ARTICLE: Is Piracy Killing Gaming?

UKIE Suggest Piracy Is Taking It's Toll On The Gaming Industry. What Do You Think?

The UKIE (Association of UK Interactive Entertainment) today released a statement saying that the illegal gaming industry has cost at least £1.45 billion in lost sales. They are saying this is costing people their jobs and have stated that it ‘takes away jobs from young developers and graphic designers’ – obviously trying to make pirate gamers, who are usually regarded as young, feel guilty that they are somehow screwing themselves over.



There’s a lot wrong with this and it’s all a bunch of scaremongering. Firstly, they are basing this on the assumption that if people download a game, they are not buying it. However, some people will download the game and never would have thought of buying it anyway and if it’s good, they will tell their mates. Am I wrong?

Even though there is a vast worldwide community of hacked consoles and illegal games floating about, it’s not so common in the UK. Microsoft for example banned between 600,000 to a million Xbox Live users in a ‘wave’ at the end of 2009 that had modded consoles (remembering it costs £39.99 a year to be on Xbox Live). Of course, I understand this would be just Xbox (the most modded console available at the moment) and that they would have to be online, but still the figures are quite huge and I have no idea where they got them from. It’s also worldwide, so in the grand scheme of things, it’s not exactly huge and definitely not a threat. In April 2010 Microsoft reported it had sold over 40 million units and that third quarter profits were up 35% to $4.01 billion – that’s pure profit, $14.5 billion in revenue to be exact. That’s Microsoft’s figures. That’s just in the third quarter of one year. However, UKIE state that UK gaming took in £1.53 billion in 2010. Is it seriously suggesting that piracy has lost almost as much as has been made? That the totals would have doubled had piracy not been an issue? What do you think? I can’t believe these numbers make sense.

A lot of pirates believe the bans aren’t to stop piracy, but to make those pirates go out and buy new consoles because they can’t use their old ones online, as well as getting new Xbox Live subscriptions. Remember Microsoft have about a thousand different versions of Xbox now (well, not quite) and the pirates also argue that after you’ve bought a product you should be free to modify it how you wish and use ‘homebrew’ software, which is a fair argument but the majority of people probably do it to play pirated games, but that’s just an assumption.


People forget that the original Playstation was easily modified and was the best selling games console ever, they were rather lax on piracy because they knew people would go out and buy the consoles and, like music or film, if they were really bothered they’d make sure they go out and buy it before waiting for release. Everyone knows gamers are impatient.


It’s also worth noting that the highest selling game of 2010 was Call Of Duty: Black Ops raking in well over a billion pounds and still going but it was also the most pirated game of 2010. See a correlation? If piracy had such an effect, it certainly didn’t show here.


PS3 have recently taken hackers to court for hacking the PS3, but again they argue they should be able to do with it what they want. Other devices like the DS, PSP and Wii can all be modified but they still have no problems selling (well PSP might do), so it could be argued then that it’s the games.

However, like films, by having pirates get and play the games, it means it streamlines the shit. Word of mouth, especially with games, is key and so if games are scared no-one is going to buy them but pirate them instead then they should make better quality games instead of asking people to shell out £45 for something that’s crap. One insider was quoted as saying you get 20-50 hours out of these games and it’s value for money. I definitely wouldn’t say I have got 20-50 hours out of each game I’ve got.

People forget that the gaming industry is bigger than Hollywood and gamers are a lot more dedicated. Also pirates won’t just download any old game, well I imagine some do, but remember a game is a good 7-8GB and you have to dedicate a lot of time to it once you start playing. Also charging £5 a disc, (a compatible dual layer disc to record on costs £1-£2 each anyway) isn’t exactly making lots of money and the reason why you don’t see people selling them on the streets like DVD’s, is because it’s an expensive and lengthy process – definitely not a get-rich-quick scheme, neither are all consoles modded, so if you’re a criminal there are definitely more profitable crimes out there.


Also the idea that money from this is going to terrorists and other ridiculous bollocks like this to stop piracy is constantly promoted, makes it seem like a joke. There is definitely a small community of people who download games for free, but it’s all about give and take. People forget that, like people recording onto tape off the radio, it’s not going to destroy the industry and with the gaming industry being so successful, it definitely won’t hamper it. If people are playing and people are getting paid, that’s all that matters. If Bill Gates can’t afford an extra swimming pool he’s just going to have to deal with it. Don’t listen to the lies about it affecting the jobs of young developers because it’s stupid – games make money. A lot of money. Pirates will never be able to stop that – and they are definitely not costing the industry £1.45 billion.

UK Film Council News - An Insiders Knowledge

Right, usually I wouldn't bother with such things as this but the closure of the UK Film Council and the big uproar that's happened in it's wake has really got to me. Firstly, before this causes so much backlash like my Lost article (death threats aren't great thank you), I WORKED for the UK Film Council so let me give you all a little insight into what kind of establishment this place was.
I doubt this will impair my career within film as not only is it ages ago, but no-one of any importance will read this and they never helped to get me into the film industry anyway and I landed in TV instead. Less money, less creativity, less time, yet more hours. It's what happens when you're not rich or related to someone on the inside.
So anyway, I worked in Development and for all you guys who don't know, this is where scripts get entered, digested and thrown back up. They decide essentially if something is good enough to fund and then they see it through. This department was headed by a woman and with about a team of fifteen people, there were three men, one was a very camp gay man, another an assistant and myself. In fact, rumours spread that they had been told off because they only employed women and it showed a lack of diversity. Naughty naughty. But then, it's widely known that TV, maybe not so much film but definitely TV, is a woman's game - and these girls stick together. I'm generalising, but it's an area where men are completely outnumbered and unless you're gay, you usually have to work harder to get a look in. Either that or you have to be good looking or lick arse. A lot of people would argue this, but more would probably agree.
So, what did these women do at Development meetings and such? Well, and I'm telling you now I'm not a sexist person, they would discuss their ex-husbands, the men they are having affairs with, gossiping about pregnancies, holidays etc. while we sit there smiling, laughing and looking like we're fine with this. I would sit there with the scripts they got me to read (to keep me busy) and we wouldn't bring it up at all. All that would happen is at the end of the meeting, they'd talk about what they're doing for the day.
A commissioning meeting would take place where they would dismiss independent films and only discuss anything that could, or has, a name attached. This means if they can't get any kind of US backing or a big star or director involved, they weren't interested, but they make up for it by commissioning shorts. Cheap, cheerful and representative of young filmmakers. It's bollocks.
They don't give a shit.
One meeting with a screenwriter I was involved with had me getting 10 minutes to quickly read the script and then overhearing one of the producers saying 'yeah, I looked over it last night but the fucking kids were running around everywhere. Doesn't matter, it's not as if we're going to get it made' then laughed. When I went into the meeting it was actually a cool little horror story that wasn't perfect, but she wanted to change it into more of a love story. I fought his corner, which he got excited about as I understood where he was coming from and rest assured I wasn't spoken to by this woman again for the rest of my contract. Also, the film never got made.
They also hated anything that was male-orientated unless it fitted into what they thought was for 'lads' - hence Danny Dyer in 'Severance' for example. Which was worse on page than it was on the screen. They were going crazy over a script that they were trying to get commissioned which was this - and I joke you not - a rich man (which was going to be Pierce Brosnan apparently) has his own zoo and one of the workers there gets in an accident and dies, so the wife of the dead worker goes to complain but ends up working there herself, she then befriends a chimp and falls in love with the rich man who she hated. That's it. If this film did get made can someone tell me because they were in love with it, and it sounded like someone had been sick on a plate and then took a shit on it and poured it down my ears.
So when people are crying that it will affect film, I agree that it's a good thing to promote British film, obviously, but I assure you the UK Film Council was a horrible establishment that paid itself up to £100k a year each for the big wigs and was solely interested in big budget movies that they could slap their name onto instead of putting the money into the actual British industry. Take a look at what films you see their logo in front of, it's very interesting.
In my opinion, they aren't worth a pot to piss in and I hope they find trouble getting another job, but let's be honest, I'll still be making them tea by the time I'm 50.
So don't commiserate because the money we were wasting on these wankers isn't worth it. It's better off going back into film via another route and I think the gutsy decision to close it down was the right one. Why have an inept Film Council? It doesn't make sense. I just feel sorry for the poor Production Assistant who worked there who would cry at her desk because she wasn't being paid enough to make rent and decided she had to give up her dreams and leave to get another career. Meanwhile, the 40-odd year old women are analysing their shoe purchases. I'm not making any of this up. But alas, it's the way of the world in this industry.
No rich parents, no family connections, no hope.
Doesn't matter how hard you work - if you can't pay through your nose to do a job you enjoy, then no wonder creativity in the British film industry is stifled - and it's NOT about piracy. It's about people like the UK Film Council.
Begin death threats now please ...