Popular Android Dev Blasts Pirates for Forcing Him Freemium

[Dastardly]

No, it shows that they enjoy the game, but not enough to warrant paying the price that the developer has set for it.

Now, is that because the price is unreasonable, or because every price ever is unreasonable when placed next to Free? Again, basic human psychology here: Free beats ANY price. Consider those name-your-own-price bundles where folks couldn't be bothered to chip in a penny.

But that's beside the point. The point is this: we must recognize piracy as an expression of interest in the game. Not interested = wouldn't even download. And, as you rightly mentioned, they're just not "$X interested." Maybe it's $60. Maybe it's $10. Maybe it's $5. They're not interested enough to pay full price.

Okay. But they are, without a doubt, greater than "$0 interested" in the game. They might have paid half price, or maybe a couple bucks, but it stands to reason that (if a free, pirated version were not available) this person would have paid at least something.

And that's a lost sale. Not a full-price sale, but it's clearly lost revenue. How much exactly? That we can't know, because we introduce the FREE version that undercuts any price, meaning the developer is engaged in unfair competition with their own product.

Now, I could allow that there are a few pirates out there with minor brain damage, and they have a habit of downloading and playing things while having at all times zero interest in the product. But they hardly make up the majority, as someone of that intellectual caliber will almost certainly drink motor oil or roll around in used needles or forget to breathe before long.

Most pirates? By pirating the game, they have expressed greater than $0 worth of interest in the product. The introduction of a free version means the developer isn't able to benefit from that interest -- maybe it's just $.50, who knows? That's a lost sale.

 

[Saviordd1]

It's sad how many people will blast this guy because they want to justify their actions.

Piracy is never justifiable, if you wanna pirate something, fine do so, but don't think it somehow makes you better than someone who shoplifts.

If you pirate games, you are breaking the law no matter how you justify it.

and just because I said that

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I'd still like to see some proof from this guy in the article.

If you read the article from last week, you would see that that very proof. It mentions the very nature that Android piracy is higher than other devices. I believe it even links to the full interview that the guy did that explains the ratios of played versions of the game versus bough versions of the game

Most of these games like Dead Trigger would have flopped with or without piracy. The free-to-play model is the way forward.

So the pirates are simply showing developers the error of their ways in regards to business models? I don't buy that argument. Besides, as discussed, this was on the ANDROID version of the game. The game is also available on the iPhone, a more closed device than the Android, where sales are decent. Maybe the markets are different between iPhone and Android, but I'm going to take a guess that sales for the Android version would've been better if it weren't for the rampant piracy of the game.

Then no one plays the game and we all lose.

How? No seriously, how does going about the model of "I want to play the game. Can I afford it? No? Okay, I wont play it then until I can afford it" cause everyone to lose? In what scenario does legitimate spending somehow ruin everything? Are you saying that if you personally can't afford the game then rather than being patient and saving enough money to play it that you'll just go and pirate it? That's just entitlement to a whole new level.

I don't think there's any point in worrying about what technically immoral things some people may be getting up to if it doesn't have any effects on other people. That's like people complaining about gay marriage.

First off, don't cheapen the argument by saying that people complaining about piracy is akin to complaining about gay marriage. It cheapens the argument and is frankly insulting. Me and several others in the thread have complained about piracy, are we also intent on getting rid of gay marriage? Second, this scenario isn't "technically" immoral, it's just straight up immoral. The guy takes time and money to make a game, releases it for the ultra cheap at 99 cents, and because of stupid pirates that go "Herp a derp, I want ur game but don't want to pay for it! It's my right to play whatever I want, even if you worked on this, so I'll pirate it! Herp derp, whatever, I do what I want!", he now isn't getting properly compensated for his work.

 

[thiosk]

I don't understand pirating minor apps that cost in the neighborhood of a couple bucks, that are delivered digitally onto a device for which the user is paying in the neighborhood of 50 times the app cost per month to use it. If you have an app capable phone, you ain't poor under any definition. (you might be poor and be stupid enough to put way too many resources into a phone, I suppose).

I don't know about this company, but many app companies are just starting out in the software biz. Android is a tough market.

 

[thethird0611]

Spoiler

The question isn't how many people pirated, the question is how many people purchased.

Actually, that is the question: How many people are PLAYING THE GAME, with or without paying? See, that tells us that the game is good enough that people want to play it. If a game was truly awful, or just boring and uninteresting, people wouldn't play it.

If someone goes out of their way to pirate a game and play it, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that they are interested in the game. And if they're playing on a pirated copy, that means they enjoy it enough to continue playing. Any other conclusion is just blindly ignoring reason.

No, it shows that they enjoy the game, but not enough to warrant paying the price that the developer has set for it.

I would also like to see proof that the majority of people who pirated the game would have bought it if they couldn't have pirated it.

But that burden of proof isn't on him. He made the product. It's his. So anyone that HAS the product that didn't PAY him for the product is clearly in the wrong. See, by downloading and using the product, they've made a clear statement: "I am interested in this game."

Which assumption makes more sense? A: Someone goes out of their way to illegally download and spend time playing a game in which they have no interest, or B: Someone is interested in a game, but before they can see the price tag, they find out they can just get it for free. People don't go out of their way to get things they're not interested in, but people LOVE to get stuff for free.

To in any way conclude that the majority of pirated copies are not some kind of lost sale? It's borderline psychotic in its complete disregard for reality.

Piracy hardly requires one to go "out of their way". And piracy does not show interest because I expect a lot of pirates will play it for just a few minutes before moving onto something else.

As I've said before,
1) No one ever blames bad sales on the product being shit anymore, it's always some scapegoat or another like "piracy" or "used sales".
2) There are so many free-to-play games on the Android market that no one is going risk spending money on what may or may not be a shit game.

And do you know what the proper solution is to either of those? Don't play the game. If the game is crap, or you suspect it might be crap, just go with one of the many other games. If you don't like the developer's business practice? Go support another developer.

How do you know the game is crap if you haven't played it?

The fact that these pirates can't just walk away from the game is even further proof that they very much want it. It's just they want it for free. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game (Check the data -- better games get pirated more). It has nothing to do with the business practices of the developer. There are only two factors:

1. They want the game.
2. They can get it for free.

And that's it. Those are the only two facts. If you choose to bring any other element into this, the burden of proof is on you.

Hence why going free-to-play solves all of the problems. The cheapskates get to play for free and the developer gets to keep control of their game and continue to make profit through microtransactions.

I would like to see some proof that 80-90% of people pirated his game. Other than "It made 80-90% less money than we predicted".

I would also like to see proof that the majority of people who pirated the game would have bought it if they couldn't have pirated it.

As I've said before,
1) No one ever blames bad sales on the product being shit anymore, it's always some scapegoat or another like "piracy" or "used sales".
2) There are so many free-to-play games on the Android market that no one is going risk spending money on what may or may not be a shit game.

You do know that the Android is notorious for high piracy rates right? Because it is an open platform? Most games have to be free to play to be able to make any money because of piracy. Just because you want to seem all tough denying piracy as a problem, it is. More so on the Android.

Hell, heres another article about the same problem.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118653-Unbelievably-High-Android-Piracy-Drives-Dev-to-Free-To-Play

Even ANDROID ITSELF acknowledges the piracy problem.

"This isn't the first time the Android platform has been recognized for its piracy problems. Even outside of the occasional console emulator, official apps can see anywhere from 5 to 9 illegal downloads per legitimate purchase. The open-source nature of Android seems to make piracy harder to combat compared to other operating systems, as noted by the fact that Dead Trigger's iOS version still requires a 99 cent purchase."

I refuse to believe that 80-90% of people playing a game are pirates. It's absurd.
Also, the PC is an open source platform, yet piracy hasn't crippled PC gaming, has it?

I would like to see some proof that 80-90% of people pirated his game. Other than "It made 80-90% less money than we predicted".

I would also like to see proof that the majority of people who pirated the game would have bought it if they couldn't have pirated it.

In regards to figuring out rate of piracy, it's kind of easy with things such as mobile games. Dead Trigger features several online features, such as Twitter/Facebook updates and in-app purchases, things that indicate that someone plays the game. From there it's easy to figure out by pure numbers in regards to how many people are playing the game versus how many people bought the game. I'm not sure how much really did pirate, but at the same time whatever percentage did pirate is actually from an easy to see correlation, not as you said a drop in expected sales.

I'd still like to see some proof from this guy in the article.

As I've said before,
1) No one ever blames bad sales on the product being shit anymore, it's always some scapegoat or another like "piracy" or "used sales".

Sometimes the scapegoat of piracy exists for a reason: it doesn't always happen, but sometimes you get the odd game, often digital games, that piracy actually has a negative effect on, enough so that other games go free-to-play from the start in order to avoid the potential of piracy ruining sales. Dead Trigger is one of those rare games where piracy actually may have had a negative effect.

Most of these games like Dead Trigger would have flopped with or without piracy. The free-to-play model is the way forward.

2) There are so many free-to-play games on the Android market that no one is going risk spending money on what may or may not be a shit game.

That isn't an excuse. If you can afford an Android then you can afford to pay a dollar for a game. If you think the game may be shit and don't want to waste the dollar, then don't play it. You can't just turn around and play it for free because "It may be shit", since if you think it may be shit, you shouldn't try to go out and play it. This is an excuse maybe to bring demos to the Android store, but not to pirate games

Then no one plays the game and we all lose.

If it makes no difference to the sale figures, what does it matter? Who are you to enforce your morality onto others?

Because with the exception of maybe "I can't get this game in my country legally anyways, so piracy is the ONLY way I can play it", there is no other justification for piracy. Even if it doesn't affect sales figures for certain games, it's still piss-poor behavior. If you can afford the console/device necessary to play the game, you can afford to play the game. If you can't afford to play it, either save up money or don't play the game.

I don't think there's any point in worrying about what technically immoral things some people may be getting up to if it doesn't have any effects on other people. That's like people complaining about gay marriage.

Ok, well this is going to be fun! Just because you cant believe it doesnt make it not real. Lets look at some truth to these things.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-24-football-manager-dev-hopes-to-stick-with-android-despite-9-1-piracy-rate

Spoiler

"Football Manager developer Sports Interactive hopes to stick with Android despite seeing a 9:1 piracy rate on the platform.
Football Manager Handheld launched on Android two weeks ago, and since then has been heavily pirated. In fact, for Sports Interactive boss Miles Jacobson, the piracy rate on Android is the worst he's ever seen.
Why? "For a start, there's no working copy protection on the platform currently, so it's pretty easy for someone to get it working," he told Eurogamer. "The platform is also very popular in some countries where there's a larger piracy problem than in others."
Jacobson said the piracy rate for Football Manager 2009 up until mid-March - the only 100 per cent verified statistics the team has had - was 5:1. "Typically piracy gets worse later into a game's lifecycle," he said, "so this would have ended worse than that, as the Android version likely will too.""

Just from their verified statistics, there is a 5:1 piracy rate. Thats low balling their estimate to! Now pair that with this news post and...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118653-Unbelievably-High-Android-Piracy-Drives-Dev-to-Free-To-Play

You do know that the Android system is also set up for users to mess around and change things right? PC is a base system developed for the masses as an easy to use tool for a personal computer.

Two different concepts, two different uses, two different effects on piracy.

Again, just because you 'cant believe' piracy isnt that high, doesnt mean it isnt. Evidence (even statistical evidence), supports that piracy isnt running paid apps to the ground in the Android area.

 

[veloper]

It's sad how many people will blast this guy because they want to justify their actions.

Piracy is never justifiable, if you wanna pirate something, fine do so, but don't think it somehow makes you better than someone who shoplifts.

People aren't blasting the guy because they defend pirates, rather mr. Rabas is derided because he might aswell blame the wind.
Pirates exists sure as gravity. Everything gets pirated. Pirates are not your audience. You simply ignore them and you certainly cannot stop them.

Plenty of good games do sell very well.
So if your game doesn't sell it means the legit guys aren't interested either and you should look more closely at your own product.

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

Oh god why did Critical Miss have to make that comic...

 

[SnowBurst]

dont charge rediculous amounts of money for a min of game and a life time of cut scenes *cough* fps's *cough* then people wont do it. it doesnt cost the world for a box and a disc or even just an online download and if u charged less then more would buy it...

 

[Signa]

If someone goes out of their way to pirate a game and play it, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that they are interested in the game.

Interested, or dedicated to it? When you buy a game, you are dedicated to it. Yes, you can't argue that people aren't interested in a game when they pirate it, but you can't expect that interest to mean the game has value to that person. Say this guy could see exactly how many people played his game, and that's what he's basing his comments on. Does he have the facts about how long each player played? If they just booted it for a few minutes, he might get a unique ID on that person having played it, but I doubt he knows if that person liked it enough to care to play it more. It's THOSE people he should be concerned about, because they did pirate it, and they did like it enough to keep playing. To those, the game does have value, and it is criminal for them to keep playing without paying for it.

 

[Sylocat]

His mistake is trying to poke holes in the pirates' arguments. It's a waste of time, because pirates themselves don't believe their own arguments. The constant whining excuses that pirates make, their defensiveness, their copy-pasted monologues, aren't meant to convince us. They're trying to convince themselves. They're telling all this tripe to themselves in an attempt to justify their own bad behavior. They're twisting their beliefs to suit their actions rather than vice versa (a trick that humans excel at), and latching onto these tattered shreds of self-justifying nonsense to nourish their own selfish delusions.

It's like climate change denialists. They know perfectly well that their arguments are blatant lies, but they just don't want to admit that their own selfishness and laziness are contributing to the ecosystem collapse, so they stick their fingers in their ears and prattle on about already-disproven counterstudies.

 

[Dastardly]

It's THOSE people he should be concerned about, because they did pirate it, and they did like it enough to keep playing. To those, the game does have value, and it is criminal for them to keep playing without paying for it.

To be clear, it's criminal regardless. If you don't feel you have enough information about a product to buy it, you don't buy it. You go try to find information from another source, and come back when you feel more confident. You don't just take the product without paying, and then decide whether or not it was worth paying for after the fact.

It's the same logic as going to a car lot that tells you 'No test drives,' and deciding to just sneak in and 'test drive' after hours on your own by taking the car home. Even if you don't keep it, what you did is clearly wrong and not a mature way to handle the situation. Instead, you just tell them, "No test drives? I'll go buy my car elsewhere." And then you never touch that product again.

Reasons:

1. If you're trying to send the message that you don't like their policies, going back and stealing the product later doesn't do that. It shows them you very much want their product, but you're just a criminal jackass. If you don't buy it, don't steal it, and just walk away, now they have reason to believe their policies lost them a customer.

(Corollary to 1: If your leaving doesn't make a big enough impact to change their policies, sorry. You must be in the minority. So move on. Don't try to fake your way to the majority by trying to hurt them extra. You don't want them, they don't want you, it's done.)

2. If you're trying to send the message that you don't like their prices, just don't buy it. And don't pirate it, either, and give them the easy scapegoat. See, if no one plays it, they'll lower the price until people start buying it. In doing so, you'll see the average price of games come down. But these companies know they can't compete with "Free," so they have no reason to even bother trying as long as people defend piracy.

(In short, piracy directly prevents the market dialogue we need in order to push publishers to lower their prices.)

 

[Signa]

It's THOSE people he should be concerned about, because they did pirate it, and they did like it enough to keep playing. To those, the game does have value, and it is criminal for them to keep playing without paying for it.

To be clear, it's criminal regardless. If you don't feel you have enough information about a product to buy it, you don't buy it. You go try to find information from another source, and come back when you feel more confident. You don't just take the product without paying, and then decide whether or not it was worth paying for after the fact.

It's the same logic as going to a car lot that tells you 'No test drives,' and deciding to just sneak in and 'test drive' after hours on your own by taking the car home. Even if you don't keep it, what you did is clearly wrong and not a mature way to handle the situation. Instead, you just tell them, "No test drives? I'll go buy my car elsewhere." And then you never touch that product again.

Reasons:

1. If you're trying to send the message that you don't like their policies, going back and stealing the product later doesn't do that. It shows them you very much want their product, but you're just a criminal jackass. If you don't buy it, don't steal it, and just walk away, now they have reason to believe their policies lost them a customer.

(Corollary to 1: If your leaving doesn't make a big enough impact to change their policies, sorry. You must be in the minority. So move on. Don't try to fake your way to the majority by trying to hurt them extra. You don't want them, they don't want you, it's done.)

2. If you're trying to send the message that you don't like their prices, just don't buy it. And don't pirate it, either, and give them the easy scapegoat. See, if no one plays it, they'll lower the price until people start buying it. In doing so, you'll see the average price of games come down. But these companies know they can't compete with "Free," so they have no reason to even bother trying as long as people defend piracy.

(In short, piracy directly prevents the market dialogue we need in order to push publishers to lower their prices.)

yada yada yada, same old anti-piracy rant and analogies (why is it always cars?). Look, if these guys were trustworthy, they wouldn't be bitching about losing a dollar per game played when they have other revenue sources in-game. They just want to scam you legally. Defending them and their ilk is just setting you or someone else up to be screwed.

Piracy is a service issue. It's more or less a proven fact with services like Steam. They weren't offering a valid service by charging an admission fee that anyone wanted to pay. Mature response or not, people did it, and the game got more exposure. Those that liked it paid for the extra content. Those that didn't, aren't anyone the devs should be concerned with.

 

[Dastardly]

yada yada yada, same old anti-piracy rant and analogies (why is it always cars?). Look, if these guys were trustworthy, they wouldn't be bitching about losing a dollar per game played when they have other revenue sources in-game. They just want to scam you legally. Defending them and their ilk is just setting you or someone else up to be screwed.

Who's defending them? I hate the practice of charging "admission" and then also charging "per ride." It's why I'm not playing The Secret World, for instance. So I'm on board with hating that business model. And do you know what I do about it?

I do not support their games, either by buying them or by playing them. Because if I buy it, I'm telling them it's okay. And if I play it via piracy, I'm still just telling them their product is a-okay... but I just don't want to spend money.

Piracy is a service issue. It's more or less a proven fact with services like Steam. They weren't offering a valid service by charging an admission fee that anyone wanted to pay. Mature response or not, people did it, and the game got more exposure. Those that liked it paid for the extra content. Those that didn't, aren't anyone the devs should be concerned with.

1. Steam is DRM that also provides a service. And because Steam's DRM largely curtails piracy, it allows them to experiment with pricing without having to compete with "free." The result? Lower prices on a great many games. Thank you for proving my point -- maybe do the same for your own?

2. I love that you believe we can't assume that any pirated copies represent lost sales, but you readily assume that none of them do. What about folks that would have bought the game... but then a friend said, "Nah, here, I have a free copy." The hardcore pirates aren't the issue, it's the people on the fence.

A game can be as awesome as it wants. It can run as smoothly as it wants. It can be anything and everything to everyone at the same time. But none of that matters if someone can get it for FREE.

So you can yaddayadda all you want. When a game drops the DRM, it still gets pirated to hell. When a game is good, solid, and everyone likes it, it still gets pirated to hell. When a game comes down in price, or even allows people to name their own, it still gets pirated to hell. And what that means is that all of the excuses are complete fabrications.

And not a word of this defends developers for shady or annoying business practices.

 

[Baresark]

I agree that piracy is problematic.

That said, he has stated several things that are outright wrong.

1. He cannot know many times his game is pirated. He may be right, he may be wrong, but to estimate so pessimistically and make blanket statement makes him appear unintelligent and like he jumps to conclusion about things.

2. Ad supported games are actually a fantastic idea. Now he can add the total downloads of his game for his stats and charge more from advertisers. He simply needs to make a non ad supported version of the game for people who pay. Sure, people will still pirate the non ad supported version, but those numbers will sharply decline because it's now easier to get the ad supported version versus pirating the non ad supported version.

3. The thing that hurts this games sales is previous games shortcomings. I bought their game, Shadowgun, and after playing that I wouldn't buy another product without trying it out. And they don't have a demo of the game he is talking about. So, with that in mind, you make bad games, people remember it, and then you have to pay for past mistakes. I didn't pirate this game, I skipped it completely without any interest despite my love of zombie games.

 

[Signa]

yada yada yada, same old anti-piracy rant and analogies (why is it always cars?). Look, if these guys were trustworthy, they wouldn't be bitching about losing a dollar per game played when they have other revenue sources in-game. They just want to scam you legally. Defending them and their ilk is just setting you or someone else up to be screwed.

Who's defending them? I hate the practice of charging "admission" and then also charging "per ride." It's why I'm not playing The Secret World, for instance. So I'm on board with hating that business model. And do you know what I do about it?

I do not support their games, either by buying them or by playing them. Because if I buy it, I'm telling them it's okay. And if I play it via piracy, I'm still just telling them their product is a-okay... but I just don't want to spend money.

Piracy is a service issue. It's more or less a proven fact with services like Steam. They weren't offering a valid service by charging an admission fee that anyone wanted to pay. Mature response or not, people did it, and the game got more exposure. Those that liked it paid for the extra content. Those that didn't, aren't anyone the devs should be concerned with.

1. Steam is DRM that also provides a service. And because Steam's DRM largely curtails piracy, it allows them to experiment with pricing without having to compete with "free." The result? Lower prices on a great many games. Thank you for proving my point -- maybe do the same for your own?

2. I love that you believe we can't assume that any pirated copies represent lost sales, but you readily assume that none of them do. What about folks that would have bought the game... but then a friend said, "Nah, here, I have a free copy." The hardcore pirates aren't the issue, it's the people on the fence.

A game can be as awesome as it wants. It can run as smoothly as it wants. It can be anything and everything to everyone at the same time. But none of that matters if someone can get it for FREE.

So you can yaddayadda all you want. When a game drops the DRM, it still gets pirated to hell. When a game is good, solid, and everyone likes it, it still gets pirated to hell. When a game comes down in price, or even allows people to name their own, it still gets pirated to hell. And what that means is that all of the excuses are complete fabrications.

And not a word of this defends developers for shady or annoying business practices.

So what your point boils down to is faith in the consumer. You have no faith that someone playing a good game and the desire to pay for good content will actually separate themselves from their cash. I'm saying that I believe they do if they are serious. I also believe that those that don't are a lost cause, and you're saying damn them for not playing by the rules you strictly hold yourself to.

Maybe I'm stretching things a little, but the fact we are having the conversation says you care about the conduct of people I don't give two shits about.

 

[antipunt]

Piracy really does suck and I feel for the guy, but I'm always skeptical of these "piracy % numbers that are fact that are over 9000%" because where the F did they come from. Also, did they factor in places like china/India, because that's just disingenuous

 

[Britisheagle]

Was going to say 'Inb4 pirates slamming a guy who's working hard to make a game complaining that lots of people are stealing it'

However pirates and pirate defenders are so quick off the mark to attack anybody who critiques or complains about what happens, it's impossible.

^ This.

If a developer complains about piracy, the number of people who reply by saying "ah well, your game wasn't good enough" is ridiculous. And the ludicrous argument that you wouldn't buy an empty box with a "game" in it always seems to crop up too, despite the fact that for generations that's exactly what gamers do.

The joy of this day and age is that most of these Android phones actually have a search functionality so if you wish to read about the game, or check compatibility all the data is there with practically no effort required.

Piracy exists on a massive scale, those who say that the game wasn't purchased enough and thus developers are blaming piracy really do ned to wake up. Google a game. And game. See how many times that has been downloaded on a torrent site or similar? A lot I am guessing.

Hopefully Freemium will stop pirates but it is such as shame that these steps need to be taken at all.

 

[weirdee]

wait, are people actually arguing that the majority pirating the game actually keeps the game in business as opposed a situation where those same people not interacting with the game at all?

is their imaginary business necessary to the process?

somebody else raised a good point though, they could just start cramming ads in there

 

[jmiller1980]

Aside from issues of piracy and the freemium model, perhaps the developer should realize that they're not living in the pre-crash eighties. Piracy damaging profits notwithstanding, modern game developers have to face the fact that video games aren't the path to incredible cash and a rock star lifestyle anymore. The days of video games generating billions of dollars of profit without the company first paying out the nose for it are long past. If you don't believe that, I suggest you ask your local video arcade owner how their business is doing.

The simple fact is piracy hurts gaming (and other industries, but let's not get into that) but it is also a simple fact that piracy is here to stay. There will always be an arms race between DRM and piracy with no winner in sight. Game development is no longer the golden ticket for small companies to make an easy buck. It takes a huge investment of capital to develop and produce a blockbuster video game, with only the rare indie success story to bolster the hopes of the little guy. The freemium model can help mitigate this by giving a small developer greater control over access to content. But it's not a golden goose. It's a way to make a profit in spite of people who would rather get the product for free.

Where this particular developer goes wrong is his apparent disgruntlement with being forced to switch models to the only way he can (in his perception at least) make any profit. He might be right to blame pirates, or some of the posters in this forum could be right that the game is crap and the developer is to blame for their own losses. But either way, the biggest mistake of this and other small developers is the expectation that they'll make a fortune off their intellectual property. It doesn't happen anymore.