold at the lower price than at the higher.

I want to hear what the rest of you think about that.

I fully agree with you, DJ. I surely don't have $4K to blow on Max; not saying that's it's not worth it, but I think Autodesk should start catering to the non-pro crowd. Just my penny

Nacht · May 6, 2006, 01:11 AM

These companies aren't concerned as much about single, home users I think. Where they make their money is in company liscences, for universities, businesses, and such.

Falstaff · May 6, 2006, 03:01 AM

Piracy costs lots of money....it is raping the industry..
every time you steal from a software manufacturer, you are bending them over a barrel and give them a go.....
keep it up and eventually you will get a nasty piece of code that you cant get rid of...

**dj_stick** · May 6, 2006, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

These companies aren't concerned as much about single, home users I think. Where they make their money is in company liscences, for universities, businesses, and such.

I see that, but half my year level at high school had a pirated copy of the latest version of Photoshop - imagine if every school/university was like that - that's a lot of money that could be made had the software been affordable

I myself have stuck to Photoshop 6 - primarily because it's a legal version

Sandok · May 6, 2006, 05:08 AM

Yeah I agree, drop the prices! I had seen an awesome video made with Sony Vegas and checked ou the price... 650$. Sorta worth a tenth of my PC

Al_Vampyre · May 6, 2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_stick

Ok here's my statement:

With the prices of some professional applications such as photoshop, logic, 3D max etc being exorbitantly high, people who can't afford the cost use pirated versions, whereas if the companies would lower the price to something much more acceptable, many people would by legal copies of the software.

Overall, I believe the net profit would still be the same, less revenue per copy sold, but there would be far more copies sold at the lower price than at the higher.

I want to hear what the rest of you think about that.

I tend to agree but not without reservations, why should software be any different from cars for example...

If you just want to get from A to B then any car will do but if you want to get there faster then you have to pay extra for a powerful enough car to do it.

There is no reason why you have to use Photoshop (for example) there are a ton of other apps out there but if you 'Shop is the best then you have to pay for it...

Bellator · May 6, 2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

These companies aren't concerned as much about single, home users I think. Where they make their money is in company liscences, for universities, businesses, and such.

yep, frankly im sure they couldn't care less about individual piracy... now if a company uses pirated software (*cough BEST BUY *cough) that's different.

So with the big name software here is the situation-
-Company makes gobs from licencing to developers
-As a result doesn't give a hoot about individual users, and therefore doesn't give a hoot about individual piracy.
-Sooo, if that's the case why should I care about the 'piracy' issue if the company itself doesn't?

The real problem comes with smaller developers that ARE aimed at individual users.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Piracy costs lots of money....it is raping the industry..
every time you steal from a software manufacturer, you are bending them over a barrel and give them a go.....
keep it up and eventually you will get a nasty piece of code that you cant get rid of...

Now while I wouldn't say it's exactly 'raping' the industry, I can see it becoming a problem with small innovative developers. Those are the guys that really feel the hurt from pirating, but that issue is one helluva can of worms. These small developers depend on users buying software even when the user may be able to easily get the same software pirated for free... How much can we trust the 'good will' of the consumer to pay for a quality product so the developer stays in business and continue to create quality products...

How morally reprehensible is this type of individual for example: This user usually gets full pirated versions of popular software (of the $20-$40 variety, not the $4000). If he has definitely benefitted from the software (i.e. didn't just use it for a day and deleted it forever, but rather uses it often) then he goes ahead and purchases the product. However if it is utter crap or he just doesn't end up using it he never pays for that pirated version.

This would be an example of relying on the 'good will' of the consumer. I'm not sure how much we can really trust that!

Geminiwave · May 6, 2006, 01:35 PM

yea but most people I know do things that way. They'll go pirate software (or music even) use it for a bit...and if its really good they'll go buy it. Honestly most of us arent trying to screw the industry...we just feel screwed by the industry ourselves and we're trying to level the playing field.

take this for example. Lets say that we go out and buy any new CD that we're told is super super great. Lots of crappy music would be purchased and the good music might do AS well but theres no real benefit to being a quality band.

Now lets say I go and download the 100 new CDs from this month...lets say 10 are good a nd the 90 others are crap. I ditch the 90 others and go buy the 10 (because pirated versions are NEVER as good as the original. sometimes this isn't true for software but I often find it so) Those 10 good bands are rewarded for being GOOD and putting out a QUALITY product. The rest are shown that they suck and dont deserve the cash. its almost darwinian. I mean it sucks for the bands trying to play for money (but bands who only play for money should burn anyway) and for the recording industry but it ROCKS for bands who're actually good.

This doesn't justify piracy by any stretch but its certainly something that the RIAA and software makers should consider.

YAYitsAndrew · May 6, 2006, 10:01 PM

The thousand dollar tools that you steal aren't for you. They're for people who can use that software to make a living; that's why they can also afford to pay the high costs, because it's an investment.

Lowering the prices for everyone wouldn't make them more money. You would all still steal it and they'd be getting less money from the people who are legitimately buying the software.

Who cares if they get you to drop 300 bucks on an IDE when some company is buying a 2500 dollar copy for every developer, or buying into their subscription systems?

The answer you're looking for is hobbyist versions of the software, kind of like how microsoft has express versions of their 2005 visual studio suite.

BiGBrOwNPimpsta · May 6, 2006, 10:35 PM

its just retarded for some games, if they offer value go ahead. like when ut2004 came out, it was a huge package for only 30 bucks. now thats a deal. and it was a quality game.

YAYitsAndrew · May 7, 2006, 08:22 AM

When UT2k4 came out it was 50 for the regular game and more for the super duper version.

Maddogg6 · May 7, 2006, 02:00 PM

I don't understand how piracy is hurting the gameing buisness - isnt it like a $30B industry??

If that industry was a 'loosing game' - thered be no pc/console games. How does one stay in business with a consistant net loss??

I suspect the majority of the piracy that happens, is done by people who would NOT have purchased otherwise anyways. That applies to Music, Movies and Software. So, if anything - these 'pirates' help in their marketing.

Bill Gates admitted - if it werent for piracy (of win 1-3x), windows would have NEVER gotten as popular as it has. (at the time FEW programs 'required' windows, NOW they ALL do- right?)
They (developers) never stress the point of pirating's 'marketing value'... So all you pirates... Stand up, be proud, DEMAND compensations and deserved respect ... j/K LOL

Piracy is the 'dog' thats kicked when the fat cats start taking a paycut because of a drooping economy, or because their business model sucks.
'Why has my stock dropped.... it must be them damn pirates'

I also read a similar comment about 3Dmax - that 'pirates' became animators/modelers BECAUSE they got a hold (pirated) of their software - and gained experience (buying books from the book store) - and when they got their new job - convinced their bosses to switch over to max because its 'superior' when actually, it was more the case of 'familiarity' (compared to say, Lightwave).

My point is - the mass media ONLY voices the developers 'story' and we rarly hear about the 'silver lining' THAT IS there.

AND - its THAT GREED - that allows such pirates to 'justify' their actions. So, IMHO - if piracy IS a problem - its really only a side effect and NOT the core issue.

Geminiwave · May 7, 2006, 02:46 PM

well often when a company has "losses" (this is ESPECIALLY True of Intel. WATCH THEIR PROFITS LIKE A HAWK IF YOU OWN STOCK!) it means that they didn't make as much money as they had projected. This doesnt mean that the company LOST money...it means that they did not gain AS MUCH money as the had planned.

now there ARE companies like Troika that went under because they quite frankly couldnt make enough money.

but even ignoring that case, Stock holders are BITCHES! Seriously if you're making a good steady profit thats not good enough...you have to keep growing bigger and bigger or they'll pull out and your company is sunk...so increasing profits more and more is a valid concern. Unfortunately such a bubble has to burst eventually. Companies cant increase profit indefinately.

Matth · May 7, 2006, 04:54 PM

The "expert" home/hobbyist user could later become a professionalm so if they could finsd a way to sell a version that is not insanely crippled at a "home" price, the same people might end up buying, or working for places that buy, the full version.

You cannot, for instance, learn Photoshop by using Photoshop elements - well, ok, some of the basics, but nothing that "makes" a Photoshop user.

Bellator · May 8, 2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

I also read a similar comment about 3Dmax - that 'pirates' became animators/modelers BECAUSE they got a hold (pirated) of their software - and gained experience (buying books from the book store) - and when they got their new job - convinced their bosses to switch over to max because its 'superior' when actually, it was more the case of 'familiarity' (compared to say, Lightwave).

I totally 100 billion percent agree with that, and i'd throw in photoshop, and a bunch of other 'professional' programs as well...

pirates are often future professionals that are just too damn poor to pay for the software as yet, but once they finally start working in the field well then they're going to be working for a company paying a crapload to use official licensed versions. Piracy is almost like insurance for having a steady supply of future professional users...

Sandok · May 8, 2006, 10:45 AM

Piracy works in many ways... I am positive that Windows XP was made on PURPOSE to be easily piratable so that they would get market monopoly. Now just look at how much extra money they make thanks to market domination!

TJ- · May 8, 2006, 09:25 PM

even is something like photoshop was $20 why would you spend that $20 when you can get it for free?

the big Firefly · May 9, 2006, 09:37 AM

it semms no matter how cheap software gets Piracy always be there. with internet around its just a click away.

Sandok · May 9, 2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Di]:Z!ON

even is something like photoshop was $20 why would you spend that $20 when you can get it for free?

Because owning software is always good and helpfull...

nicnik · May 9, 2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Piracy works in many ways... I am positive that Windows XP was made on PURPOSE to be easily piratable so that they would get market monopoly. Now just look at how much extra money they make thanks to market domination!

that kinda reminds me of nintendo and their "need" to not use cd/dvd formats unlike microsoft and sony. And hence losing the popularity due to the loss of piracy.
Of course there's other reasons too.

YAYitsAndrew · May 9, 2006, 01:58 PM

Chances are if you didn't buy a gamecube simply because you can't pirate games for it, Nintendo doesn't need any "popularity" you would have generated.

Sandok · May 9, 2006, 02:07 PM

The reason they flunked against hte other consoles...

Maddogg6 · May 9, 2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

Chances are if you didn't buy a gamecube simply because you can't pirate games for it, Nintendo doesn't need any "popularity" you would have generated.

While Im sure this statement is true for some people... Not all, tho. I know more people buying/renting games legally than pirating.

And - the reality is - anything propietary cost more to manufacture - and more difficult to make a profit because of it. (VHS Vs Betamax - both were 'capable' of 'pirating' and who lost? - the propietary one)
So, IMHO the key difference *here* is 'propriatary'. Not if its 'pirateable' or not

I never played a gamecube.... dont know anyone who owns one. So, ...
Maybe nintendo games just suck? or maybe people are tired of 'mario - everything'? (a concept they chose to capitolize on - but is now back firing?)
But either, way my ignorance of nintendos offerings is a testament to their lack of marketing effectivness in my demographic.