Piracy Numbers

[Olrod]

Great answer, I don't agree with everything but that was some fancy writing.

You say that piracy has consequences but what are they? The publisher (or developer of the indie) doesn't get money? The programmers aren't paid?

Well used games and rentals have the same consequences. So does borrowing a game from a friend. Is everyone who buys a used game or borrows or rents a game a "jerk" as described in the article? So why is there this high-horse scorn for pirates and none for people who only buy used games? Publishers make the same amount of money off both groups.

Again, this goes back to the way the law is written. In the US, when you buy a movie or a game, you don't buy a piece of reflective plastic in a box. Instead, you buy the right to enjoy the data on the disc. If you read the warning at the beginning of videos, you'll see that you don't even have the right to show your movie in a public place or to charge people to come to your house to watch it. When Blockbuster buys a movie or a game they pay three times what you would because they bought the right to rent that game out to other people. This allows publishers to make more money from rentals.

I didn't know hire stores did that.

But how does it work with second-hand game shops?

 

[Shamus Young]

Great answer, I don't agree with everything but that was some fancy writing.

You say that piracy has consequences but what are they? The publisher (or developer of the indie) doesn't get money? The programmers aren't paid?

Well used games and rentals have the same consequences. So does borrowing a game from a friend. Is everyone who buys a used game or borrows or rents a game a "jerk" as described in the article? So why is there this high-horse scorn for pirates and none for people who only buy used games? Publishers make the same amount of money off both groups.

The immediately visible consequences are shown in the consolidation (through acquisition or voluntary merger) of development firms under larger all-inclusive developer/publisher/media groups. Cut costs through shared resources, as the funding for those resources are becoming harder and harder to acquire. While developers may mainly concern themselves with creating a quality game, these larger entities are focused entirely on maximizing profits.

New game feel dumbed down? Possible victim of 'appeal to the lowest common denominator' to maximize potential sales. Missing features, buggy code, or just plain incomplete? Release faster, as development time is costing us money. You even hear the developers themselves complain about being pressured to do these things, but why do they give in to the pressure?

As for your borrow/rent/used argument: each requires a physical copy, and thus the damage done is limited greatly by the logistics of it. The return-on-investment for going after lending or leasing a copy of the game is minimal. In pirating, additional copies are thus created, and the damage is rapid and multiplied.

That said, you now see the large firms turning their eye to the previously insignificant loss caused by the used games market. Why are they suddenly trying to squeeze blood from that stone when it wasn't worth it before?

Piracy may not be the only reason for all these things to happen, but it definitely contributes its own pressure, the effects of which are hardly beneficial.

 

[Fappy]

I thought about it for a bit and I guess I'm not really a pirate. The only times I ever really pirated anything usually was due to one of the following reasons: I already owned it at some point, I owned it on another platform, or I could not find it anywhere after searching (old games.) Even with ROMs I hardly pirate anything (if ROM's can really be considered piracy). I played Chrono Trigger on an SNES emulator and later bought a really cartridge.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

This seems less like hard data, and more like mass exaggeration.

Seconded, the numbers just do not add up! Taking a more conservative result, the difference between projected and real profits, then the number of pirates greatly decrease to a point most people would shrug and consider it not that big of a deal. Given the amount of profit they are making, the loss from this minority wouldn't even be something we give second thought. Who here is going to loose sleep over a company not making as much profit as they wanted when they make numbers we can not truly comprehend, let alone ever dream of seeing ourselves?

In any case the cycle of useless anti-piracy programs does need to stop, due to the inconvenience of these usually bug ridden programs bring to the paying customer. Expect pirates but find other ways to reward loyal customers without punishing them for the actions of others. Yes, I have been stung a few times on legally purchased games because of their attempts to anti-pirate.

Personally: I like the idea of the programers themselves releasing half a dozen or so of 'unofficial' copies of the game. These copies all contain decreased content, little annoying bugs left in and/or have no way to patch which eliminates the ability to play a game online (Which is what gives most games re-playability). If you make it harder for the average person to find a free copy of the game that will play through without missing levels, stupid AI or other such things.... well then they will more likely pay for a official copy just so they don't have to spend weeks playing broken games.

 

[Shamus Young]

Also, apply your 90%=pirates conclusion to something like CoD4 2 and you come out with the idea that there were ~100million copies of it circulating the globe in 2009 (source). I somehow doubt that's accurate.

MW2 exceeded 5 million torrent downloads in 6 weeks after launch[footnote]TomsHardware News (data originating from TorrentFreak)[/footnote]. It's ~6 weeks short of your article's numbers, but it's also not a comprehensive look at all sources of piracy, which would be hard to compile given the nature of the activity. Still, yes it's a stretch to get to anywhere near 90% even in 6-8 more weeks, but nevertheless not an insignificant number.

If you've got a large core of people who pirate regularly, regardless of the game, then any game that sells less than MW2's record-breaking numbers will suffer an appropriately larger precentage. When you get to smaller releases with low physical retail presence, like World of Goo, 90% isn't so unbelievable.

 

[Shamus Young]

It's a big 'IF' for an article advertised as having hard facts and trying to make the sorts of conclusions that this one does. Not to mention writing such insinuative comments as "Remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". One case doesn't describe the industry in general. Also remember: None!"(as if these two points ought to be on an equal footing in the reader's mind)
Knowing the behaviour of several pirates, I struggle to imagine that there is a large core of them who pirate everything - it's hassle and it takes up HD space without providing something the pirate might want. On top of that, look at the numbers of seeds for games a year old and somehow this large core looks more and more doubtful (though of course they could be deleting the games after playing, but that's hardly in the spirit of the collector who must have ALL THE GAMES).

Do you have better data to build conclusions off of?

 

[Shamus Young]

Do you have better data to build conclusions off of?

1. It's as ungrounded to extrapolate to this degree from such limited 'data' as it is to just make up a hypothesis and defend it without data. Making any conclusions, never mind forceful ones, from such a tiny sample is unscientific, and if published, misleading.
2. I'm not the one making claims of "hard facts".

You're claiming the article as incorrect based upon your two friends. You are extrapolating from a smaller pool.

If your entire issue is with the 'hard facts' teaser line, then you are welcome to your opinion. I'm not going to argue the drapes on a burning building.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

Let me start by making clear that I'm not trying to argue for or against piracy. Nor am I trying to justify anything, make any moral argument, etc. This is merely an anecdote to add to the pile.

I have pirated software for years and continue to do so. When I was a kid, I pirated software because I couldn't afford it otherwise (and I mean that strictly; my family could barely pay the bills). When I went to university, I was on student loans, and had even less disposable income.

Now that I'm a professional, I buy a lot of software. I bought an XBOX 360, Rock Band 1 & 2, and a large portion of their music catalog -- right up until my XBOX got banned from XBOX Live. Now I don't buy anything for Rock Band. I've also bought several expensive programs, including a karaoke maker, special editions of some of my favorite games, and several $10 indie games that I absolutely loved. But I still pirate.

When it comes to choosing whether or not to pirate something, it mostly depends on what it costs. I can't afford to pay $175 for a copy of Windows, so I pirate it every time. I can afford $10 for a good indie game, and if it looks good, I'll probably just buy it without even trying to pirate it. For more expensive programs, I usually try a pirated copy first, and if I like it, I buy the real thing if I can afford it.

It probably seems strange that I would pay for something that I've already pirated, but as I said, I don't pirate just for the sake of pirating. I do want to support people who make software, especially if I think that software is worthwhile. Unfortunately, I can't afford everything, and even the basics (Windows, office apps, anti-virus, etc.) are a formidable investment. In fact, if you add up the cost of the software I use on a regular basis, it's probably worth more than my car (which isn't saying much for my car). The computer was expensive enough; I can't afford to furnish it with software.

But I do want to pay for things that are worth paying for, so I do pay for software at times. But if I can't afford them, I still use them, because (in most cases) they are still something I require. Sure, you don't /have/ to have a computer, but you also don't /have/ to have clothes that fit or food that's good for you. In my case, a functioning computer is an important part of my life (both in my leisure time and my professional time) and I would lose a lot if I didn't have it. But I can't afford the software for it, so I pirate it. If I had the money, I would pay (and sometimes I can and do). At least, if it's worth it.

I have also downloaded and used a lot of software that I would never pay a penny for. Unfortunately, before pirating was as easy as it is today, I often purchased this software, only to find out it was terrible. Now, I have the option of downloading it first, so I do. Especially for anything expensive. I probably wouldn't do this if I had the option of returning software I didn't like, but because that's not allowed (because it would make it easier to pirate it), I have to pirate it to try it out (ironically). And sometimes I end up buying the things, but more often than not, I don't like the software and I never use it again.

So, in my case, piracy doesn't mean lost sales. The things I like and can afford, I pay for. The things I can't afford, I would never pay for no matter what. The things I don't like, I would demand my money back, but since I can't even do that, I just avoid purchasing things all together for fear that they might not be worth the large investment. If somebody found the perfect way to prevent piracy, I would be exposed to, and therefore buy, a lot less software. I never would have tried and bought World of Goo, Machinarium, Power Karaoke CD+G Maker, or Jaikoz. For me, piracy lowers the risk of trying a new program; if I had to pay for it, the risk would be too high to try most things. Piracy actually encourages me to buy software.

So, here's one more anecdote to add to the pile. It probably isn't the typical case, but it's one to consider. If nothing else, it's evidence that these things do happen: people do buy software that they've pirated.

 

[Shamus Young]

No I'm not. I'm criticising the article for presenting a couple of random anecdotes as "hard facts". I'm also criticising the article for drawing strong conclusions from these random anecdotes. I also criticise the exaggeration of a point ("0 times") by placing it next to an important maxim. Finally, I am adding my anecdotes which explain why "I find it hard to believe" which is only a truth claim about my skepticism of the article, not about the truth of the claims in the article, which I have no evidence for either way.

In summary, what I did was criticise the article as predicating its conclusions on flawed premises, and then offer some conjecture that disagrees with what the article says, based on just as statistically insignificant evidence.

As for your 'drapes' point, I'm certainly not the only person who was taken in to reading the article because of that claim. For all those of us who read it before the article, it sets up a tag in our minds that what will follow is a collection of hard facts about piracy, one that colours perceptions, and for many people, one that won't be easily expunged from their subconscious digestion of the piece.

And was it really necessary to suggest I only have two friends?

This is the data available, and is what is used by many to form opinion and policy. That it's a tiny pool is lamented in the article itself, but neither side has much incentive to be more open. Investors seeing data even half as bad would think twice about funding a developer, and I'm probably not far off in thinking those who pirate prefer their activities go as unmonitored as possible. It is both better and worse that the existing released information is considered unbelievable.

Apathy is not uncommon these days, and rarely do people actually stop to look into things. If the teaser line got one more person to stop and check things out, and perhaps attempt to find more info to either support or decry what was said, then it's a victory in my mind. It's not ideal, but it's hard to get people to shift of the easy, lazy path. Take this thread, for example: how many people do you think actually read even 10% of the posts before replying and leaving? I will admit to not reading every one, but I read those that seem to put some effort into it. Makes for a better discussion all around. But I digress...

My drapes/fire analogy was a tad rushed (making dinner, and not burning down my own place while reading the forums was high on my mind), and was meant more to say that even though we can't see inside (i.e. lack of information), the information we do have definitely points to something amiss. To continue my horrible analogy, the building might not be a smoldering inferno from top to bottom, as the 90% figures suggest, but it's not untouched by the activities of pirates. DRM isn't going to put the fires out, nor will piracy, and both are just pouring fuel on a potential fire. Ok, I've beaten that analogy to death.

I didn't mean to insinuate you had only two friends, and somehow mashed up your mention of 'several' with someone else's post referencing two. My apologies.

 

[UnravThreads]

DRM is one of those things that as PC gamers, I think we should just ignore and get on with playing the game. Yes, it's not a perfect system and it can cause issues in a minority of cases (very rarely a majority of cases), but how often does it affect your playing/enjoyment of the game? For most of us here I would expect it's not often or just across a small number of games in our collections.

I, personally, would not let DRM affect my purchase of a game. I'm supporting the developers by doing so, I'm staying within the law and I get the product. I've never had a DRM issue outside of SecuROM telling me to stop being lazy and insert the disk and things like GfWL/Steam don't bother me. I don't know why DRM is so strongly implemented, though, because it seems like most games are pirated before release!

That's not, however, to say I agree with DRM. I try to see it from the publisher's point of view - They have a product worth £30 that they're going to put out on the market and they want to protect it somehow, so they add the basic checks - disk, code, 1 time online activation. They're not intrusive and were/are pretty commonplace and I'd wager they're the preferred method in the industry.
Word gets to the publisher that the game is being pirated, so they decide to look into stronger protection to prevent piracy and then they roll that out later on another game. The new game is then also pirated and the cycle repeats.

I will never agree with pirates complaining about DRM as they're the problem in the first place. How can "It has DRM so I'm going to pirate it" help the situation in any way? The developer (most importantly) isn't supported if you pirate a game and secondly you're contributing to the problem. DRM is supposed to stop theft, so by effectively stealing the game you're giving them more reason to use protection.

Did I do it right?

 

[CommyGingerbreadMan]

Wow Ok, you guys seem to be missing the point. If you were going to buy the game, w/o the pirated copy you probably wouldn't have gotten it. It is stealing, don't get into semantics. I don't care what the definition of stealing is. Your stealing. Don't even. If this was happening to you, you'd be bitching and moaning to the DRM about it. The less you steal, the less DRM we would have gotten. THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT, people who have pirated. You have no one to blame for the DRM but yourselves.

 

[Shamus Young]

-snip-

Curses, my reply got killed because I've got too many windows open for this hour of the day and closed the wrong one. I'm a bit too tired to properly rehash it all out, so to summarize:

Investor/data - my views are colored by anecdotal information from being on both sides of the dev/consumer fence. It's insufficient information for anyone else, and for similar reasons to the investor legalities you mention, the details are unreleasable.

Sensationalism - I tend not to attribute to malice what is equally likely a misunderstanding or mistake. I'm just a tech guy, so I can't speak with full certainty, but I believe teasers are handled by the editors and not the authors. I'm biased, since everyone I work with here is awesome, so you'll have to take my word when I say that nobody here intends to mislead. Regarding the tactic's constant use in the media in general, I actually recognize it for what it is and tend to ignore it while parsing the meat of the content for useful tidbits.

Conclusions - some of what I do touches upon data analysis, and building a model based upon limited amounts of directly related information, but finding (and discarding/refining) patterns that emerge from tangentially-related info. That probably doesn't make sense. I suppose what I'm getting at is that the actions of the participants in this become data in itself. Part behavioral study (which varies, yes, but in occassionally predicatable ways), part puzzle-solving.

And this was the summary! Alright, wrapping my point up: Consider the column a seed for discussion. Hopefully through discussion more people will acquire more information. Likely nobody will change their mind, but more information for better and more informed discussions later.

 

[Olrod]

Except that it's not the pirates who have to put up with the DRM, as they can just remove it from their pirated copies.

 

[Undead_David]

Heres an idea, what can we do to entice pirates to buy the real game without punishing people with DRM? Ive said it before and Ill say it again, free DLC. Give it to those who buy and charge it to those who dont. Yeah it may be a bit of pain for those who buy used but hey your hurting the industry as well when you do it. As a pirate free DLC was the first thing to make me think about buying a game at retail, not some ridiculous DRM or moral obligation or something. DLC and quality continued suppourt goes a long way, think blizzard and such