theguythatwrotethisthing sends in a write-up of his experience releasing an iPhone game on the App Store. By using a software flag to distinguish between high scores submitted by pirates and those submitted by users who purchased the game, the piracy rate is estimated at around 80% during the first week after release. Since a common excuse for piracy is "try before you buy," they also looked at the related iPhone DeviceIDs to see how many of the pirates went on to purchase the game. None of them did.
The "try before you buy" excuse that people give as a reason to pirate (very popular here at Slashdot) has always been a steaming pile of bullshit, as is the tale that PirateBay is primarily used for legitimate torrent downloads. Pure bullshit. Honestly, it's difficult to take people that say these things seriously.
But of course, information wants to be free as in beer at a frat party. Stallman says so.
When I was a pennyless student, I pirated software because collecting titles was the goal. We all did it. When I started earning money of my own, I would buy anything that lasted on my computer for more than a week. (And back in those days, it wasn't as easy to finish a game as it is now)
The theory was that if I got more than a week's value out of something then it was worth keeping. See - try before you buy.
After a while, I got more money, but had less time. I started to buy games (in big spending sprees) only to find later that I had never even installed the game once. I am currently going through my backlog of titles - 107 in total, some of which I have to run in DOSBox! If a pirate is someone who plays a game without buying it, what is the name for someone who buys a game without playing it?
On second thoughts, maybe I don't want to know the answer.
>>>The "try before you buy" excuse that people give as a reason to pirate (very popular here at Slashdot) has always been a steaming pile of bullshit >>>
No it isn't. Just because I downloaded 90210 or an iPhone App doesn't mean I don't use the "try before buy" model. If I don't buy 80% of what I download, it's because 80% of it is shit. (Or worse: "99% of any genre is trash"-Isaac Asimov). BUT if it's good then I will buy it. Just take a gander of what's on my shelf:
- Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT - Babylon 5 - Earth Final Conflict (seasons 1 and 4) - BSG complete collection - Stargate SG1 complete - Stargate SGA complete - Red Dwarf complete - All in the Family 1,2,3,4,5 - Random movies: Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, the Abbott & Costello Collection,..... - random music: Greatest Hits of 1980, 1981,..., 1999. Depeche Mode GH, R.E.M. GH, and on and on and on - Random games: About 100 Atari titles, ~50 SNES titles, ~50 N64 titles, and literally hundreds of PS1/PS2/Gamecube discs. - and on and on and on
Yes I "try before buy" a lot of stuff off the net. And a big chunk of it is trash so I don't buy that trash. This is Not a bullshit approach to consumerism, but a SMART approach to consumerism because it keeps ME wealthy, and it keeps YOU the bastard corporation from sucking away all my dollars. (Of course you then beg politicians for 2000 billion dollar bailouts, but that's a separate issue.)
I think it's a biased sample. It only counts those that have submitted a high score.
I'd have thought that if an honest person liked the game, they'll buy it before the stage where they start getting good at it and start submitting high scores.
I think the sample here is selecting only those that have gone past the point where an honest person would buy the game.
if I'm going out to eat in a restaurant, I cant first order the food and drinks and only after that decide if it was good enough to be paid
Actually, restaurants - aside from fast food restaurants - tend to be one of the few places where you routinely -do- pay after-the-fact, and can base your payment on your experience.
I'm not just talking about tipping the waiter either. I'm talking about telling the cashier that, for example, the steak was a bit rancid. Nevermind the fact that you could have complained about that when you had the first bite and probably gotten a replacement, the cashier will probably - on their own or through a manager - decide that you can pay a little less, or get a coupon for a next time you're there, etc.
Unfortunately, we can't play a game first and -then- decide how much we want to pay. Of course a big reason for that is because a lot of people would simply decide not to pay, even if they did enjoy the game ( as per your parent poster ).. the cheaptards.
When you use the analogy you used, you stepped off into the "it's stealing" territory. The moment you used "I cant first order the food and drinks and only after that decide if it was good enough to be paid." you conflated the act of infringement with theft- making an unauthorized copy isn't really the same thing as what you compare it to.
In what you gave as an analogy, the hypothetical person STOLE food from the restaurant- the restaurant is out the food and drink the person took by not paying. In the case of infringement, someone merely takes a copy thereof- and nobody's out anything save maybe a cash transaction that might or might not have happened. They're not out their original copy, so it's not theft. There is a reason why the laws are written the way they are and define the actions differently. If you're going to be discussing the subject without people calling you out on things, you should perhaps choose your analogies with some better precision.
I haven't had any pirated software for the last 10 years, but then again, I've been running Linux. Anyway, back in college (1982-1986), I pirated all sorts of software I could not even imagine being able to afford. When I got a real job (1986) and since, I've paid for virtually all of it. However, my generation didn't grow up comfortable with pirating.
One interesting thing I found in 1991: I tried selling "shareware" where you are suppose to buy the application if you use it and like it. It was downloaded and obviously heavily used a few thousand times. It was a memory checker for Windows programmers. How many programmers sent me a check for $10? One. Good grief. At the same time, my father wrote a shareware application useful for Delta pilots to "bid" on their routes for the next month. Dad made $32K on it! The difference? Pilots were older, middle class workers who never pirated anything. Programmers were young and on the leading edge of piracy (and we still are).
This game is a very interesting data point. I would expect that a young hacker who can pay $400 for an iPhone just might have $2 for a game. Frankly, I don't think this is as much about ability to pay as a new culture of piracy.
As for me, I don't pirate anything any more unless the author deserves to burn in hell, which is a very small portion of authors. For example, to read books now days I need to convert them to audio and play them, since my central vision is failing. I can break the Microsoft Reader format, which works well for me. I just buy the e-books and then translate them for my needs. However, some authors, like J. K. Rowling, are rich greedy bastards who don't care about the disabled. I already own all her books, and most of the movies. I felt pretty good about downloading her collective works on The Pirate Bay, and would encourage all of you to get it there to punish her.
The problem with the data we have here is that we don't know if the game was actually any good. Maybe they all played it and decided it wasn't worth the money.
Even if it was good, maybe people didn't play it for long enough to find out. A friend of mine used to pirate Playstation games. Back then CD burners were only 4x speed and he often spent longer copying the thing than actually playing it. When you have an infinite supply of games at no cost you have no reason to give any game that doesn't instantly grab you more than 5 minutes play. There are thousands of free games in the App Store, more if you jailbreak.
Apple say there are over 85,000 apps in the App Store. Had a pirated copy not been available (probably as part of a larger pack of pirate games) how many people would even know about it? For all the developer knows most of his sales could be from recommendations by people who pirated and enjoyed the game.
You know what they say: Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Others have already gotten into a long point by point discussion here, probably with no real change in your opinions. Instead, I'd like you to consider a scenario. Suppose tomorrow I invented a device that allowed a person to instantly copy matter, exactly. Point it at a car and poof, two cars. Point it at a brick of gold and poof to gold bars. I think this invention is too important to patent so I release it free to the world.
First, is instantly copying things inherently unethical or evil or is it a great technological achievement that moves our society forward and can be used for good or ill? This device could drive large numbers of companies out of business, companies who invested a lot of money in those businesses. Does that mean they are entitled to a return when technology moves forward and the government should restrict technology legally to protect profits?
Assuming you agree copying is not inherently evil, then surely any laws regarding it (physical or intangible) should be written to benefit society as a whole, as the original copyright laws were. After all, no one has an inherent right not to have their property copied, at least not according to any human rights organization I've ever heard of.
Suppose all the big companies lobby congress and ban this technology. Does that make using it immoral or unethical? Should we be banned from copying food for the starving to protect the profits of industrial farm corporations? I mention all this because copyright is not some natural right, like freedom of speech. It is actually an artificially imposed limit on free speech implemented in an attempt to create a greater good for the people. As such we should always be questioning the balance of power these laws create, rather than viewing them as absolute principals as we do free speech. Likewise we should maintain in our minds the fundamental distinction between copyright violation and theft because one is a violation of a natural right and one is a violation of a law that restricts a natural right on behalf of society in an attempt engineer greater innovation. Comparing it to theft, erases that important distinction and muddies the waters of this very important debate.
And by copying you are "taking" an intangible property that provides revenue to the maker of the software. Property can either be tangible or intangible. The notion of intangible property is an ancient, time honored one.
Selling games is strictly self-serving also. Apparently, you think its fantastic for companies to be driven by greed, but the customers should be selfless? Same old shit as the banks - capitalise the profit, socialise the loss.
But seriously, I think the app store really needs to give you a trial period before you have to pay for apps. So many of the programs out there are crap, I'm not willing to pay for 5 programs just to find one that does what I want.
If an app is good, you should be able to find independently written positive reviews for it. There's always the score provided in the app store, too. I release most of my code under BSD/GPL licenses, but I absolutely require people to abide by the terms as I own the copyrights. There's no excuse for violating the rights of others, regardless of how little faith you might have in "so many of the programs" available for purchase. If you've got that little faith in the app store, maybe you shouldn't bother with it in the first place.
Or, maybe the pirates are only after free stuffz, and the try before you buy ideology is just something they (we) have learned to say in order to justify pirating.
Now that I think about it, why would I pay for something I can get for free?
It seems strange to me considering the pricing and how much more convenient it is (at least IMO) to just use the App store. In fact, all the apps I've got on my iPhone are from the App store and were either free there or I paid for them.
That's not to say I'm fervently anti-piracy, I'll admit that I've downloaded a fair amount of movies, music and software in my life but it's almost always been because it was too expensive, not yet released where I live or simply much more convenient to do so.
As an example, a piece large expensive "professional" software that I want to use at home for fun or some minor non-commercial purpose isn't something I'm about to pony up $300 or whatever it costs for (I try to use open source when there is a good alternative), I've also downloaded games simply because I wasn't willing to pay full price to play it once for a few hours with a friend or two and then never play again. As for music and movies it tends to be a combination of pricing ($20 for an album I've never heard that probably only has a handful of good songs?), convenience (DRM) and it simply not being available where I live yet (woohoo, ordering Region 1 DVDs from the US). But a $4 iPhone game that can be downloaded in a minute at the click of a button? That seems pointless to me...
Sounds like you're just making excuses to justify yourself.
If something's expensive, why do you feel the right to watch it/listen to it/use it, when others have to pay? Isn't it more ethical to just not pay? As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness. Given the ease of legally downloading these days, it's even less of an excuse. As for pirating professional software for 'fun' or 'non-commercial' use, if you don't need all the features, then why not get a more limited program that does w
>>As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness. Given the ease of legally downloading these days, it's even less of an excuse.
When I bought MATLAB, it came in the mail nearly 9 months after I began the process to buy it. We had licensed some MATLAB code that we needed to pay a yearly royalty fee on it, so this delay would have cost me XX,000 dollars had I not had access to computer labs with MATLAB on it to run and debug the code on it.
The best part is? When they finally mailed it out to us, 6 months after billing my company / me thousands of dollars for it, they forgot to put the software in the box. Sure, it had a packing slip that said the CD should be in there, but nothing was inside the box but a manual. Their online download system is a POS as well.
As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness. Given the ease of legally downloading these days, it's even less of an excuse.
Here are a few examples of convenience:
Legally bought version of MathCAD (1300€ - license for 1 PC). The user has to wait 3 weeks for the package to arrive, and then installs it on his computer. The license manager fails in a spectacular way, resulting in the user uninstalling the application and installing it on another computer. The license however has already been tied to the computer he originally installed it on, and is now no longer valid for another computer. After 3 weeks of contacting the company we've still not made any progress. The user has in the meantime acquired other means to do his work in far less time and far less hassle (although legally not that quite nice). Convenient indeed.
Aforementioned user needed to use a software package developed by a partner to finish a project. This package came with a licensing product that installs itself and binds itself to port 8080, where you can conveniently upload a key that the software producer generates for you based on your MAC address (of all things). The licensing software contained a bug which made it freak out on computers with two network cards (which is default on many desktops these days). The result was a lot of mails going back and forth between the partner and us, where we were eventually told to wait until the 3rd party copyright protection library fixed their bug. After 2 weeks of waiting the user searched for a crack and applied it and finished his project. 2 months after the deadline a bugfix was issued.
An uncle of mine decided to use iTunes for his music needs. I can only applaud him for abandoning his luddite ways and converting to digital era. He decides to purchase about 300$ worth of jazz music, so he can put them on an mp3 player and enjoy his music without his wife complaining about the noise (a fervent music hater). He's convinced by his friends to buy something else than an iPod, which unfortunately cannot play iTunes DRM'ed format. He is now a big fan of various p2p services that allow him to download entire jazz cds for free, and the words "iTunes" and "scam" are mentioned in the same sentence. Sadly I am unable to change his mind on the subject.
My perfectly legally purchases copy of windows XP is currently in the process of reminding me that I might be running counterfeit software. I've decided not to bother with it at the time and give windows 7 (legally purchased, currently en route to me via snail mail) a try. I'm sure that if I google a bit I'll find enough ways to disable WGA until the next update.
I'm sure that anyone here can come up with more examples that disprove that piracy is far more convenient these days than buying a legal copy in many instances. I'm not saying that piracy is ok, because it really isn't, but when it comes to convenience it stands undefeated in most cases. The two users I named beside myself are both the typical Joe Sixpack which slashdot likes to shun, and both of them have found their way to the pirated good on their own, and managed to find this approach much more convenient that the correct way of doing things.
I believe that says a lot about the current state of affairs of copyright protection, and I personally long back for the days where the only thing that harassed me was a serial number on the inside of a box. In the case of software I find it inexcusable that when you've paid a considerable amount of money for a piece of software that you're being treated like a thief. In the case of iTunes... Well, despite that my uncle should've bought the correct piece of hardware, his mp3 player works very well and he's quite satisfied with it regretting the money he spent on a format he can only listen to on his computer.
The more we decide to burden legitimate users with hassles, the more likely it will be they will turn into pirates, which will result in lost s
So you argument is basically that development time costs nothing? Just because the process of copying the media is the same whether you're copying a game that's taken 2 years of paid development time to create and a load of CVs you've written yourself doesn't mean the value is the same.
The problem with your attitude is that without someone ultimately paying for the development time and everything else that goes with it what you steal wouldn't exist in the first place. I know it's a convenient deceit to figure mainstream musicians, games developers, movie studios, etc "make too much money", but if it weren't so easy to copy stuff what would you do? Go without? Piracy is so fashionable because it's so easy, intangible and apparently victimless - if your only option to get something was to pay for it or do without you'd either find a way to scrape together the cash if you needed it bad enough, or you wouldn't.
So you argument is basically that development time costs nothing?
Not at all — the argument is that development time is worth nothingif people aren't willing to pay for your product. There is a big difference there. Unfortunately, you don't know until after your labor has produced fruit if people will pay for it. If they don't, you may choose to whine or you may choose to move on, but nothing else is productive (unless you plan to sue all these potential customers, ensuring that they hate you eternally.)
What gives you the moral right to restrict him from listening to/using it. It isn't like there is some law of scarcity involved that makes it necessary to restrict access?
Rejection of the "I take what I want" attitude that pervades our society is in no way immoral. Quite the contrary, the people who think that just because they don't like the price or don't want to spend the money that they can have somebody else's time and effort anyway is immoral.
Claiming "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so shut up!" may be true in theory, but it's not relevant. It's not about control, it's not about lording money over the poor folks who would oh-so-love to use your product if only they could afford it. It's about realizing that there is a value to peoples' time and that they deserve to be compensated for that time if they so wish. If they so wish. Nobody gives a damn what you wish other peoples' work cost. If you don't find the product worth the money, if you don't have the money to spend, so be it; you're not entitled to take it. You wouldn't steal a physical object, and the reasons have nothing to do with some BS rationalization over whether or not property is actually lost.
I've fought long and hard against people who call downloading music, movies or software "theft" or "stealing," but people like you abuse the difference to justify your entire behavior. No wonder so many people just want you to shut the hell up and go to jail. You're beginning to make me a convert.
Those who claim that it is a sin, are those who want to strive backwards into the middle ages.
It sounds awfully like you're the one who wants to strive backward into the middle ages. I'm sorry that people making money from non-tangible goods doesn't meet with your approval, but that's the way we've gone as a global society. That you would literally attack somebody who suggests maybe, just maybe, you should actually have to compensate people who create something rather than just taking it as you please makes you little more than a neanderthal, desperately trying to provide some sort of moral justification for something you planned on doing anyway.
Of course, wasting resources is exactly what you are promoting. Efficiency is not in your vocabulary.
You're right; stealing is the most money-efficient way for you to get something. In fact it's the most money-efficient way for anybody to get anything. Yet we've decided as a society that it's not only illegal but immoral. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the only way it doesn't collapse in on itself is when as few people as possible are doing it? And you're advocating doing that as efficient for a society? Congratulations, sir. Your self-entitlement astounds a person who thought he could no longer be astounded by the depths to which people will sink to self-justify.
You have the right to claim that, but it doesn't make it true.
It has been true since the formation of modern societies. Laws and punishments for theft are always among the first that socities create. That you want morality and legality set aside for your personal enrichment--just as long as other people go ahead and pick up the tab to allow your free-loading to continue--doesn't make it true, or reasonable, regardless of what overblown, over-used excuse you throw up for how this is sooooo different and we should all just chill, maaan.
Quite the contrary, the people who think that just because they don't like the price or don't want to spend the money that they can have somebody else's time and effort anyway is immoral.
If I copy something that an artist produced, it doesn't cost that artist either time or effort. The time and effort has already been spent, they have no way of getting it back.
The only possibility is that they might get payment in compensation for it. As long as anything I do does not affect their chance of getting this compensation, I see no possible way in which it can be immoral. Therefore, as long as I can be sure that I am not going to pay for a copy, I see no way that making my own copy is immoral.
If you believe otherwise, can you explain why?
You're right; stealing is the most money-efficient way for you to get something. In fact it's the most money-efficient way for anybody to get anything. Yet we've decided as a society that it's not only illegal but immoral. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the only way it doesn't collapse in on itself is when as few people as possible are doing it? And you're advocating doing that as efficient for a society?
What the OP is advocating is not stealing. Stealing involves somebody losing something; it is a zero sum game: for one person to gain, another must lose. Unauthorised copying is not: one person can gain while nobody else loses. This is an essential difference that means your entire analogy is basically worthless.
It has been true since the formation of modern societies. Laws and punishments for theft are always among the first that socities create.
Here's a legal definition of theft: "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently". Can I ask in the case being discussed, what money or property has somebody been deprived of wrongfully? Please note that you cannot be deprived of something that you never had a right to have in the first place. Unauthorised copying is not theft. The two are totally different concepts, and while laws against theft are, as you say, usually among the first that societies create, it is worth noting that unauthorised copying was not a crime anywhere until only around 300 years ago.
(..) I've downloaded a fair amount of movies, music and software in my life but it's almost always been because it was too expensive, not yet released where I live or simply much more convenient to do so. (...) But a $4 iPhone game that can be downloaded in a minute at the click of a button? That seems pointless to me...
Same here, I've spent more money on software in the year I've had my iPhone than in the decade before that. If I can buy a great game like Monkey Island for a few euro's it's not even worth the effort to pirate it.
I would happily pay an honest price for (on-demand) movies and series if only it was as convenient as buying app-store apps and if it would actually be available over here. For example: the new Stargate series, it'll be years before it's on TV here, and they'll probably mess up the order (I have no clue why they do this, but they can's seem to ever show any series in the correct order over here), stop halfway through a season, broadcast it at random times, etc. It's almost as if they don't want people to follow the series.
For example: the new Stargate series, it'll be years before it's on TV here, and they'll probably mess up the order (I have no clue why they do this, but they can's seem to ever show any series in the correct order over here), stop halfway through a season, broadcast it at random times, etc. It's almost as if they don't want people to follow the series.
I think Apple delivers some kind of deviceid with the sales report so you can easily compare that to the deviceid you send with the highscores. The reason why this cannot be used for piracy prevention is that it takes weeks for Apple to deliver those reports so by the time you get them, a pirate has already finished playing the game.
One interesting note is that the most pirate scores are submitted for Story level, then Rounds, then survival. This is the same order that the game types show up in our menus. This may point out that Pirates generally have a lower attention span – they quickly move on to the next game.
There's a really good reason why pirated scores are submitted in that order, and I would tell you, but there's a shiny red ball outside and I gotta catch it.
Without knowing exactly how this so called "Pirate Flag" works we cannot say that it is recording correct data. Frankly an 80% piracy rate seems a little difficult to believe given how most iPhone users I know use their phones (most use stock firmware, since they're still on warranty, and people have spent up to £800 and don't want to 'brick' it).
Most iPhones owners are happy to use the App' Store and iTunes. That is one of the reasons they purchased the device, to give them access to a huge array of high quality applications.
If I were this developer, I would display ads to the pirates, be it within the game or on an HTML formatted score board. This would hopefully recoup some of the lost money, and would keep everybody happy. I would be interested in their take on the idea.
When I did pirate back in the day it was mostly because i simply couldnt afford the things i wanted. Now that I CAN afford to buy the software i need, i NEVER pirate. Those that pirate are rarely going to pay, those that dont pirate usually will pay. Pretty simple really.
For me personally,I cant tell you how freakin giddy i was the other day when i bought an mp3 off amazon the other day for $.79. I selected, purchased and downloaded it in the time it took to install itunes so i could do the same thing.
I am the iPhone developer for the Notifications app (see http://www.appnotifications.com/ [appnotifications.com]). On the first day my app was published on appulous (that happened very quickly after my app was on the appstore), the piracy rate was 99.3%. On that 99.3% I had about 1% who bought the application after trying it.
That was in the beginning of September, I now have a total piracy rate of about 50%. My app requires network and connects on my server, therefor my stats are pretty accurate. I think the piracy rate would be way higher than 50% if my app did not have to connect to my server.
Good question, which I don't have a "true" answer for.
My feeling is, as very little percentage of pirate finally bought the app after "trying it", having them downloading the app for free did not help on the sales after. Almost none of those hackers did post on blogs, Twitter, etc so it doesn't help neither.
What might have helped a bit is being listed on appulous, I guess some people are tracking the 'hacker' websites to see what's hot, and what was released recently. What might happen is people buying the app straight without going through the hacker stage. However, as I had 99.3% of hackers on the next days after it was published on appulous, which only 1% bought the app after, I would say it did not impact on my real sales.
I think Photoshop is a different case which you can't compare with mine. I agree with what you say about it, but I don't think it applies on mine (sadly;).
However, as I had 99.3% of hackers on the next days after it was published on appulous, which only 1% bought the app after, I would say it did not impact on my real sales.
So your real sales were 0.7% and pirating brought 0.993%, effectively more than doubling your sales, and you say it had no impact? Are you serious?
I must admit that prior to the days when I had money to throw away on games as I saw fit I truly did pirate a game now and then for the sake of a trial period. I found it effective, but mainly in convincing me not to buy the game. And see, there is this unexpected factor I discovered, actually only recently, that severely impacts this chain of actions...
Basically it amounts to this: I find, all too often, that many games are not worth playing beyond the amount you normally get in a demo! I have downloaded so many demo games, especially racing or fighting games, on the PlayStation Network or XBOX Live and found that... well that was enough. To spend $60 more dollars simply to add a few levels and get the same experience was not a valuable prospect for me.
I won't try to claim that any significant portion of these piracy observations can be explained by what I'm describing. I would say it's not without merit though. In these days, there are so many games. I mean, honestly, I think there are more games released in a year than I could humanly play through in their entirety. Even filtering out the disinteresting games I would still never have the time, given work and other responsibilities, to finish anywhere near say, 10% of the releases in a year.
So to go from trial period to purchase, especially on a game that's likely a shallow me-too on the iPhone... well let's demonstrate the thought process with another nugget: I have downloaded probably 25 different "Light" games and never even tried them before I deleted them because I simply lost all interest.
If you slash the price of the game in half in a few months and re-advertise it (like Steam has been doing with their weekly sales), then you will see another jump in sales. If you cut it down to 1/4, you will get even more sales. Some people think $4 is a good price, but others won't pay more than $2, and still some will wait for the $1 or $0.50 sale.
Each step allows you to reel in more buyers, because everybody has their own price threshold.
Games depreciate in value quickly--that's just how it is. Eventually the game won't be worth anything to anyone. Then you should give it out for free, along with a big fat advertisement for your next game. You ARE working on the next game, right?
Some people wouldn't pay a cent for the game in the first place, and they are the real pirates. You can't negotiate with them, so don't even bother. It's wasted development time to fight them. Even if you somehow make your game unpirate-able, they will just ignore your game and find something else to occupy their time.
What you CAN do is try to net the would-be pirates who simply have a lower price threshold. Also you might net a few guilt-ridden pirates who think they are "redeeming their sins" by eventually buying the game they pirated, even though it's been a few months since release and the price has dropped significantly in the meantime. You might also pick up a few people who just like thinking they're getting a good deal.
To start out with, I would like to mention that I have pirated a lot in my lifetime. I pirated more when I was unemployed and poor, because I had lots of time and less money. I still pirate some, but nowadays I also buy more now that I am earning good money. But anyway, here is my viewpoint of piracy.
Most of the excuses pirates use are just that, excuses.
* Try before you buy! It does happen, but rarely. * Everything sucks! Then why are you pirating it in the first place? * Damn the evil publishers!! You really believe most pirates are like that?
Want to hear a valid excuse
* It is free to pirate, so I don't have to worry about money.
Now, you will here people mention that these games aren't really that expensive. But that misses the point. There is a huge difference between cheap and free, and it affects behavior a lot. When something is free, you can consume it without feeling like you have to get value out of it. And that gains a certain amount of freedom which is very difficult to compete with if you are trying to charge for a product.
Now, the article in question I actually found was fairly unbiased. It did mention that piracy is high as soon as the game is released. This is not strange at all. As pirates have no restrictions on them in regard to money, they will play whatever they feel like. And the newest thing on the market is simply an easy target.
This may point out that Pirates generally have a lower attention span they quickly move on to the next game
This is a nice observation in the article. I would say that it isn't attention span per se. It is just that pirates have a fare wider selection of items to select from. Again, having to do with the freedom I mentioned above.
The author goes on to discuss ways to combat piracy. And here I want to mention an important thing. If you use piracy protection to fight against piracy, then you are using it wrong. If you use piracy protection to steal customers from a competing product that doesn't have piracy protection then you are doing it right.
If you fail to understand the difference, it is simple. Pirates buy products too. And they are more likely to buy something if they get value out of it beyond legal ownership. This is why authenticated multi player mode is a very efficient piracy protection mechanism. It gives the pirates something that they want to buy, without providing any negative effects on other customers (who may or may not pirate other products).
It is the same in other businesses. If a pirate has to decided between buying a CD of one artist, or attending a live performance of another artist, guess what they will choose. Same with DVD vs. movie theater.
Of course, there are always pirates that won't buy anything. Either because they have no money, or because they intend to use that money for other things. But, those are the kind of pirates that simply aren't worth spending any effort on. At best you can hope that their money habits will change over time, and that you as a developer will be a beneficiary.
I'm wondering if his methodology is bad. I haven't read TFA as yet but it seems from scanning the posts here that he was comparing the deviceID that purchased with the deviceID that posted the score... in which case, how is he accounting for the fact that users are specifically allowed to share their apps with up to 5 devices?
I do this all the time between my wife and I. We download games for our kids to play as well as apps and music for ourselves when we find them... then sync up the phones via iTunes (as we are specifically allowed to do) - so that we can share our household purchases between the two phones.
If you assume a maximum of sharing.... take a sample of 100 downloads, then share it out to 5 people = 500 downloads, using his method you instantly have an 80% pirate rate!!!!
"Ethan Nicholas is one of the big indie success stories of the App Store. Nicholas quit his job back in January after his tank artillery game iShoot grabbed the #1 spot in the App Store. Nicholas reportedly made over $800,000 within five months."
This is just one of MANY games that made a crap load of money via legal sales on iTunes. Such games as that include, Trisms, Space Invaders: Infinity Gene, 2 Across, Fieldrunners, Real Racing, Madden, Tiger Woods, Need for Speed, Flight Control, AIM, Baseball Stars, Texas Hold'em, Rock Band, Tap Tap Dance, and MANY MORE....
These games have made a lot of money in very short time. Trism's made the indie developer, $250,000 in 2 months. 2 Across, also made an indie developer $1800 a DAY in sales. Tap Tap Dance, made $6,927 a week when it launched. Now Tap Tap has several games out, which are HUGE successes for an indie developer on the iphone. You can only imagine how profitable they are now.
This developers game (Tap-Fu) is bad. Its not a good game. Its not even a complete game. Its missing most of the story mode, as it hasnt been made yet. It has very simple gameplay that really doesnt work well.
There was no trial version for the game. Many games have free trial versions known as "lite" versions on iTunes. The developer tries to shoot down the idea that warez users tend to try out software, then some possibly buy it.
Frankly by not providing a free trial version via itunes, he forced people to try out a warezed version.
I bought Tap-Fu after reading about it on Toucharcade.com. It looked promising, but it fell flat. Its bad. iTunes has a no return policy.... perhaps that forces more people to use warez versions because the proof is that... PEOPLE DO BUY these apps legally... IF they are good and worth it. These companies do make good money selling them. The App store has helped keep the indie developement scene alive. Many people have quit their day jobs to code Apps full time that generate $200,000 in profit in 2 months.
TAP-Fu was simply not a good game. At least in my opinion
The fact is, all of those games I mentioned above have made a LOT of money, under the same circumstances as this developer's "Tap-Fu" game. They all faced the "threat" of piracy. The difference is, those other games were worth owning, and Tap-Fu is not. That's the real reason why its not selling well. Not some silly piracy excuse.
The developers score board data is certainly interesting, but it is not proof of ANYTHING, other than people didnt find his app worth buying. MOST apps arent worth buying, or even installing illegally...
There are a good handful of ones that are... and they do make money. Lots.
have they ruled out the reason why they haven't sold any to those pirates is because...they aren't really pirates but people who despise the App Store and it's restrictions?
Are you suggesting that these so-called pirates are actually peaceful protesters performing civil disobedience? MLK Jr. would be so proud!
This being the same MLK Jr who plagarised large portions of his doctoral thesis? I'm not sure he would be in the best position to criticise copyright violation.
Wait... so you bought an iPhone despite not liking the terms and conditions that you agreed to when buying the iPhone? So you go out and pirate some independent developers game as a means of getting back at Apple for those terms that you voluntarily agreed to... and this somehow makes you not a pirate?
This is quite possibly the dumbest explanation for piracy I've ever heard.
First pirate! (Score:5, Funny)
Harrr!
Re:First pirate! (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course, information wants to be free as in beer at a frat party. Stallman says so.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was a pennyless student, I pirated software because collecting titles was the goal. We all did it. When I started earning money of my own, I would buy anything that lasted on my computer for more than a week. (And back in those days, it wasn't as easy to finish a game as it is now)
The theory was that if I got more than a week's value out of something then it was worth keeping. See - try before you buy.
After a while, I got more money, but had less time. I started to buy games (in big spending sprees) only to find later that I had never even installed the game once. I am currently going through my backlog of titles - 107 in total, some of which I have to run in DOSBox! If a pirate is someone who plays a game without buying it, what is the name for someone who buys a game without playing it?
On second thoughts, maybe I don't want to know the answer.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>The "try before you buy" excuse that people give as a reason to pirate (very popular here at Slashdot) has always been a steaming pile of bullshit
>>>
No it isn't. Just because I downloaded 90210 or an iPhone App doesn't mean I don't use the "try before buy" model. If I don't buy 80% of what I download, it's because 80% of it is shit. (Or worse: "99% of any genre is trash"-Isaac Asimov). BUT if it's good then I will buy it. Just take a gander of what's on my shelf:
- Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT ..... ..., 1999. Depeche Mode GH, R.E.M. GH, and on and on and on
- Babylon 5
- Earth Final Conflict (seasons 1 and 4)
- BSG complete collection
- Stargate SG1 complete
- Stargate SGA complete
- Red Dwarf complete
- All in the Family 1,2,3,4,5
- Random movies: Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, the Abbott & Costello Collection,
- random music: Greatest Hits of 1980, 1981,
- Random games: About 100 Atari titles, ~50 SNES titles, ~50 N64 titles, and literally hundreds of PS1/PS2/Gamecube discs.
- and on and on and on
Yes I "try before buy" a lot of stuff off the net. And a big chunk of it is trash so I don't buy that trash. This is Not a bullshit approach to consumerism, but a SMART approach to consumerism because it keeps ME wealthy, and it keeps YOU the bastard corporation from sucking away all my dollars. (Of course you then beg politicians for 2000 billion dollar bailouts, but that's a separate issue.)
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a biased sample. It only counts those that have submitted a high score.
I'd have thought that if an honest person liked the game, they'll buy it before the stage where they start getting good at it and start submitting high scores.
I think the sample here is selecting only those that have gone past the point where an honest person would buy the game.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:5, Informative)
TFA is about a small company and a $2 game.
Try again.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:right and wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, restaurants - aside from fast food restaurants - tend to be one of the few places where you routinely -do- pay after-the-fact, and can base your payment on your experience.
I'm not just talking about tipping the waiter either. I'm talking about telling the cashier that, for example, the steak was a bit rancid. Nevermind the fact that you could have complained about that when you had the first bite and probably gotten a replacement, the cashier will probably - on their own or through a manager - decide that you can pay a little less, or get a coupon for a next time you're there, etc.
Unfortunately, we can't play a game first and -then- decide how much we want to pay. Of course a big reason for that is because a lot of people would simply decide not to pay, even if they did enjoy the game ( as per your parent poster ).. the cheaptards.
Parent
Re:right and wrong (Score:5, Informative)
When you use the analogy you used, you stepped off into the "it's stealing" territory. The moment you used "I cant first order the food and drinks and only after that decide if it was good enough to be paid." you conflated the act of infringement with theft- making an unauthorized copy isn't really the same thing as what you compare it to.
In what you gave as an analogy, the hypothetical person STOLE food from the restaurant- the restaurant is out the food and drink the person took by not paying. In the case of infringement, someone merely takes a copy thereof- and nobody's out anything save maybe a cash transaction that might or might not have happened. They're not out their original copy, so it's not theft. There is a reason why the laws are written the way they are and define the actions differently. If you're going to be discussing the subject without people calling you out on things, you should perhaps choose your analogies with some better precision.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't had any pirated software for the last 10 years, but then again, I've been running Linux. Anyway, back in college (1982-1986), I pirated all sorts of software I could not even imagine being able to afford. When I got a real job (1986) and since, I've paid for virtually all of it. However, my generation didn't grow up comfortable with pirating.
One interesting thing I found in 1991: I tried selling "shareware" where you are suppose to buy the application if you use it and like it. It was downloaded and obviously heavily used a few thousand times. It was a memory checker for Windows programmers. How many programmers sent me a check for $10? One. Good grief. At the same time, my father wrote a shareware application useful for Delta pilots to "bid" on their routes for the next month. Dad made $32K on it! The difference? Pilots were older, middle class workers who never pirated anything. Programmers were young and on the leading edge of piracy (and we still are).
This game is a very interesting data point. I would expect that a young hacker who can pay $400 for an iPhone just might have $2 for a game. Frankly, I don't think this is as much about ability to pay as a new culture of piracy.
As for me, I don't pirate anything any more unless the author deserves to burn in hell, which is a very small portion of authors. For example, to read books now days I need to convert them to audio and play them, since my central vision is failing. I can break the Microsoft Reader format, which works well for me. I just buy the e-books and then translate them for my needs. However, some authors, like J. K. Rowling, are rich greedy bastards who don't care about the disabled. I already own all her books, and most of the movies. I felt pretty good about downloading her collective works on The Pirate Bay, and would encourage all of you to get it there to punish her.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with the data we have here is that we don't know if the game was actually any good. Maybe they all played it and decided it wasn't worth the money.
Even if it was good, maybe people didn't play it for long enough to find out. A friend of mine used to pirate Playstation games. Back then CD burners were only 4x speed and he often spent longer copying the thing than actually playing it. When you have an infinite supply of games at no cost you have no reason to give any game that doesn't instantly grab you more than 5 minutes play. There are thousands of free games in the App Store, more if you jailbreak.
Apple say there are over 85,000 apps in the App Store. Had a pirated copy not been available (probably as part of a larger pack of pirate games) how many people would even know about it? For all the developer knows most of his sales could be from recommendations by people who pirated and enjoyed the game.
You know what they say: Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:4, Interesting)
Others have already gotten into a long point by point discussion here, probably with no real change in your opinions. Instead, I'd like you to consider a scenario. Suppose tomorrow I invented a device that allowed a person to instantly copy matter, exactly. Point it at a car and poof, two cars. Point it at a brick of gold and poof to gold bars. I think this invention is too important to patent so I release it free to the world.
First, is instantly copying things inherently unethical or evil or is it a great technological achievement that moves our society forward and can be used for good or ill? This device could drive large numbers of companies out of business, companies who invested a lot of money in those businesses. Does that mean they are entitled to a return when technology moves forward and the government should restrict technology legally to protect profits?
Assuming you agree copying is not inherently evil, then surely any laws regarding it (physical or intangible) should be written to benefit society as a whole, as the original copyright laws were. After all, no one has an inherent right not to have their property copied, at least not according to any human rights organization I've ever heard of.
Suppose all the big companies lobby congress and ban this technology. Does that make using it immoral or unethical? Should we be banned from copying food for the starving to protect the profits of industrial farm corporations? I mention all this because copyright is not some natural right, like freedom of speech. It is actually an artificially imposed limit on free speech implemented in an attempt to create a greater good for the people. As such we should always be questioning the balance of power these laws create, rather than viewing them as absolute principals as we do free speech. Likewise we should maintain in our minds the fundamental distinction between copyright violation and theft because one is a violation of a natural right and one is a violation of a law that restricts a natural right on behalf of society in an attempt engineer greater innovation. Comparing it to theft, erases that important distinction and muddies the waters of this very important debate.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:4, Informative)
And by copying you are "taking" an intangible property that provides revenue to the maker of the software. Property can either be tangible or intangible. The notion of intangible property is an ancient, time honored one.
Citation needed.
Parent
Re:First pirate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Maybe the game sucked? (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, I think the app store really needs to give you a trial period before you have to pay for apps. So many of the programs out there are crap, I'm not willing to pay for 5 programs just to find one that does what I want.
Re:Maybe the game sucked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, maybe the pirates are only after free stuffz, and the try before you buy ideology is just something they (we) have learned to say in order to justify pirating.
Now that I think about it, why would I pay for something I can get for free?
Re:Maybe the game sucked? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't tend to get a high score unless you play the game. Why were all these people playing the game if it sucked?
Parent
Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems strange to me considering the pricing and how much more convenient it is (at least IMO) to just use the App store. In fact, all the apps I've got on my iPhone are from the App store and were either free there or I paid for them.
That's not to say I'm fervently anti-piracy, I'll admit that I've downloaded a fair amount of movies, music and software in my life but it's almost always been because it was too expensive, not yet released where I live or simply much more convenient to do so.
As an example, a piece large expensive "professional" software that I want to use at home for fun or some minor non-commercial purpose isn't something I'm about to pony up $300 or whatever it costs for (I try to use open source when there is a good alternative), I've also downloaded games simply because I wasn't willing to pay full price to play it once for a few hours with a friend or two and then never play again. As for music and movies it tends to be a combination of pricing ($20 for an album I've never heard that probably only has a handful of good songs?), convenience (DRM) and it simply not being available where I live yet (woohoo, ordering Region 1 DVDs from the US). But a $4 iPhone game that can be downloaded in a minute at the click of a button? That seems pointless to me...
/Mikael
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like you're just making excuses to justify yourself.
If something's expensive, why do you feel the right to watch it/listen to it/use it, when others have to pay? Isn't it more ethical to just not pay? As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness. Given the ease of legally downloading these days, it's even less of an excuse. As for pirating professional software for 'fun' or 'non-commercial' use, if you don't need all the features, then why not get a more limited program that does w
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:4, Insightful)
>>As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness. Given the ease of legally downloading these days, it's even less of an excuse.
When I bought MATLAB, it came in the mail nearly 9 months after I began the process to buy it. We had licensed some MATLAB code that we needed to pay a yearly royalty fee on it, so this delay would have cost me XX,000 dollars had I not had access to computer labs with MATLAB on it to run and debug the code on it.
The best part is? When they finally mailed it out to us, 6 months after billing my company / me thousands of dollars for it, they forgot to put the software in the box. Sure, it had a packing slip that said the CD should be in there, but nothing was inside the box but a manual. Their online download system is a POS as well.
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Funny)
When they finally mailed it out to us, 6 months after billing my company / me thousands of dollars for it,
Is your company in the habit of paying bills for items you haven't received yet?
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Funny)
And if so, what is your company name and address, please?
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Insightful)
As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness. Given the ease of legally downloading these days, it's even less of an excuse.
Here are a few examples of convenience:
I'm sure that anyone here can come up with more examples that disprove that piracy is far more convenient these days than buying a legal copy in many instances. I'm not saying that piracy is ok, because it really isn't, but when it comes to convenience it stands undefeated in most cases. The two users I named beside myself are both the typical Joe Sixpack which slashdot likes to shun, and both of them have found their way to the pirated good on their own, and managed to find this approach much more convenient that the correct way of doing things.
I believe that says a lot about the current state of affairs of copyright protection, and I personally long back for the days where the only thing that harassed me was a serial number on the inside of a box. In the case of software I find it inexcusable that when you've paid a considerable amount of money for a piece of software that you're being treated like a thief. In the case of iTunes... Well, despite that my uncle should've bought the correct piece of hardware, his mp3 player works very well and he's quite satisfied with it regretting the money he spent on a format he can only listen to on his computer.
The more we decide to burden legitimate users with hassles, the more likely it will be they will turn into pirates, which will result in lost s
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Insightful)
So you argument is basically that development time costs nothing? Just because the process of copying the media is the same whether you're copying a game that's taken 2 years of paid development time to create and a load of CVs you've written yourself doesn't mean the value is the same.
The problem with your attitude is that without someone ultimately paying for the development time and everything else that goes with it what you steal wouldn't exist in the first place. I know it's a convenient deceit to figure mainstream musicians, games developers, movie studios, etc "make too much money", but if it weren't so easy to copy stuff what would you do? Go without? Piracy is so fashionable because it's so easy, intangible and apparently victimless - if your only option to get something was to pay for it or do without you'd either find a way to scrape together the cash if you needed it bad enough, or you wouldn't.
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:4, Interesting)
So you argument is basically that development time costs nothing?
Not at all — the argument is that development time is worth nothing if people aren't willing to pay for your product. There is a big difference there. Unfortunately, you don't know until after your labor has produced fruit if people will pay for it. If they don't, you may choose to whine or you may choose to move on, but nothing else is productive (unless you plan to sue all these potential customers, ensuring that they hate you eternally.)
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Insightful)
Rejection of the "I take what I want" attitude that pervades our society is in no way immoral. Quite the contrary, the people who think that just because they don't like the price or don't want to spend the money that they can have somebody else's time and effort anyway is immoral.
Claiming "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so shut up!" may be true in theory, but it's not relevant. It's not about control, it's not about lording money over the poor folks who would oh-so-love to use your product if only they could afford it. It's about realizing that there is a value to peoples' time and that they deserve to be compensated for that time if they so wish. If they so wish. Nobody gives a damn what you wish other peoples' work cost. If you don't find the product worth the money, if you don't have the money to spend, so be it; you're not entitled to take it. You wouldn't steal a physical object, and the reasons have nothing to do with some BS rationalization over whether or not property is actually lost.
I've fought long and hard against people who call downloading music, movies or software "theft" or "stealing," but people like you abuse the difference to justify your entire behavior. No wonder so many people just want you to shut the hell up and go to jail. You're beginning to make me a convert.
It sounds awfully like you're the one who wants to strive backward into the middle ages. I'm sorry that people making money from non-tangible goods doesn't meet with your approval, but that's the way we've gone as a global society. That you would literally attack somebody who suggests maybe, just maybe, you should actually have to compensate people who create something rather than just taking it as you please makes you little more than a neanderthal, desperately trying to provide some sort of moral justification for something you planned on doing anyway.
You're right; stealing is the most money-efficient way for you to get something. In fact it's the most money-efficient way for anybody to get anything. Yet we've decided as a society that it's not only illegal but immoral. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the only way it doesn't collapse in on itself is when as few people as possible are doing it? And you're advocating doing that as efficient for a society? Congratulations, sir. Your self-entitlement astounds a person who thought he could no longer be astounded by the depths to which people will sink to self-justify.
It has been true since the formation of modern societies. Laws and punishments for theft are always among the first that socities create. That you want morality and legality set aside for your personal enrichment--just as long as other people go ahead and pick up the tab to allow your free-loading to continue--doesn't make it true, or reasonable, regardless of what overblown, over-used excuse you throw up for how this is sooooo different and we should all just chill, maaan.
Efficiency my ass.
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite the contrary, the people who think that just because they don't like the price or don't want to spend the money that they can have somebody else's time and effort anyway is immoral.
If I copy something that an artist produced, it doesn't cost that artist either time or effort. The time and effort has already been spent, they have no way of getting it back.
The only possibility is that they might get payment in compensation for it. As long as anything I do does not affect their chance of getting this compensation, I see no possible way in which it can be immoral. Therefore, as long as I can be sure that I am not going to pay for a copy, I see no way that making my own copy is immoral.
If you believe otherwise, can you explain why?
You're right; stealing is the most money-efficient way for you to get something. In fact it's the most money-efficient way for anybody to get anything. Yet we've decided as a society that it's not only illegal but immoral. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the only way it doesn't collapse in on itself is when as few people as possible are doing it? And you're advocating doing that as efficient for a society?
What the OP is advocating is not stealing. Stealing involves somebody losing something; it is a zero sum game: for one person to gain, another must lose. Unauthorised copying is not: one person can gain while nobody else loses. This is an essential difference that means your entire analogy is basically worthless.
It has been true since the formation of modern societies. Laws and punishments for theft are always among the first that socities create.
Here's a legal definition of theft: "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently". Can I ask in the case being discussed, what money or property has somebody been deprived of wrongfully? Please note that you cannot be deprived of something that you never had a right to have in the first place. Unauthorised copying is not theft. The two are totally different concepts, and while laws against theft are, as you say, usually among the first that societies create, it is worth noting that unauthorised copying was not a crime anywhere until only around 300 years ago.
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Interesting)
Same here, I've spent more money on software in the year I've had my iPhone than in the decade before that. If I can buy a great game like Monkey Island for a few euro's it's not even worth the effort to pirate it.
I would happily pay an honest price for (on-demand) movies and series if only it was as convenient as buying app-store apps and if it would actually be available over here. For example: the new Stargate series, it'll be years before it's on TV here, and they'll probably mess up the order (I have no clue why they do this, but they can's seem to ever show any series in the correct order over here), stop halfway through a season, broadcast it at random times, etc. It's almost as if they don't want people to follow the series.
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:5, Insightful)
For example: the new Stargate series, it'll be years before it's on TV here, and they'll probably mess up the order (I have no clue why they do this, but they can's seem to ever show any series in the correct order over here), stop halfway through a season, broadcast it at random times, etc. It's almost as if they don't want people to follow the series.
Easy; it's filler, the content being commercials.
Parent
Re:Didn't think App Store piracy was that big (Score:4, Insightful)
What is available at iTunes and the App Store depends on where you live.
Here in Brazil, there is no iTunes. The App Store sucks too and nothing is available in it due to restrictions I don't understand.
Hence, tpb and Cydia.
Parent
flagged? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:flagged? (Score:4, Informative)
I think Apple delivers some kind of deviceid with the sales report so you can easily compare that to the deviceid you send with the highscores. The reason why this cannot be used for piracy prevention is that it takes weeks for Apple to deliver those reports so by the time you get them, a pirate has already finished playing the game.
Parent
Low attention span? (Score:3, Funny)
One interesting note is that the most pirate scores are submitted for Story level, then Rounds, then survival. This is the same order that the game types show up in our menus. This may point out that Pirates generally have a lower attention span – they quickly move on to the next game.
There's a really good reason why pirated scores are submitted in that order, and I would tell you, but there's a shiny red ball outside and I gotta catch it.
BRB
Pirate Flag... (Score:3, Interesting)
Without knowing exactly how this so called "Pirate Flag" works we cannot say that it is recording correct data. Frankly an 80% piracy rate seems a little difficult to believe given how most iPhone users I know use their phones (most use stock firmware, since they're still on warranty, and people have spent up to £800 and don't want to 'brick' it).
Most iPhones owners are happy to use the App' Store and iTunes. That is one of the reasons they purchased the device, to give them access to a huge array of high quality applications.
Ads (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not surprising. (Score:3, Insightful)
Another example (Score:5, Informative)
I am the iPhone developer for the Notifications app (see http://www.appnotifications.com/ [appnotifications.com]). On the first day my app was published on appulous (that happened very quickly after my app was on the appstore), the piracy rate was 99.3%. On that 99.3% I had about 1% who bought the application after trying it.
That was in the beginning of September, I now have a total piracy rate of about 50%. My app requires network and connects on my server, therefor my stats are pretty accurate. I think the piracy rate would be way higher than 50% if my app did not have to connect to my server.
Re:Another example (Score:5, Interesting)
Good question, which I don't have a "true" answer for.
My feeling is, as very little percentage of pirate finally bought the app after "trying it", having them downloading the app for free did not help on the sales after. Almost none of those hackers did post on blogs, Twitter, etc so it doesn't help neither.
What might have helped a bit is being listed on appulous, I guess some people are tracking the 'hacker' websites to see what's hot, and what was released recently. What might happen is people buying the app straight without going through the hacker stage. However, as I had 99.3% of hackers on the next days after it was published on appulous, which only 1% bought the app after, I would say it did not impact on my real sales.
I think Photoshop is a different case which you can't compare with mine. I agree with what you say about it, but I don't think it applies on mine (sadly ;).
Parent
Re:Another example (Score:4, Interesting)
However, as I had 99.3% of hackers on the next days after it was published on appulous, which only 1% bought the app after, I would say it did not impact on my real sales.
So your real sales were 0.7% and pirating brought 0.993%, effectively more than doubling your sales, and you say it had no impact? Are you serious?
Parent
An admission... (Score:5, Interesting)
I must admit that prior to the days when I had money to throw away on games as I saw fit I truly did pirate a game now and then for the sake of a trial period. I found it effective, but mainly in convincing me not to buy the game. And see, there is this unexpected factor I discovered, actually only recently, that severely impacts this chain of actions...
Basically it amounts to this: I find, all too often, that many games are not worth playing beyond the amount you normally get in a demo! I have downloaded so many demo games, especially racing or fighting games, on the PlayStation Network or XBOX Live and found that... well that was enough. To spend $60 more dollars simply to add a few levels and get the same experience was not a valuable prospect for me.
I won't try to claim that any significant portion of these piracy observations can be explained by what I'm describing. I would say it's not without merit though. In these days, there are so many games. I mean, honestly, I think there are more games released in a year than I could humanly play through in their entirety. Even filtering out the disinteresting games I would still never have the time, given work and other responsibilities, to finish anywhere near say, 10% of the releases in a year.
So to go from trial period to purchase, especially on a game that's likely a shallow me-too on the iPhone... well let's demonstrate the thought process with another nugget: I have downloaded probably 25 different "Light" games and never even tried them before I deleted them because I simply lost all interest.
You can't beat pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
If you slash the price of the game in half in a few months and re-advertise it (like Steam has been doing with their weekly sales), then you will see another jump in sales. If you cut it down to 1/4, you will get even more sales. Some people think $4 is a good price, but others won't pay more than $2, and still some will wait for the $1 or $0.50 sale.
Each step allows you to reel in more buyers, because everybody has their own price threshold.
Games depreciate in value quickly--that's just how it is. Eventually the game won't be worth anything to anyone. Then you should give it out for free, along with a big fat advertisement for your next game. You ARE working on the next game, right?
Some people wouldn't pay a cent for the game in the first place, and they are the real pirates. You can't negotiate with them, so don't even bother. It's wasted development time to fight them. Even if you somehow make your game unpirate-able, they will just ignore your game and find something else to occupy their time.
What you CAN do is try to net the would-be pirates who simply have a lower price threshold. Also you might net a few guilt-ridden pirates who think they are "redeeming their sins" by eventually buying the game they pirated, even though it's been a few months since release and the price has dropped significantly in the meantime. You might also pick up a few people who just like thinking they're getting a good deal.
It is simple (Score:4, Interesting)
To start out with, I would like to mention that I have pirated a lot in my lifetime. I pirated more when I was unemployed and poor, because I had lots of time and less money. I still pirate some, but nowadays I also buy more now that I am earning good money. But anyway, here is my viewpoint of piracy.
Most of the excuses pirates use are just that, excuses.
* Try before you buy! It does happen, but rarely.
* Everything sucks! Then why are you pirating it in the first place?
* Damn the evil publishers!! You really believe most pirates are like that?
Want to hear a valid excuse
* It is free to pirate, so I don't have to worry about money.
Now, you will here people mention that these games aren't really that expensive. But that misses the point. There is a huge difference between cheap and free, and it affects behavior a lot. When something is free, you can consume it without feeling like you have to get value out of it. And that gains a certain amount of freedom which is very difficult to compete with if you are trying to charge for a product.
Now, the article in question I actually found was fairly unbiased. It did mention that piracy is high as soon as the game is released. This is not strange at all. As pirates have no restrictions on them in regard to money, they will play whatever they feel like. And the newest thing on the market is simply an easy target.
This may point out that Pirates generally have a lower attention span they quickly move on to the next game
This is a nice observation in the article. I would say that it isn't attention span per se. It is just that pirates have a fare wider selection of items to select from. Again, having to do with the freedom I mentioned above.
The author goes on to discuss ways to combat piracy. And here I want to mention an important thing. If you use piracy protection to fight against piracy, then you are using it wrong. If you use piracy protection to steal customers from a competing product that doesn't have piracy protection then you are doing it right.
If you fail to understand the difference, it is simple. Pirates buy products too. And they are more likely to buy something if they get value out of it beyond legal ownership. This is why authenticated multi player mode is a very efficient piracy protection mechanism. It gives the pirates something that they want to buy, without providing any negative effects on other customers (who may or may not pirate other products).
It is the same in other businesses. If a pirate has to decided between buying a CD of one artist, or attending a live performance of another artist, guess what they will choose. Same with DVD vs. movie theater.
Of course, there are always pirates that won't buy anything. Either because they have no money, or because they intend to use that money for other things. But, those are the kind of pirates that simply aren't worth spending any effort on. At best you can hope that their money habits will change over time, and that you as a developer will be a beneficiary.
Not asking real question? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the RIAA fallacy, presuming that all pirated copies represent lost revenue.
Apps can be shared with up to 5 devices (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wondering if his methodology is bad. I haven't read TFA as yet but it seems from scanning the posts here that he was comparing the deviceID that purchased with the deviceID that posted the score... in which case, how is he accounting for the fact that users are specifically allowed to share their apps with up to 5 devices?
I do this all the time between my wife and I. We download games for our kids to play as well as apps and music for ourselves when we find them... then sync up the phones via iTunes (as we are specifically allowed to do) - so that we can share our household purchases between the two phones.
If you assume a maximum of sharing.... take a sample of 100 downloads, then share it out to 5 people = 500 downloads, using his method you instantly have an 80% pirate rate!!!!
Excuses, Excuses, Excuses... He's wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
From Toucharcade:
"Ethan Nicholas is one of the big indie success stories of the App Store. Nicholas quit his job back in January after his tank artillery game iShoot grabbed the #1 spot in the App Store. Nicholas reportedly made over $800,000 within five months."
This is just one of MANY games that made a crap load of money via legal sales on iTunes. Such games as that include, Trisms, Space Invaders: Infinity Gene, 2 Across, Fieldrunners, Real Racing, Madden, Tiger Woods, Need for Speed, Flight Control, AIM, Baseball Stars, Texas Hold'em, Rock Band, Tap Tap Dance, and MANY MORE....
These games have made a lot of money in very short time. Trism's made the indie developer, $250,000 in 2 months. 2 Across, also made an indie developer $1800 a DAY in sales. Tap Tap Dance, made $6,927 a week when it launched. Now Tap Tap has several games out, which are HUGE successes for an indie developer on the iphone. You can only imagine how profitable they are now.
This developers game (Tap-Fu) is bad. Its not a good game. Its not even a complete game. Its missing most of the story mode, as it hasnt been made yet. It has very simple gameplay that really doesnt work well.
There was no trial version for the game. Many games have free trial versions known as "lite" versions on iTunes. The developer tries to shoot down the idea that warez users tend to try out software, then some possibly buy it.
Frankly by not providing a free trial version via itunes, he forced people to try out a warezed version.
I bought Tap-Fu after reading about it on Toucharcade.com. It looked promising, but it fell flat. Its bad. iTunes has a no return policy.... perhaps that forces more people to use warez versions because the proof is that... PEOPLE DO BUY these apps legally... IF they are good and worth it. These companies do make good money selling them. The App store has helped keep the indie developement scene alive. Many people have quit their day jobs to code Apps full time that generate $200,000 in profit in 2 months.
TAP-Fu was simply not a good game. At least in my opinion
The fact is, all of those games I mentioned above have made a LOT of money, under the same circumstances as this developer's "Tap-Fu" game. They all faced the "threat" of piracy. The difference is, those other games were worth owning, and Tap-Fu is not. That's the real reason why its not selling well. Not some silly piracy excuse.
The developers score board data is certainly interesting, but it is not proof of ANYTHING, other than people didnt find his app worth buying. MOST apps arent worth buying, or even installing illegally...
There are a good handful of ones that are... and they do make money. Lots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
have they ruled out the reason why they haven't sold any to those pirates is because...they aren't really pirates but people who despise the App Store and it's restrictions?
Are you suggesting that these so-called pirates are actually peaceful protesters performing civil disobedience? MLK Jr. would be so proud!
Re:what about a different delivery system? (Score:4, Insightful)
This being the same MLK Jr who plagarised large portions of his doctoral thesis? I'm not sure he would be in the best position to criticise copyright violation.
Parent
Re:what about a different delivery system? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... so you bought an iPhone despite not liking the terms and conditions that you agreed to when buying the iPhone? So you go out and pirate some independent developers game as a means of getting back at Apple for those terms that you voluntarily agreed to... and this somehow makes you not a pirate?
This is quite possibly the dumbest explanation for piracy I've ever heard.
Parent