No, it just means that the money that they do spend they redirect towards PS3 games. There are obviously people who <i>always</i> go for the 'low-cost' option which is usually pirating the music/game/video/etc. But you can't make that an absolute. You can't say that <i>everyone</i> operates in the fashion, just the way that I didn't say that my explanation applied to everyone.<p>People have a limited amount of income, but an insatiable desire to consume. How people deal with this varies from person to person. Though we can generalize it a bit, there is no catch-all generalization that applies to everyone.<p>In the future though, don't use anecdotes to try and prove a point. 'everyone does X because my friends in Brazil do X' is not a valid argument.<p>&#62; <i>Saying that you couldn't afford an item and therefore wouldn't have spent any money on that doesn't really mean you'd never spend any money on that given a free pirated option wasn't available.</i><p>If I download $3,000 worth of media per month, but I only make $3,500 per month after taxes, how can you posit that I would have bought all $3,000 worth of media where pirating it not an option? If I use the 'pirate market' as a way to consume outside of my income level (i.e. outside of my ability to consume <i>without</i> the 'pirate market') then how could I have purchased all of those things?<p>To your Brazil example, what were your friends spending that money on when they were pirating PS2 games or did their income level suddenly jump when the PS3 came out?