Pirating Game Dev Tycoon Dooms Players to be Ruined By Piracy
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
"If you agree with him, and can spare the eight bucks, you can buy the game for Mac, Linux and Windows"
Ehm, just because I agree doesn't mean his game is good enough for me to justify spending a big part of my very limited budget on it. Nor if it's a game I'd personally would like (even good/great games are so widespread there are ten others out there competing with this one, and then there's the matter of genre and my preferences).
As a journalist you should keep a distinction between good moral choices and good game content.
Morally "great" people can still make very crappy games, so if you want to justify your "Buy option" message in this news article, the least you can do is do a review first or say something that actually tells us your opinion on the game!
Ehm, just because I agree doesn't mean his game is good enough for me to justify spending a big part of my very limited budget on it. Nor if it's a game I'd personally would like (even good/great games are so widespread there are ten others out there competing with this one, and then there's the matter of genre and my preferences).
As a journalist you should keep a distinction between good moral choices and good game content.
Morally "great" people can still make very crappy games, so if you want to justify your "Buy option" message in this news article, the least you can do is do a review first or say something that actually tells us your opinion on the game!
oh boy this lovely subject again....
so lets begin this with a few facts / statements ....
PIRACY IS NOT STEALING ~
the act of pirating is sharing\copying software.
this means there is NO value lost because nothing is missing.
piracy is in fact a great self marketing tool ,
word of mouth is much more powerful than traditional advertising.
Even if 10 million people pirate a game and 1 million buy it the product sold as expected with no loses
because as stated above the act of piracy does not lower the value of that product BUT the free word of mouth
advertising will surely give extra value to said product as some people who wouldn't buy it HEAR its a good deal and they will give it a try.
therefore Piracy increases the value and does not decrease it.
just some facts.
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
if the product in question was a thing that caught the attention of the people it will be successful if its average or bad it will die. only the strong survive.
Piracy as a whole is not damaging anyone financially that's just fact.
Morally it is wrong , your point of view on the matter does not change anything its just morally wrong.
but that's between the pirate and himself not the dev or publisher.
now DRM that's a good one...
while its birth was to combat piracy it's a known old fact the it does jack to stop it.
at best it can hold the piracy rate at bay for a couple days maybe a month or 2 but in the end it wont change anything and the Crack teams get a whole lot of practice out of it.
DRM is only causing problems to the real threat to the companies that use it....(pause for effect)....the used game market. they are the ones who hurt developers and publishers financially by resealing the same product and giving nothing in return. by setting up DRM in games in such a way that you have to tie it down to something you actively cut that copy from being sold back, at most cases anyway depending on type of DRM.
Piracy is just a very good target to direct all the blame at since the bad ol' pirates get the games for free.
so in TL
R fasion ~
piracy is not causing harm , piracy does good , its morally wrong , drm is a way to combat used game sales.
so lets begin this with a few facts / statements ....
PIRACY IS NOT STEALING ~
the act of pirating is sharing\copying software.
this means there is NO value lost because nothing is missing.
piracy is in fact a great self marketing tool ,
word of mouth is much more powerful than traditional advertising.
Even if 10 million people pirate a game and 1 million buy it the product sold as expected with no loses
because as stated above the act of piracy does not lower the value of that product BUT the free word of mouth
advertising will surely give extra value to said product as some people who wouldn't buy it HEAR its a good deal and they will give it a try.
therefore Piracy increases the value and does not decrease it.
just some facts.
now the most used argument against piracy is "it hurts the developer" this is just false information.
piracy whole heartily helps the dev by making the game and the dev a household name.
the fact that people play it use the product for free is just a bit of a downside emotionally not financially since non of those were lost sales or lost value, NON OF THEM.
if the product in question was a thing that caught the attention of the people it will be successful if its average or bad it will die. only the strong survive.
Piracy as a whole is not damaging anyone financially that's just fact.
Morally it is wrong , your point of view on the matter does not change anything its just morally wrong.
but that's between the pirate and himself not the dev or publisher.
now DRM that's a good one...
while its birth was to combat piracy it's a known old fact the it does jack to stop it.
at best it can hold the piracy rate at bay for a couple days maybe a month or 2 but in the end it wont change anything and the Crack teams get a whole lot of practice out of it.
DRM is only causing problems to the real threat to the companies that use it....(pause for effect)....the used game market. they are the ones who hurt developers and publishers financially by resealing the same product and giving nothing in return. by setting up DRM in games in such a way that you have to tie it down to something you actively cut that copy from being sold back, at most cases anyway depending on type of DRM.
Piracy is just a very good target to direct all the blame at since the bad ol' pirates get the games for free.
so in TL
R fasion ~piracy is not causing harm , piracy does good , its morally wrong , drm is a way to combat used game sales.
You don't think devs use sales figures when negotiating contracts with publishers? You don't think in-house devs get more resources based on sales figures? You don't think there's one person who would have bought a game they pirated if they couldn't pirate it?phoenix352 said:
It is truly the most bizarre thing to me to watch people bend their logic into pretzel loops to not only justify piracy, but praise it.
Listen, I can understand someone wanting to get something for free. It's something that no developer or DRM can fix. But don't ask people to swallow it being a good thing.
If the game is good enough for a fan-base to develop, they should have bought it. Why can't word of mouth spread from paying customers?
Listen, I can understand someone wanting to get something for free. It's something that no developer or DRM can fix. But don't ask people to swallow it being a good thing.
If the game is good enough for a fan-base to develop, they should have bought it. Why can't word of mouth spread from paying customers?
SecondPrize said:
Do i think they use sales figures? yes i do.
they use the actual game sales aka people who bought retail\ digital.
do i think they include theoretical sales? hell no.
pirated copy's are not lost sales, case closed.
you cant make business decisions from vague estimates and theoretical sales.
do i personally think out of those people who pirate some one would have bought a copy if he didn't have the option?
of curse some would , just like out of the people who pirate there are those who still buy copies afterwards.
those are just maybes and they work both ways.
you should not be making contracts using estimated numbers based on maybes.
if that's how the industry does business then they have only themselves to blame for it , piracy is still not a cause.
JazzJack2 said:
I get why you want to believe this stuff but it's just not true.Entitled said:
If it were, the advent of piracy and bittorrent and all that stuff would have seen sales rise exponentially, and it's not the case, certainly not for PC developers.
I do "get" that given that we live in a world of piracy, perhaps piracy does contribute a few sales. But it's like smashing a dam with a wrecking ball - no water can flow through the wrecking ball either, but it's hardly blocking the river any more.
Oh, and for a game killed by piracy, NHL Eastside Hockey Manager, made by Sports Interactive, now SI Games. I'm surprised by the line on Wikipedia that "most feel" that it was a lack of advertising issue - that certainly wasn't the going opinion at the time. The official line (from the devs, on their own forums, not the publishers) was specifically that it's core market, one big enough for it to survive and slowly grow, was Scandinavia where sales tanked and yet EHM2k7 torrents were all over The Pirate Bay and other Scandinavian filesharing sites. Why was it not a hit in the USA and Canada? No idea.
P.S. Yeah, I read to the end of the thread, but your original soundbites were perfectly concise.
Since the "discussion" went south very quick (big surprise) I will just address the article.
I think this is a very witty way to discourage pirates.
Here are my reasons why:
1. Pirates still get to experience the game for demo purposes but they don't get a better version. The problem with piracy on games that have horrible DRM is that the pirated version normally provides a better service. For this game it isn't.
2. This somewhat anti-piracy tactic does not in ANY WAY effect legit paying customers. Isn't this what everyone who hates DRM wants? Anti-piracy measures that don't F over legit customers?
3. It gets players to think about the effects of piracy (whether exaggerated or not) without trying to sound douchy about it. From what I understood they were trying to convert pirates into paying customers by providing a better service(game) than the pirated version.
I tried reading some comments about those who hated this idea but I couldn't find a coherent and well presented response against it so I would welcome someone to provide a rebuttle for a good debate.
I think this is a very witty way to discourage pirates.
Here are my reasons why:
1. Pirates still get to experience the game for demo purposes but they don't get a better version. The problem with piracy on games that have horrible DRM is that the pirated version normally provides a better service. For this game it isn't.
2. This somewhat anti-piracy tactic does not in ANY WAY effect legit paying customers. Isn't this what everyone who hates DRM wants? Anti-piracy measures that don't F over legit customers?
3. It gets players to think about the effects of piracy (whether exaggerated or not) without trying to sound douchy about it. From what I understood they were trying to convert pirates into paying customers by providing a better service(game) than the pirated version.
I tried reading some comments about those who hated this idea but I couldn't find a coherent and well presented response against it so I would welcome someone to provide a rebuttle for a good debate.
You would have to make a case for it to be closed.phoenix352 said:
You yourself admitted that some pirates would have purchased a copy if piracy was unavailable. THERE'S YOUR LOST SALE RIGHT THERE. Not theoretical, an actual 1 to add to the list of sales.
It's funny, but also incredibly heavy handed, using the same old "Every pirated copy is a lost sale" bullshit.
While not specifically at the rise of bittorrent, (which didn't really increase the amount of piracy either just made it more comfortable), but generally with the spread of internet usage in general, game profits did rise pretty rapidly, along with most other entertainment media.JemJar said:
Here are some amazing statistics about entertainment industry's growth in the past decade:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rupert-murdoch-is-wrong-heres-proof-that-digital-media-isnt-cannibalizing-showbiz-2012-1?op=1
Though it's a shaky correlation, because a lot of things changed in the past decades - a swich to digital distribution, easier online advertising, stronger word of mouth through social media (through pirates and non-pirates), but yeah, that specific data doesn't particularly DISPORVE the idea that free access to copies helps sales. AAA bugets have been skyrocketing, the indie scene just exploded all over the place in the past years, crowdfunding did grow exponentially in the past 3-4 years, etc.
The funny thing is, we can't really tell. The stories about piracy lsing a few sales, where someone obviously planned to buy a game but decided against it because there was piratebay, are just as anectdotal as the ones about someone wanting to buy it thanks to piracy. Only the above charts are certain. Entertainment is not dying, it's growing like crazy.JemJar said:
The problem with picking specific games that were killed by piracy, is that they always boil down to a Single Cause Fallacy.JemJar said:
Piracy is a constant. Many crazy-successful games have reported 90-95% piracy rates. It is simply a fact, that EVERY game is 90% pirated. We don't truly know whether it truly means a financial loss for the overall industry, but that's the data.
And obviously, some games are going to fail.
So you could basically picky ANY game that failed, and say "Well, if only that piracy rate wouldn't be there..." But that's only wishful thinking, like "well, if only they wouldn't have had to pay taxes", or "Well, if only it was better advertised" we don't know what would have happened in an alternate universe where piracy doesn't exist. Maybe those 90% would have still spent their money on something else.
It doesn't, the pirated version is a pre-modified version they uploaded to bittorent sites to amuse themselves, actual paying customers get a completely different version.Sgt. Sykes said:
Knowing the internet, an actual cracked version will probably be put up after everyone realizes the current one's fake. Still funny though.
Yeah.SecondPrize said:
Kairosoft deserves the support.
I have a full page of phone games from them and they are the best on the shop.
i made my argument about that in my original post~SecondPrize said:
yeah i admitted that i THINK there would be some who would pay for that game.
but you cant count sales based on THOUGHT , the only way for you to count that as a lost sale would be if you had the knowledge that some of those people would 100% buy that game if the piracy option was not available but you cant know that and that's the whole point. there's no way to get accurate numbers on any of this meaning you count lost sales on theoretical information.
on that note what do you then say to a pirate that bought that same game he pirated later ?
based on your calculations that's still a "lost sale" in the sales figures even if the pirate got it legit.
the publisher only sees that a new copy was sold but doesn't see less pirated copy's.
and then just claims like the rest that even tho sales were high piracy " crippled" half of it or some other nonsense like that.
its inherently a flawed system and should not be used.
I'm not saying they deserve a working game. For clarification I meant that the "message" was being delivered in a ham fisted manner. In the altered torrent version every company will go bust because of piracy 100% of the time no matter what. That isn't what happens in real life, a pirated copy doesn't automatically mean a lost sale.dmase said:
No, I mean that in a general sense. What if there is no NEED for sob stories, because piracy is not evil?J Tyran said:
In other words, how do you know what you know?
There are plenty of examples of you benefiting using something without necessarily paying money, because the business model ended up that way. Wikipedia (donations), The Escapist (ads), Land TV broadcasting (ads), F2P (optional paying customets), fanfiction, webcomics, youtube cartoons (hobby work), etc.
Of course, the difference between these and piracy, is that these agreed to free distribution.
But how do you know that for publishers, it's "their fair due" to force a business model on yo where everyone has to pay?
Now assume that the game actually ends up being profitable, like most do, regardless of piracy. Compared to some low level animator or sound effects designer, who just got a monthly paycheck for his work and that's it, why should there also be an "IP holder", who beyond getting money, also has "a fair due" to feel morally entitled to limit the number of people playing the game?
Beyond the financial ad absurdum of how the industry would break down if everyone would pirate, basically all arguments I hear about piracy, boil down to this moral feeling of how artists should have a right to keep controlling EXACTLY what happens to every copy of their work.
But where does it come from? Most workers have no such rights, they just work, and that's it. Why are artists so priviledged, that their rights involve cntrolling the rest of the world's data transmission to protect their "fair due?"
Are you kidding? I don't have calculations. I'm talking about sales figures. Your pirate who goes on to buy the game adds 1 to the total sales figure. He is accounted for. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that my 'calculations' would not account for this. My pirate who would have purchased the game if not for piracy does not add 1 to the sales figure. We agreed that developers use these sales figures in their relations with publishers. Therefore, the person who pirates the game when he would have purchased it instead is doing harm to the developer in not adding to the sales figure. He would have purchased it. He did not because piracy exists. The developer has a weaker position in their next negotiation because of this person.phoenix352 said: