Piracy

[Konan555]

I kind of miss games with 100 page manuals. I bought Elite Plus for £3 and it came with a (quite rubbish) book based on the game!

I guess I'd be more inclined to purchase a game if it came with additional media. I know that the money is mainly going in to funding the development of the game but not having to print a PDF with my ink/paper and have it bound is quite a plus.

[kalniel]

That's an approach many publishers are taking these days. TDU2 doesn't need a manual, but it came with a fairly sizable one anyway, then you have others who provide extras - The Witcher comes with a bunch of cool stuff, I even got the CE with an amazing artbook. I couldn't afford the CE for The Witcher 2 this time around, but I got the premium edition which comes with map, soundtrack, game guide etc. (http://buy.thewitcher.com/preorder-premium-en)

[Terbinator]

Oblivion had a pretty snazzy 'extras' offering even for the standard edition.

[kalniel]

Oblivion had a pretty snazzy 'extras' offering even for the standard edition.

I only got the collectors edition of that, and while I liked the updated emperors guide, the map was terrible compared to Morrowind's (which was actually useful for navigation). Sadly I think Skyrim's map is going to be similarly naff.

On the other hand, Oblivion shows up many of the piracy brigade arguments about quality, lack of stuff, value for money and DRM. It doesn't have any DRM, came with tons of stuff, is a high quality game, fantastic value for money.. yet the PC version (especially, not exclusively) was extremely heavily pirated when it was released as well.

[Terbinator]

Spent your collectors edition Tamriel coinage yet then ?

[kalniel]

Spent your collectors edition Tamriel coinage yet then ?

It's waiting to be joined by some Orens

[TooNice]

@riviera76: I largely agree with most/all the points in the linked post. To the question: "Stardock doesn't make games targeting the Chinese market. If we spent $10 million on a PC game explicitly for the Chinese market and we lost our shirts, would you really feel that much sympathy for us?", my answer would be yes. Being naive is not a crime, or is it morally questionable. With the odd exceptions (e.g. the right to rip and transcode things one already own), the same can't be said about piracy.

But that leads to a question: public opinion on piracy is shifting towards that of China (where a lot of people genuinely don't think there is a moral issue with it. And it's not just reserved to those who aren't well-off, I know a number Chinese wealthy enough to study here, wear LV/Channel/other high fashion goods who find the concept of paying for music/video/games bizarre. Evidently, a number of people here feel this way - may question is whether it is increasing.

The reason why I always give my 2 cents in those threads is because the sooner people accept piracy as normal / acceptable, the less pressure there is not to pirate. And if the pro-piracy group successfully 'wins' this debate and most/the entire population is convinced that is the normal thing to do, as I've said before, we'll end up not with (good and) crappy games, but no game at all.

@roachcoach: Crap games will have crap sales, and good games would have good sales (with various exceptions - be it with lack of marketing, limited distribution channel and I'd say occasionally plain bad luck, and very solely, as I feel in the case of Tribe, piracy).

But what about everything in between? Sure we want every game to be awesome, but should average product be punished more harshly than other industries for being 'average'? And would 5M pirated copies be justified just because it's already sold 20M?

I am more interested in the moral/ethical view point which you said you wouldn't touch with a barge pole. While I am not whiter than white, I wouldn't feel comfortable moaning about crooked governments and evil greedy corporates if my own behaviour is just as bad.

This is my tl;dr list (i.e. I won't bother explaining each point because I've already done it elsewhere, it'll take too long to do it again, and in the end, it's not going to change mind) of valid / invalid reason for piracy using my own ethical compass. Pro-piracy group may disagree with most of points, and anti-piracy group may disagree with some of the point, but this is where I stand:

Invalid reason:
- Games are too expensive / I can't afford it
- Games are crap
- They are making enough / too much profit
- I just want to try it first
- I hate DRM [I've not bought the game]

Various degree of grey:
- Abandonware where the 'owner' no longer benefiting from it. I think this depends on how likely it is likely to go on)
- Already own it on another platform. Very grey - to me this depend on how much work goes into the the port. For instance PS3 / XBox360 would take more effort than something instances where the old application is just emulated on the new hardware with no change being made to the original material. I do feel that people shouldn't need to pay as much, let alone more than what they have already paid for the same source material (e.g. SD -> HD films). But the work-around I can think of in order to stay fair are all too complicated, and it may be questionable as to whether the overhead isn't excessive.

Acceptable reason:
- True abandonware [No one owns the right]
- I've already bought the product and:
** I hate DRM
** I want to transcode
** I broke the medium (CD/DVD etc.)

Usually disclaimer applies: The above are my opinion only etc.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

nice discussion here. piracy is always a hot topic around hexus

[roachcoach]

@roachcoach: Crap games will have crap sales, and good games would have good sales (with various exceptions - be it with lack of marketing, limited distribution channel and I'd say occasionally plain bad luck, and very solely, as I feel in the case of Tribe, piracy).

But what about everything in between? Sure we want every game to be awesome, but should average product be punished more harshly than other industries for being 'average'? And would 5M pirated copies be justified just because it's already sold 20M?

I as said earlier - my personal opinion is its a relatively constant percentage - I bet crap games don't have the same volume of piracy (by this I mean actual number of copies) that good games do.

I wasn't justifying it at all, although to be fair, nor was I condemning it; I'm trying to stay clear of all of that. My "issue", if you will, is that piracy is often the party line trotted out when a game doesn't perform on the PC platform or why people only develop for consoles because previous PC endevours have not sold well. I believe that whilst piracy has an impact, I think there are other factors resulting in poor performance.

There will be exceptions, of course, but for me piracy is a relatively static percentage range of x-y% of total potential sales.


The damn thing is though, its a bit of a vicious circle because less people buy crap* games, the software companies scream piracy and either abandon the platform altogether for the game or don't invest in a proper port and so the cycle continues.


*By "crap" here I'm talking about things even reviewers are saying has major issues, released broken, "dont buy until patched". These sort of comments in a review are damning and imo, it is unforgivable to claim or even allude to "piracy" had caused poor/underwhelming sales of a game getting these comments by reviewers.

If a console exclusive game was released with these kinds of review comments and the sales bombed - what would they say then I wonder? Lynch the modders?

________________________________________________________________________


To be clear, I'm not touching on the advocacy or condemnation of the practice, what I am fed up with are software houses not developing for the PC on grounds of "piracy" killed the sales when they don't put the effort in to make it a finished bloody product. It's unacceptable, it would be like a car manufacturer selling cars with a wheel missing to a certain group of customers and blaming the that group of people for not buying it because all the other folks are quite happy with their (4 wheel) product.


[rant]

An example that pops to mind, purely because it's recent and close to my own heart is Dead Space - there almost wasn't a PC version of the second. [Conjecture follows] The first probably didn't do "as well as expected" on the PC (otherwise why the talk of not making the sequel for the platform?), am I surprised with this, given the game was released with major control bugs which, two years later, are still not patched? A game which has the developers saying "yeah use a control pad" as feedback. Then there was the lack of remappable keys, tough luck if you were left handed. I actually almost wish I'd pirated that on principle, as it was it only cost me a fiver the other week and 2 days of googling at work and some third party software made it playable but that's hardly the point is it? The point is, what hurt that game more, piracy or the abysmal job of porting it, which they quite obviously didn't even bother to test properly? Why should gamers need to run around for a couple of days, mucking about with third party software just to get their damned product to work? Are we unreasonable in demanding a finished, tested product?



[/rant]

This was a lot longer than I intended

[TooNice]

I as said earlier - my personal opinion is its a relatively constant percentage - I bet crap games don't have the same volume of piracy (by this I mean actual number of copies) that good games do.
[...]
*By "crap" here I'm talking about things even reviewers are saying has major issues, released broken, "dont buy until patched". These sort of comments in a review are damning and imo, it is unforgivable to claim or even allude to "piracy" had caused poor/underwhelming sales of a game getting these comments by reviewers.
[...]

I can go along with your opinion, but I would also add (in my opinion), that the 'percentage range' varies on the platform, and is linked on the ease and perceived risk of piracy. In absolute term, the Wii ought to be the most pirated home platform, and the PS3 the least. Some people may say 'duh', the Wii sold much more units. But I reckon that's the case even if we just look at it as a percentage. The Xbox360 and PS3 are both much more expensive than the Wii (high cost of failure), and I am under the impression that the risk of being detected is also higher on the Xbox360. The PS3, AFAIK, hasn't been 'cracked' for nearly as long as the other two, and being the most expensive console probably puts off some people from messing with it. Someone mentioned the DS and with solution based on flashkart (no modification to consoles required), it probably also explains why it is even worse in terms of piracy (if the allegations are true), than the PC.

Ah, so you are talking about broken games, rather than subjective use of *crap*. Was Crysis 'broken'? Metacritics give the game 91%, with user rating at 7.9. I've not played the game, but with those score, surely the game is must have at least average in gameplay, along with some of the best in eye candy at the time. Yet at least one person on this thread called it a 'tech demo', and use it to justify getting the leaked release of the new game. Everyone knew the game was going to be hard to run, and while a very high requirement is not a good recipe for high sales, I'd be surprised if the Crytek team factor that in when talking about "disappointing sales".

@Rant: There has been a lot of bad ports on PC, I won't dispute that. No, you shouldn't have to put up with it. The message is more clearly sent to the developers by returning the product or at the very least not buying their product anymore (and if you can't resist that much, then at least ask other people in the forum about it before taking the plunge). Pirating the game just doesn't send the same message.

But even when the port is good, released at the same time as console, you still have to deal with that range of piracy, which I theorised depends on platform. If you look at one platform and estimate an average of 35% piracy rate, and another platform which is at 15% (for example) you'll probably do some serious risk assessment before investing in the first platform.

The PC gaming industry is losing against the console gaming industry because it is not as competitive. We can blame it on subjectively poor games, but consoles have their share loads of that. We can blame it on broken games, yet while inexcusable, it's not something I've encountered too often (and with console games becoming 'patchable', this issue may, unfortunately show up on all platforms). We can also blame it on bad/late ports. I am against bad ports, if you are going to do it, do it properly. IF piracy is worse on the PC (my arguments largely stand on this point), then would you, as a business, not be concerned that people would just opt for a platform most people have access to, and is easier to pirate on?


This was longer than I intended too, but that's the issue with those threads. It's a highly opinionated topic, so a lot of justification need to go into the posts. Still, don't think I've got more time to spend on this thread so this will be the last one

[aidanjt]

I wouldn't at all be concerned, expend effort on paying customers, wasting effort on non-paying users is folly. As already has been well pointed out, piracy has always been there, PC gaming has not only always been profitable, but the market has been expanding.

If publishers want to cheap out and only do console games, then good for them, let them do that. It'll eliminate the whining which alienates loyal customers, and make more room in the market for developers who're more interested in making quality games than turning a quick buck.

[TheAnimus]

wasting effort on non-paying users is folly is it?

thats not true and you know if, previously 10 years ago if a game required a CD key that would stop a lot of people, sharing the key didn't work. Plenty wouldnt think to google for a keygen.

plenty of people who use pirate XP have issues getting updates because of WGA.

the problem is its often viewed as a simple optomisation task:
cost of DRM features : decrease in pirate copies in circulation.
Not understanding that not all people would buy it, they would just not use it, and the negative effect it has on the legit users.

But you can't be so polarised against the devs to say it is a folly.

[aidanjt]

DRM hasn't decreased piracy in the slightest. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and spending money on it is a waste of resources on non-existent income.

[kalniel]

To be clear, I'm not touching on the advocacy or condemnation of the practice, what I am fed up with are software houses not developing for the PC on grounds of "piracy" killed the sales when they don't put the effort in to make it a finished bloody product.

But they're not. They're not developing for the PC because the revenues aren't as good. As I said before, they don't give a damn about piracy per se, they are business, usually loosing money, that need to make ends meet. As for putting the effort in, see the likes of Oblivion etc which put tons of effort in. It still solf many times more on console than PC, despite the install base and target market for PC being many times larger.

DRM hasn't decreased piracy in the slightest. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and spending money on it is a waste of resources on non-existent income.

Again, it's not about decreasing piracy, but increasing revenue. If DRM encourages more people to buy the product because it's not been widely distributed before release then it's worth it - the very very small minority of people who will avoid a game because of the DRM are more than made up for by the additional revenue. Or they wouldn't bother - they are businesses paying competitive salaries for the top people who make these decisions after all. If any forum user could do a better job they'd be in the industry rather than taking cheap shots from the sidelines.

[badass]

DRM hasn't decreased piracy in the slightest. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and spending money on it is a waste of resources on non-existent income.

I think DRM might have a miniscule effect on casual piracy. However, one might argue that the DRM will negatively affect sales more than that.

[aidanjt]

Again, it's not about decreasing piracy, but increasing revenue.

It does neither.

If DRM encourages more people to buy the product because it's not been widely distributed before release then it's worth it - the very very small minority of people who will avoid a game because of the DRM are more than made up for by the additional revenue.

It doesn't. Remember, DRM systems cost a lot of money to develop, they also have to be maintained, and in the case on activation systems, require staff, machines, connectivity, and extra maintenance well past the product's lifetime. Can cost towards loss of sales because of users being fed up with being treated like criminals. And ultimately, does nothing to impact piracy, since the systems are almost always cracked even before the software is released as stable to the public.

Or they wouldn't bother - they are businesses paying competitive salaries for the top people who make these decisions after all. If any forum user could do a better job they'd be in the industry rather than taking cheap shots from the sidelines.

Ah yes, the good ole 'free market knows best' argument. Not exactly a strong argument since that same system is engaging in a race to resource depletion. There's no shortage of history of brain damaged top level decision making in the market, with it being rewarded, too.