BulletStorm didn't sell well because of piracy

[Craig234]

It was a mediocre game at best in a sea of games mostly just like it. Website reviews and aggregates there of that rely solely on advertisements from the people making the stuff they review aren't really a dependable place to get your rankings. 8.2 is a terrible score from places like that. Games basically start becoming decent at 9+ and even then a low 9 has to be questioned.

I disagree with you.

Game ranking are weighted high in the sense that half of the games don't get below a 5 out of 10, but when you adjust for that, they're quite useful.

And 8.2 is a very good score of a 'good game' - not for everyone, not flawless.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about it - 'they all lie in reviews and give all the games who pay them 10!!111!!" It's not correct.

Games with huge budgets tend to have a lot of marketing and controls in place to reduce the risk of bad games, if you see them tend not to get terrible scores.

But there is no shortage of games including from big publishers that get low scores when they're bad games. Reviewers know without customers they lose any revenue.

The way they 'pay off' the big advertisers in my opinion is much more in the 'preview' section about hyping upcoming games.

I've noted in this forum in the past extremely contradictory 'previews' of a game highly positive and reviews that are very negative in the same publication.

A previewer will say 'this is the rpg to get this year!' while the review says 'this game gives the rpg genre a bad name'. But the reviews seem generally non-corrupt.

It's funny, though - you have an ideological approach to this it seems so all the fellow posters in this thread saying they really liked the game had no effect on your opinion.

Obviously it was total crap, because of your bias that the reviews are all corrupt lies bought by the publisher.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I don't think any of us are claiming that piracy has no effect on revenue. In question is how much of an effect, and whether a second-rate game will fail to get a sequel "because of" piracy as the primary cause.

The only games I buy used are ones that are out of print, but it's also hard to say how much used sales hurt publishers when many buyers wouldn't pay $60 for a game without the chance to trade it in later.

> They could just 'give away the first game in the series' if it was that effective.

Baen.com does give away free ebooks in a series, to get you hooked on it so you buy the later books. They've been doing this for years and it seems to work for them. Their ebooks are also DRM-free.

I buy all of my music, but I buy less of it now that the legal version of Napster has shut down and I can no longer legally listen to full CDs from new artists before I buy them.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You've proven nothing really. It's a one sided view of a topic that has many variables. A company can say whatever they like to smooth over stockholders. Is anyone going to go out and find out if they are right? More than likely not.

Studies on both sides have been done. On one side, they say pirating hurts sales, on the other they say, pirating actually helps sales. Who's right? Who knows? They both have their own agenda.

Ultimately, I am glad they won't be making a sequel to a subpar game. I paid $5 for this game and I wanted my money back. Until that can be done with software, they can blame it on whatever they want to make themselves feel better at night.

A company can say something is worth whatever they want, but at the end of the day, the consumer is who dictates if it's worth it. The whole piracy argument is a misconstrued issue that is too easy to fall back on. Again, EVERYTHING is pirated. That is a very important detail in this that cannot be overlooked. Everyone is on even ground here. In the end, quality tends to win out.

 

[frostedflakes]

4.5 million downloads doesn't equal 4.5 million lost sales. Most of these people who download the game wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Now there ARE a lot of people who do go out and download their favorite games instead of buying it (students mostly as they're tight with money), but to say "I lost 50 million dollars because there are 10 million pirated downloads" is silly.

Recettear actually got a big sales boost thanks to piracy. People downloaded the game, liked it, bought the real deal. I know this is not the case for everyone, but if you make a quality game, people WILL buy it.

Bulletstorm? Not so much. I wouldn't even waste my bandwidth downloading that sucker.

Consider how much content many pirates have, for example. It's not unheard of for someone to have 20,000-30,000 or more pirated MP3s (and probably don't even listen to 1/10th of them). So when groups like the RIAA claim every download is a lost sale, what they're basically saying is that every guy out there who has 30k illegally downloaded songs would have gone out and spent $30k on iTunes to purchase all those songs, which is obviously a ridiculous assertion when you actually stop and think about. He probably would have spent at least few hundred dollars on music, but people become a lot more selective about the content they download when they actually have to pay for it. I've never understood the hoarding mentality and downloading stuff 24/7 that you'll never have the time to listen to/watch/play/whatever, but a lot of people do this for whatever reason solely because they can get the content for free.

Not to say that piracy doesn't hurt these industries, but the copyright industry inflates their loss estimates by assuming every download is a lost sale and pirates try to downplay how much they're harming the industry by claiming they wouldn't have bought any of the stuff they download. Both sides are just pushing their own agenda. As usual the truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I disagree with you.

Game ranking are weighted high in the sense that half of the games don't get below a 5 out of 10, but when you adjust for that, they're quite useful.

And 8.2 is a very good score of a 'good game' - not for everyone, not flawless.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about it - 'they all lie in reviews and give all the games who pay them 10!!111!!" It's not correct.

Games with huge budgets tend to have a lot of marketing and controls in place to reduce the risk of bad games, if you see them tend not to get terrible scores.

But there is no shortage of games including from big publishers that get low scores when they're bad games. Reviewers know without customers they lose any revenue.

The way they 'pay off' the big advertisers in my opinion is much more in the 'preview' section about hyping upcoming games.

I've noted in this forum in the past extremely contradictory 'previews' of a game highly positive and reviews that are very negative in the same publication.

A previewer will say 'this is the rpg to get this year!' while the review says 'this game gives the rpg genre a bad name'. But the reviews seem generally non-corrupt.

It's funny, though - you have an ideological approach to this it seems so all the fellow posters in this thread saying they really liked the game had no effect on your opinion.

Obviously it was total crap, because of your bias that the reviews are all corrupt lies bought by the publisher.

You're delusional if you think reviewers aren't being bought this has been exposed for many years. 8.2 would be good except once you adjust for nothing from big publishers ever getting under a 7 and even small games rarely getting under a 5 it doesn't look nearly as good. PC Gamer of 14 years ago an 8.2 was very respectable. Your drivel isn't really worth replying to though.

 

[Craig234]

ok, in that case, it won't be a very long time before I pick it up Just need to be at home rather than at work to log into steam and buy it.

Too bad I can't get you one of the extra copies I bought, but Steam and Amazon don't allow that. Might wait for a sale, it's at $20 on Steam and $16 on Amazon.

 

[Craig234]

You're delusional if you think reviewers aren't being bought this has been exposed for many years. 8.2 would be good except once you adjust for nothing from big publishers ever getting under a 7 and even small games rarely getting under a 5 it doesn't look nearly as good. PC Gamer of 14 years ago an 8.2 was very respectable. You're drivel isn't really worth replying to though.

I sometimes try to help clueless ideologues; obnoxious ones, not so much.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I sometimes try to help clueless ideologues; obnoxious ones, not so much.

Yea, there's no helping yourself. You calling anyone an ideologue is hilarious.

 

[Craig234]

So when groups like the RIAA claim every download is a lost sale...

Third time I've seen this same straw man in this thread, and pointed it out each time.

Guess I need to just keep calling it out until it sinks in past the ideology.

No one is saying that.

The only thing that seems in the same ballpark to me has to do with liability claims.

 

[Craig234]

You've proven nothing really.

Shocking, an ideologue remains one.

Studies on both sides have been done. On one side, they say pirating hurts sales, on the other they say, pirating actually helps sales.

Link me one reasonable study (not from the Impulse69 Institute of BS) saying that in general, piracy increase revenue for games.

Ultimately, I am glad they won't be making a sequel to a subpar game. I paid $5 for this game and I wanted my money back. .

It's all about you. Screw the many people, including several in this thread, who liked the game and would like a sequel.

What's your favorite game? I didn't like it, so I'll get it cancelled and say that's fine.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Too bad I can't get you one of the extra copies I bought, but Steam and Amazon don't allow that. Might wait for a sale, it's at $20 on Steam and $16 on Amazon.

Yea, I'll wait for cheap .... it says it does coop, so I will probably buy 2 copies (one as a gift for a buddy of mine who's going to move 1000 miles away in a couple of months due to economic reasons.)

 

[Nintendesert]

There's nothing wrong with 'killing the used game market', really.

A good percentage of games sold used prevent a new game sale, reducing revenue - which you say 'that's crap' when you want to buy, but not so much when you realize that that reduced revenue hurts you in higher prices or reduced budget and quality when you buy the game new.

It's just a business model issue. How does a used buyer compensate the developer?

I don't think there is anything wrong with it either other than it's been a long standing market and has farther reaching problems with music and fair use.

I much prefer the STEAM way of handling this and the huge sales they create that are effectively as cheap or cheaper than buying used anyways. Through STEAM however we get money going back to the developers and distributors long after the title has fallen off the brick and mortar store shelf.

Gamestop itself has created this problem by pocketing the entirety of the profits from used game sales instead of giving kickbacks or a percentage of the profit back to the developers.

I just personally believe that DRM then the used game market and eventually copies etc. are all apart of the bigger fight with the MPAA and RIAA on how we consume our media and what rights we have when we purchase software/music/movies.

 

[Craig234]

Consider how much content many pirates have, for example. It's not unheard of for someone to have 20,000-30,000 or more pirated MP3s (and probably don't even listen to 1/10th of them). So when groups like the RIAA claim every download is a lost sale, what they're basically saying is that every guy out there who has 30k illegally downloaded songs would have gone out and spent $30k on iTunes to purchase all those songs, which is obviously a ridiculous assertion when you actually stop and think about. He probably would have spent at least few hundred dollars on music, but people become a lot more selective about the content they download when they actually have to pay for it. I've never understood the hoarding mentality and downloading stuff 24/7 that you'll never have the time to listen to/watch/play/whatever, but a lot of people do this for whatever reason solely because they can get the content for free.

Not to say that piracy doesn't hurt these industries, but the copyright industry inflates their loss estimates by assuming every download is a lost sale and pirates try to downplay how much they're harming the industry by claiming they wouldn't have bought any of the stuff they download. Both sides are just pushing their own agenda. As usual the truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes.

To reply to the rest of your post, I don't disagree except with your straw man wrongly claiming people are saying 'every pirated copy is a lost sale'.

However, there is a difference between thousands of songs and a game, like Bulletstorm.

That's not nearly the throwaway a song in a big batch is; people who download it pick it in particular and are likely interested by the fact the picked it.

Absolutely not every pirated copy is a lost sale, and absolutely very many were.

Let me repeat my The Wiatcher 2 comment: with an estimated ratio of 5-10 copies pirated for every copy sold, it's easy to expect that 50% to 75% of the sames were lost to piracy.

Note in that estimate it's not 'every copy'. It's saying as few as 10% to as many as 30% were lost sales, which is a guess that doesn't seem unreasonable and is not near 100%.

It's credible that Bulletstorm piracy was enough to kill the sequel.

 

[frostedflakes]

Third time I've seen this same straw man in this thread, and pointed it out each time.

Guess I need to just keep calling it out until it sinks in past the ideology.

No one is saying that.

The only thing that seems in the same ballpark to me has to do with liability claims.

How is it a straw man? It's no secret that the copyright industry groups often use a 1:1 or other high substitution rate in their loss figures. And that's when you can even find the methodology they used to calculate losses, a lot of figures just tend to get thrown around with little or no explanation about where they came from and how they were calculated.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ly-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

I mean I guess I can't blame them, I'd probably do the same if I were in their shoes. Like I said they're just pushing their agenda and trying to get stricter laws enforcing copyrights by fluffing up their loss estimates. Pirates do the same but try to downplay the losses as much as possible.

 

[Childs]

Link me one reasonable study (not from the Impulse69 Institute of BS) saying that in general, piracy increase revenue for games.

Its generally known that studies like this pop up all the time. For example, the second hit on google:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...tudy-finds-internet-downloads-increase-sales/

 

[Craig234]

I don't think there is anything wrong with it either other than it's been a long standing market and has farther reaching problems with music and fair use.

I much prefer the STEAM way of handling this and the huge sales they create that are effectively as cheap or cheaper than buying used anyways. Through STEAM however we get money going back to the developers and distributors long after the title has fallen off the brick and mortar store shelf.

Gamestop itself has created this problem by pocketing the entirety of the profits from used game sales instead of giving kickbacks or a percentage of the profit back to the developers.

I just personally believe that DRM then the used game market and eventually copies etc. are all apart of the bigger fight with the MPAA and RIAA on how we consume our media and what rights we have when we purchase software/music/movies.

I agree. I suspect that Gamestop is feeling enormous pressure to pay for brick and mortar competing with Steam and Amazon and others, that makes the used market attractive.

Cut out the publisher, and split the savings between a discount for the gamer and the purchase price pocketed by Gamestop.

On the other hand, destroy the used market, it might help the game industry and shut down Gamestop brick and mortar.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

How is it a straw man? It's no secret that the copyright industry groups often use a 1:1 or other high substitution rate in their loss figures. And that's when you can even find the methodology they used to calculate losses, a lot of figures just tend to get thrown around with little or no explanation about where they came from and how they were calculated.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ly-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

I mean I guess I can't blame them, I'd probably do the same if I were in their shoes. Like I said they're just pushing their agenda and trying to get stricter laws enforcing copyrights by fluffing up their loss estimates. Pirates do the same but try to downplay the losses as much as possible.

He's used to posting in P&N where reality doesn't matter.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Why is it when people talk about the used market they only bring up Gamestop's habits? You people do realize Gamestop didn't start the used software market right? They aren't the only ones around either. Used has been around forever and was just as active 10 years ago if not more. Try not to let your hate for Gamestop cloud the issue. Trying to do away with the used market now just shows greed on the publisher/devs part, not Gamestops. "OMG Look at all those used sales we lost out on!!!???" ;p yea.

We get it, you want to be completely immune to everything about capitalism except the part about you making money. That is what disgusts me. It's not about quality at all. It's about the quick buck.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig234
Link me one reasonable study (not from the Impulse69 Institute of BS) saying that in general, piracy increase revenue for games.

Its generally known that studies like this pop up all the time. For example, the second hit on google:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...tudy-finds-internet-downloads-increase-sales/

LMAO. See Craig, unlike you, I try to look at all sides of it. Not just one agenda. The only one here with BS is you blind man. <----(oh look).

Besides, I said both sides skew them to their own agenda.

 

[Craig234]

How is it a straw man? It's no secret that the copyright industry groups often use a 1:1 or other high substitution rate in their loss figures. And that's when you can even find the methodology they used to calculate losses, a lot of figures just tend to get thrown around with little or no explanation about where they came from and how they were calculated.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ly-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

I mean I guess I can't blame them, I'd probably do the same if I were in their shoes. Like I said they're just pushing their agenda and trying to get stricter laws enforcing copyrights by fluffing up their loss estimates. Pirates do the same but try to downplay the losses as much as possible.

I don't trust the groups who put out huge figures when they're incented to. There have been situations of clearly inflated figures.

The anger some feel at that doesn't justify exaggerating it - claiming that's what everyone who opposes piracy is claiming, and using that as an excuse to excuse piracy.

I don't know anyone who is now claiming a 1 to 1 loss. No one in this thread has; Bulletstorm and EA did not; I haven't even seen it from RIAA types in a long time.

So, it's a straw man because instead of arguing the actual issue the thread is about - such as the credible claim that piracy was enough to kill this sequel - you are instead raising the '1 to 1' claim no one has made, and insisting that by arguing against that you are somehow arguing something relevant. That's what a straw man is: subsituting a weak easy to beat argument for the one being made.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I don't trust the groups who put out huge figures when they're incented to. There have been situations of clearly inflated figures.

The anger some feel at that doesn't justify exaggerating it - claiming that's what everyone who opposes piracy is claiming, and using that as an excuse to excuse piracy.

I don't know anyone who is now claiming a 1 to 1 loss. No one in this thread has; Bulletstorm and EA did not; I haven't even seen it from RIAA types in a long time.

So, it's a straw man because instead of arguing the actual issue the thread is about - such as the credible claim that piracy was enough to kill this sequel - you are instead raising the '1 to 1' claim no one has made, and insisting that by arguing against that you are somehow arguing something relevant. That's what a straw man is: subsituting a weak easy to beat argument for the one being made.

Soooo...you don't trust groups how have incentive to put out numbers, but you agree with reviews, and piracy numbers without question. Hmm...:hmm:

So..which person were you on the Bulletstorm team?

We actually have been trying to discuss that issue, except, you keep running off on tangents. The overall consensus is: Piracy was not responsible for Bulletstorms bad sales. You can either agree or disagree. Beyond that, it's just personal opinion because no one has solid numbers that prove it one way or the other.

 

[frostedflakes]

To reply to the rest of your post, I don't disagree except with your straw man wrongly claiming people are saying 'every pirated copy is a lost sale'.

However, there is a difference between thousands of songs and a game, like Bulletstorm.

That's not nearly the throwaway a song in a big batch is; people who download it pick it in particular and are likely interested by the fact the picked it.

Absolutely not every pirated copy is a lost sale, and absolutely very many were.

Let me repeat my The Wiatcher 2 comment: with an estimated ratio of 5-10 copies pirated for every copy sold, it's easy to expect that 50% to 75% of the sames were lost to piracy.

Note in that estimate it's not 'every copy'. It's saying as few as 10% to as many as 30% were lost sales, which is a guess that doesn't seem unreasonable and is not near 100%.

It's credible that Bulletstorm piracy was enough to kill the sequel.

Fair enough, I didn't realize you had addressed this elsewhere in the thread, I hadn't read the whole thing before I replied to that post on page 2. I wasn't really criticizing your analysis of Witcher 2 piracy figures, just ranting about loss estimates in general which tend to be pretty biased. Substitution rate of 10-30% seems very reasonable and is probably pretty close to reality. And like I said was never trying to downplay the effects of piracy, it hurts the industry no doubt but not as much as studies with a substitution rate of 90-100% or something ridiculous like that would suggest.

 

[Craig234]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig234
Link me one reasonable study (not from the Impulse69 Institute of BS) saying that in general, piracy increase revenue for games.




LMAO. See Craig, unlike you, I try to look at all sides of it. Not just one agenda. The only one here with BS is you blind man. <----(oh look).

Besides, I said both sides skew them to their own agenda.

You're being obnoxious, so this is the last post I plan to respond to (if read) from you.

That's an interesting study, but does not come close to proving your point.

'People who pirate on the internet spend more than those who don't'.

Um, that wasn't the question. The question is whether piracy increases sales or not. Instead of being what's needed which is a study comparing whether the *same people* buy more when they pirate than when they don't, it only compares one group - who is likely a lot more interested in downloaded products by the very fact they pirate a lot - than people who don't.

Correlation is not causation. That argument is like saying 'buying condoms causes people to have more sex' because condom buyers are more likely to have sex than non-buyers.

Then put aside that it does not break out games at all separate from music, and is specific to a specific market in Switzerland with its own laws and culture and situation.

No, you did not begin to prove the point, though it was at least a worthwhile study.

Too bad you couldn't provide it without the crap.

 

[Craig234]

Fair enough, I didn't realize you had addressed this elsewhere in the thread, I hadn't read the whole thing before I replied to that post on page 2. I wasn't really criticizing your analysis of Witcher 2 piracy figures, just ranting about loss estimates in general which tend to be pretty biased. Substitution rate of 10-30% seems very reasonable and is probably pretty close to reality. And like I said was never trying to downplay the effects of piracy, it hurts the industry no doubt but not as much as studies with a substitution rate of 90-100% or something ridiculous like that would suggest.

We agree - there have been huge exaggerations in some claims of piracy losses.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Craig, you might want to re-read many of your posts if you want to talk about obnoxious.