I really don't believe that price is a problem. Crysis for example goes for around the equivalent of €13 here in Sweden. That's a very low price for such a game and I don't think any game consumer can find that expensive (especially not in comparison to other games.) Despite having a relatively low price for most of this year, it's 4th in place on most pirated for the entire year.

We can't expect games to be acquired for free or anywhere below €20 when new. It would simply not fuel the companies the producing them and the market would stagnate. The reason why piracy is such a problem for the gaming industry but nowhere near as serious for the music or film business is that a vast majority of PC gamers know exactly where and how to find pirated games. They are more knowing and at ease with piracy compared to consumers of other mediums.

My theory is that we're in the middle of two eras. People are yet to rely upon online billing or such when purchasing. Getting a physical disc in exchange for cash is something concrete, as opposed to trading virtual currencies for a download.
Whenever future generations move away from this fear, narrow-mindness or whatever it might be, the market for selling games online will flourish. All the lazy pirates who rather download a game simply because it's smoother might just start paying for their games. No middle-hands in the form of game stores reduce prices, and all the pirates who believe that finely crafted games still are too expensive, they will be prepared to pay for their games. Security, when there are no discs, no simple formulas for CD keys and when online verification is constantly there, will increase. You may call it Orwellian, but I'd rather call it necessary. Broadband or DSL connection might just be necessary to even play single-player games in the future.

The only company I see moving in the right direction on this is Valve. Steam-like utilities is the future of gaming. Better security, lower prices, easier access.

I agree 100% with your analysis.
However, I disagree with there being a need to change all this. One thing very pleasant about reading video game journalism as opposed to about other artforms, is all of which you stated.

The true difference between video game journalism or cinematic criticism lies in emphasis. A game review could not, and should not, be able to simply analyze the story-telling aspect of the artwork. There just isn't enough material for that. No ensemble of actors, no 300 pages of script and often there's not even any ambition to invoke the kind of feelings movies try to. Instead, games are pieces of engineering.

The technical details gain more emphasis, and the subjective matters like "how it touched me" are left out. A result of this is more profane and down-to-earth journalism. As the quite average and not-so-deep person I am, it's easier for me to relate to that form of writing than that of literary critics. This doesn't exclude personal and emotional writing -- it simply decreases its significance when comparisons are to be made.

To me, there is quite a difference between being addicted, and lacking reason not to do something. If kids spend their time reading, practicing football or being with their friends, no one would ever call that being addicted. Yet, they have the nerve to compare gaming interest to substance abusing when they speak about addiction and damage.

Someone who plays a lot of games, but handles every other aspect of life (social, studies, hygiene etc) perfectly fine too -- no one cares about, he or she is totally uninteresting to therapists who always look for victims. These people represent the vast majority.
Someone who plays a lot of games, but performs bad in school or has few friends -- they are addicts. It's the video games' fault. This is a minor fragment of gamers.

Now compare this to having a chemical addiction, say... cocaine. Is it true that an overwhelming majority of the people who frequently uses cocaine do well in school, make friends and live a life like everyone else? No. The argument fails, because even if video games are addictive they don't harm their victims.

Video games is a very broad hobby and appeals to huge amounts of people, regardless of background. Still, what seems to misinformed people (to say the least) puts video games to blame for social problems that has occured long before Super Mario existed. The whole discussion is absurd. It is like blaming football for the social problems among youth in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro.

Not sure if I managed to get my point across because it's hard to express myself in english. But basically what I mean is that the stereotypical image of a lonely child sitting in front of his/her computer just isn't as accurate as doomsayers have you believe. Blaming a hobby has never been and never will be a professional way to analyze social problems.

And also, god forbid children finding it more interesting with video games than doing sports or studying, right...?

What if all the money put on preventing people from stealing these small amounts from billion-dollar companies was put on preventing real criminals?
I know that's a flawed argument in theory and that a criminal act is a criminal act no matter what. But let's look at it in practice instead. Is piracy really a problem when movies, software and records still manage to sell vast numbers? When concerts are still outsold?

Who are the ones whining about all this: Is it the small, independent bands, who undeniably are the ones who should be the worst victims? No, they put their music out for free at MySpace or YouTube. They play in small clubs and keep a close touch with their fans. They don't market themselves or sue pirates to cash in.
The ones who are bitching the most about piracy is bands like Metallica or companies like Universal. Lars Ulrich? Come on, the guy makes more money in a month from banging a piece of stretched skin than the average, say, nurse does in all her life from helping ill people. Universal? Shut up, that company revenues more money than a small African country yet they feel they have the right to moan about some 1% loss in sales from piracy.

This is all a big joke to me. I can understand that industry people, when they have their golden villas and diamond cars, are bored enough to feel annoyed over the fact that what they do for a living is put on the internet. But what I can't understand is how they have the nerve to complain and make fuss about this. Someone should slap them in the face. But that's capitalism.

I know that there are few pirates who think all of this every time they illegally download, but I do. I go to concerts, I pay for games and I go to the movies, several times more than the average person. Yet that's still only a fragment of how much I pirate. Am I a criminal or am I stupid supporter to billionaries? I'm both. What I would never do however is download an album from an up-and-coming artist who needs every little piece of support and whose career is dependent on not being pirated. Metallica? My ass.

Judging from what this article says, it seems like quite a flawed scientific method. But then again psychology is the most wannabe-science of them all.