Why is Piracy the giant industry bogeyman?

[uclaLabrat]

And why are PC gamers chastised by ever developery (or so it seems) when it comes to blaming low sales on piracy? Companies have no issue catering to their bread and butter consoles, when they have massive advantages that PC gamers don't in respect to buying games.

Console owners can sell their games at will, with no worries about DRM or install limits. You can own a console for years and never actually buy a retail game, but instead go into gamestop and buy a AAA title for $15-20 bucks several months after release, where on the the PC, you have games like COD4 a scant $10-15 cheaper than they were at release. So it's entirely possible that a console gamer will never put a single dime into the developer's pocket, and still be completely within his legal right.

Further, console gamers have an entire RENTAL INDUSTRY catering to them, where they can try any game they please for a few bucks. How much better would PC gaming be if we had that option? Instead we get root kits, invasive DRM, and install limits, and shoddy ports. The whole outcry against piracy is really becoming a tired mantra.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Nobody ever got fired for blaming piracy

 

[duragezic]

I think COD4 is an exception. I've seen few other games hold their value as much as it has. And on the contrary, I think PC games are much cheaper than console. They start out cheaper and widely have deals available near release and much cheaper later on.

 

[Lonyo]

I think COD4 is an exception. I've seen few other games hold their value as much as it has. And on the contrary, I think PC games are much cheaper than console. They start out cheaper and widely have deals available near release and much cheaper later on.

It's not holding its value, it's Activision not lowering the price.
Check out the prices of all CoD games on something like Steam.


As for PC games, consider most recent EA games, their prices have dropped like a rock across all platforms.

 

[duragezic]

It's not holding its value, it's Activision not lowering the price.
Check out the prices of all CoD games on something like Steam.


As for PC games, consider most recent EA games, their prices have dropped like a rock across all platforms.

Basically the same thing. Activision or any other company is going to sell it at a point where they are satisfied with the profit vs. number of sales.

Also Steam has decent prices, killer sales, but some games just are more expensive.

COD4 on Amazon.com:
PC: $36.99
360: $40.40
PS3: $40.43

Contrary to the OP, I believe the vast majority of games will be cheaper on PC than consoles, unless he speaks of used games (much less prevalent on PC if even at all) but even then deals at Steam, GoGamer, etc have PC games VERY cheap. No excuse for piracy at all.

Sure games like MW2 are $60 and might not be cheap for a long time, but PC gaming overall is pretty dang cheap and prices drop very fast. You mention rentals, but deals on Steam often have games for the price of a rental.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Piracy is the "industry boogeyman" because a massive majority of installed software in the world is pirated. It's a real problem, but plenty of gamers are willing to bury their heads in the sand and convince themselves that the big bad publishers are using it as an excuse to install DRM because.... well.... because.... uh.... surely the publishers have reasons other than piracy to use DRM, right?

 

[flashbacck]

When a publisher goes online and sees a hundred thousand people have downloaded a torrent for his game, what do you suppose he thinks? "Oh well, those people never would have bought the game anyway"? or "If we could stop those pirates, that's a few thousand more sales there."

 

[ronach]

Comon guys...Piracy is a problem for those that make a living at making games, and should be addressed, but....not at the expence of your faithfull, paying customer base. How about the releasing of unfinished, buggy games onto the paying public as a big problem, or game company execs making decisions to diss their long standing PC customers for the console crowds money [ be advised..I have game consoles of my own and enjoy playing them ] but I don't happen to like the attitude that some of the game companies are displaying of late. You all know what I mean. Most of us don't mind paying for what we want...in my opinion...they should do their best to keep us happy...and in return...we help keep their happy business afloat. Is this reality..maybe not..would this work..yes..if those within our ranks would stop ripping off games..and the game companies would give us what we paid for...You know...full ownership of a finished game that we can sit back and enjoy playing.

 

[Terzo]

Piracy is the "industry boogeyman" because a massive majority of installed software in the world is pirated. It's a real problem, but plenty of gamers are willing to bury their heads in the sand and convince themselves that the big bad publishers are using it as an excuse to install DRM because.... well.... because.... uh.... surely the publishers have reasons other than piracy to use DRM, right?

When a publisher goes online and sees a hundred thousand people have downloaded a torrent for his game, what do you suppose he thinks? "Oh well, those people never would have bought the game anyway"? or "If we could stop those pirates, that's a few thousand more sales there."

I don't condone piracy but the second most common reason I see for drm (albeit not from developers) is to reduce the second hand market. I don't know how true this is, but it's certainly plausible. As a business developers and publishers want to make money. Just as a publisher might see a torrent and think, "there's a few more thousand sales", they can look at retailers like gamestop and think the same.
Playing armchair economist, the steam deals valve runs are a brilliant idea. Steam games can't be resold or given away when you're finished so there's no second hand market leeching sales. I believe the deals also increase profits (since the increased volume more than makes up for the sale price). I've seen more than a fair share of posters here lamenting another steam deal that is irresistible despite their large backlog of games.

 

[Jetster]

This is a BBC business interview with CDProjekt funders(click the play button or download "GlobalBiz: Entrepreneurs: 30 Nov 09", starts at 13:12):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/worldbiz/
very interesting on how the Polish gaming company got started, and how they got in the witcher project especially if u like the game.
Basically, when they first started the company in the country, their only competition is piracy, but they succeed by not first assume all their customers are criminals, and not treating them like idiots, and bring low price products. and they're setting up gog.com, an online game distribution like steam, but without any kind of drm..... their business model is something i think rest of industry should think about

 

[BladeVenom]

Most games are far cheaper on the PC; CoD4 was one of the rare exceptions. Except for PC games that are huge hits, the prices drop really fast. Also PC games tend to be on sale more often than console games. Most of the brand new games I buy, I find on sale for $10 to $20 off. I pick up lots of games that are only 6 to 12 months old for $10 to $20. I average spending about $35 for brand new games and $15 for games that have been out a little while.

 

[Cogman]

Piracy is the "industry boogeyman" because a massive majority of installed software in the world is pirated. It's a real problem, but plenty of gamers are willing to bury their heads in the sand and convince themselves that the big bad publishers are using it as an excuse to install DRM because.... well.... because.... uh.... surely the publishers have reasons other than piracy to use DRM, right?

Yes, they do, they have plenty of reasons for DRM other then piracy.

1. Resellability. If you can only install the game x times before it doesn't allow another install, all the sudden buying a game on Ebay isn't such a great idea, after all, who wants a game that they can't install? This makes it so people HAVE to buy from the manufacturer (What they want).

2. You can force people to buy more then one copy of the software. You want to update your PC? Too bad, you need a new copy of the software. Your junking your old pc? Too bad, you need a new copy of the software. This is great news for the game producers, because, again, it creates an artificial need for a legitimate user to buy more then one copy of their software.

3. It give the producers more control then they should have. You didn't participate on our forums the way we liked? Well, your game no longer works, you'll have to buy a new one if you want to play.

What DRM DOESN'T do is stop piracy. I have yet to see a DRM system that pirates haven't broken.

Piracy is an issue, but DRMs are not the answer. They are there because big media companies want an excuse to use them.

 

[Modelworks]

One thing to consider is how games are produced for the pc. You have the developer who wants the game to be great and has nothing to do with DRM and then you have the publisher who foots the bill while the game is developed and decides what DRM and sales rights will be.

The DRM to prevent resale has been struck down in court. The whole idea of being able to license software and that you don't own it was over ruled a few months ago in court when someone wanted to resell autodesk software they had bought and the policy with autodesk has been you can only buy new copies or upgrade old copies and can never resale. The courts decided that was wrong and forced autodesk to allow resale of purchased copies.

There is DRM that has never been broken, one example is the current version of directv smart cards. The system is now going on 3+ years and nobody has cracked it. True protection requires what hughes did, total control of the hardware and a design that you know will be targeted by pirates. Hughes made every component of their system closed , there is no off the shelf hardware present. PC use too varied a hardware system to use that same approach.

TPM could stop a ton of piracy but it is a hardware solution and as such has to be adopted by users.

 

[Visaoni]

Yes, they do, they have plenty of reasons for DRM other then piracy.

1. Resellability. If you can only install the game x times before it doesn't allow another install, all the sudden buying a game on Ebay isn't such a great idea, after all, who wants a game that they can't install? This makes it so people HAVE to buy from the manufacturer (What they want).

2. You can force people to buy more then one copy of the software. You want to update your PC? Too bad, you need a new copy of the software. Your junking your old pc? Too bad, you need a new copy of the software. This is great news for the game producers, because, again, it creates an artificial need for a legitimate user to buy more then one copy of their software.

3. It give the producers more control then they should have. You didn't participate on our forums the way we liked? Well, your game no longer works, you'll have to buy a new one if you want to play.

What DRM DOESN'T do is stop piracy. I have yet to see a DRM system that pirates haven't broken.

Piracy is an issue, but DRMs are not the answer. They are there because big media companies want an excuse to use them.

You hit the nail right on the head. There is years of evidence that DRM does not, and will not, stop piracy. There have been more than a few examples where DRM made legitimate consumers incredibly frustrated when trying to install their freshly bought game. Yet DRM continues to show up on most games.

Developers have to know DRM does not stop pirates. But they continue to spend the money to include it in their games, and risk major issues for legitimate buyers on launch day. They are seeing some sort of financial gain from it, and it certainly isn't from stopping piracy.

Now, I suppose one could argue the sole reason for DRM is to boost initial sales. It takes some time for a crack to come out (depending the type of DRM, and how tightly it is wound into the game), so it is possible they are targeting those without enough discipline to wait a little bit for a pirated version. But I don't think the number of people in such a situation is significant. Even legitimate buyers usually have at least one or two games they are working on. Pirates aren't constrained by their wallet, so chances are pretty high they have more than a few games they play while they wait for the crack.

 

[shortylickens]

Nobody ever got fired for blaming piracy

Bingo.
Most big corportate decisions are made by incompetant executives desperately trying to save their jobs.

No one has ever proven or even can prove that poor sales are due to piracy. They have absolutely no idea how many people would have purchased the game. And in my opinion the poor sales are mostly caused by stupid console gamers who reliably pay 60 bucks for crappy titles. PC gamers dont normally put up with that shit.

 

[Modelworks]

Developers have to know DRM does not stop pirates. But they continue to spend the money to include it in their games, and risk major issues for legitimate buyers on launch day. They are seeing some sort of financial gain from it, and it certainly isn't from stopping piracy.

You have to understand that developers are not the ones that are for DRM , it is the publishers. To the publishers it is a business , they don't care how fun the game is or what the game is about or even what system runs the game, all they care about is will it sell.

Think of the publisher as a bank because really that is all they are. They make a loan and expect the game sales to pay that back + interest. Most publishers have share holders. If share holders see reports that a game was pirated they complain to the publisher asking what they are doing to stop it. The share holders are just like other investors, all they care about is a return on their investment. If the publisher did not include DRM then the share holders could say they were negligent pointing to downloaded copies. With DRM the publishers can tell the share holders, we did try to stop it.

A publisher shipping a game with no protection would be like a bank explaining how they were robbed and they had no cameras, guards, alarms.

 

[uclaLabrat]

All valid points, but my problem is the difference between the way the platforms are treated. PC gamers are vilified as pirates, and developers lament piracy as killing the industry, yet on the console front there is no outcry against the second hand gaming market or the rental market. Why can't we be treated the same? Why do they not only tolerate, but embrace, on consoles that which they despise on the PC?

 

[Exterous]

I've always liked Stardock's approach:

Recently there has been a lot of talk about how piracy affects PC gaming. And if you listen to game developers, it apparently is a foregone conclusion - if a high quality PC game doesn't sell as many copies as it should, it must be because of piracy.
Now, I don't like piracy at all. It really bugs me when I see my game up on some torrent site just on the principle of the matter. And piracy certainly does cost sales. But arguing that piracy is the primary factor in lower sales of well made games? I don't think so. People who never buy software aren't lost sales.
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.


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.

 

[Cogman]

You have to understand that developers are not the ones that are for DRM , it is the publishers. To the publishers it is a business , they don't care how fun the game is or what the game is about or even what system runs the game, all they care about is will it sell.

Think of the publisher as a bank because really that is all they are. They make a loan and expect the game sales to pay that back + interest. Most publishers have share holders. If share holders see reports that a game was pirated they complain to the publisher asking what they are doing to stop it. The share holders are just like other investors, all they care about is a return on their investment. If the publisher did not include DRM then the share holders could say they were negligent pointing to downloaded copies. With DRM the publishers can tell the share holders, we did try to stop it.

A publisher shipping a game with no protection would be like a bank explaining how they were robbed and they had no cameras, guards, alarms.

And I guess you've just identified one of the big flaws of the software industry in general. People who have no clue about software or how it works are calling technical shots.

I'm not saying we don't need managers, nor that the managers need to have CS degrees. I'm just saying that the managers should have enough sense to know that spending money on copy protection only works as long as the protection isn't broken. In most cases that is a couple of weeks.

You say that they look at their investment and say "Hey, we have no protection" To take it further, instead of putting up cameras or guards, they are paying a homeless man to watch the goods (The guy just so happens to mug a few people as they walk by). Or, you could say they put a rabid dog in the front yard, who indiscriminately bites friend or foe.

Is protection really worth it when it give the benefit of a few days of protection after release and alienates legitimate customers?

The only way to completely stop piracy is to stop publishing.

 

[duragezic]

All valid points, but my problem is the difference between the way the platforms are treated. PC gamers are vilified as pirates, and developers lament piracy as killing the industry, yet on the console front there is no outcry against the second hand gaming market or the rental market. Why can't we be treated the same? Why do they not only tolerate, but embrace, on consoles that which they despise on the PC?

Not a really fair comparison. Second hand market or rental market doesn't involve illegal and unethical means of getting a game for free.

As was pointed out in this thread, PC games are pretty cheap overall. That's why I say there is no excuse for piracy with these. People talk about how games should only be $10 or something but it's just no realistic. They are cheaper than console games and cheaper compared to most other entertainment. Also I find it ridiculous when I see a forum post of a guy talking about a game he pirated it because it was expensive or he was poor, but in his sig is a top of the line computer.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Of course, as many have discovered, you *can* vastly cut your piracy rates in a number of fashions. DRM does not seem to be one of them. Delaying the PC release until months after the console release? That works much, much better. Not releasing on the PC at all? Works even better.

And the managers, well aware of DRM's failing, have caught on. Just not in the 'we'll release our games unprotected, without compromise in the face of a 50%+ piracy rate' way, but rather the 'We'll spend our money elsewhere' kind of way.



The stardock approach will ultimately be what survives in PC gaming. Unfortunately, that also means the Stardock budget, and thus production values. We won't be complaining about DRM, or bad console ports, or overhyped triple A titles, because there will not be any. Just niche titles developed on a niche title budget for a few zealous niche markets.

Somehow, I'm not inclined to call this a victory.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Of course, as many have discovered, you *can* vastly cut your piracy rates in a number of fashions. DRM does not seem to be one of them. Delaying the PC release until months after the console release? That works much, much better. Not releasing on the PC at all? Works even better.

And the managers, well aware of DRM's failing, have caught on. Just not in the 'we'll release our games unprotected, without compromise in the face of a 50%+ piracy rate' way, but rather the 'We'll spend our money elsewhere' kind of way.



The stardock approach will ultimately be what survives in PC gaming. Unfortunately, that also means the Stardock budget, and thus production values. We won't be complaining about DRM, or bad console ports, or overhyped triple A titles, because there will not be any. Just niche titles developed on a niche title budget for a few zealous niche markets.

Somehow, I'm not inclined to call this a victory.

You could not possibly be more wrong. PC gaming still makes up a majority of gaming revenue and while there are still billions to be made there will be companies competing for those billions. That's why we still have "winter" seasons like this, where we get more AAA top quality titles than any reasonable person could play.

I know, I know. It's fashionable to talk like the sky is falling on PC gaming and it's all going to end soon. Fortunately that viewpoint exists only in the minds of fanatical forum users, and certainly not in reality.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

How many of those billions are MMOs?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

How many aren't? What's your point? While there are billions to be made there will be very large developers investing very large amounts of money into capturing that market. This gaming season has proven that like every season before it, why would that change?

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Oh? How has it proven that?

With Modern Warfare 2, perhaps, a console port limited in every way possible in an attempt to combat piracy? Borderland, another console port? Perhaps Dragon Age, with it's "We'll just get em with DLC" attempt to control piracy? Left 4 Dead 2, perhaps, a game so entirely focused around it's multiplayer that it might as well be an MMO?

Tell me, where is this miraculous gaming season you're speaking of taking place? I'd very much like to see it.