Apathy and refunds are more dangerous than Piracy

[darkewaffle]

I think he's on the right track that DRM likely doesn't have a significant effect in combating piracy, but otherwise he's kind of full of it. Super Meat Boy is a niche game appealing to an indie audience from a small developer at low price with correspondingly low production cost; his game is not a [good] target for piracy. So it's much easier for him to say "shrug it off" because he's not in a situation where it does make a big difference. He's claiming 10% piracy optimistically.

On the other hand, Witcher 2's developer had figures reaching upwards of 200-500% piracy; and that was also from a developer who has a considerable amount of 'goodwill' towards them, which I think is often portrayed as a mitigating factor (support the 'good guys'). I have no doubt the piracy rate for it was higher but I'd attribute that to it being a substantially more expensive title more than anything else.

I think those are two extremes in all likelihood, but I don't buy his principal of "it's not quantifiable so it doesn't mean anything" either. So if his game was sold 200k times and pirated 2M times he'd be singing the same tune? I doubt it. It's not a problem for him personally because of his situation, he's not being objective.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Do you have a link to a decent article about the SimCity thing? I haven't heard anything about it, but I'd like to get a quick overview.

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/life/SimCity+disaster+spotlights+issues/8130771/story.html

The part I found most important:

At first, EA tried to brush off the issue, saying that the game required people be connected because of all the calculations done on their servers and the DRM was necessary. However, as the days began adding up, gamers began to dig into the game's code and found that, actually, the game could run offline just fine. The game's developer, Maxis, then fessed up, saying the game could run offline but that they felt it wasn't the right direction for the game, and decided to withhold that option for gamers.
The result? People with enough knowhow have already hacked the game to run on its own, offline.

Lying to protect their screwed up DRM...for shame EA, but then what would we expect?
​

 

[PottedMeat]

Do you have a link to a decent article about the SimCity thing? I haven't heard anything about it, but I'd like to get a quick overview.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/clogged-streets-simcity-launch-plagued-by-server-problems/

 

[xanis]

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/life/SimCity+disaster+spotlights+issues/8130771/story.html

The part I found most important:

Read more: http://www.thenownewspaper.com/life...ights+issues/8130771/story.html#ixzz2OBT8c2J3

Lying to protect their screwed up DRM...for shame EA, but then what would we expect?
​

Wow, that's pretty shitty.

 

[lupi]

interesting as the OP thought simcity5 was great out of the box and he couldn't stop playing it...even when most others reported servers being unavailable.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I did, because that honestly seems to be what you want.

Saying that someone who didn't pay for a game shouldn't be entitled to enjoy that game is "vengeance"? How so?

You completely misinterpreted what the author said. He never implied that piracy didn't lead to real world losses.

He not only implied it, he flat out stated it, and in the first paragraph of the piece: "As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer."

That is false. Period. Whether the losses can be quantified or not has no impact on whether or not they exist.

He stated, correctly, that those losses cannot be quantified, and in business if you can't quantify the cost of an issue, you can't determine whether attempts to fix it are providing a good return.

Most of the decisions in business involve things that cannot be strictly quantified. You still have to make the decisions. You use estimates and past experience to guide judgments. You don't just throw your hands in the air and say "since I don't know for sure what this costs, I'll pretend the cost is zero".

It's just plain nonsense.

This doesn't mean that you necessarily pull out all the stops and put super-nasty DRM on everything. But at the same time, this guy would like me to believe that all the steps that hundreds of software developers take to try to prevent piracy are all for naught, and I'm not buying it.

You, apparently, read the piece and only saw "Pirates aren't so bad." This, of course, tripped your wire.

No, I read the piece and saw stupid reasoning, and then I saw comments like "People need to learn to embrace and love piracy, because it's the way of our world", and that tripped my wire.

Maybe if there were more people actually willing to stand up for honesty around this place, I wouldn't have to do it so often.

 

[SunnyD]

Who said anything about vengeance?

First, my issue with the author is that he's just flat wrong. It is true that some percentage of people who pirate software would not have purchased it, but that percentage is not 100.

Whether he wants to admit it or not, he is losing money because of pirates. He's not losing as much as a company that has a physical product that is stolen, but he's losing out on revenue that he would have received if people were honest.

Second, the inability to quantify something doesn't mean it is non-existent.

Third, attempts to justify and rationalize stealing software and other IP are rampant on this forum. And already started even in this thread.

There's a difference between making a practical argument against DRM because it may do more harm than good, and people interpreting that argument to mean that their thievery is acceptable. It's not.

Whether you want to admit it or not, companies and third-party studies have proven time and again that piracy is actually a sales driver in most cases for good products. Net product sales after initial piracy by an individual is usually greater than 50%.

This has historically held true for all entertainment media, not just software in general. Just ask the MPAA and RIAA why they have had historic year-on-year profits for the last several years while piracy rates really haven't changed any.

It's not about people trying to rationalize theft anymore. It's about companies needing to understand the modern consumer and embrace them, rather than fight them. Once they figure that out, they can realize all the dollars they spend villainizing people can be better spent sitting in the bank directly as profits.

 

[BergeLSU]

On the other hand, Witcher 2's developer had figures reaching upwards of 200-500% piracy; and that was also from a developer who has a considerable amount of 'goodwill' towards them, which I think is often portrayed as a mitigating factor (support the 'good guys').

There is no way 4.5 million people pirated Witcher 2. Common sense tells you this.

Only 19 PC games have ever sold more than 4.5 million copies. 8 of those are Blizzard games, 4 of those are Sims games. But Witcher 2 had that many simply pirate the game? A game that really isn't very well known.

 

[Ancalagon44]

He not only implied it, he flat out stated it, and in the first paragraph of the piece: "As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer."

That is false. Period. Whether the losses can be quantified or not has no impact on whether or not they exist.

Can you write down $X on your balance sheet or income statement then? Can you tell the government that you are losing money to piracy but have no idea how much? Is that worth even writing down?

This doesn't mean that you necessarily pull out all the stops and put super-nasty DRM on everything. But at the same time, this guy would like me to believe that all the steps that hundreds of software developers take to try to prevent piracy are all for naught, and I'm not buying it.

Okay, then show me a game that cannot be pirated. Just one. World of Warcraft has been pirated. Sim City, the latest and greatest, runs offline. So surely with all of these massive investments into DRM, there must be some good result? Some games that you just cannot pirate?

Right, exactly, everything can be pirated. So what good does DRM do? It costs money, and you cant even quantify how much money it saves you.

No, I read the piece and saw stupid reasoning, and then I saw comments like "People need to learn to embrace and love piracy, because it's the way of our world", and that tripped my wire.

Maybe if there were more people actually willing to stand up for honesty around this place, I wouldn't have to do it so often.

I dont think you will ever understand what the OP was trying to say.

 

[Druidx]

A great read, thanks for posting.

 

[xanis]

Who said anything about vengeance?

First, my issue with the author is that he's just flat wrong. It is true that some percentage of people who pirate software would not have purchased it, but that percentage is not 100.

Whether he wants to admit it or not, he is losing money because of pirates. He's not losing as much as a company that has a physical product that is stolen, but he's losing out on revenue that he would have received if people were honest.

Second, the inability to quantify something doesn't mean it is non-existent.

Third, attempts to justify and rationalize stealing software and other IP are rampant on this forum. And already started even in this thread.

There's a difference between making a practical argument against DRM because it may do more harm than good, and people interpreting that argument to mean that their thievery is acceptable. It's not.

We're playing the "what if" game here. Neither you or I have any way of knowing for certain whether or not someone would have bought a particular piece of software, and I think that's part of the author's point.

Also, I don't think anyone here is trying to justify piracy, and I didn't get that impression from the author either. What I *personally* took from the article is that piracy is simply a part of doing business, and that developers should be focusing their energy on adding to and maintaining their paying customer base and improving their product, not on DRM and blasting the people who don't pay.

 

[preslove]

Saying that someone who didn't pay for a game shouldn't be entitled to enjoy that game is "vengeance"? How so?



He not only implied it, he flat out stated it, and in the first paragraph of the piece: "As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer."

That is false. Period. Whether the losses can be quantified or not has no impact on whether or not they exist.



Most of the decisions in business involve things that cannot be strictly quantified. You still have to make the decisions. You use estimates and past experience to guide judgments. You don't just throw your hands in the air and say "since I don't know for sure what this costs, I'll pretend the cost is zero".

It's just plain nonsense.

This doesn't mean that you necessarily pull out all the stops and put super-nasty DRM on everything. But at the same time, this guy would like me to believe that all the steps that hundreds of software developers take to try to prevent piracy are all for naught, and I'm not buying it.



No, I read the piece and saw stupid reasoning, and then I saw comments like "People need to learn to embrace and love piracy, because it's the way of our world", and that tripped my wire.

Maybe if there were more people actually willing to stand up for honesty around this place, I wouldn't have to do it so often.

No mod callouts.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Can you write down $X on your balance sheet or income statement then? Can you tell the government that you are losing money to piracy but have no idea how much? Is that worth even writing down?

I already addressed this twice. Business involves some things that can be perfectly quantified, and others that must be estimated. The lack of specific numbers doesn't mean the number is zero. This is really not rocket surgery.

Right, exactly, everything can be pirated. So what good does DRM do? It costs money, and you cant even quantify how much money it saves you.

You estimate the costs of implementing versus not implementing.

You compare sales versus estimated losses after implementing anti-piracy measures.

Do you really think that companies like Microsoft and Adobe are all filled with complete idiots who decide to implement DRM for no reason?

I dont think you will ever understand what the OP was trying to say.

I understand it perfectly. I just think it's a load of bullshit.

 

[Markbnj]

He not only implied it, he flat out stated it, and in the first paragraph of the piece: "As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer."

That is false. Period. Whether the losses can be quantified or not has no impact on whether or not they exist.

I interpret that statement differently. In my view he is not denying the idea that there are losses. In fact he states later in the piece that some number of the people who pirate his software would have purchased it. But he cannot equate those assumed losses to piracy. He can't, as you say, quantify them, and show their impact on his balance sheet. All that's left is a feeling that you might have done better otherwise, and that feeling doesn't have any numerical validity. You can't plan on it, adjust for it, or base your strategy on it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We're playing the "what if" game here. Neither you or I have any way of knowing for certain whether or not someone would have bought a particular piece of software, and I think that's part of the author's point.

If I roll a six-sided die, I have no way of knowing if it will come up with a "6". But I still know that if I do it 600,000 times, I will get a "6" on about 100,000 of those rolls.

There are people who will always pay for software they want. There are people who will never pay for it, and only use it if they can steal it. And there are people in between, who will use it for free if they can get away with it, but pay for it if they cannot.

Even if we don't know exactly how many of them there are, saying they don't exist is completely nonsensical. I know people like that myself, and I'll bet everyone else here does too. The entire shareware model is based on this concept.

You can't plan on it, adjust for it, or base your strategy on it.

Maybe he can't, but lots of other software companies do.

 

[preslove]

Do you really think that companies like Microsoft and Adobe are all filled with complete idiots who decide to implement DRM for no reason?

Uh... Microsoft is full of idiots running it into the ground. Seriously, you are being a straight functionally illiterate troll in this thread. Deleted Just get out of this thread and try to improve your reading skills.


No mod callouts

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Uh... Microsoft is full of idiots running it into the ground.

Microsoft made $58 billion in profits last year.

And they are just one example. Most companies, large and small, take steps to prevent their software being pirated. You want me to believe they are all stupid and this guy is some sort of genius.. right.

As an aside, you might want to review the rules of the forum before you get yourself in hot water.

 

[preslove]

Microsoft made $58 billion in profits last year.

If you think Microsoft is currently well run then you are beyond hope.

As an aside, you might want to review the rules of the forum before you get yourself in hot water.

Says the troll who is derailing the thread by throwing out ridiculous straw men arguments and who apparently can't read that well.

 

[SlitheryDee]

There are people who will always pay for software they want. There are people who will never pay for it, and only use it if they can steal it. And there are people in between, who will use it for free if they can get away with it, but pay for it if they cannot.

I don't think anyone is saying that these people don't exist. Personally, I'm not even arguing against DRM. But you have to recognize the futility of DRM. Typically it's just as easy to pirate a game that has draconian "always online" DRM as it is to pirate games that require a simple CD key. The time required to crack these games seems to be similar as well. Whether it requires a fixed executable or a keygen program the pirate goes through about the same amount of trouble. The only difference is that the nastier the DRM is the greater the disparity between the legally purchased game experience and the pirated game experience.

It seems that no matter how much DRM companies shove into a game, it makes close zero difference from the perspective of the typical pirate, and makes a lot of difference to paying customers. It is having the opposite of the desired effect.

So how do we address the people who pirate the game but might have purchased it otherwise? There really is no otherwise if you think about it. If the DRM doesn't work anyway these people were never going to be forced to buy the game, so you might as well lump them in with the people who were going to pirate the game no matter what. The only sensible way to increase profits is to employ minimal DRM, not because you think it's actually going to prevent anyone who really wants to pirate the game, but to send the message that you still don't approve of piracy. Hopefully you can gain a few of those in-between customers in the only way you ever really could in the first place, their own conscience. Eliminating the cost of ever more elaborate DRM schemes coupled with the few good-will sales that might net you is an improvement over the current situation anyway.

 

[amdhunter]

Now I don't feel bad about pirating every single piece of software I've used since I first touched a computer in 1997.

 

[xanis]

I don't think anyone is saying that these people don't exist. Personally, I'm not even arguing against DRM. But you have to recognize the futility of DRM. Typically it's just as easy to pirate a game that has draconian "always online" DRM as it is to pirate games that require a simple CD key. The time required to crack these games seems to be similar as well. Whether it requires a fixed executable or a keygen program the pirate goes through about the same amount of trouble. The only difference is that the nastier the DRM is the greater the disparity between the legally purchased game experience and the pirated game experience.

It seems that no matter how much DRM companies shove into a game, it makes close zero difference from the perspective of the typical pirate, and makes a lot of difference to paying customers. It is having the opposite of the desired effect.

So how do we address the people who pirate the game but might have purchased it otherwise? There really is no otherwise if you think about it. If the DRM doesn't work anyway these people were never going to be forced to buy the game, so you might as well lump them in with the people who were going to pirate the game no matter what. The only sensible way to increase profits is to employ minimal DRM, not because you think it's actually going to prevent anyone who really wants to pirate the game, but to send the message that you still don't approve of piracy. Hopefully you can gain a few of those in-between customers in the only way you ever really could in the first place, their own conscience. Eliminating the cost of ever more elaborate DRM schemes coupled with the few good-will sales that might net you is an improvement over the current situation anyway.

This is basically what I was going to respond with, albeit with a few more words. :thumbsup:

 

[Ancalagon44]

I already addressed this twice. Business involves some things that can be perfectly quantified, and others that must be estimated. The lack of specific numbers doesn't mean the number is zero. This is really not rocket surgery.

Can you run a business on feelings?

I know I'd prefer to have hard figures.

You estimate the costs of implementing versus not implementing.

You compare sales versus estimated losses after implementing anti-piracy measures.

Do you really think that companies like Microsoft and Adobe are all filled with complete idiots who decide to implement DRM for no reason?

Well, it begs the question, doesnt it?

1. Implementation cost is always fairly high.
2. Indie games often have little or no DRM, and are still profitable.
3. DRM can sometimes lead to a loss in sales, because of negative perceptions of your brand.
4. No DRM is 100% effective - ever. At best, you will get a month of piracy free sales.
5. The method for piracy is always the same, regardless of the DRM - someone will go to BitTorrent, and download a nice cracked game. How it is cracked does not concern them.
6. A lot of people, my guess would be most, will not buy your game even if they cannot pirate it. They simply wont play it.

So tell me why your average exec thinks DRM is a good idea?

And spare me the "they are so smart, they run businesses therefore they know better" crap. They do not know better. Look at Enron, look at Nokia flushing itself down the toilet, look at 3Dfx, look at AMD, look at Apple before the Return Of Steve Jobs, look at Palm. Just because a business is large, does not mean it is staffed with smart people.

The other counter example is of course all of the other developers who choose not to use DRM. They make money without the negative consequences of DRM - what makes you think it would be impossible for EA etc to make money without DRM? If you cant quantify the losses or even potential gains due to wider exposure of your game, then how can you define whether or not EA would make more or less money? You have no idea, and neither does EA. So why support it?

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's refreshing to see someone speak about it the same as I have for years. He's not even saying piracy doesn't take sales, he's just saying it's not a quantifiable number.

People don't have brand loyalty as much these days as they used to, but people who do WILL buy a product from a company they trust. Once you break that trust, it's questionable. Do right by your customers, they will do right by you. They may let you get by with something once...some even twice...beyond that, it's your bad business that lost your sales.

Concentrate on making a good game. That's all it takes. Many of the larger companies are proving time and again, they can't even do that.

He is spot on about returns. Game companies for a long time were protected by the fact you could normally not return an open game. It is good to see that storefronts are allowing for returns in some cases. This hurts the companies pockets far more than pumped up piracy numbers ever will. They had your money, then they lost it because your product was crap. You probably just lost a future sale as well. This is exactly how it should be.

 

[smitbret]

This is a great article.

I have purchased every version of SimCity that has ever been produced. It and the Mechwarrior series are the only PC games I have ever purchased or played. I was pumped for SimCity 5 and had planned on buying it the first week it was out.

Then.......

I found out that it required an always on internet connection to validate and that I couldn't store my saved games locally. I won't be buying it. I won't even pirate it. I want a fully functional SimCity 5 that will work with my unconnected PC, just like the previous SimCities.

EA just lost 1 sale because of DRM.

I also dumped everything Sony from my house because of their Arccos, Cinavia and the Sony Rootkit fiasco. I will never purchase another Sony product. Let them put that in their loss to piracy count.

 

[BergeLSU]

This is a great article.

I have purchased every version of SimCity that has ever been produced. It and the Mechwarrior series are the only PC games I have ever purchased or played. I was pumped for SimCity 5 and had planned on buying it the first week it was out.

Then.......

I found out that it required an always on internet connection to validate and that I couldn't store my saved games locally. I won't be buying it. I won't even pirate it. I want a fully functional SimCity 5 that will work with my unconnected PC, just like the previous SimCities.

EA just lost 1 sale because of DRM.

I also dumped everything Sony from my house because of their Arcoos, Cinavia and the Sony Rootkit fiasco. I will never purchase another Sony product. Let them put that in their loss to piracy count.

However, just like piracy, the number of sales lost because of DRM is not a quantifiable number.