EA Admits Pirated Copies Do Not Equal Lost Sales

[dangel]

"Electronic Arts says that it understands how an illegally downloaded copy is not, in any way, a copy that was lost as a sale to the company. Mariam Sughayer, who is working for the corporate communications department of EA, says that “Stepping aside from the whole issue of DRM, people need to recognize that every BitTorrent download doesn’t represent a successful copy of a game, let alone a lost sale”. Understanding this, the company is getting ready to shift its approach so that it rewards the customer rather than punishing everyone for the sins of pirates.

At launch, Spore had a three installation limit and also a limit of only one account per game copy owned. If you wanted more installs, you had to call Electronic Arts and if you wished more accounts, you had to buy more copies of the game.

Gamers launched a backlash, which included Amazon one star reviews and anti-DRM creatures on Sporepedia. On the one hand, Electronic Arts resorted to the usual hard line, going so far as threatening to ban people talking about DRM on their forums, but on the other hand, the company understood that most of the complaints were pretty much founded, so they recently announced that the installation limit would be raised while an iTunes like “activation” mechanics would be added. They also said that the very next patch would include a feature which allows for more screen names per game copy.

Expect Electronic Arts to emphasize the social and downloadable aspect of the game in order to fight piracy. Pirated copies cannot access the Sporepedia and cannot get creatures from other people in their games. So, if EA manages to select content and emphasize this aspect of the game, it will encourage more people to get the game in order to access this aspect of Spore."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/EA-Ad...es-94516.shtml


I've always maintained this - and now even (yikes) EA are towing the line all of a sudden.
1 pirated copy != 1 lost sale. It's simple common sense but I seem to remember more than a few disagree on here..

[kalniel]

They said this ages ago. I never quite figured out why people keep insisting that publishers think different.

[Salazaar]

Asuming that anyone who pirates a game would immediately go out and buy a copy if it weren't available illegally is a pretty massive stretch of the imagination, even for whorish corporate lawyers.

[kalniel]

Asuming that anyone who pirates a game would immediately go out and buy a copy if it weren't available illegally is a pretty massive stretch of the imagination, even for whorish corporate lawyers.

Exactly, which is why I'm amazed people ever thought that publishers (who are on the whole, quite savvy) would think it. But some people still accuse EA of doing that even after this had been out a while and pointing it out to them.

[dangel]

I think the inclusion of draconian DRM and copy protection that burns paying customers gives people that impression. Not unreasonable..

[kalniel]

I think the inclusion of draconian DRM and copy protection that burns paying customers gives people that impression. Not unreasonable..

Really? I don't know how you can go from the idea of protecting your own IP and trying to keep costs down for legitimate buyers to assuming that you must believe that there's a sale lost for each pirated copy.

That's like saying people who dodge paying tax are actually directly responsible for increased crime. They're not, but just because they're not doesn't mean it's right to dodge tax and that there aren't other consequences.

[shaithis]

It's about time this was at least acknowledged by a publisher.

For years the "CD in the drive" technique has been a bone of contention, DRM just took the concept way too far and didn't just cross the line, it shot right past it.

Nice to see a company finally come to their senses, now when will they be releasing tools to remove the DRM they have loaded on their customers PCs?

[dangel]

Really? I don't know how you can go from the idea of protecting your own IP and trying to keep costs down for legitimate buyers to assuming that you must believe that there's a sale lost for each pirated copy.

That's like saying people who dodge paying tax are actually directly responsible for increased crime. They're not, but just because they're not doesn't mean it's right to dodge tax and that there aren't other consequences.

Meh, I get 'punished' for buying the original game - that's how I feel about DRM. You might think that unreasonable, but it does absolutely nothing to stop the pirates (who'll probably play and finish the game before I even get it through the door in most case).

[kalniel]

Meh, I get 'punished' for buying the original game - that's how I feel about DRM. You might think that unreasonable, but it does absolutely nothing to stop the pirates (who'll probably play and finish the game before I even get it through the door in most case).

No I'm with you on that one - gamers shouldn't feel like they're being punished for buying the original, and I think any finite limit of activations *within* reasonable license conditions is not good value for money so I won't buy a game with that (but I won't pirate it either). Pirating in protest only makes things worse. Refusing to play it sends a better message, and it's not like your life depends on being able to experience a game.

I bought Bioshock as soon as the revoke tool came out. I have not yet bought MEPC or Spore, though the license conditions of MEPC do allow me to legally play my gfs copy actually. It's a good enough game that I will buy it myself should the license improve to my liking.

Other than the licensing thing, DRM doesn't really affect me - if something doesn't work with my hardware then I won't buy it either of course.

But to cross threads with the 360 fallout thing, you can't say anyone is pirating that because of harsh DRM. And I expect the situation will be similar with the PC, which also doesn't have harsh DRM, but I bet it's still pirated heavily.

[nieros]

Bring back code wheels I say!

There is also the counter argument that some folks with pirated games have then went out and purchased that same game.

I know several friends who have had a downloaded game and then went out and bought the retail. Why? Cos the developers earned their money in coming up with such a good game.
Maybe a strange state of affairs really but Id say quite a few people use this process as a 'demo' of the game.

In the above scenario 1 download = 1 purchase I suppose.

Wasn't there a few games recently that had bugs and features removed in pirated versions which then in turn kinda forced people to buy the game?

But ya, bout time some big published actually came out and said this.
Will the RIAA come out and say similar I wonder

[dangel]

Refusing to play it sends a better message, and it's not like your life depends on being able to experience a game.

Damn me and my addiction!

But to cross threads with the 360 fallout thing, you can't say anyone is pirating that because of harsh DRM. And I expect the situation will be similar with the PC, which also doesn't have harsh DRM, but I bet it's still pirated heavily.

I see what you're saying - but it's a difficult thing to quantify in any meaningful sense. You could look at as: I can't afford a hot gaming PC so i'll get me a cheap 360 and pirate away! Avast!
If you can afford shiny PC bits then games are pretty cheap (and cheaper than the console counterparts anyway). Certainly 25 quid doesn't worry me when i look at my outgoings on random hardware that i don't-really-need

I know several friends who have had a downloaded game and then went out and bought the retail. Why? Cos the developers earned their money in coming up with such a good game.
Maybe a strange state of affairs really but Id say quite a few people use this process as a 'demo' of the game.

It does happen - as much for other media too (music/film). I know folk who've enjoyed a game so much they've bought it later to say 'thanks' to the developers, or an album for the same reason.

I don't, by default, believe we're all evil.

[kalniel]

There is also the counter argument that some folks with pirated games have then went out and purchased that same game.

I know several friends who have had a downloaded game and then went out and bought the retail. Why? Cos the developers earned their money in coming up with such a good game.
Maybe a strange state of affairs really but Id say quite a few people use this process as a 'demo' of the game.

Indeed - but that's not a counter arguement - it's in agreement with what EA are saying.

Wasn't there a few games recently that had bugs and features removed in pirated versions which then in turn kinda forced people to buy the game?

Yes and no - yes that's happened in several games, but no it doesn't always force people to buy the game, instead they spread information that the game is buggy and poorly programmed and it ends up having a negative effect on sales. Titan Quest is the most famous example of this, but Test Drive Unlimited is one which I've personally seen this happening with as well. The hard core pirates who want to bring down western corperations are VERY good at social networking - they know how to start rumours on games forums and get momentum behind rumours of poor quality etc.

[kalniel]

I see what you're saying - but it's a difficult thing to quantify in any meaningful sense. You could look at as: I can't afford a hot gaming PC so i'll get me a cheap 360 and pirate away! Avast!

Now this is a view point I can understand, and together with the convienience arguement I think makes up the bulk of rational behind piracy (as I think will be proven by piracy of Fallout 3). The people who ONLY pirate games to get around draconian DRM are in the relative minority (though are perhaps better represented on technology/game forums).

[dangel]

Now this is a view point I can understand, and together with the convienience arguement I think makes up the bulk of rational behind piracy (as I think will be proven by piracy of Fallout 3). The people who ONLY pirate games to get around draconian DRM are in the relative minority (though are perhaps better represented on technology/game forums).

I agree (the DRM thing) but it's also because it's a 'victimless' crime - after all, it's just some big faceless corporation isn't it?

[kalniel]

but it's also because it's a 'victimless' crime - after all, it's just some big faceless corporation isn't it?

In the casual pirate's mind, certainly. They don't see the connection between their actions and the possible resulting consequences such as limited AAA games on PC or increased DRM. People in business won't lose out in the long run because they're savvy enough to move out of a bad market opportunity and into a better one. It's only the consumer who might.

[Main]

Well it's all good and fine that EA finally say what's been on the minds of their paying customers for some time now, but I'd rather they acted on it.

Even if they get it right, I'm going to hold EA to account for all their other transgretions as a company when I look over their products - namely the poor support, their spending more on PR and marketing than actually making the game properly, their inability to have a game's online component up and running properly at launch, along with other minor quibbles. Things like this make the arguement 'piracy is worse on the PC' sound more like 'we can't be bothered to make a PC game properly', doubley so when you see other companies that can make games that work well from release.

I could easily pirate every game I play, but I'd rather not, it's a bad habit and I can afford to buy my entertainment. If money's an issue you can just as easily wait until a game is available on offer or goes in the bargain bin before you play it, and in many cases at that point it'll have been patched plenty.

Bring back code wheels I say!

You are kidding right? They would be defeated in less time than current DRM with the wonders of a photocopier/scanner, and I'd rate that sort of thing more annoying than having to put the disc in the drive...