What can Developers & Publishers do to combat Piracy?

[OldNewNewOld]

There is 1 solution to lower piracy to it's minimum (you simply can't win against "free").
Unfortunatly, the gaming industry works hard to stomp this idea into the ground, cower it up with dirt, stones and dust.

It's rather simple. Make good games, sell them at a reasonable price.
Trust me, if a game is worth it's money, people WILL buy it if the CAN. If they can't buy it, they will pirate it. And since they can't buy it, unless you don't plan on giving it to them for free, then you can't stop piracy.

There is simply no DRM that will prevent pirating. And as the trend goes, pirates have it easier to play games than those who bought it.

 

[Epona]

Since they can't seem to combat piracy without hurting legit customers I say: Don't combat piracy. All you do is combat your legit customers while pirates get around your anti-piracy techniques.

As an example, Lego Harry Potter Years 5-7 came out 2 days ago but the Securom prevents the game from running. No PC customer can play it until they get this worked out.
http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Harry-Potter-Years-5-7-Pc/dp/B0051TON12/ref=sr_1_12?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1321230890&sr=1-12

This. Back in the 80's, computer game companies did everything they could to try to limit piracy. This ranged from code wheels to unreadable books of numbers; one company even had a physical device you had to plug into your computer. None of it worked and all it did was

a. Drive up the cost of the product
b. Make life more difficult for the legal purchaser

The solution is to not bother. Accept that piracy will happen that regardless of price or anything else, pirates will crack it and steal it in no time flat. It's life in the modern age and nothing can be done to fix it.

So just don't bother. The people who are going to buy it legally will, the people who are going to steal it are going to no matter what and they might as well quit throwing money and resources at a problem that is insoluble and only hassles the legal purchasers anyhow.

Lyle

Agreed, but these days I suspect companies don't use DRM to stop pirates, they use it to stop fair use. They don't want you sharing a game with another family member or a friend and they don't want you to be able to resell it.

For example, if you want to let your son install Diablo II on his computer, it's no problem and that's fair use. Can't do that with Diablo III though.

 

[Epona]

In all seriousness though, there's nothing anyone can do, at all, ever. Remember the Humble Bundles? You could literally buy them for a penny, and that penny didn't even have to go to the developers but to CHRISTMAS PRESENTS FOR CHILDREN, and people still pirated them. With that kind of motivation you can't possibly win.

Pirates don't have to put their credit card info in the hands of some company who may get hacked. It's not about the penny, it's about the risk and now even Steam has been hacked.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I have a great idea! It's unconventional, but it'll work. Trust me.

Okay, so you know how, like, making a game means it'll eventually get pirated? Well, my idea is simple: Stop making games. It'll work. No more pirating can be done on new products, because, you know, there won't be any new products to pirate!
...
...
I got nothing.

This. So long as there are games and people on the internet that have technical skills, there will be pirated games. No matter what you do, it happens. Even the humble indie bundle who's profit went to charity and let you choose the price you pay and offered no DRM as a show of good faith, was pirated. Therefore nothing you do can appease people who want to just take it or to pirate it. The only way to stop it is not make games. Thus our question becomes what's the best way to balance protection measures to minimize piracy or to maximize profit (depending on your goals). Nobody knows the answer to that yet.

 

[FoolKiller]

Lower. The. Price.

Honestly, having to pay 50 bucks for a game, THEN add 25 bucks for the DLCs that pop up over the following year simply is too much. Why on Earth would anyone want to pay that much money for a game they don't even know whether they'll like? Of course that ends up with them not paying at all - if possible.

I'm sorry. I fucking hate this argument. Here in Canada games were 69.99 in the NES days. Now they are 59.99. They are cheaper. They cost much more to develop. The cost of games has not gone up even though inflation and the cost of development should have driven it up quite a bit and to suggest that they cost too much is a load of shit.

Personally I think they should stop trying. They spend a lot of money on things that they cannot stop. If media is created, then it can be duplicated. I'm not saying make it easy, but every idea they have come up with just makes it difficult for the legitimate customer to access the games they've paid for. By doing so, the companies are driving people towards illegal methods because it is not only cheaper, but it's convenient.

 

[WaruTaru]

But for (2), there is a solution to it. Make the game files so large that it'll take them days and weeks (and months, hopefully years) to finish their download that its just not worth downloading in the first place. Ideally the total file size should be so large that your hard drive couldn't possibly store the entire file on the computer/laptop.

I am very amused you think this is a viable model. How exactly will they sell it to the consumer, then? Even BDs cap at 50 gigs and people pirate them, and if they want to sell their product digitally (and they do), they need it to be a viable size.

Oh look, a 500gb disc. [http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/storage/ge-unveils-500gb-disc-that-can-hold-20-blu-rays-982843] Here's the 1tb version. [http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20101012234029_TDK_Demonstrates_1TB_Blu_Ray_Disc.html]

Of course, they don't have to do it. If they feel securing digital sales is more important than stopping piracy, who am I to say they are wrong to do so. Then again, their claim of "piracy is evil" is watered down a lot since they silently acquiesced to said act, choosing profits over piracy prevention.

 

[Lord Fedora]

In all seriousness though, there's nothing anyone can do, at all, ever. Remember the Humble Bundles? You could literally buy them for a penny, and that penny didn't even have to go to the developers but to CHRISTMAS PRESENTS FOR CHILDREN, and people still pirated them. With that kind of motivation you can't possibly win.

Pirates don't have to put their credit card info in the hands of some company who may get hacked. It's not about the penny, it's about the risk and now even Steam has been hacked.

And so the alternative is "steal from children?" No. The alternative is, you don't get the god damned game.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I have a great idea! It's unconventional, but it'll work. Trust me.

Okay, so you know how, like, making a game means it'll eventually get pirated? Well, my idea is simple: Stop making games. It'll work. No more pirating can be done on new products, because, you know, there won't be any new products to pirate!
...
...
I got nothing.

This. So long as there are games and people on the internet that have technical skills, there will be pirated games. No matter what you do, it happens. Even the humble indie bundle who's profit went to charity and let you choose the price you pay and offered no DRM as a show of good faith, was pirated. Therefore nothing you do can appease people who want to just take it or to pirate it. The only way to stop it is not make games. Thus our question becomes what's the best way to balance protection measures to minimize piracy or to maximize profit (depending on your goals). Nobody knows the answer to that yet.

Wow. Pirating the Humble Bumble? That's just a dick move. A seriously major dick move. Someone get me that 'I don't want to live on this planet anymore' picture.

 

[Particulate]

Lower. The. Price.

Honestly, having to pay 50 bucks for a game, THEN add 25 bucks for the DLCs that pop up over the following year simply is too much. Why on Earth would anyone want to pay that much money for a game they don't even know whether they'll like? Of course that ends up with them not paying at all - if possible.

This

Most new titles are running for $50-60 before DLC, preorder deals, or collectors goodies. And I know that price reflects marketing, publishing, distribution, etc etc... I own a small business, I know what concepts like "Mark-up" and "Shipping costs" are. But don't tell me that if you offered a game like Modern Warfare 3 or Skyrim for $30 that MORE PEOPLE WOULD BUY IT AND YOU'D MAKE MORE MONEY OVERALL.

Because a cheaper unit price, especially in comparison to similar titles, means that more people will see the game as a financially feasible option... especially when compared to what Gamestop and other retailers are slinging used titles for. So not only would more people be interested in your game because it's cheaper but people that might pass it by for an older game might want to pick it up as well... and then if it's good they might become interested in the franchise. And even if it's not good who cares? It's $30.... that's hardly enough to justify hate mail over.

I'm not going to get into DLC pricing. That's a serious grey area. But I think by dropping the basic unit cost of a new game it would dramatically increase your customer base.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

They should teach kids starting in pre-school that it is bad to take something you do not have the right to own, and be strict.

 

[Fearzone]

The game industry grew up and continues to thrive with piracy being commonplace.

Nearly all of the best, most lucrative games have been heavily pirated.

Pirates and piracy create a buzz around a game that no amount of marketing is likely to replicate except for maybe the very best AAA games. That buzz translates to sales to non-pirates. With pirates, game communities tend to stay active longer, and so when non-pirates buy a game they are not likely to find an online ghost town.

I'm not defending piracy, I think people should pay for their shit, and I can't remember the last game I pirated.

But I have seen what happens to games with successful anti-piracy measures and it feels like there is hardly anyone playing them. So, I just think developers and publishers should let it go, since it may be more beneficial for them than they think. In any case, DRM is a mess.

Here is an anti-piracy measure I support: if you don't have the product code, you cannot post on the official forums.

Bethesda pulled a nasty trick and made the most-likely-to-be-pirated PC version hardly better than the console version and possibly worse depending on what you think about the controls.

 

[Epona]

In all seriousness though, there's nothing anyone can do, at all, ever. Remember the Humble Bundles? You could literally buy them for a penny, and that penny didn't even have to go to the developers but to CHRISTMAS PRESENTS FOR CHILDREN, and people still pirated them. With that kind of motivation you can't possibly win.

Pirates don't have to put their credit card info in the hands of some company who may get hacked. It's not about the penny, it's about the risk and now even Steam has been hacked.

And so the alternative is "steal from children?" No. The alternative is, you don't get the god damned game.

Steal from children?

How are you stealing from children by pirating games you wouldn't have bought anyway. If you choose to not pirate and not buy, the children still get nothing so I guess that is also stealing from children.

 

[Sectan]

Reward legitimate buyers. Whether it's some non essential game item like the Hats and vanity weapons in TF2 (Lugermorph) and such, or something physical like a figurine. Idk, maybe make it cheaper? Home recording was killing the music industry in the '70s, but I haven't seen it die...

CAPTCHA: Efecivx reduction. Effective reduction indeed...

 

[Kopikatsu]

In all seriousness though, there's nothing anyone can do, at all, ever. Remember the Humble Bundles? You could literally buy them for a penny, and that penny didn't even have to go to the developers but to CHRISTMAS PRESENTS FOR CHILDREN, and people still pirated them. With that kind of motivation you can't possibly win.

Pirates don't have to put their credit card info in the hands of some company who may get hacked. It's not about the penny, it's about the risk and now even Steam has been hacked.

And so the alternative is "steal from children?" No. The alternative is, you don't get the god damned game.

Steal from children?

How are you stealing from children by pirating games you wouldn't have bought anyway. If you choose to not pirate and not buy, the children still get nothing so I guess that is also stealing from children.

I think he's talking about people pirating the Humble Bumble.

Reward legitimate buyers. Whether it's some non essential game item like the Hats and vanity weapons in TF2 (Lugermorph) and such, or something physical like a figurine. Idk, maybe make it cheaper? Home recording was killing the music industry in the '70s, but I haven't seen it die...

CAPTCHA: Efecivx reduction. Effective reduction indeed...

I loathe to use the word because of how often it's been misused lately, but that right there is entitlement. Why should you be rewarded for doing what you're supposed to? Punishing the people who do the wrong thing makes more sense.

 

[Epona]

I think he's talking about people pirating the Humble Bumble.

He is but it still makes no sense at all. It's just an appeal to emotion.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Bad analogy.

'If you can steal a Ferrari with only a very slight chance of getting caught, would you not do it because you can live without it?' is more accurate.

Bad analogy.

'If you can get a exact copy of a existing Ferrari, while the original owned nor anyone else don't lose anything in no way, would you not do it because you can live without it?' is more accurate.

I'm talking about people who simply can't buy the game, so it's not a lost sale. The game wouldn't be sold either way.

Also, I'm not saying piracy is good. I just don't understand the hate against people who really don't have the resources to buy games.
As a (future) developer, I say that I would never mind people pirating my software as long as the really can't afford it and they use the software to have fun.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I think he's talking about people pirating the Humble Bumble.

He is but it still makes no sense at all. It's just an appeal to emotion.

While it isn't STEALING from children, it's close enough to be a major asshat move.

Bad analogy.

'If you can steal a Ferrari with only a very slight chance of getting caught, would you not do it because you can live without it?' is more accurate.

Bad analogy.

'If you can get a exact copy of a existing Ferrari, while the original owned nor anyone else don't lose anything in no way, would you not do it because you can live without it?' is more accurate.

The dealership is losing money. By taking the car, you've shown a clear interest in the car. Therefore you want the car. It stands to reason that if forced, you'd pay for the car. Maybe not full price, but would still pay.

Edit: This analogy still kind of falls short, but that's more because a car and a video game are so vastly different that it's difficult to compare the two.

 

[Lord Fedora]

Steal from children?

How are you stealing from children by pirating games you wouldn't have bought anyway. If you choose to not pirate and not buy, the children still get nothing so I guess that is also stealing from children.

Because you're taking a product without paying for it that's not being offered for free. That's stealing. In this case, as the proceeds go to sick children, you are effectively stealing from them. There are instances where I'm okay with piracy, to be perfectly honest, but when it would cost you virtually nothing and whatever you would be spending goes to charity, there is no excuse.