Independent Dev Reports Over 80% Piracy Rate On DRM-Free Game 422
An anonymous reader writes "Developer 2D Boy has written that they are seeing an 82% piracy rate for everyone's favorite DRM-free physics puzzler, World of Goo . Surprisingly, this rate is in-line with what they were expecting. The article also features a fascinating comparison with the piracy rate of another game that was shipped complete with DRM, at 92%. There seemed to be no major difference in the outcomes of the rate regardless of whether DRM was used or not ... well, no difference other than the cost to implement such nonsense."
Only sane conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is all just proof that the DRM that the other game shipped with clearly isn't strong enough.
Or at least, this is how I'm predicting most industry execs would interpret this. There's always wriggle room for those who'd rather not face reality (particularly those who have their livelihood staked on it, such as StarForce [wikipedia.org]).
CORRELATION != CAUSATION (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is not about prevent piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is about preventing sharing. I don't mean BitTorrent sharing. If you purchased a copy of a game from Walmart and want to lend it to a friend after you are done, DRM is designed to prevent that. Most (if not all) DRM solutions are bypassed before the game hits the torrents, making DRM worthless at preventing piracy. But a limited number of installs prevents honest customers from lending each other games. It also makes re-selling the game difficult if not impossible.
The game companies would certainly do this for consoles if they could (I believe Sony has a patent associated with it). It's one of the reasons why downloadable games are very popular. I've purchased the first two episodes of Penny Arcade Adventures for the Xbox 360. I have a friend who would like to give them a try. The DRM doesn't prevent an illegal download of the PC version of the game, it doesn't prevent me from lending a legal copy of the game to my friend.
80% seems pretty high (Score:4, Insightful)
Which explains why they're trying new ways of making people pay, as we saw recently...
These numbers are misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with using a per-game statistic for measuring piracy is that a pirate can play far more games than someone who doesn't pirate, but will play each of them less. If you have 25 pirates and 75 people who pay, and each paying person buys five games but each pirate downloads fifty, then each game will be pirated more than 75% of the time. (All of these numbers are pulled out of the air; I don't know the size of the effect, but economics dictates that the number of distinct games per person is at least somewhat higher for pirates.)
odd math (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA: we divided the total number of sales we had from all sources by the total number of unique IPs in our database, and came up with about 0.1. thatâ(TM)s how we came up with 90%.
Heaven forbid a legit user installs it on his laptop, takes it to the library, starbucks, work, university, a few friend's houses and whatever other wifi signals he comes across.
This math seems pretty flawed.
Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:3, Insightful)
I downloaded it (the full version) to try it out. It's neat, but it's not my cup of tea so I deleted it. In my case there's no lost sale, as I was using the game as a demo. I'm sure a fairly large chunk of that "82%" probably downloaded the game so they wouldn't have to pay for it, but I think it's important to note that there are people who will just download something because it becomes available. They don't necessarily want it specifically, and will probably never touch it, but they download it anyway. It's my opinion based on my own experience (I have done zero formal research) that these people comprise the bulk of the "pirates". They didn't buy the game because they were never going to buy the game. Their downloads will get stashed on a DVD or a hard drive somewhere and then go ignored until the heat death of the universe.
Back when I was younger I was really into the "collecting" aspect of downloading software. I didn't know when or where I might need something (or indeed IF) but if I could get something my friends didn't have it felt like a victory of sorts, as did sharing what I had. I tell you, if I'd put half as much effort into my studies as I did into downloading I'd have a PhD by now. Now I waste all my time downloading music I never listen to. :D Some things never change.
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's far from the only sane conclusion. The problem with World of Goo is that the "honest" customers may take advantage of one of the more convenient [wikipedia.org] and easier [wikipedia.org] download options. These additional options that do a better job reaching the target audience may artificially inflate the piracy figures for PC downloads. i.e. It's not that the game is heavily pirated, it's that the PC version is less popular among paying customers and thus at a statistical disadvantage.
Re:DRM and relative sales (Score:4, Insightful)
The latter are far more annoying; but the former are far, far more effective. It would not at all surprise me, given their experience with both WMRM and consoles, along with the overwhelming degree of dissatisfaction with current PC DRM, most of which does some seriously dubious stuff to your OS, if Microsoft simply decides to fold a DRM API of some sort into future versions of Windows. By virtue of controlling the OS, they would be able to offer equivalent or better DRM than would the third party stuff, with lower likelyhood of breaking things horribly.
Now, having the guys you buy your OS from in on the conspiracy to control your use of it is not exactly an improvement from the freedom perspective(and you might want to look into bidding fairwell to first sale); but it would quiet the people who oppose DRM merely on convenience grounds.
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an odd question: What is so horribly wrong with the demo that you refused to download it? If you had done so, you would be providing one less piracy statistic and instead providing a failed-conversion statistic. A failed-conversion tells the developer that they need to do better. A piracy statistic suggests that they're not getting paid for their hard work.
Wow, that's a really bad hed. (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't the point that the DRM-free piracy rate was NOT high, compared to the DRM rate? WTF?
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how such statistics are even useful, anyway. Piracy is an unfortunate market force, an inevitable cost of doing business. We all know that. Clearly, it hasn't stopped games from being profitable.
I think that even the most thickheaded publishers are starting to figure out that trying to stop piracy is futile, at least for single-player games. It would seem to me that most developers releasing their stuff DRM-free have simply stopped worrying about what's being "taken" from them, and refocused on maximizing their income. In the ever-expanding world of online gaming, where authoritative control is actually possible, the DRM makes sense and will continue to be used. It's all about the benefit against the cost.
In other words... DUH.
Re:CORRELATION != CAUSATION (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry but how does Steam and Wiiware fall under the "counted as piracy" figure?
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:3, Insightful)
Hm. You know, and this says nothing good about me, it never even occurred to me to seek out a demo. I very seldom play new games because most games these days are either huge FPS/RPGs or strategy games or lame rehashes of Bejeweled, so when I saw something a little different I wanted to try it out. I'd hoped for a side-scrolling platformer, but alas, it was more like lemmings than anything else so...
To the devs, if you're out there reading this: I'm sorry. It's not you, it's me. I'm just an idiot. I hope you can forgive me.
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an odd question: What is so horribly wrong with the demo that you refused to download it?
Because you can't trust demos. Over the years, demos have been the subject of just about every anti-consumer dirty trick you can think of from polished demos for hastily finished games to significantly different game play. If the real thing is available, why even bother with a potentially misleading demo?
Re:80% seems pretty high (Score:3, Insightful)
80% does seem pretty high, but a 10% difference in piracy rates would, generally speaking, strike me as statistically large enough to be called a "major difference".
Unless of course, their margin of error is greater than 10%, in which case their results are meaningless in any comparison.
Terrible study (Score:5, Insightful)
This study is deeply flawed. Optional checkboxes? A reliance on IP addresses (dynamic, logging in from multiple locations, etc.)? I eagerly await the technical analyses of the study's flaws.
This story is making the rounds surprisingly fast, which is fucking terrible. The study is flawed, but how many readers will see that? Will they take this 80% piracy rate at face value? I really hope not.
To those who think piracy will ruin PC gaming by making profitability impossible, I offer the following analysis of the sales of another DRM-free game: Sins of a Solar Empire.
In September, Stardock reported that Sins sold over 500,000 units: 400,000 at retail and 100,000 online. For the sake of these back-of-the-envelope calculations, I'll assume that the average retail price is $40. The online price is $40. I'll round down total sales to 500,000.
So 500,000 * $40 = $20 million. We know that Stardock took in at least $4 million by virtue of online sales. I don't know enough about retail sales to estimate how much retailers take in per sale.
Sins cost less than $1 million to make. After the retailers get their cut, and Stardock pays for Impulse's bandwidth, I'll estimate that they pocketed at least $10 million, probably more. (I'm being conservative.)
That's at least a 10:1 return on their investment. That sounds like a killing! And Stardock/Ironclad plans several micro expansions in the coming months.
Even with piracy, Stardock did quite well. Hell, even if piracy is 90% (which I think is a buncha crap), they still made plenty of dough. Why? As explained by Brad and others:
1) Ironclad/Stardock kept costs low. I hate how the industry creates these multimillion dollar games that necessitate a huge number of sales to recoup development costs. Piracy or not, the PC gaming market is simply too small to fully recoup the dev costs of today's AAA games (not enough high-end PCs etc. etc.). That's why big-budget games need multiplatform sales.
2) Relatively low system reqs.
3) Sins is a PC game. At the moment, you simply can't have a Sins-like experience on a console. Stardock's offering a game that takes advantage of the PC's strengths. Imagine that, appealing to your target audience. AFAIK, the game doesn't suffer from "consolitis."
4) Excellent customer support and relations. Patches, active forums, listening to customers. The other day, Brad left a post on a somewhat obscure topic at CivFanatics. He wanted to to clear up any misconceptions about Stardock's upcoming fantasy 4X game to an audience that's clearly interested in 4X stuff.
5) Lots of positive press. Slashdot and other PC/geek sites responded positively to the company's anti-DRM messages, the PC gamer bill of rights, etc. This probably attracted customers and overall goodwill.
Now if Sins isn't your kind of game, you probably don't care either way. What I'm arguing is that it's possible to profit handsomely in the non-MMO PC game market, provided you know your audience and release a game worth playing. Having good marketing and PR certainly helps, too.
Source: http://news.bigdownload.com/2008/09/04/over-500-000-total-sins-of-a-solar-empire-units-sold/ [bigdownload.com]
Re:Only "/." conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
or
E) Game producers turn pirates into paying customers and embrace distribution methods people prefer without harassing them. Reality is that most people pirate stuff they wouldn't buy in the first place. No loss there except free marketing. The only problem is people pirating stuff they would normally buy. But with a good product, good support and harassment-free incentives to buy the product, you should be able to turn those people into paying for products.
PS:
D) Games move to Steam. Everyone wins...except for those boycotting on principles.
Personally, I don't like Steam for the simple reason it annoys the hell out of me. I can't start games without Steam throwing ads at me for products I don't care about and it increase the loading time of games significantly. Impulse from Stardock is much better in that respect (disclaimer: I purchase most of my games through Impulse. I used to buy games from EA, or well, the studios it has taken over, but I can't remember the last time I did).
Re:My experience (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what I do too.
Unfortunately, my brother thinks, that as long as you can copy it, then why would you buy it at all?
It goes without saying, that his views to not fit with mine. Somehow he does not "get" the morality that is involved in being motivated to not hurt the developer if he's nice to you too.
And strangely, he's a media industry manager, who does not get why DRM is so evil, too.
Somehow, my theory is, that both sides, the one hurting the developer, and the one hurting the consumer, are two sides of the same character.
The type that does not trust people and thinks there is nothing else out there than a dog-eat-dog world, so if others fuck you anyway, and everybody can expect it, then he can act that way too.
The best thing is, that I even know the reason for this. His life was unfair and sometimes even horrible. And so was mine. I still do not trust many people.
But I could never stand someone good being hurt, because I saw it happening to my own brother.
So if you want to stop the **AA and those type of guys, just make the world a bit better, be nice to others and your kids, and hope that they end up defaulting to being good. (Oh, and wait one or two generations. ;)
(I know it's not realistic in the short run, but does it result in anything not good, to try it anyway?)
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Either you don't understand the argument, or you think that Pirate Bay somehow tracks the number of copies pirated.
TPB may not show it, but the number of finished copies is easy enough to get from most sites, not to mention the number of seeders that all trackers show.
Is it accurate? Not particularly, but bad data is (a little) better than no data. The two most active torrents for World of Goo, at posting, have a combined total of about 625 seeders, and another 60 or so leechers. The busiest torrent at MiniNova has 837 seeds, and claims just under 32,000 completed downloads (though the one that seems to be more consistent in terms of filesize with what's correct has 367 seeds and 21k downloads).
Take it for what you will. Those numbers are definitely the low end of things, but for reference, Spore shows 2500 active seeds and 300k downloads at Mininova alone. Obviously their 'superior' DRM didn't do squat, other than have people like me boycott all of their future products.
The flip-side (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if we were to look at the flip-side, 18% of the people who got their hands on World of Goo purchased it, whereas only 8% of those who got their hands on the other game purchased it. That's over DOUBLE the rate of purchase.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Offling PC gaming is (almost) doomed. (Score:1, Insightful)
And piracy is the reason. DRM cannot fix it and just pisses off the people actually giving you money.
The PC has always been a place for experimental games and has far more gaming firsts than any console platform could. It's a breeding ground for innovation and experimentation. But the same low barrier for entry that makes the PC good for this makes breaking copy protection trivial.
Consoles on the other hand require a substantial initial investment and lean very strongly towards games which WILL be a commercial success. Piracy on consoles is much less of an issue because a console is much more of a "black box" than any PC ever will be. It has the ultimate copy protection, piracy is less convenient than buying the game. For this reason, the blockbuster games will almost always be directed towards the consoles.
But all is not lost for the PC. Consoles are becoming closer to the PC. The xbox 360 is essentially a PC and microsoft has made sure that games developed for one can be ported to the other with a minimum of effort. This ensures that while PC users are 2nd class among the blockbuster games market, the market still exists and can be met with little extra cost.
There is however one form of copy protection that works. Games focused on online play are trivial to protect and with monthly fees it's often undesirable to even try. Valve has nailed this one on the head with steam. Make games easy to buy, easy to hold onto forever, and have a rudimentary drm system, while authenticating this in online play. The calling home DRM is somewhat invasive, but it's more than made up for by providing a useful service, that of having a permanent account that I KNOW whatever happens I'll have access to my games in the future. No CDs or keys to lose.
Steam is probably the best method of PC game sales/distribution that exists. It's not perfect but it's far better than any DRM, and provides independent developers publicity and an easy way to sell.
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it for a second. What does it mean to say that a statement or a position is "objectively true?" By what standards could one make such a statement?
One common way to define it is to say that the objective is what is in accordance with reality as it is, but this renders "objective truth" entirely unreachable. We can only perceive the world through five meager senses. We can certainly infer beyond them, but even then we are limited by our own mental capacities. It is impossible for us to know--and must always remain impossible for us to know--whether or not there might be critical defects in our reasoning process which cause us to make errors which we cannot ourselves spot.
So let's move down to the next most rigorous definition of objectivity: what independent, intelligent, unbiased observers can come to agree on based on all the information. This, too, is plagued with problems. A group of people can only come to agree on something insofar as their faculties and mental processes are in accord.
This definition works very well for small things. We can easily come to objective agreement about, say, whether or not there are tigers in India or whether or not Mattel makes toys. It tends to break down where differences in faculties and mental processes become too great. Whether or not one believes in a God depends on what kind of rationality one uses to answer the question. It's not entirely clear how the "objectivist" (not to be confused with an Objectivist) will adjudicate such questions.
Compounded with this problem is the question of empirical underdetermination. It does not ever seem to be the case that there is only one possible explanation for a series of events. There may be only one explanation worth taking seriously, but this, again, is much easier with small stuff, and very difficult with big stuff.
And that's not even getting into the question of what it means to say that science is objective. Every serious experiment is designed based on theoretical principles, and thus all experimental results are inherently theory-laden.
The twentieth century made it very clear that dramatic conceptual shifts and reinterpretations of previous theories can occur. We cannot say that they will not happen again. By the second definition of "objectivity" it seems to be the case that what is objective changes with time.
Recognizing the inherent subjectivity in just about everything is not an excuse for lazy thinking, however. We can still say with a degree of certainty that certain ideas are self-contradictory or in direct contradiction to experiential fact. And indeed, the task of navigating between, correlating, and interrelating various viewpoints becomes much more difficult. The answer is not to give up on thinking, but to challenge oneself think harder and more incisively.
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
If there's no truth, how can you be right?
Re:My experience (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow, my theory is, that both sides, the one hurting the developer, and the one hurting the consumer, are two sides of the same character.
My thoughts exactly. Big publishers need to see DRM on software because they are they type of people that would not think twice about pirating software. The honor system (that is, honor) just does not compute.
(Not talking about your brother, in case there was even the tiniest ambiguity there. I don't know the guy. Or at least I don't know that I know him...)
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
You had me until you attempted to inject your non-objective opinion in there with the creationist verses evolution. First of all, Evolution does not disprove creation, it doesn't even speak to the same subjects. There are even people who want to claim Evolution it a tool of creation. Evolution does not speak to the key factors of creation like abiogenisis itself or even the beginning of time and the universe or the planets and so on that a;; scientific theory eventually throw's it's arms up and eventually say "we don't know", "it was always there", or a combination of both. And this isn't even starting to mention the problems with the study of evolution like Gaps in the Fossil records that we just have faith in our assumption that our theories are correct because it validate the other theories and evolution in it's entirety to some degree. There are more problems but we don't need to focus on that. I mean the common person will never see the fossils, will never be able to duplicate any of the experiments, all the common person can do is take faith in that the source is accurate enough for their usage and to be right or correct in the stated interpretations. To the average person, and I'm talking about 99 percent of the world's population, it comes down to who or which authority is more convincing to them. The important thing is that you have become irrational and lost all objectivity in your allusion of evolutionist being more rational then creationist.
And again, you have demonstrated that you have lost your objectivness with this statement. You are presenting your opinion as if they are a fact or something.
Or you could skip the bribes and fudge the data just to make yourself famous. :look at me, I have a cure for the cold, take this and in two weeks you will be all better.
There is nothing keeping you honest. Even your honesty has a prices. The only think making sure that we can trust your findings is the ability for others to repeat your experiments and review your data. Again, for the average person, this is out of reach and improbable. Hell, even for scientist this is a hard thing to achieve. Look at all the attempts global warming skeptics made to get data being used to promote Global warming theories just to find that they couldn't get to the data or had other data included to skew the testing and so on. Do you really think you can get the data on any drug trials yourself and review them? I didn't think so either, you might be able to get some but not any which is why we have a government office to lend credit to the system.
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:1, Insightful)
To start with a bit of armchair philosophy, there are valid arguments that there is not an objective truth or that there is no way for us as individuals to know the objective truth because our perspective is *always* personal to us. In this line of thinking, I cannot know your perspective - only my perception of your communicating of your perspective, which is already blemished enough by the translation of thoughts to words to thoughts and which can be destroyed by my inability to prove that you exist outside of my own mind.
The above lines of thinking are certainly not intellectual laziness, however, what you seem to be talking about is people who are not questioning reality at that level. Instead they look at facts and say "these facts are not facts, they are opinions", which is of course complete and utter bullshit. At this level of conversation, facts are facts - they may be true or they may be false, but they cannot be transformed into opinions.
Now, there is also the other matter of injecting bias into the presentation of facts. I would argue that bias is normal in almost any reporting, and more endemic to reports the more lengthy or complicated they are and the higher the percentage of non-statistical material in their presentation. This is not to say that such biases are necessarily significant and, regardless, so long as all the facts are presented, they can only influence the way a person interprets the objective truth and not the ability to observe and interpret it.
(I should, of course, be doing work right now.)
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not the author is getting rich has NO BEARING on the ethics of pirating their creations. If they created a product worthy of you spending time with it (past a demo phase), they've created a product worthy of your money. Don't try to sugarcoat your actions by saying "well, he's rich anyways".
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, why didn't you download the demo instead of pirating the full version?
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you want the demo if you can have the full version???
Ethics?
The demo usually is also DRM infested
$20 for a minigame? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point the GP wanted to make was that, while Objectivity as an ideal is necessarily absolute, objectivity as a human trait is a relative quality.
As an example, consider the case of the physicst who times falling objects all over the earth and concludes that the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the earth is generally 9.81 m/s, with given margins for regional variations.
Now let's suppose he has a colleague who claims the true value is 11.0 m/s, because that was the value revealed to him in a dream by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Since the first physicist's observations are mediated through his own senses, it's possible to claim that they are therefore subjective, and therefore that neither researcher is being objective. On the other hand, I think most reasonable people would agree that the first physicists work, (being grounded in careful observation and reproducible by anyone who follows the methodology) is considerably more objective than that of the second.
All IMHO, obviously :)
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, since you're giving a negative review of the game here, it seems they were correct. Of course, you'd likely give a similar review even if had bought the game. That rises a philosophical question: if a single sold game means multiple lost sales, are you in fact selling a negative number of them ? Obviously, this would only be a concern for really shitty games, but then again, that includes most of them.
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
scientific theory eventually throw's it's arms up
If by "throws it's arms up" you mean "is intellectually honest enough to be clear about areas where there is more to be learned" then yes. Conventionally "throwing your arms up" is intended to convey as sense of premature futility - just giving up out of frustration. Science absolutely does not do this.
As you point out, the theory of evolution is not formulated to explain cosmology or abiogenesis. You seem to regard this as somehow weakening the theory of evolution - that because doesn't attempt to explain everything that it is no good at explaining the phenomena that it is attempting to.
Will science have a more complete understanding of the universe once a theory is composed that unites gravity with quantum effects? Absolutely. Is the current theory of gravity dubious because it doesn't explain quantum effects? Absolutely not - it doesn't need to explain quantum effects in order to highly accurately describe gravity.
The same goes for evolution and abiogenesis - a more complete picture will be uncovered once science has a rigorous theory of abiogenesis, which would obviously need to integrate well with evolutionary theory to form a coherent picture. But that has no bearing on the accuracy of evolutionary theory with regards to the subject it actually attempts to explain, which is the way life has developed from the first primitive organisms. This topic can be modelled, investigated and described without needing to know about abiogenesis.
I think you do need to focus on that, because the two examples you just gave and the entire gamut of evolution denialist "problems" with evolution are demonstrably false. Unless you know of some new ones, but as far as I've seen the evolution denial movement hasn't come up with anything new for a long time. I don't say this to be arbitrarily dismissive, If you think you have some genuine counter-evidence to the theory of evolution i'd happy to argue it on its merits.
To the average person, and I'm talking about 99 percent of the world's population, it comes down to who or which authority is more convincing to them.
This is true, and it's a problem that science is designed specifically to tackle. The way science obviates this problem is by only accepting data and conclusions that are reproducible by others, and that have been tested using formal methods to such a large extent and by so many independent people that it precludes objective bias to a reliable extent. Of course this process can never establish anything to 100% certainty, but the more it is applied to a particular question, the higher the percentage of certainty is pushed. Evolutionary theory has undergone this process for 150 years. Ironically, a large enough percentage of the population do not realise this, and write the scientific consensus off as carrying no more weight than the opinions of the small group of people all of whom have an undisguised (most of the time) agenda to defend the inerrancy of one particular religious text.
Which group of people do you think has the higher probability of being an objective and unbiased source? Honestly? The scientific community, which consists of millions of people of all races and beliefs, who independently and openly are free to question and disprove any of these claims over and over again at any time? Or the tiny minority of evolution denialists (the people who actually come up with these arguments, not the people who merely accept them) who almost universally admit to an agenda?
Of course, the argument from authority is not a valid logical approach, but accepting scientfic consensus is not the same thing as bowing to an authority. The scientific consensus is the culmination
Re:No big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
On a project I worked on it was less than 0.1% - we even had large well funded companies say 'why should we pay?'.
Relying on human nature is doomed to failure.. you need stick as well as carrot.
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
"My attitude to stuff I've created is so long as you don't pass it off as your own work or make money off it, go nuts and copy it all you want."
Interesting. Is this stuff that took you two years hard work, full time, which you did as your primary way of paying the bills and putting food on the table?
Because thats what 2DBoy did. And yet you seem to be equating this with something you might knock up for laughs in your spare time.
Theres nothing magical about creative 'entertainment' works which means the people making them do not have to pay rent and buy food. I bet you don't have th same carefree attitude to your employers paying your salary "as long as you admit I did the work, I don't mind how much you pay me".
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
maybe the implication si that you should respect the wishes of the people who made that game, and the fact that they clearly want you to try the demo. People are less likely to pay for something they already swiped for free, and you know it.
But I guess if you get to rip some off over the internet anonymously, you don't really give a damn about their wishes, feelings or how it affects their business...
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:4, Insightful)
So do you take the same approach with movies? ie, sneak in and watch the whole movie, then maybe flip some coins to the till on the way out?
After all, you can't trust trailers can you.
Also, take cars. That test drive is a very inaccurate demo. You don't get to test the car at night or in the snow. Way better to steal the car, and then pay the manufacturer in 10 years time once you are sure you like it right?
Face facts, people pirate because they want to take stuff for free and don't care about the developer. it has fuck all to do with the nature of the demo.
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had the option of not paying for restaurant meals at the end of them, suddenly no food would be up to my *standards*.
A pathetic excuse.
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad examples. It's more like going to a friend's house to watch a movie, then deciding you like it enough to buy a copy for yourself. Or going to a library, reading a book and liking it enough to want a personal copy. Or borrowing a book.
The existence of ways to experience something without payment to the original creator doesn't preclude a purchase if someone wants a copy for themselves. The missing piece seems to be to give people enough of a reason to want a personal copy.
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
so fuck the developer. If you can get a game 4 minutes faster by stealing it, fuck em eh?
Re:Only sane conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Measuring Piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:2, Insightful)
It's closer to the real situation than "sneaking into a theater" or "eating a meal in a restaurant and not paying" or even "stealing a car".
And there are differences between a downloaded copy and a "real" purchased copy which have value. Physical things like packaging, a manual etc. Economic value like the ability to resell. Well, the latter has been neutered by no-return policys and the crusade against pre-owned media, but it's one reason to own a real, tangible good. Then there's the ability to actually provide proof of ownership. I've been advocating on GoG that they provide proof of ownership for those that request it. A real certificate, maybe, or a GPG-signed/validated digital certificate.
The point being that there might be ways to provide an incentive to "buy your own" which actually reflect economic reality as it applies to other goods. And maybe those ways ought to be explored and applied. If people only bought/sold things because they were forced to, economic systems wouldn't work. Fair exchange and payment are natural human tendencies. If that isn't being fostered then something is wrong and someone is missing something somewhere. In the case of infinitely replicable digital data, what seems to be missing is the benefit of purchase that exists for practially every other good in the world.
Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (Score:3, Insightful)
You're a Brit, so maybe you don't know about tipping.
In many countries in the world, a tip of around 20% for service is considered normal, even obligatory. In theory, if service is indeed not "up to your standards", you can leave nothing at all. In practise, almost everyone tips at or near the generally accepted level.
People could use your "pathetic excuse" to never tip, but they almost always do. Hell, I'm not even a yank, so I've got another excuse not to tip - "that's not my culture!". But in America, I always tip, 20% on the dot. Social pressure wins every time. So I bet that even if paying for restaurant meals was "optional", you'd still pay, unless you're some kind of sociopath who isn't capable of noticing or caring that people hate them.
I have had access to pretty much any music I want for free since 1998. I still seem to have a lot of CDs. Basically any band that makes it into my "A-list", I go buy all their CDs. Why? I don't know. There's no economic advantage. A pride thing, a social pressure thing, a status thing? You tell me.
I've had a DVD burner since the early 2000s. There has been nothing stopping me burning my own copies of DVDs, for a marginal or zero cost, since then. I have actually never done this even once. Why? Same as above, I guess? And I don't want to look like a cheap-ass loser to my friends. Or myself.
Why am I mentioning these things? Well, I just think your worldview is too black and white. There is not a sharp line between good paying customers and illegal thieving pirates. It's more like a gradient. Plenty of artists where I only have their "good" CD. I've got the rest of the albums on mp3, they're just not worth spending the $30 on (or, these days, storing the damn things forevermore - almost more of a factor!).
Similarly, I own a number of, say, iD software games. There were some shitty ones, and I never bought them. They just didn't deserve that vote. But I'll pay money for games I like, no problem at all. I'll pay a LOT of money for games I actually want. In fact I've previously said on this site that I'd pay pretty much any reasonable amount for remakes of some of my favourite games, say Marathon 2 or Final Fantasy 7. If there was a PS3 with FF7v2 in ROM and useless for anything else that costs $1000 and that was the only way to get it ... I would buy that in a heartbeat, lol.
So it's complex. Your worldview seems to be about a binary world of "filthy thieving callous dishonest pirates" vs "angels who can do no wrong". In reality, everyone I know is a mixture of the two.
Which am I, angel or thief? I own many more CDs than average. But I've "stolen" many more times than that again. I probably own 10 times as many games as the average consumer. But I've pirated 100 times more. But I've given the industry thousands of dollars! But I've stolen many times more! Which is it?
Grey. It's a word, it's an area, it's a colour, it's a point on a sliding scale between black and white. Turn up the bit depth on your display of the world, maybe you'll start to see an awful lot of it.