If you say something nice about the game to 2 friends where 1 friend pirates and the other buys, the company makes net 0 from the sales, and they tell 2 friends and so on. Then after buying company in bankruptcy, use remote exploit to delete all copies and send shares skyrocketing even more than OP.
OP, like my, math is flawed in that deleting the game does not actually enrich the company, in case “woosh” was necessary.
Piracy, when the alternative was no purchase, still helps the company if it has a good product. Recommendations to others, and “popularity” benefits companies. Free to play games with “pay to win” features benefit from the same general model as “popularity through piracy”, where the F2P only player base justifies more fame for paying to win.
I agree, I think Adobe/MS have even said in the past that they would prefer people steal their software if the alternative means they would use a competitor instead.
If you say something nice about the game to 2 friends where 1 friend pirates and the other buys, the company makes net 0 from the sales, and they tell 2 friends and so on. Then after buying company in bankruptcy, use remote exploit to delete all copies and send shares skyrocketing even more than OP.
except most pirates would never have bought the product in the first place… so is it really a loss for the company?
OP, like my, math is flawed in that deleting the game does not actually enrich the company, in case “woosh” was necessary.
Piracy, when the alternative was no purchase, still helps the company if it has a good product. Recommendations to others, and “popularity” benefits companies. Free to play games with “pay to win” features benefit from the same general model as “popularity through piracy”, where the F2P only player base justifies more fame for paying to win.
I agree, I think Adobe/MS have even said in the past that they would prefer people steal their software if the alternative means they would use a competitor instead.