Popular Android Dev Blasts Pirates for Forcing Him Freemium

[Signa]

My stance with you is the same as my stance with pirates:

Do what you want to do. Just be honest about it. Pirates steal because they can, and it's free. You really, really, REALLY care about making people stop saying bad things about pirates. Just be honest, that's all.

You know, you could have saved a lot of time just by stating that off the bat.

I also have to ask, if you used to be a pirate, did you ever buy something you downloaded because you liked it?

Also, would you be willing to experiment with your music by releasing it for free, In Rainbows style, just asking for donations from the people that enjoy your content?

Lastly, I can see why your professor thought piracy was scummy. You were attempting to produce a salable product with stolen software. As pro-pirate as I might come off, that's a big no-no in my book of rules. Those programs may be disgracefully expensive at times, but they are tools to get you profit through your own creativity. I'd forgive a pirate for wanting to learn how to use a tool, but not after he makes something with it to sell.

 

[GoddyofAus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; as long as the situation for Australian gamers remains a massive rort, which the big vendors continue to be outrageously arrogant about [http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/08/vendors-unimpressed-by-it-price-hike-inquiry/], I will have no sympathy for any publisher.

 

[Dastardly]

You know, you could have saved a lot of time just by stating that off the bat.

Why? Most of the stuff you were arguing had nothing to do with that. It's simply a matter of pirates trying to defend what they do, instead of just saying, "Because I want to," and the matter of your saying you don't care, when clearly you do.

The rest of the points we were debating still stand.

I also have to ask, if you used to be a pirate, did you ever buy something you downloaded because you liked it?

Nope... because I already had it. Moral issues aside, it's silly to pay for something you already have. It just doesn't make any sense, except from an extreme sense of moral justice (and if I had that kind of moral fortitude at the time, I wouldn't have pirated the stuff).

Also, would you be willing to experiment with your music by releasing it for free, In Rainbows style, just asking for donations from the people that enjoy your content?

I certainly would. But that would be my choice to do so with my creation. If, at some point after that, I decided to charge a buck or two, I'd expect people to respect that. It's like the difference between me offering to share half my sandwich with someone, or a weirdo just walking up and taking half my sandwich.

Lastly, I can see why your professor thought piracy was scummy. You were attempting to produce a salable product with stolen software. As pro-pirate as I might come off, that's a big no-no in my book of rules. Those programs may be disgracefully expensive at times, but they are tools to get you profit through your own creativity. I'd forgive a pirate for wanting to learn how to use a tool, but not after he makes something with it to sell.

Let's be clear: I have never intended to make my living from my music. For one, that completely changes the art for me, and it becomes a product of obligation rather than of love. And beyond that, I don't always want to write, and I really don't want to have to sweat publication and promotion and all the other expenses.

So I was never trying to make a salable product. I wanted use of the software, but didn't want to kick in $350 to get it, since I wouldn't be making any money on what I wrote... and that was as much "justification" as I gave. What my professor said to me still impacted me, because it caused me to think about things from the other side of the fence, regardless of whether or not I would ever live there.

 

[crazyrabbits]

The music industry moved away from the "album" structure and allowed people to buy each song piecemeal, which helped a lot to curtail piracy. Games can't really do that to the same degree. Sure, they could lower prices, but they can't sell Super Mario Bros. one level at a time. (Of course, the free-to-play model is trying to approximate that sometimes.)

Okay, first, full confidentiality. I pirated movies, television shows, albums and books for years. I did it for at least a good six or seven years. I stopped because I personally found that the majority of the content I was downloading was either uninspired or straight-up garbage that I wouldn't waste my bandwidth on, and probably wouldn't have money for in the first place.

Yet, there are series I've pirated, told my friends about and bought. The rebooted Battlestar Galactica, for instance - I watched the whole first season when it debuted on SkyOne (we didn't have it over here in Canada yet), I told everyone I knew how great the show was, and I eventually picked up individual seasons and the Complete Series boxset. It's hard to say whether I would have done that if I hadn't been able to catch all the episodes as they aired.

In regards to your analogy, though, game publishers are already trying to sell content piecemeal via day-one DLC and content packs (which, more often than not, are present on the disc you bought and paid for). That would be fine - except they're still expecting you to pay full retail price for content you already own.

This is a problem with the industry, not the gamer. We live in an age where two million units is the drop-dead point, not a figure of success. Every triple-AAA title needs to sell 5 million copies or it's deemed a failure. Development budgets get larger and larger. And yet, the majority of games that come out these days are variations on the same thing. The same standard set-ups, with identical gameplay and level design.

The profit to the pirate isn't monetary, but that doesn't mean the loss to the publisher isn't. You're basically just saying my apples aren't orangey enough.

You're still using semantics. If, for example, I wanted to pirate Mass Effect 3, EA doesn't lose money on my "lost sale". The number of retail copies in their store isn't going to go down. They're not paying server costs on Origin as a result of data I downloaded. If anything, they stand to make more money from me if I copy the game and decide I like it enough to tell others about it and buy the whole thing and/or future installments.

I can quote you legal reports that show the actual amount of piracy in the film sector is 1% of what the MPAA claims it loses each year, and that the only figure it really impacts at the end of the day is the redistribution of disposable income.

It goes back to the point made earlier in this thread: if you innovate, and your product is solid, you'll be fine.

Then I started writing music, and using notation software, and one of my professors heard me say something about pirating this/that software... and he just mentioned to me what it would be like if folks did that with my music. Sure, for now, I could call it 'free publicity,' because I wasn't dependent on the money yet, but what about later when I was trying to make my living writing it? When it was made personal like that, it hit hard, and I honestly stopped.

There have always been plenty of prospective singers who never pan out. Maybe, instead of blaming pirates, you should take a look at your own work and see how it stacks up to others. Is it innovative, unique or derivative?

I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful, but I always see so many people taking the "easy way out" by blaming pirates when there are many other factors to consider as to why these industries are affected across the board. The music publishers taking exorbitant percentages of artist contracts, live performances being the only pure source of profit, constant "updated" releases of the same album with one or two new tracks, etc.

Just saying that it's not as black and white as you think.

 

[Signa]

You know, you could have saved a lot of time just by stating that off the bat.

Why? Most of the stuff you were arguing had nothing to do with that. It's simply a matter of pirates trying to defend what they do, instead of just saying, "Because I want to," and the matter of your saying you don't care, when clearly you do.

Because this whole time I thought we were arguing about this:

To be clear, it's criminal[footnote]possible semantics confusion[/footnote] 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.[footnote]commanding people take certain actions[/footnote]

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[footnote]judgmental positions[/footnote]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.

Granted, I've made a lot of assumptions based on the wording you used, but I've argued on this site several times with people who have used the same verbiage as you, but they usually add in at some point that they never pirated anything, that they never will, and all lawbreakers must be punished. I assumed you were that type, and I have little patience for that kind of thinking, because most pirates are just common people. Some of them are my friends, and none of them deserve the kind of ire the industries are willing to dish out.

I should also add that forum rules prohibit me from responding on how you never bought the things you "had," but much of that point hinges on my whole stance in this matter.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

This whining about pirates needs to stop.

Laws aren't followed about being 'moral' or being a good citizen. People don't 'not steal' because they are good people and care about their potential victim - they are afraid of the consequences of stealing.

So pirates work the same way. If it's free you'll get people taking it. If you had laws threatening them with reasonably severe consequences, they would stop - that's what happened in New Zealand. Both pirates and developers and people who defend either group need to get rid of the judgemental, moral crap and start viewing the universe in a sensible way. You know, like the way it actually is.

The idea that a pirate is suddenly converted into a good, caring, loving person upon switching from piracy to fear of losing his freedom in jail or his bank account and thus buying games instead of pirating them, is totally ridiculous.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

The priorities of "pirates" are as follows:

1. It's free
2. They want it

In that order. Sometimes #2 doesn't even matter. Most of them couldn't care less what anyone thinks about it. They make no excuses. They are honest about it, they don't try to justify it. No matter what anyone says, they will continue to do it.

There are a few, however, who feel some sort of guilt, or need to save face about it, who come to forums with "reasons". They have personal anecdotes and hypothetical scenarios that they feel make "piracy" legitimate. You can argue back and forth with those reasons, but at the end of the day you will not stop them from believing them. No matter what anyone says, they will continue to "pirate" secure in their own rationalizations.

So forget about both of them.

If you want to make money, focus on meeting the needs of people who are willing to pay you money.

 

[ShAmMz0r]

I also have to ask, if you used to be a pirate, did you ever buy something you downloaded because you liked it?

Nope... because I already had it. Moral issues aside, it's silly to pay for something you already have. It just doesn't make any sense, except from an extreme sense of moral justice (and if I had that kind of moral fortitude at the time, I wouldn't have pirated the stuff).

Gentlemen, I simply have to intervene at this point. There is a completely rational reason for a pirate to buy products they pirated and liked. It goes like this:

I enjoy this product -> I want to see more from this developer -> I should invest in them -> I'll buy this game I pirated and will not only support the dev, but reap additional benefits like timely patches and community access (not with every product granted, but the point still stands).

It's the same idea people generally have when they donate to support authors of free stuff on the web. It's not that rare and if you fail to acknowledge existence (or considerable size) of this demographic then you simply are ignoring the evidence that does not support your point of view and that you therefore dislike.

As for the whole piracy issue my position is this. Since there is an acute shortage of actual (trustworthy and convincing) data on the effects of game piracy on the industry, any condemnation or defence of piracy is either based on inferences none of which are substantially backed (despite almost always seemingly being "common sense") or is from a moral position, which is a bit silly to say the least. How people manage to form such strong opinions on the matter without actually knowing effects of piracy (I mean strong factual evidence here and not so called "obvious common sense") is baffling.

One thing for sure though. As Grimrider6 quite intelligently pointed out

once reasonable copyright reform exists, and creative works are allowed to enter the commons after a reasonable period of money-making time has elapsed, THEN we can start talking about ways to mitigate piracy and make the software market safe.

Now copyright reform, that's a subject worth discussing if I ever saw one. This is what this silly piracy threads should be about and not about whether piracy is "right" or "wrong".

 

[Gennadios]

I notice that piracy gets blamed for game's failure in an inverse fashion to how good the game actually is.

I don't have an iOS device, but does anyone know if the game's actually good?

 

[Signa]

Now copyright reform, that's a subject worth discussing if I ever saw one. This is what this silly piracy threads should be about and not about whether piracy is "right" or "wrong".

I'm all for that, but there's a few problems. Either you agree that it needs reform, or you don't. Even if every single one of us agrees, and petitions the government to change the laws, nothing will come of it, because we don't have the money that the copyright industry wields. They bought those broken laws, and they aren't going to go anywhere. At least I have no faith they will.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yes, launching on a platform renown for having small indie games being pirated and then complaining that your small indie game got pirated, is a bit silly.

I get it, it's not your fault your game got pirated, but, you know, there are other platforms that you could release on as well.

 

[ShAmMz0r]

Oh, if only that happened in a statistically significant number of cases...

Can't say I know how many people we are talking here but for me it was a fairly easy line of reasoning to develop once I got enough income to support my gaming hobby. Stands to reason that people would like to invest in future games by their favourite studious and the very best way to start doing that is to buy the game you like so much.

Flag on the play, trying to compare something made 'for profit' with something made 'for free distribution'. And please, don't try any of that "Information wants to be free" stuff because I'll just say that your Social Security number, your bank account numbers, statistics on how frequently you wet the bed, etc. are all information that should be released to the public.

The point was to remind that people are actually capable of supporting authors and developers even if the product is available free of charge. Besides do you think that people are less likely to support developers working for profit compared to ones releasing their projects for free? That is not a rhetorical question. If people are more likely to support developers working for profit then my comparison stands and if not that raises some interesting questions regarding our current marketing models. But that is a discussion for another thread.

As for the "Information wants to be free" argument I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. Surely the mere existence of some kinds of information that can be reasonably deemed private is no cause to cry that "information does not want to be free". People do so love to use absolutes in arguments, don't we?

How do you know it's 'not that rare'? Is there actual evidence that states that it happens with frequency? It's obviously not unheard of, but are there any actual, solid numbers for it? You mention evidence but, please, provide it.

Well for starters we have all websites relying on donations to rent their servers. I'm sure you could find some owners who combine donations and advertising, and probably some who use only donations. One could argue that if a website is large and popular enough to require serious dedicated servers, then large number of donations can be expected. I'm not willing to argue the details here. One does not need look farther than scanlating and fansubbing scenes to see such a model at work (I realise that these scenes may not be the best of examples, since they are a bit of a grey area, but let's not discuss that here).

How is looking at it from a moral position 'silly'? Why is "You shouldn't take things that don't belong to you" 'silly'? No, everybody, take your fingers off the Quote button. You don't all need to point out that piracy doesn't fit the antiquated definition of 'stealing'. You're unlawfully obtaining the use of something. It's me, breaking into your house, scanning your diary, and posting it online for everyone to see.

So your position is as follows: It is morally wrong to obtain information unlawfully. Then we go to the next logical point and examine just what "unlawfulness of obtaining information" is.

What I'd like to draw your attention to is just how is our law constructed from an anthropological perspective. Law can be thought of as a tool to regulate effects detrimental (and beneficial) to society, so if piracy in fact has a detrimental effect then it should be considered illegal and be punished accordingly. Otherwise it should be encouraged instead.

Now this argument is grossly oversimplified for the sake of concision and of course nobody would just determine the overall effect of piracy and be done with it. The issue is much more complex. But my main point here is that if your perception of piracy as a morally wrong deed is dependant on the lawfulness of it, then it is thereby dependant on effects piracy has on society. And these effects are not comprehensively explored by any standard. So you end up going with current copyright law as your moral compass, which is far from perfect in my opinion.

Copyrighted works eventually falling into public domain is all well and good, but what does it have to do with pirating a video game approximately 1 hour after its release? I don't think that qualifies as "a reasonable period of money-making time" having elapsed. Do you?

Naturally not. But piracy is not the biggest problem gaming (and software in general) industry has right now. Current copyright law is an abhorrent bloody mess and should be completely reworked before one can even hope to speak about piracy in any meaningful way. Talking about piracy crippling this or that product's sales while copyright law is used by publishers to exploit authors on a daily basis is just crazy.

 

[Alterego-X]

The problem with piracy arguements, (pro and con), is that they create a huge moral issue out of something mundane.

It's like abortion debates, where one side are the baby-murderers, while the other side are the woman-enslavers. All that, for drawing a precise line at slightly different positions in the legal treatment of a fetus.

Likewise, gamers are really only arguing about exactly HOW MUCH control artists should have over their work, but they pretend that it's an epic battle between two ideals where one side says ALL COPYING IS THEFT, and everyone who would ever download someone else's work is a thief, while the other modifies the old anarchist "property is theft" into COPYRIGHT IS THEFT, so they are fighting against "The Man" who wants to restrict our rights to share information.


If I download an unauthorised the Lord of the Rings novels, am I a dirty thief and a grave robber, who steals Tolkien's property? And if download The Count of Monte Cristo, am I robbing Dumas?

You can say yes, because you truly believe that IP is the exact same thing as property, and that piracy is always theft, then logically both of these should be treated as immoral, even if our governments allow the latter, it is much like China allows piracy of Windows, or the USA used to allow slavery, int hat we should still FEEL that it's not right.

You can say that no, both of these should be allowed, because dead people shouldn't have intellectual property. In that case, you are a piracy supporter, you feel entitled to take away rights from some copyright holders, to increase you own rights as a consumer. You might want different specific things than someone who pirates an android game, but the principles that you say about them are the same.

You can say that Dumas is fair play but Tolkien is not, because the law says so, and at the moment, we should respect that regardless of what we want. And that's a sensible statement, but it's important to remember, that LAW DOESN'T DEFINE MORALITY. On that basis, you might give an advice about how people probably should pirate because they might get into trouble, but without first giving some justification of WHY you think that copyright holders should be allowed to have a hold on the creation of digital copies, don't start to preach that they have a moral right not to be pirated, solely because they have a legal right for it.

 

[ShAmMz0r]

I'm all for that, but there's a few problems. Either you agree that it needs reform, or you don't. Even if every single one of us agrees, and petitions the government to change the laws, nothing will come of it, because we don't have the money that the copyright industry wields. They bought those broken laws, and they aren't going to go anywhere. At least I have no faith they will.

A bit of a depressing thought isn't it. That your own government will side with corporate interests against it's own citizens. Well that's why you chaps have the second amendment. Madison thought you'll need to remind the government who to side with at some point so go forth and give them a bit of a shake-up XD. I'm not sure things are so bad just yet though. We did get some response with the whole SOPA malarkey.

That's assuming you are from US of A of course. If not then you are probably stuck watching your government slowly copy the worst ideas from US copyright law into your own like me.

 

[Signa]

I'm all for that, but there's a few problems. Either you agree that it needs reform, or you don't. Even if every single one of us agrees, and petitions the government to change the laws, nothing will come of it, because we don't have the money that the copyright industry wields. They bought those broken laws, and they aren't going to go anywhere. At least I have no faith they will.

A bit of a depressing thought isn't it. That your own government will side with corporate interests against it's own citizens. Well that's why you chaps have the second amendment. Madison thought you'll need to remind the government who to side with at some point so go forth and give them a bit of a shake-up XD. I'm not sure things are so bad just yet though. We did get some response with the whole SOPA malarkey.

That's assuming you are from US of A of course. If not then you are probably stuck watching your government slowly copy the worst ideas from US copyright law into your own like me.

Yeah, I'm USA, and copyright law is one of the bigger examples of why I'm not anti-gun. It sounds so far-fetched saying it that way, but the second amendment is a fail-safe that I hope we won't have to use. Nerfing that fail-safe is dangerous business.

Damnit, these piracy conversations always go on weird tangents.

 

[Signa]

No, my position is basically "It's my toy, you can't play with it unless I say you can". It's respecting the wishes of the creator. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

"No," says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor.

I don't think that was the point you were trying to make, but it does work out that way.

 

[ShAmMz0r]

"I want it -> I don't want to pay for it -> I'll pirate it". An even easier line of reasoning to develop, since it's totally selfish and requires no sacrifices whatsoever on the part of the reasoner.

I guess it boils down to how much a person is interested in future projects by the same developer. I usually can only muster enough interest in a game if it is so good that it's developers deserve my patronage. We're unlikely to get our hands on some hard data though, so we are again reduced to speculation about how many people think like me.

I shouldn't think so, because the answer is easy. "Yes." Because it's hip to be Socialist, and denounce Capitalism. Because it's big business that's dragging everyone down, the blogger says, making a Tweet with his $400 iPad.

People are capable of supporting authors and developers, but there's no reason to assume that such a thing is the majority opinion.

It is probably not a majority, but not so small a part as to be ignored in a discussion about piracy.

Eh, there's an easy rule to remember for life: "People are dicks."

"Most people are dicks." An important qualification I'm sure you'll agree.

Absolutely. But if we respect the designation of 'private' why is there no respect for the designation of 'private, unless you pay'?

Oh I doubt we'll achieve proper freedom of information in the foreseeable future. It's a beautiful ideal to aspire to though.

And yet there are still more 'leechers' than there ever will be 'seeders' when it comes to this sort of model. The few that donate feed those who do not. How many of these groups have disbanded, because nobody was donating, and all of their work was being distributed without proper acknowledgement?

And how many still going strong as ever? There will always exist successes and failures in any model. It does work reasonably well, so I think I'll count it as moderately strong evidence. I'm sure you'd be able to find some other examples if you cared to look. I'm thinking we have established that indeed noticeable percentage of people do support authors even if they don't have to. Notice that the reasoning behind supporting a scanlation group is pretty much the same as when supporting game developers. "Want more of their stuff -> support them" or "like this stuff they released -> give them some money as a thank you".

No, my position is basically "It's my toy, you can't play with it unless I say you can". It's respecting the wishes of the creator. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Now we could argue about "taking away your toy" vs "making an identical copy of that toy without taking yours away", but I personally think that the whole issue is not worth it. I say we determine what effect different information distribution models have on societies and choose the one we like most. But then again I'm the weird guy who proposes to use rational reasoning and science for policy making so what do I know.

Why is it crazy to look at more than one aspect of a problem at a time? It's like saying we shouldn't try to cure cancer until we cure AIDS.

Oh it's not crazy to look at more than one aspect of a problem at a time. Some priorities should be kept in mind at all times though. Piracy issue pales in comparison to the state of current copyright. Besides after we rework copyright the nature of piracy may change quite a bit, so dwelling on it now is not all that useful.

 

[Alterego-X]

"I want it -> I don't want to pay for it -> I'll pirate it". An even easier line of reasoning to develop, since it's totally selfish and requires no sacrifices whatsoever on the part of the reasoner.

And yet there are still more 'leechers' than there ever will be 'seeders' when it comes to this sort of model. The few that donate feed those who do not. How many of these groups have disbanded, because nobody was donating, and all of their work was being distributed without proper acknowledgement?

A number of them. And a number of creators in non-pirated sectors have disbanded because no one bought their stuff. And a number of them are getting by. A number of them are getting rich. But there is no sign that honor-based systems are particularly LESS viable than others.

That's also the fallacy of this article, the single-cause fallacy. A number of artists will ALWAYS fail. Simply pointing at the fact that in this model, we can also see a grou of freeloaders who maybe could have payed, at least some of them, potentially, some money, under certain circumstances, doesn't mean that the system doesn't work.

As long as stuff gets made, why does it bother you that some people are contributing more than others? If a game on a piracy-free console forces 100.000 players to buy it, so it has 100.00 players, while a similar PC game has 100.000 sales and 1.000.000 players, why do we have to call the latter's audience selfish dicks, 'leeches', thiefs, and worse things, instead of just accepting that in the online world, business is based around people expecting a free access to everything, and a smaller circle of invested members also paying for it?

Isn't that what the freemium model itself is also about? Or those who only play the free part of it, are also leches? Are we leeches for just reading The Escapist without throwing money at it?

"People are dicks"? Well, if you have unreasonable expectations of them, they are all dicks compared to that. If you have unreasonablylow expectations of them, they are all saints. If you look at what they ARE, they are people.

No, my position is basically "It's my toy, you can't play with it unless I say you can". It's respecting the wishes of the creator. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Most creators don't have "wishes". They have publishers, with bottom lines that need to be raised, and lawyers who know exactly how much they are legally allowed to ask for.

Believe me, if they could, EA, Activision, and Ubisoft would charge you for every screenshot taken, for every friend playing at your console, for every article written discussing the game's content, and for every Let's Play on Youtube.

That they *CAN* get away with ask for cash per digital copy, is a result of modern copyright law history, not some deeply held moral conviction that the sweat of their brow must manifests itself in sold discs as opposed to freemium or other models.

No, one could say a lack of originality is the biggest problem, springing from the desires of the audience for the safe and familiar and the rejection of the new and unusual. But that's a different thread altogether.

Actually, the two issues are not unrelated. The need for "playing safe" is magnified by every gamer being expected to pay for every single game.

In a more open system, where everyone is alowed to play around with everything as long as enough money flows into the industry, there would be more chances of these "leeches" finding a hidden gem, and making it popular, then profitable.