On the piracy that's "not occurring" in PC Gaming...

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Oh, they already have. It's called "Drop all focus on the platform where people don't pay." Most effective DRM for a PC game? Don't put it out on the PC. Put it out on the consoles, where you won't be looking at 50% piracy rates if you're lucky.

Certainly beats the pants off "Just keep trying harder guys, eventually you'll make a game good enough we won't steal it in huge numbers, honest!". Would you also like to sell them a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge?

Cause you know, we actually tried that one, remember, before any of these invasive DRM schemes came up. And you know what they got for it? Widespread piracy.

Yeah, I get the point. Piracy exists and is widespread. Seems to be the only counter argument you can come up with.

My question is why not accept the reality of the situation and focus on ways to gain more sales rather than combating something that you don't have a chance of winning? Seems like a big waste of energy and only leads to weakening the current state of the PC games industry.

I'm going to quote BladeVenom from an earlier post because I believe he brings up a good point.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

 

[Northern Lawn]

I'm a pirate.. well, I just download EVERYTHING. It's basically legal in Canada btw.

Anyway, I thought I should tell you why I have bought a few games. It wasn't cracked right away HL2 comes to mind, had to have it, DRM works sorta.

Also, STEAM. The convenience, the games on sale. I gotta say I never touched steam until Americas army 3 came out. AA3 ruined the game but I've bought like 10 games since off of steam. Thats more then the last 5 years, lol.

More Steam, Let me download a game that is patched up, auto patch those games. Let me never worry about "where's my DVD" again.

I also want to say something that I absolutely believe to be true, that is that 80% of piracy happens just because.. Take me. I downloaded almost every game but I only play America's Army which is free to download and free to play. Now that I don't play that game, all I want is another online shooter. MW2 or Bad Company early next year. I have to buy them to play. 80-90% of the stuff I download I would never buy and have never played.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: hdeck
wait, since when can people who pirate a game like COD or CS play online with legit players? i was under the (i suppose wrong) assumption that by pirating the game and not having a legit key they couldn't get on the good servers.

This is my assumption too. And Im not foreign to pirating. Ive downloaded to play single player, when I want MP I go out and buy the game...

With Steam being as great as it is, I've bought a lot of games off it.

 

[coreyb]

Most people I know buy good games, but will pirate games just to try them.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Oh, they already have. It's called "Drop all focus on the platform where people don't pay." Most effective DRM for a PC game? Don't put it out on the PC. Put it out on the consoles, where you won't be looking at 50% piracy rates if you're lucky.

Certainly beats the pants off "Just keep trying harder guys, eventually you'll make a game good enough we won't steal it in huge numbers, honest!". Would you also like to sell them a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge?

Cause you know, we actually tried that one, remember, before any of these invasive DRM schemes came up. And you know what they got for it? Widespread piracy.

Yeah, I get the point. Piracy exists and is widespread. Seems to be the only counter argument you can come up with.

My question is why not accept the reality of the situation and focus on ways to gain more sales rather than combating something that you don't have a chance of winning? Seems like a big waste of energy and only leads to weakening the current state of the PC games industry.

I'm going to quote BladeVenom from an earlier post because I believe he brings up a good point.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

I think you're still kind of missing the points, which are, in a nutshell:

- As long as "hardcore" PC gamers continue to have double standards toward the games industry, don't expect them to respect you.

- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Wardell's comments mean nothing because he has no control to compare his data set to. Almost all anticipated games are high in the sales charts in their first few weeks. It's not like they released versions of their titles with DRM and without and compared the two. He doesn't know if they lost or gained sales by going DRM free.

He just happens to be a minority voice of some prominence in the games development industry that confirms the beliefs anti-DRM folks want to be true. So, naturally, they hold him up like some champion.

Once again, it all sounds so reasonable when you discuss it exclusively with each other.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: ja1484
- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Until you realise that the publishers are using piracy as a pretext to engage in marketing practices that only hurt the paying customer, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Originally posted by: ja1484

I think you're still kind of missing the points, which are, in a nutshell:

- As long as "hardcore" PC gamers continue to have double standards toward the games industry, don't expect them to respect you.

- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Ah, now you have finally convinced me! I blame the pirates for this, and I am happy IW took away dedicated servers, and are making me pay for any new maps or mods!

I say stick it to them pirates! I'm going to buy this game just to spite them.

From now on, I think we should only buy and support games that pirates can't play.

F Stardock and their ilk, they are ruining PC gaming!

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Oh, they already have. It's called "Drop all focus on the platform where people don't pay." Most effective DRM for a PC game? Don't put it out on the PC. Put it out on the consoles, where you won't be looking at 50% piracy rates if you're lucky.

Certainly beats the pants off "Just keep trying harder guys, eventually you'll make a game good enough we won't steal it in huge numbers, honest!". Would you also like to sell them a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge?

Cause you know, we actually tried that one, remember, before any of these invasive DRM schemes came up. And you know what they got for it? Widespread piracy.

Yeah, I get the point. Piracy exists and is widespread. Seems to be the only counter argument you can come up with.

My question is why not accept the reality of the situation and focus on ways to gain more sales rather than combating something that you don't have a chance of winning? Seems like a big waste of energy and only leads to weakening the current state of the PC games industry.

I'm going to quote BladeVenom from an earlier post because I believe he brings up a good point.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

I think you're still kind of missing the points, which are, in a nutshell:

- As long as "hardcore" PC gamers continue to have double standards toward the games industry, don't expect them to respect you.

- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Wardell's comments mean nothing because he has no control to compare his data set to. Almost all anticipated games are high in the sales charts in their first few weeks. It's not like they released versions of their titles with DRM and without and compared the two. He doesn't know if they lost or gained sales by going DRM free.

He just happens to be a minority voice of some prominence in the games development industry that confirms the beliefs anti-DRM folks want to be true. So, naturally, they hold him up like some champion.

Once again, it all sounds so reasonable when you discuss it exclusively with each other.

http://draginol.joeuser.com/ar...03512/Piracy_PC_Gaming

The problem with blaming piracy

I don't want anyone to walk away from this article thinking I am poo-pooing the effect of piracy. I'm not. I definitely feel for game developers who want to make kick ass PC games who see their efforts diminished by a bunch of greedy pirates. I just don't count pirates in the first place. If you're a pirate, you don't get a vote on what gets made -- or you shouldn't if the company in question is trying to make a profit.

The reason why we don't put CD copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.

One of the jokes I've seen in the desktop enhancement market is how "ugly" WindowBlinds skins are (though there are plenty of awesome ones too). But the thing is, the people who buy WindowBlinds tend to like a different style of skin than the people who would never buy it in the first place. Natural selection, so to speak, over many years has created a number of styles that seem to be unique to people who actually buy WindowBlinds. That's the problem with piracy. What gets made targets people who buy it, not the people who would never buy it in the first place. When someone complains about "fat borders" on some popular WindowBlinds skin my question is always "Would you buy WindowBlinds even if there was a perfect skin for you?" and the answer is inevitably "Probably not". That's how it works in every market -- the people who buy stuff call the shots. Only in the PC game market are the people who pirate stuff still getting the overwhelming percentage of development resources and editorial support.

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market. And there are far more effective ways of getting people who might buy your product to buy it without inconveniencing them.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot. But then again, I don't romanticize PC game development. I just want to play cool games and make a profit on games that I work on.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Oh, they already have. It's called "Drop all focus on the platform where people don't pay." Most effective DRM for a PC game? Don't put it out on the PC. Put it out on the consoles, where you won't be looking at 50% piracy rates if you're lucky.

Certainly beats the pants off "Just keep trying harder guys, eventually you'll make a game good enough we won't steal it in huge numbers, honest!". Would you also like to sell them a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge?

Cause you know, we actually tried that one, remember, before any of these invasive DRM schemes came up. And you know what they got for it? Widespread piracy.

Yeah, I get the point. Piracy exists and is widespread. Seems to be the only counter argument you can come up with.

My question is why not accept the reality of the situation and focus on ways to gain more sales rather than combating something that you don't have a chance of winning? Seems like a big waste of energy and only leads to weakening the current state of the PC games industry.

I'm going to quote BladeVenom from an earlier post because I believe he brings up a good point.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

You know that whole 'accept reality of situation and focus on ways to gain more sales'?

That is exactly what they're doing by moving to the consoles. Which, not incidentally, weakens the PC games industry a lot faster.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Oh, they already have. It's called "Drop all focus on the platform where people don't pay." Most effective DRM for a PC game? Don't put it out on the PC. Put it out on the consoles, where you won't be looking at 50% piracy rates if you're lucky.

Certainly beats the pants off "Just keep trying harder guys, eventually you'll make a game good enough we won't steal it in huge numbers, honest!". Would you also like to sell them a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge?

Cause you know, we actually tried that one, remember, before any of these invasive DRM schemes came up. And you know what they got for it? Widespread piracy.

Yeah, I get the point. Piracy exists and is widespread. Seems to be the only counter argument you can come up with.

My question is why not accept the reality of the situation and focus on ways to gain more sales rather than combating something that you don't have a chance of winning? Seems like a big waste of energy and only leads to weakening the current state of the PC games industry.

I'm going to quote BladeVenom from an earlier post because I believe he brings up a good point.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

You know that whole 'accept reality of situation and focus on ways to gain more sales'?

That is exactly what they're doing by moving to the consoles. Which, not incidentally, weakens the PC games industry a lot faster.

They wanted to move to consoles anyway and sometimes use piracy as a pretext.

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Oh, they already have. It's called "Drop all focus on the platform where people don't pay." Most effective DRM for a PC game? Don't put it out on the PC. Put it out on the consoles, where you won't be looking at 50% piracy rates if you're lucky.

Certainly beats the pants off "Just keep trying harder guys, eventually you'll make a game good enough we won't steal it in huge numbers, honest!". Would you also like to sell them a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge?

Cause you know, we actually tried that one, remember, before any of these invasive DRM schemes came up. And you know what they got for it? Widespread piracy.

Yeah, I get the point. Piracy exists and is widespread. Seems to be the only counter argument you can come up with.

My question is why not accept the reality of the situation and focus on ways to gain more sales rather than combating something that you don't have a chance of winning? Seems like a big waste of energy and only leads to weakening the current state of the PC games industry.

I'm going to quote BladeVenom from an earlier post because I believe he brings up a good point.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

I think you're still kind of missing the points, which are, in a nutshell:

- As long as "hardcore" PC gamers continue to have double standards toward the games industry, don't expect them to respect you.

- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Wardell's comments mean nothing because he has no control to compare his data set to. Almost all anticipated games are high in the sales charts in their first few weeks. It's not like they released versions of their titles with DRM and without and compared the two. He doesn't know if they lost or gained sales by going DRM free.

He just happens to be a minority voice of some prominence in the games development industry that confirms the beliefs anti-DRM folks want to be true. So, naturally, they hold him up like some champion.

Once again, it all sounds so reasonable when you discuss it exclusively with each other.[

And where exactly is the control set that you refer all of your information to? How many companies have released 2 version of the same game, one with and one without DRM? No one has, so stop this BS.

Of course it has been shown that some people will NOT buy a game that has DRM, so at least there they know they for sure lose some sales if they include it. They can call those people dirty pirates all they want, but hey I don't buy games with certain DRM (mostly just the install limit ones) and I don't pirate them either, so these assholes can pretend that only pirates hate DRM but it sure as hell isn't true. To their bottom line its the same either way, a lost sale is a lost sale, which is why I and a ton of other people thing DRM is stupid as hell.

Also, like a ton of other people have pointed out, pirates don't really matter when you're comparing PC gamers to console gamers. There are just so many more console gamers that it dwarfs the PC market, pirates or not they would be focusing their efforts on the console platform. Most PC gamers accepted this long ago, but jackasses like you continue to freak out about piracy as if developers would suddenly flock back to PC gaming if piracy didn't exist.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: ja1484
- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Until you realise that the publishers are using piracy as a pretext to engage in marketing practices that only hurt the paying customer, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere.

:thumbsup:

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
You know that whole 'accept reality of situation and focus on ways to gain more sales'?

That is exactly what they're doing by moving to the consoles. Which, not incidentally, weakens the PC games industry a lot faster.

Crysis sold 1 million copies, Spore has surpassed 3 million. There are still paying customers out there and plenty of money to be made from PC games. The publishers need a scapegoat for their neglect of PC gaming plain and simple, and pirates are an easy target.

Why blame someone else when it's your own damn fault the industry is going to shit? I'm a paying customer and shoddy unoptimized console ports laden with invasive DRM isn't anything I caused. So why do I need to be punished for piracy? As that mentality becomes more prevalent in PC gamers, of course they are going to stop buying games. Publishers focusing more energy on consoles is just making that happen quicker but does nothing to actually address the current problems in the industry.

I have a solution.. If you're a game publisher and you aren't going to support the PC market in a meaningful or helpful way, then stick to consoles and don't release PC games at all. Then other developers and publishers that are actually going to help the PC games industry can move in and be profitable. The only reason the big guys stay in the PC market is because there is still lots of money to be made despite all these overblown piracy claims.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: ja1484
- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Until you realise that the publishers are using piracy as a pretext to engage in marketing practices that only hurt the paying customer, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere.

:thumbsup:

Do you guys really think anybody on this forum takes any of you seriously? It's hard arguing with some one who thinks in a 4 x 4 box and continually tries to reinforce their hypothesis, without first challenging their own theories. I'm actually getting quite tired of reading your posts, because they offer nothing by inflammatory responses to whomever tries to disagree or challenge your idea.

I don't pretend to know all the answers (at least on this subject), but when you step back and read comments from both the developers and customers, you know the problem steams much deeper than a bunch of greedy developers trying to suck whatever hard earned dollar you have left. I have yet to reach a conclusion, let a lone a solution to the problem. Though terms like barriers of entry, profit margins, market segmentation, and average total costs come to mind. We're talking about changing business models, economics, and the very scope of the market. It should be taking very seriously and it should involve some degree of thought. Hopefully , at least, the free market will soon stabilize the situation.

 

[Via]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: ja1484
- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Until you realise that the publishers are using piracy as a pretext to engage in marketing practices that only hurt the paying customer, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere.

:thumbsup:

Do you guys really think anybody on this forum takes any of you seriously? It's hard arguing with some one who thinks in a 4 x 4 box and continually tries to reinforce their hypothesis, without first challenging their own theories. I'm actually getting quite tired of reading your posts, because they offer nothing by inflammatory responses to whomever tries to disagree or challenge your idea.

I don't pretend to know all the answers (at least on this subject), but when you step back and read comments from both the developers and customers, you know the problem steams much deeper than a bunch of greedy developers trying to suck whatever hard earned dollar you have left. I have yet to reach a conclusion, let a lone a solution to the problem. Though terms like barriers of entry, profit margins, market segmentation, and average total costs come to mind. We're talking about changing business models, economics, and the very scope of the market. It should be taking very seriously and it should involve some degree of thought. Hopefully , at least, the free market will soon stabilize the situation.

:thumbsup: x 10

 

[paperfist]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I welcome the deletion of dedicated servers. Only led to problems for me. Joining a supposedly-busy server only for it to end up empty by the time you get in? Check. Hackers and griefers everywhere? Check. Stupid mods and rules? Check. Retarded admins? Check. Getting booted over and over again for having the wrong Punkbuster version? Check.

There's a reason I only use my PC for single player games. Multiplayer is console-only for me now. Online multiplayer on PC sucks.

I thought a few months ago there was a wall hack going around for CoD or BF2 on the 360?

I dunno, when I find a wacky server I just don't visit it anymore although some of them are really fun to play on. You won't be able to play on those anymore.

You won't be able to play on custom maps anymore and that should be a big deal to everyone.

Who says you won't have issues connecting to a companies server? I run into just as many problems with Steam and Epic's master server.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Spore has surpassed 3 million. There are still paying customers out there and plenty of money to be made from PC games. The publishers need a scapegoat for their neglect of PC gaming plain and simple, and pirates are an easy target.

Spore is a game for the "masses" - people who don't normally play hard core games - a game that can be played on most PC's [ie: do not require a high end system to enjoy]. Games like Spore remind me of the Wii - catered to the masses.

Notice what types of games are typically blamed for piracy? Games that target a specific audience...

Housewife Kim, Casual gamer Cathy, or Workaholic William with a Wii probably is going to be more interested in playing Spore than Crysis.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Originally posted by: Via

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: ja1484
- Until you start blaming the pirates for the mess rather than the game companies, don't expect game publishers to take you seriously.

Until you realise that the publishers are using piracy as a pretext to engage in marketing practices that only hurt the paying customer, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere.

:thumbsup:

Do you guys really think anybody on this forum takes any of you seriously? It's hard arguing with some one who thinks in a 4 x 4 box and continually tries to reinforce their hypothesis, without first challenging their own theories. I'm actually getting quite tired of reading your posts, because they offer nothing by inflammatory responses to whomever tries to disagree or challenge your idea.

I don't pretend to know all the answers (at least on this subject), but when you step back and read comments from both the developers and customers, you know the problem steams much deeper than a bunch of greedy developers trying to suck whatever hard earned dollar you have left. I have yet to reach a conclusion, let a lone a solution to the problem. Though terms like barriers of entry, profit margins, market segmentation, and average total costs come to mind. We're talking about changing business models, economics, and the very scope of the market. It should be taking very seriously and it should involve some degree of thought. Hopefully , at least, the free market will soon stabilize the situation.

:thumbsup: x 10

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Via

Originally posted by: Regs
Do you guys really think anybody on this forum takes any of you seriously? It's hard arguing with some one who thinks in a 4 x 4 box and continually tries to reinforce their hypothesis, without first challenging their own theories. I'm actually getting quite tired of reading your posts, because they offer nothing by inflammatory responses to whomever tries to disagree or challenge your idea.

I don't pretend to know all the answers (at least on this subject), but when you step back and read comments from both the developers and customers, you know the problem steams much deeper than a bunch of greedy developers trying to suck whatever hard earned dollar you have left. I have yet to reach a conclusion, let a lone a solution to the problem. Though terms like barriers of entry, profit margins, market segmentation, and average total costs come to mind. We're talking about changing business models, economics, and the very scope of the market. It should be taking very seriously and it should involve some degree of thought. Hopefully , at least, the free market will soon stabilize the situation.

:thumbsup: x 10

First of all. Yes, I actually do think people take reasonable suggestions seriously. You can believe that giant corporations have your best interest in mind, but when you actually look at the state of the industry, it's clear they don't. They care about profit margins, and when comparing the sales of PC games to that of consoles it's clear to see they don't sell as well. Yet, instead of focusing on improving that situation using methods that benefit the customer, they go the opposite route and try methods that hurt customers and the reputation of the industry as a whole.

The problem isn't strictly due to the publishers being greedy however. IMO, It due to them not taking steps to improve customer relations, which is important in any industry. A lot of these steps wouldn't involve any extra money, so it's hard to understand why they haven;'t been taken.

Secondly, here's is my solution boiled down if you haven't read it yet.

Originally posted by: Mindcycle
I have a solution.. If you're a game publisher and you aren't going to support the PC market in a meaningful or helpful way, then stick to consoles and don't release PC games at all. Then other developers and publishers that are actually going to help the PC games industry can move in and be profitable. The only reason the big guys stay in the PC market is because there is still lots of money to be made despite all these overblown piracy claims.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

I have read that, and I agree with him.

"When the focus of energy is put on customers rather than fighting pirates, you end up with more sales."

"The reality that most PC game publishers ignore is that there are people who buy games and people who don?t buy games. The focus of a business is to increase its sales. My job, as CEO of Stardock, is not to fight worldwide piracy no matter how much it aggravates me personally. My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary ? our customers."

 

[Regs]

Do you know what happens when the small players start leaving the PC market (the ones that started small and ended up big)? DLC, 30 dollars expansions, and 60 dollar First person shooters. Perfect competition turns into oligopolies, and oligopolies will soon turn duopolies, and then maybe become Monopolies. Economics 101. Thus the industry will be only responsive to the market demand as only a very small few will be supplying the product. Discouraging competition in a market is a very bad idea for the customer. And if it did turn into a duopoly/monopoly situation, just think about how much more costly it would be for more developers to the enter the market. As some developers have all ready said , you all ready need millions to advertise your game just so a little percentage of the market will buy it.

The solution involves the customer and business meeting each other half-way so that both are satisfied. A compromise.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I'll listen to Brad Wardell, who's a developer and publisher of games who has proven his points in real life

Really. You should read this. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/349758

I have read that, and I agree with him.

"When the focus of energy is put on customers rather than fighting pirates, you end up with more sales."

"The reality that most PC game publishers ignore is that there are people who buy games and people who don?t buy games. The focus of a business is to increase its sales. My job, as CEO of Stardock, is not to fight worldwide piracy no matter how much it aggravates me personally. My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary ? our customers."

Cool. I actually wasn't directing that at you, I was quoting you because I agree with what you said and it related to the post I was making. Thanks for posting part of the text there. I think his stance is very well thought out and makes a lot of sense.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Regs
The solution involves the customer and business meeting each other half-way so that both are satisfied. A compromise.

Pirates are not customers. That's a concept many of you posting here fail to grasp.

 

[Praxis1452]

Devs that whine about piracy get no sympathy from me. It's part of the economy now so you have to take it into consideration, and so you consider how to get more people to buy your product. Some DRM is acceptable, steam is a prime example. There is DRM that works, and DRM that doesn't. There are benefits to a legal version, and benefits to having a pirated version. The entire point is to make it so that the benefits of the legal version outweigh the cost of the product, and introduce alongside it acceptable amounts of DRM(from a lot to a little), to maximize profits. Done.

Originally posted by: RegsThe solution involves the customer and business meeting each other half-way so that both are satisfied. A compromise.

No it doesn't, because devs don't have the power in this scenario, the buyers do. They can get the game for very low cost. What are the devs going to do? Use DRM? lololololol. It works, but it's effectiveness is limited. In this manner, the devs are powerless, so no, the consumer does not have to compromise in almost any way. The devs do. It's not about what's right, cause what's "right" doesn't matter. Only reality matters, and reality says that devs have to be practical, and not a bunch of whiny bitches.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: Regs
The solution involves the customer and business meeting each other half-way so that both are satisfied. A compromise.

Pirates are not customers. That's a concept many of you posting here fail to grasp.

That's a massive oversimplification, and intellectually dishonest to boot. There is going to be, naturally, some percentage of people who don't feel like paying money for a game, and pirate it instead, but would have actually paid for it if piracy wasn't an option. When you factor in the concept of a descending price point over time, it becomes even more obvious.

Example: Timmy doesn't want to spend $60 on Awesome Game X because he would not derive $60 of enjoyment. Fair enough. He's willing to spend $30, though, because he would get $30 of enjoyment. Eventually, the game will get to that price point, and Timmy will buy the game. Seems reasonable.

However, we're in a world with piracy. Timmy goes and grabs the torrent of Awesome Game X. He plays it a bit, gets his $30's worth (despite not having paid $30), and moves on. _The publisher never gets their $30. Would Timmy have paid $60? Nope. But he would have paid $30, and that's logic that never seems to get taken into account with the "I wouldn't pay $60 for it, so I'll pirate it and it's like they didn't lose money" rationale.

Well, what if Timmy wasn't willing to pay anything for the game? Well, sorry, but that makes no rational sense. Timmy derived some sort of enjoyment out of the game, and thus must have been willing to pay _something_. That's basic economics. Everyone has a price point. If it was $0, he cared so little about the game he wouldn't have pirated it in the first place.

I won't even bother discussing how "pirates aren't customers" completely contradicts the usual rationale for piracy of "try before you buy".