Slashdot Log In
Game Developer's Response To Pirates
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Aug 13, 2008 09:08 PM
from the scuttle-the-console dept.
from the scuttle-the-console dept.
cliffski writes "A few days ago, indie PC games developer Positech publicly called for people pirating their games to explain why, in an open and honest attempt to see what the causes of gaming piracy were. Hundreds of blog posts, hundreds more emails and several server-reboots later, the developer's reply is up on their site. The pirates had a lot to say, on subjects such as price, DRM, demos and the overall quality of PC games, and Positech owner Cliffski explains how this developer at least will be changing their approach to selling PC games as a result. Is this the start of a change for the wider industry? Or is this the only developer actively listening to the pirates point of view?"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Game Developer Asks To Hear From Pirates 1085 comments
cliffski writes "Indie game developer Cliff Harris has long waged war against games piracy, but has issued a call to pirates to tell him why he is wrong. Assuming that developers are missing out on potential sales from disgruntled pirates, Cliff wants to hear specifically from people who have pirated his games. Not to criticize or lecture them, but to answer a simple question. Why? The reasons people give for copyright infringement/piracy are many and varied, but much of the debate has centred around music and movies, with big 'Triple-A' games an occasional consideration. With specific application to the world of small budget 'indie' games like those Cliff makes, he wants to know the thought processes behind people pirating the games. What puts people off buying? Is it quality, cost, DRM, ease of access? Is there anything that can be done to convert those people to buyers? While many pirates often make good general points about the reasons for the widespread pirating of PC games, it's unusual to get a chance to address specific developers with specific reasons. If you knew 100% that the developer would read your email explaining why you pirated their game, what would you say?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Most responses were, "we'd pay for your games if you'd remove the key protections"
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Being native to Linux is the answer for many Linux users, but certainly not all. I was using Nero + keygen for quite a while until two things coincided: 1) the quality of the product had risen making the product worth the money they were asking and 2) my income had risen to the point that I could afford the money they were asking.
But the same goes for other software that I have actually contributed my money to support. (I choose those words intentionally because I don't truly believe that software is a product in the sense that other products are.) I pay for software as a form of expression of my appreciation. I have even been known to donate to various free software projects because I appreciated what they did. This perspective, of course, is likely to be shared by a rather small portion of people and I recognize that.
But ultimately, there's a combination of what something is worth and what people can afford and when those two things intersect, you will find people more willing to buy or pay for something. I don't think it's all that mysterious and really doesn't need some sort of grand gesture like "ask the pirates." Hell, most of the coders and other software people have likely used software without paying for it at some point -- why did they do it? They should ask themselves and accept the answer is likely true for others as well. "Can't afford" is quite likely to be the most common reason closely followed by "not worth the price."
The presence of DRM or other software locking/security mechanisms are the result of greedy software makers knowing that not everyone is willing to pay their prices and are attempting to punish those who want to use their software anyway. Make no mistake about it, software protection measures are punitive in nature and design. And people are right to be offended by it. Some people think of it as no different from locking your home up when you are away, but it's quite different in that you're locking your neighbor's door to keep him form stealing from you when you go visiting. Software publishers fail to appreciate that their software is an add-on to an operating system and collection of existing software and data and should try to coexist and cooperate within that environment as a guest should behave himself in your home. Coming to your home and behaving with paranoia, fear and distrust is likely to result in negative feelings and impressions. Worse, attempts of software writers to include destructive anti-piracy measures goes well beyond the concept of the well-behaved guest principle that software publishers should observe.
People are willing to buy when it's worth buying... that's true of the majority of all people everywhere. There will ALWAYS be the element who will prefer something for nothing. Nothing will change their minds or influence their preferences on the matter. These software publishers generally need to come to terms with this aspect of human nature and factor it into their pricing models and business models. There will always be a certain amount of this, but when you price something properly, the people who behave badly are a small enough minority that they would be insignificant when compared to the people who pay.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
i have done something similar. i used to pirate everything. hell, i used to brag that my computer (which was given to me for free) had over $10,000 of software on it, none of which i had paid for.
i was in school, i had no money, and i needed these programs for assignments (art school-video, photography, sound, etc...these apps aren't cheep)
i have no problem using cracked goods as a student. but im not a students anymore. they day i graduated, i formatted the hard drive and went for a fresh start. but now im a poor college grad.
no more stolen photoshop, now i use the gimp (while i save up for photoshop). no more audition, now i use audacity. no more stolen ms office, now i use open office. no more stolen windows, now i use ubuntu, and a free copy of winXP work gave me.
its hard to describe, but it feels good not being a pirate. it feels good to know that i am a legitimate user of quality software, and that i am supporting the makers of that software.
i think i'm always going to pirate software 1st to try it out before buying, i've been burned in the past. but now that i am employed, i do buy it when i find it to be useful. premier is garbage, sony vegas is amazing, and worth the money, (even though i hate to support evil sony, this one is worth the money)
although, after buying the legit copy, i rarely actually install the legit version.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
I know exactly what you mean. For about a year, I used a cracked copy of Spacial Audio's SAM Broadcaster to DJ over the internet. It did the job I needed it to, but it never really left me feeling right. This summer, I paid off a loan that left me with actual /disposable/ income for the first time in my adult life, and one of the first things I did was plop down $279 for a legal copy. Not because I needed the upgrade, I could have swiped it too - but because I wanted to support the work they did. I love this program. And I /do/ feel better now - I can't really explain it, but, I do.
Of course, then there's my music library. I don't feel any remorse about screwing the RIAA. I'll support the artists by paying for concerts & such.
Yeah, so I'm a hypocrite. It's taken you this long to figure that out?
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting question is whether you would have paid for it if you hadnt pirated it first.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
I've heard that wine, if used to excess, can not only cause depth perception issues, but also memory corruption and crashing.
Usually only with the older builds, however.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
What a troll.
Develop things properly in the first place, and it's not hard to support multiple OS's. The hardware is going to be identical, and a lot of the API's are at least comparable. You follow proper coding practices, and it's hard to NOT make an application trivially portable. Besides, most Linux users don't want too much tech support. They just want support of their choices. I don't use Linux because I'm too cheap to buy Windows... I use Linux because it just does what I want better, and doesn't get in my way of doing it. I think the same could be said of many Linux users. Some people will steal ANYTHING they can get. But that's not the majority, and it's not enough to worry about. The majority of people feel that the right thing is to reward people for their work in a fair manner. You give people an option for rewarding you in a manner that EVERYONE agrees is fair, and they will.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Informative)
Debunking Wine Myths
for those applications that do work and from a purely subjective point of view, performance is good. There is no obvious performance loss
http://www.winehq.org/site/myths#slow [winehq.org]
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I know there are some cases where this really is the case but my point is that its bound to be overrepresented. Psychological studies take this into account when using self-reporting on behaviour as a source of data.
My other point is while, it might turn some people off, DRM also forces some people to buy the game, when they would have pirated it if they could (this is often more the case with indie games where there is not enough interest to develop a crack, than with major games) and this needs to be taken into consideration when making a decision.
Finally not all DRM is the same - a balance between security and ease of use might perhaps be best rather than a binary decision.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM doesn't necessarily force someone to buy the game. It very often forces people to say "This is more trouble than it is worth. I'm going to buy a Wii, where the DRM is transparent, and won't annoy me". Note that people who say *that* have no need to rationalize anything.
It's the side of the DRM equation that is generally ignored. Developers are so fixating in using DRM to force pirates to buy their games that they ignore the number of paying customers who don't buy their games *because* of the DRM. If the second outweighs the first, they lose money even though they've "stopped the nasty pirates".
It's like getting upset about shoplifting, hiring an uzi carrying security guard for every aisle and then wondering why your sales go down.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the continuing crappier and crappier packaging didn't help. Here is a hint. Put the game in a gem case. If you must put it in a paper sleeve, then at least include the proper art work so that when the customer puts the game in a gem case themselves, they have proper professionally printed spines that they can read. I know that if I have to do the manufacturing myself, I am far less inclined to pay someone else for it.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. Electronic copies of the manual on the cd is not a ok compromise.
Parent
Real World Goodies (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Including a cloth map, a moonstone and an ankh in the packaging (Rest in Peace, Origin :~( ) will make more people buy the actual game instead of copying than any DRM ever will.
Parent
Re:Real World Goodies (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
If your DRM will EVER prevent a legit customer from using a legit product that they paid for, it is bad. That's a pretty binary decision to me. Were I to develop games and try to copy protect them, if there was even a 1% chance a legit customer couldn't use the software they paid for, I'd skip the option.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
Another thing he failed to take into account is that people rationalise their "evil" choices to make it sound righteous. So people tell themselves and others its because of DRM or its because of the price or whatnot when in reality its just that they don't want to fork over money for it.
The first thing to ask someone like that is: "What [games/movies/music/etc] have you *not* pirated?" If they can name several titles, then you know there's at least some way for publishers to behave differently which could cause such a person to make another purchase instead of committing more copyright infringement. If they try to insist that every single creator in an entire medium can somehow be dismissed with one rationalization or another, then you can be pretty sure they're either lying to you or lying to themselves.
Parent
Re:Mod parent fallacious! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, part of the big joke is that a game, once cracked, a game effectively has no DRM, no nag screens, no internet phoning home, no CD-ROM checks, etc. A legally purchased game continues to require these things, and over the long run, is more annoying than a cracked copy. This has been a problem with music, too, because an MP3 with no DRM will play on any device (which is a lot more than an encrypted AAC file).
Parent
Re:Mod parent fallacious! (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM causes issues in legit copies a LOT. I have a lot of games that worked when I bought them but don't work on my new hardware.
My solution wasn't to pirate... my solution was to stop buying PC games altogether. I have no hidden agenda when I say DRM prevents me from buying software.
I now have dozens of 360 and Wii games.. all paid for. I'm never going back to PC gaming.
Parent
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I use the tools... (Score:5, Interesting)
When a no-cd crack or hacked exe for a game I purchased is released, I usually use it instead of carrying the CDs around with my laptop.
Kudos to Valve's Steam letting me download and install the game on multiple machines without treating me like a frickin' crook.
And the occasional time I've actually downloaded and ran a pirate game just to see if it was worth buying. I've been burned on way too many awesome demos and lackluster final games to drop $50 on a whim.
1. Lose the damn copy protection.
2. Use Steam or develop a system where people aren't chained to a CD or Jewel case with a cryptic serial number on it.
3. Release honest demos.
4. Don't get bought by EA, they have no honor.
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Lose the damn copy protection. 2. Use Steam or develop a system where people aren't chained to a CD or Jewel case with a cryptic serial number on it. 3. Release honest demos. 4. Don't get bought by EA, they have no honor.
Agreed. :
And I would add to that
5. Can't trust review sites/magazines to give an honest opinion of the game.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Insightful)
You might notice, that since the days of floppies copy protection IS NOT STOPPING PIRACY.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't have to stop piracy. It just has to stop enough piracy to be worth more to developers and the game industry as a whole than the losses due to the annoyance factor.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really think they've gone to enough trouble to actually work those numbers out? Because it seems to me like they're all like Tarkin, and more and more star systems are slipping through their fingers. Consumers are PEOPLE, first and foremost. They have a sense of right and wrong, and most importantly, fairness. There are outliers, but the majority of people want to play fair. If a lot of people are pirating your stuff, more than about 5%, then you're doing SOMETHING to make them feel that they aren't being treated fairly. You aren't entitled to obscene profits. You aren't entitled to ANY profit. As a business owner, your raison d'etre is to make a product at a price you can sell it at and still make a profit. If people feel taken advantage of by the only gas station in town selling it at $10/gallon, you can bet your ass thefts will go up.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Interesting)
> anti-copy is not the disease, it is the symptom
The problem is much deeper than you think. Copy protection is artificial method of changing digital work - which you can copy with no cost - into analog object you can sell in a pretty the same way you sell bottles of booze. People do complain about copy protection, because this simply doesn't fit digital realm, which people got used to. I do not think you will be able to change people behavior. Game developers will be forced to adapt. Kongregate is a good example how this may be achieved. They changed business model. They moved from selling bottles of booze into selling services, ads etc. For others lowering prices to the point, that its easier and cheaper to buy or download one from official website than burden with warez server, is a way to go. In my country developer CDProject mastered this tactic years ago, with local Baldur's Gate release which was almost the same price in official box and as pirated CD's on the street, but box included a themed mouse pad. This proved to be a selling point. For others associated merchandise may be more important than game sales by itself. Most successful developers will closely look at local prices: 3$ in US is not much money, 3$ in Brazil is quite a lot.
Game industry will be fine. Businesses will adapt and will find viable business models in a world, where people copy everything. We do have such businesses already, so question is "when", not "how".
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that it was once economically beneficial does not mean that it will always continue to be beneficial. There are currently no major PC titles for which the DRM has not been circumvented with easily acquired cracks. At this point, getting around most games' DRM is no more difficult than downloading a file and copying it to the right directory.
The ease of acquiring a crack seems to make it unlikely that DRM is any kind of deterrent to piracy. On the other hand, DRM is driving users away. I don't think DRM is economically beneficial anymore. The big game companies just haven't caught up with this yet.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Funny)
How do you play your games that ran on 5 1/4 inch floppies? DO you piss and moan that the publisher screwed you over, or wasn't forward thinking enough?
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Insightful)
You use backups of the floppies, mounted virtually or burned onto an alternate medium.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Insightful)
"devalue assets by giving them away for free"? What a straw man. If anything, they would be "devaluing the assets" if all Steam games stopped working. Hi, we're millions of enraged customers, here's a class-action lawsuit.
Maybe you meant that if Valve unlocked the games that the backup archives (you're aware that Steam can generate backup archives, right?) would be easily pirated. That's moot because piracy occurs regardless...every piece of media ever made can be and is cracked and made available on the internet if you know where to look.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Informative)
So you're basically saying that people who buy on Steam are idiots and deserve what they get if Steam goes away?
Yes, people who buy anything that is protected by DRM, in a world where breaking the DRM is illegal, even if the company that made it is out of business and cant authenticate your purchase anymore is an idiot.
I'm not saying they deserve to be screwed. They deserve better.
Fuck you.
Seriously, its not =me= that's going to be responsible for your purchases not working one day.
If Valve goes away they are obligated to their consumers to provide them the products they bought. All of them, for free and forever. If that means a noCD crack, too damn bad for the creditors.
Perhaps you should look into the ugly world of failed businesses and see just what happens to their customers. Their intellectual property. I assure its VERY VERY VERY RARELY a happy ending for anyone. Hell, try these on for size:
How much longer do you think "Plays for sure" music is going to be usable, now that Microsoft has discontinued it?
"Microsoft announced that as of August 31, 2008, PlaysForSure content from their retired MSN Music store would need to be licensed to play before this date or burned permanently to CD."
Fortunately consumers were given permission to burn songs to CD, so if they act fast, they can burn it, and then rip it back in an unprotected format. What happens next month? Poof? Oh, sure there are tools to crack the files out there... but their legality in the face of the DMCA is pretty questionable.
How about another example? Major League Baseball changes DRM, and old content no longer viewable.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071107-major-league-baseballs-drm-change-strikes-out-with-fans.html [arstechnica.com]
And these are both corporations that are doing well, that have said fuck-you to the consumer. You really think Valve is going to honour what you think their obligtation to you is in a bankruptcy scenario? HA. Seriously. Read the fine print of the terms of service. They have virtually no obligation to you at all.
If Ford goes out of business, you want them to steal your truck? I think not.
Isn't that cute, you think you -bought- Valve software. No. You just 'subscribe to it' (read the fine print, your a subscriber not a customer, you pay one time fees to subscribe to their games, you don't buy them). And when they go under, your 'subscription' ends.
Finally, this is the same Valve that today when its doing just fine, won't allow you to transfer something you claim you own to someone else. You can't move a title from your account to someone else. You can't transfer your entire account to someone else. Per the terms you can't have two people using your account.
Think about this: you can't even have two different people use two different online titles on one account at the same time. So, here you've bought 2 different games, and you can't use both of them online at the same time? Yeah, Valve really is honoring their obligations to your purchases NOW. Your on crack if you think they are going to suddenly honor them in their death throes.
Parent
Re:I use the tools... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lose the DRM and use Steam huh?
Mutually exclusive. Steam is an implementation of DRM. Moreso than requiring a CD in the drive, to be sure. It might be a good implementation. Okay, maybe instead acceptable
Let's not mistake Steam as merely some tool of our own convenience. It is a means of access control as well as distribution and handy middleware features. Yes, the community features, automatic updates, achievements, and ease of getting your games (both buying and redownloading) are delightful. To a large degree, it fills a niche similar to that of Xbox Live, for the PC.
But Steam is the gatekeeper. By some effort you can play offline, but for the most part you are dependent on Valve to not take away your pretties or otherwise poof out of existence. You know that familiar delay before you are deemed worthy to launch the game? It's the same issue that we bitch about near daily here on slashdot, but it's damn convenient in this case.
Do we *really* object to DRM on moral grounds? Or only the kind that gets in the way? Steam does work for you most of the time - your 'rights' being 'managed' in this case in such a way that redownload anywhere is permissible. I think we do object. We're praising Steam now because it's many steps up from our other options - just ignoring for the moment all the times my game list is empty for no apparent reason.
I think what you meant to say was to lose the annoying implementations of copy protection. The kind that inexplicably fails on certain configurations, requires you to download CD-cracks from unofficial channels to keep your sanity, and type in the CD key that you lost 4 years ago when reinstalling.
Parent
This is awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone *this* in touch with not only their customers but with obvious potential customers definitely knows what they're doing.
I'm seriously considering buying a few of his games even though I've never heard of the company before.
PS: If you need a very experienced web developer...
Re:This is awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)
The truth is that it's already a popular opinion in the games industry that piracy really doesn't lead to lost sales; most of those people wouldn't pay for it even if they couldn't play for free. In the meantime, it bothers only legitimate customers. Unfortunately, the biggest publishers are still keen on "protecting their investment," so we're unlikely to see change any time soon.
Parent
The worst pirates I know are game writers (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
DRM is killing PC gaming for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to find it amusing that people are willing to live with Steam's DRM, but complain about DRM in general. I've personally resisted Steam for years and years before I finally decided that Steam's DRM is actually palatable compared to some of the shit that's out there (securom).
What's disappointing is how badly the large shops are butchering the PC gaming market with DRM that absolutely sucks. Bioshock, Mass Effect and Spore are all games I wanted to play but at this point I will not dump the money down for them. Even the Steam version of Bioshock contains securom. How screwed up is that?
I'm at the point now where I'm slowly turning towards indie developers for most of my gaming neads (Stardock) and I'm really really glad that Positech has made it to slashdot or I'd never have heard of this company. I'll have to look at their games more closely.
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Fix Abandonware (Score:5, Interesting)
No one sells Ultima, Pools of Radiance, or Summer Games for the C64 anymore. If I wanted to play this game, my only choice would be to pirate it unless I could find a working copy on Ebay.
Services like Gametap and Good Ol' Games need to fill this market so that people don't have to become criminals to play games of yonder years.
Re:Fix Abandonware (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll note that none of those developers are in business anymore. Many games that are distributed as abandonware, developers endorse the practice because they want their game to be played by people. Yet big companies bought out the old development houses and go after abandonware sites.
EA never produced the old Ultima games, yet go afte people distributing 20 year old games. Vivendi didn't make the old Sierra adventure games, but they've prosecuted people over them.
I think 5-10 years after someone stops selling software, people should be able to redistribute it as abandonware for software preservation.
Parent
Back in the day.... (Score:5, Informative)
As far as having a good "taster", Id did pretty well with this. With say DOOM, you knew up front that the game would have a total of three episodes. Id let you play pretty much the first third of the game free. Hell, their demos even had some replay value. As it turned out, their clueful use of shareware pretty much made them back then.
Of course, not all games are as episodic but it you could draw some rules of thumb from it. A first time player casually making his way through DOOM's first 9 levels will take about 1.5 to 3 hours to do it. So it seems you have to give a quality experience for at least that amount of time to start some buzz going and of course the paid portion of the game has to maintain that quality so you'll tell your friends and blogs that the rest of the game is worth paying for.
I'd also suggest not continually have the player running into physical barriers and what not that aren't present in the payware version. Just structure the demo such that the game can be experienced for that critically addictive amount of time. Building in nags and frustrations will keep your prospective customer from getting hooked and wanting more. Rather you need an end that takes some period of time to encounter whether it be "level 9" or a decently far extent of a game universe. A game using the hub and spoke system should supply a quest or two say.
We can draw a parallel from the serialized stories of yesteryear. A good solid first installment is what is needed to get the reader caring about the story and characters. The "gotta know" sets in so the rest are bought.
Parent is on the right track.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's quite simple. Gaming in general (both PC and console) has evolved quite a bit in the past couple generations. I can't say that there won't be any new innovations, but I can say with certainty that almost everything has been tried at least once.
With that in mind, there are a number of gimmicks that game studios use when producing games. IMHO, the worst are the following:
1: Adding artificially hard/non-linear barriers to progression. The most recent splinter cell game is a great example of this. While the previous ones were quite linear and relatively free of frustrating gaps, "Double Agent" had several things that seemed as if they were put in there just for the sake of taking up the playerâ(TM)s time. Don't take a 7 hour game and try to stretch it to 12 with garbage.
(2 and 3 are somewhat similar and several games are offenders of both. They are, however, separate problems)
2: Using flashy pre-rendered cut scenes to advance major story points or game play. Part of me misses the age of cartridge consoles. With only 64Mbit to play with, these kind of antics were basically impossible. In todayâ(TM)s age of double sided DVD's and even BD-ROM discs, a game could conceivably have hours of cut-scenes. If I wanted to watch cut scenes (no matter how well animated) I'd rent a movie. If they take up more then 50% of the time spent playing, I generally skip them or have a beer/sandwich. Consequently, I miss out anything that's contained in them that is important or significant to the game
3: Trying to make up for poorly designed or un-engaging game play with flashy/unique/overly high-quality graphics. Thanks to the availability of substantial hardware resources in the current generation of consoles (excluding the WII, of course), it's quite easy to fill a game with high polygon count skinned, boned models wrapped in super detailed textures, multiple light sources and hand perfected pixel shaders. It might look really spectacular, but that doesn't really mean anything if it's not any fun. Once again, if I wanted to look at something rendered absolutely perfectly, I'd watch a Pixar movie.
4: Having a selection of difficulty levels that has little effect on the game. 15 years ago, Doom offered 5 different skill levels. While the playerâ(TM)s choice didn't massively change the game, it did incrementally increase the difficulty. The monsters were harder to kill, more populous and while health packs had less effect, more ammo was spawned. I would hope that modern games could do better then that. Doom ran fine at 33Mhz. Modern consoles have roughly 10,200 MHz at their disposal. There is no excuse for difficulty levels to do nothing more then spawn more or harder to kill Napâ(TM)s.
Finally, the biggest and most annoying thing about the current generation of video games:
5. Today's game producers tend to front load their game's content. I've never found a published statistic, but my estimation is that only about 40% of games purchased are ever fully completed by their purchasers. The player either tires of the game before the end, or gets another game to play before they finish. Since most games today are part of a series and are expected to remain viable for use in future sequels/ newer consoles, the game companies cheat on the content. They put, in my estimation, 75% of the best content in the first 50% of the game. The hardcore gamers and series fans will always buy the next sequel. They're hoping that by front-loading the best content, the semi-casual player that only finished half of the previous title in the series will have liked it enough to buy the new one when it comes out. While I understand their logic, I'd really like to get more for my money. 8-10 hours from a game that costs $50-60. That's between $5-7.50 per hour. I don't know what everyone elseâ(TM)s thoughts are, but I think that minimum wag
Parent
Make games for customers. Not for users. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple as that. If you just make games where you have the biggest player audience instead of making games for those that are most likely to pay for their games, you're prone to having a lot of copies. If your market demographics consist mainly of people with little money and/or a low chance of getting caught, you will be copied.
There are simply people who buy and there are people who copy. And no copyprotection, no DRM, no law will get the latter to buy your games. If anything, DRM will drive those that would buy them (like me) away.
Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like that guy's attitude.
Instead of corporate PR bullshit, he's honest, open and willing to discuss with his potential clients.
My answer to his question would most likely have been : I just fucking hate big games companies who are run by corporate idiots.
I'll probably give one of his games a try, just to encourage this kind of behavior.
Sounds good.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This guys sounds like a genuinely decent guy who's making efforts to make customers happy to reduce pirating; that's all great, but it seems to me, having never heard of his company, he's done an awesome job of getting a lot of free advertising.
Not that that will keep me from perusing his games...
Linux Ports Please (Score:5, Interesting)
Your site says you do Mac ports. Can we get some Linux ports as well please?
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Penny Arcade on affordable games (Score:5, Interesting)
When you buy a game you're not buying a game, you're buying the fun you'll have playing it, and the price you pay for a game is more than the dollar amount on the sticker, it includes all the games of the same class you bought which didn't provide the requisite entertainment.
If every game were fantastic then people would probably be perfectly willing to pay $60(or $100 in my neck of the woods, which with today's exchange rates is criminal) for it, because you'd be getting good value for entertainment.
However since even with proper research it seems these days that best case scenario only 1 in 3 games really provides you with value on the entertainment front, from an entertainment perspective that game actually costs at least $180[$AU300] because for every good game you manage to buy and which provides value for money, you generally bought two which got dull after the first level, didn't offer what they promised, or were generally crap. This markup shall hereafter be referred to as the dud factor.
The problem with Braid, and for that matter probably with this guys games, is that the class of game they exist in(small studio amateur) has a much higher incidence of crap(or at least games which while good didn't provide value for money) compared even to most commercial games these days. This means that even if your game provides as much entertainment as a commercial title, the dud factor makes your game seem, at half the price, to be even more expensive. The hotdog and novelty t-shirt in the penny-arcade comic are both known quantities and so don't have this dud factor markup. If you get a bad hotdog you can usually complain and get another one, and you can see everything that the t-shirt is when you hold it in your hands.
This kind of sucks for small development shop games, as even if they're the most incredible thing in the world very few people will buy it at a higher price, but in other ways it's a good thing, because it means that if you're clever and you build up a good reputation so that people can feel confident in your product you can reduce the dud factor and therefor increase the price you can charge for your games.
Parent
Re:DRM is a pretty lame excuse (Score:5, Informative)
to claim that DRM is a reason to steal the whole game?
Y'know, I attended a talk by RMS in New Zealand about copyright law last night (13th), and he put forward the view that anyone should be allowed to make unmodified copies of a product (for non-commercial use). Also, he mentioned people should only have files protected by "Digital Restrictions Management" if they had the facilities available to bypass that protection using free software.
My interpretation of what he said was that software piracy is a fallacy. Making copies of things is human nature and should not be restricted.
Parent