Oh, piracy certainly is theft. No question about it. But the argument that reviews allow customers to make an informed choice is wrong. For a start, there are often blatantly incorrect statements in reviews - PC Gamer's assertion that the storyline in Far Cry 2 is adaptive, for instance, and saying that "the story really is up to you", when the player has little to no actual control over how the story plays out. Or lauding the health system as realistic when it's anything but. Yes, Far Cry 2 is cropping up a lot here, but it's the most recent game I've bought that fell squarely in the "massive ripoff" category.
Then there's the consideration that a lot of review copies are pre-release builds. Often the game itself is finalised, but the review copy doesn't have the copy protection mechanisms of released games. Or, of course, the reviewer simply doesn't notice them, or thinks that they're acceptable.
And that's another thing. Look at things like Starforce or SecuROM. They don't stop piracy - indeed, on one or two occasions I've bought a game, found on reading the EULA that it includes copy protection and downloaded a pirated copy to avoid letting it install Starforce. It's counterproductive for them to include copy protection measures that make it *less* awkward and risky to use pirated versions.
If consumers were able to return games with unacceptable copy protection, that would be fine. But most retailers don't allow returns of PC games, and many games don't mention the copy protection until the install process. Even when they do, it's rarely mentioned by online retailers, so consumers still have no chance to find out about it until they've taken delivery.
Any other product that is harmful or otherwise not fit for purpose would be returned. And if "fair" has no place in capitalism, what's the function of UCTA?
The bottom line is this: if people have no way of protesting draconian copy protection measures, poor-quality games and false advertising (because that's what over-hyped games are), then games companies have no incentive to treat their customers with respect.
no subject
Then there's the consideration that a lot of review copies are pre-release builds. Often the game itself is finalised, but the review copy doesn't have the copy protection mechanisms of released games. Or, of course, the reviewer simply doesn't notice them, or thinks that they're acceptable.
And that's another thing. Look at things like Starforce or SecuROM. They don't stop piracy - indeed, on one or two occasions I've bought a game, found on reading the EULA that it includes copy protection and downloaded a pirated copy to avoid letting it install Starforce. It's counterproductive for them to include copy protection measures that make it *less* awkward and risky to use pirated versions.
If consumers were able to return games with unacceptable copy protection, that would be fine. But most retailers don't allow returns of PC games, and many games don't mention the copy protection until the install process. Even when they do, it's rarely mentioned by online retailers, so consumers still have no chance to find out about it until they've taken delivery.
Any other product that is harmful or otherwise not fit for purpose would be returned. And if "fair" has no place in capitalism, what's the function of UCTA?
The bottom line is this: if people have no way of protesting draconian copy protection measures, poor-quality games and false advertising (because that's what over-hyped games are), then games companies have no incentive to treat their customers with respect.