Support NeoGAF

[outlawedprod]

Customers buy a product or service not because of some intrinsic part of the product itself but because something about it provides value to the customer. DRM provides no value to the customer. It allegedly to some provides value to the publisher/retailer/developer which supposedly will result in future value to the customer but this is false. Value is directed at the time of purchase not some roundabout process or hope of future benefits to the customer.

When you as a customer pay for some type of service like a tax preparer or lawyer or IT professional or waiter at a restaurant you don't care about how they get their job done effectively or what makes their job work better. You made the purchase because something they have provides value and the inner functions of how that is delivered to you do not matter. You only care that it has value. DRM provides no value to the customer and as some have pointed out actually can remove value from the product.

The point that should be focused on as others have mentioned is that creating value for your customers should be the focus of developers and publishers. While you can argue an individual that pirates a piece of software is breaking the law it doesn't change the fact that in the popular opinion it is viewed as a negligible event every day similar to when someone drives over the speed limit but without recklessly endangering someone else's life. Good luck fighting that battle. People who swapped audio cassette copies back in the day or download mp3s today are not viewed as real thieves. While the actions of mp3 copying differ in scale thanks to the Internet the reality is that the intent behind the average committed act of that type of piracy has remained the same. Intent and motive is an important aspect to consider.

If a major company videogame publisher that is a competitor to Activision were to copy the next Call of Duty and upload it to the internet so everyone could download it for free what do you think people would think about the legal actions of this company? If some kid then downloaded that game how would you view the criminal nature of that kid's action?

Now compare that with something that happens everyday. If some warez group uploaded the game and then some kid download it through a torrent how would you view the criminal nature of their actions? Would you consider the moral issues differently?

I guess what I'm trying to say in summary is that piracy is not a good thing but at the same time attempting to fight it at the detriment of your customers is misguided. People have been pirating stuff for ages the only thing that made the major publishers and recording companies care is the scale enabled by the Internet. One attempt is to attempt to control/police social behavior through something like DRM. Another idea would be to beat the social behavior or somehow harness it for your own good through other methods.

 

[abstract alien]

I would love to meet the pirates they are talking about, as the ones I've known aren't NEARLY that nice. Generally speaking, they would do exactly as he stated, except when the sequel to said pirated game released, they would just know to have it queued instead of stumbling upon it so they could play it before it even released in the store.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

So I've read through the entire thread, and just wanted to comment where I could. I notice there's a lot of clumsily irrelevant back and forths going on, notably in regard to piracy as a tool to gauge value, and as a personal choice. I think the real issue is largely understated, which is that software piracy (in all forms) is a manifestation of how society adapted to a new technology and how we choose to use it. Which historically speaking choosing to voluntarily share media for totally non-profit gain is quite extraordinary and speaks to another part of the human condition. And the fact that some people are willing to argue for it and fight for the right to share personal media, free from social/legal sanction is equally extraordinary.

Piracy can be used as a measuring stick to gauge value, there's far more evidence of this than the contrary. And for an indie developer there is no better marketing, especially for a game who's gameplay heavily relies on Steam leaderboards/achievements for expert play. Obviously that wouldn't apply to every game or budget, but in a theoretical world without piracy, there would be far less sales (especially on PC) in this economy had it not existed. But who it favors and by how much is really only measured by individual self interest (consumer or dev/pub).

As a personal choice I err on the side of the consumer to make up their own minds about if/when/where they choose to pirate, or not. I don't think I could ever support a State or a market which dictates and shapes social uses and abuses of technology. And morals have no place in this discussion, business doesn't build itself on a moral basis, so why some people (usually consumers I might add) continually want to force morals down our throats is beyond me. If business has every right to act immorally both internally and in the marketplace, why should consumers be held to different standard?

So we've got two competing ideas of self-interest. On the one hand we've got anti-pirates and their supporters arguing that piracy is robbing "the industry" and thus by proxy robbing "the consumer" out of future quality products. A completely sensible and somewhat rational position to take, after all there's a lot of investment in keeping the old engine moving.

And then, we have the filesharing community who argue that "I can share my personal copy however I wish, or download what I like", "1 pirated copy =/= 1 lost sale", "I want to try before I buy", "I want to use all options available to me as a compulsive consumer", "I don't like the industry or DRM", etc. Again, completely understandable somewhat rational position especially if you value personal liberty/free market principles, the current market is no shining example of a free market. Obviously piracy is not an answer, but it's certainly a understandable position.

So they both have valid points, but one area which a lot of people struggle to agree on is, who's self-interest is more important? The old market, or the shifting phenomena of social/technological change, and that really comes down to individual preference and why this issue remains hotly debated. A lot of it comes down to conditioning, how we sort of (as a society) build a framework in our minds of acceptable fair use, acceptable bullshit and acceptable hypocrisy. If you're born into a pseudo-free market and can talk yourself into believing that piracy = bad, paying for everything = good, than the solution is obvious...on the flipside you might see things a bit more nuanced.

So for me the solution is simple, compete for convenience (inroads are already being made here) and adapt to the changing marketplace. Piracy even with the best security measures will never be eliminated, not with the demand as high as it is now. There will never be an example in future history of piracy being permanently reduced in size, all we can do is try to contain it and use it where we can. Part of that I think will be much more flexible pricing structures (the $60 brick and mortar is archaic at best), free to play, better overall security, and making the act of piracy less of a taboo and more of an entrance and sampling activity. A lot of what has allowed piracy to build to this point, is the hush hush nature of it and "oh we can't talk about that" kind mentality. Good things (and negative things) will come out of piracy, but my position is if you don't pirate that doesn't make you any better/more moral than anyone else, and if you do be prepared to face the marketplace consequences. In defense of what Edmund said in particular, there are just as many negative connotations that will arise out of no-piracy as their would be with mass piracy, there must be a fragile balance.

 

[abstract alien]

So for me the solution is simple, compete for convenience (inroads are already being made here) and adapt to the changing marketplace. Piracy even with the best security measures will never be eliminated, not with the demand as high as it is now. There will never be an example in future history of piracy being permanently reduced in size, all we can do is try to contain it and use it where we can. Part of that I think will be much more flexible pricing structures (the $60 brick and mortar is archaic at best), free to play, better overall security, and making the act of piracy less of a taboo and more of an entrance and sampling activity. A lot of what has allowed piracy to build to this point, is the hush hush nature of it and "oh we can't talk about that" kind mentality. Good things (and negative things) will come out of piracy, but my position is if you don't pirate that doesn't make you any better/more moral than anyone else, and if you do be prepared to face the marketplace consequences. In defense of what Edmund said in particular, there are just as many negative connotations that will arise out of no-piracy as their would be with mass piracy, there must be a fragile balance.

I've read what you had to say and it really does sum up what the industry/consumer is going up against at this moment. The bolded is the hardest part for me to really grasp though, in all honesty. Not expecting you or anyone in general to come up with a really sound answer, but how exactly do you make something more convenient than pirating, and do so without actual pirate protection? Pirating in this day and age takes near zero effort in most cases, and usually saves the customer(?) both money and time in the process. In cases such as the Wii, GBA, PS3, etc, the games themselves even benefit due to run on a harddrive/less loading/channel selection style choice instead of disk swapping, etc.

The only answer I can think of is cloud gaming, but that puts us right back into the debate, since you don't own anything physical. Ah, just seems like a nightmare for those who are depended upon to make these types of decisions. I have no idea where to even begin on how to make something easier than pirating...

 

[Glorious_Paradox]

Personally, I can't think of a single negative thing that comes out of piracy.

Sure, some sales might be lost and some are probably gained, but how much your game sells is dictated almost exclusively by its marketing, critical reception and quality (in that order), regardless of how many copies are enjoyed in between for free.

Hell, if I saw people not willing to spend money to play our game or hear my music, I'd be happy to make an "illegal" copy and give it to them myself for free (as I have done on occasion). It might not be a logical approach, but it's good business practice and, above all, a very human thing to do (sharing is caring etc.).

 

[Snuggles]

Personally, I can't think of a single negative thing that comes out of piracy.

DRM.

 

[TheExodu5]

I know many people that pirate games. DRM has never stopped a single one of them from pirating a game, and has never convinced them to buy it instead. What convinces them to buy a game? It depends on the price, and how much they liked it.

Spot on, Team Meat.

I'm against piracy because I think it's wrong, and it hurts developers. However, I think it's an inevitability that should be combatted by offering superior value to the legitimate customer.

edit: sorry for the triple post...iPhone makes it hard to quote multiple posts.

 

[TheExodu5]

I've read what you had to say and it really does sum up what the industry/consumer is going up against at this moment. The bolded is the hardest part for me to really grasp though, in all honesty. Not expecting you or anyone in general to come up with a really sound answer, but how exactly do you make something more convenient than pirating, and do so without actual pirate protection? Pirating in this day and age takes near zero effort in most cases, and usually saves the customer(?) both money and time in the process. In cases such as the Wii, GBA, PS3, etc, the games themselves even benefit due to run on a harddrive/less loading/channel selection style choice instead of disk swapping, etc.

The only answer I can think of is cloud gaming, but that puts us right back into the debate, since you don't own anything physical. Ah, just seems like a nightmare for those who are depended upon to make these types of decisions. I have no idea where to even begin on how to make something easier than pirating...

Steam has been the answer for the guys I know that pirate. Why bother messing with a torrent when you can buy the game for $3.75 and get it hassle free? Steamworks makes things even better with the addition of things like achievements and cloud saves.

 

[TheExodu5]

Customers buy a product or service not because of some intrinsic part of the product itself but because something about it provides value to the customer. DRM provides no value to the customer. It allegedly to some provides value to the publisher/retailer/developer which supposedly will result in future value to the customer but this is false. Value is directed at the time of purchase not some roundabout process or hope of future benefits to the customer.

When you as a customer pay for some type of service like a tax preparer or lawyer or IT professional or waiter at a restaurant you don't care about how they get their job done effectively or what makes their job work better. You made the purchase because something they have provides value and the inner functions of how that is delivered to you do not matter. You only care that it has value. DRM provides no value to the customer and as some have pointed out actually can remove value from the product.

The point that should be focused on as others have mentioned is that creating value for your customers should be the focus of developers and publishers. While you can argue an individual that pirates a piece of software is breaking the law it doesn't change the fact that in the popular opinion it is viewed as a negligible event every day similar to when someone drives over the speed limit but without recklessly endangering someone else's life. Good luck fighting that battle. People who swapped audio cassette copies back in the day or download mp3s today are not viewed as real thieves. While the actions of mp3 copying differ in scale thanks to the Internet the reality is that the intent behind the average committed act of that type of piracy has remained the same. Intent and motive is an important aspect to consider.

If a major company videogame publisher that is a competitor to Activision were to copy the next Call of Duty and upload it to the internet so everyone could download it for free what do you think people would think about the legal actions of this company? If some kid then downloaded that game how would you view the criminal nature of that kid's action?

Now compare that with something that happens everyday. If some warez group uploaded the game and then some kid download it through a torrent how would you view the criminal nature of their actions? Would you consider the moral issues differently?

I guess what I'm trying to say in summary is that piracy is not a good thing but at the same time attempting to fight it at the detriment of your customers is misguided. People have been pirating stuff for ages the only thing that made the major publishers and recording companies care is the scale enabled by the Internet. One attempt is to attempt to control/police social behavior through something like DRM. Another idea would be to beat the social behavior or somehow harness it for your own good through other methods.

Best Junior post I have ever read.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

I've read what you had to say and it really does sum up what the industry/consumer is going up against at this moment. The bolded is the hardest part for me to really grasp though, in all honesty. Not expecting you or anyone in general to come up with a really sound answer, but how exactly do you make something more convenient than pirating, and do so without actual pirate protection? Pirating in this day and age takes near zero effort in most cases, and usually saves the customer(?) both money and time in the process. In cases such as the Wii, GBA, PS3, etc, the games themselves even benefit due to run on a harddrive/less loading/channel selection style choice instead of disk swapping, etc.

The only answer I can think of is cloud gaming, but that puts us right back into the debate, since you don't own anything physical. Ah, just seems like a nightmare for those who are depended upon to make these types of decisions. I have no idea where to even begin on how to make something easier than pirating...

Well I think that's sort of where the DRM-debate comes in. I personally have no issue with tighter security for games and or hardware, as long as it's more or less invisible to the user and has very few strict usage policies. The 360/PS3 is actually a good example to some extent, you can pirate if you want to but in order to do so you must forgo PSN and XBL (for JTAGs at least), at least for the time being. And with every update there's more issues to work through, in the end it just makes it a pain in the ass to be a pirate consistently vs. being a legitimate customer. And with services like Steam the online/leaderboards and achievements obviously aren't available to pirates. Updates as well play a big part because it's very often the case that whatever group or source sharing each update to pirates won't be uploading them the same day they launch, or ever in some cases.

So at least in the short term it's a case of competing for convenience for most users, obviously there will always be determined pirates. But for the mass majority, especially with piracy for next gen consoles becoming increasingly complex/more of a hassle it might tempt more people to just go legit. Even now the constant stream of updates/cracks/workarounds can number in the dozens after a year, and legit customers have to deal with none of that. So I think tying the core experience into the full services model (achievements/online functionality/MP/etc) can go a long way to making piracy much more of a hassle than it's worth. And we can see some measure of this with the current XBL update flashing drives back to stock FW, and the shift to XGD3 (requiring a new 0800 to rip games) as well as new AP2.5 challenges being added with each update. So even now, convenience isn't always guaranteed with piracy at least in the short term until they figure out ways around it.

 

[subversus]

Personally, I can't think of a single negative thing that comes out of piracy.

Sure, some sales might be lost and some are probably gained, but how much your game sells is dictated almost exclusively by its marketing, critical reception and quality (in that order), regardless of how many copies are enjoyed in between for free.

it's like people live in some parallel universe...

 

[SiriusTexra]

People still shell out money for Call of Duty at $60+ on PC, Portal 2 (a mostly single player game) at $40 and Terraria at mere dollars, on PC.

People buy GOOD GAMES from all price ranges.

Piracy theories are flawed.

Make a good game, word of mouth will sell it, people will want to own it so it's theirs, and they are guaranteed playing it.

Just like how I bought about 4 copies of Max Payne 2 when it turned up on steam for my friends. Good games get a badge of respect on their collar. They will always sell, and infact, if they are moddable, it shows that they will be bought continuously down the track.

Good examples are GTAIV, Crysis, Halo PC, Vampire Bloodlines. Games that really should've been worn out within a year, and people still buy them because they got modded and had a feeling of life in them beyond what was given to people.

I wholly think, that leaving a game open for modding, giving out tools to help do so, and all around making a good solid game, being friendly developers and treating your fans with respect will ensure a games survival.

It gives people a good sense of community. That's what keeps people sticking around, and that's what guilt trips people into buying the game even if they have pirated. Other players.

 

[Glorious_Paradox]

DRM.

In the case of DRM, I think the problem doesn't stem from piracy itself, but rather from the way it's treated by some of the larger companies, who seem hell-bent on fighting it with exceedingly extreme measure, regardless of whether it disadvantages their customers or not.

heh, the funny thing is that all those large companies probably spend more money researching and implementing new anti-piracy measures, than they actually lose from piracy itself

 

[A Link to the Past]

I love it when people justify stealing by saying it doesn't count because it's digital.

The point is that the cost of fighting digital piracy is, for the most part, worse than leaving it alone.

 

[yarden24]

just to give my own example on the DRM thing, I've been playing PC games for years, and while many times PC game are buggy and need patches and mods, I have never not played a game I bought because of those bugs.

this changed with assassins creed 2, I didnt buy the game on release because I heard of the DRM, but at some point a steam sale was cheap enough that I bought it anyway.

I have since tried many thing to get the game to work, but because of the DRM it keeps either crashing on loading it, or about 15 minutes later.

this resulted in not only me not bieng exposed to the game, and lost of me buying any future games in the series, but also frustrating me enough so I will not buy any ubisoft games in the foreseeable future.

using draconian DRM has lost ubisoft a costumer, and I can only assume im not the only one.

 

[charlequin]

Not expecting you or anyone in general to come up with a really sound answer, but how exactly do you make something more convenient than pirating

Steam is much more convenient than pirating. GoG is much more convenient than pirating since they actually set up the old games to work on new OSes for you. Games on Demand/PSN full downloads could get close to being more convenient than pirating if the prices were actually responsive like they are on PC storefronts.

I mean, look at iTunes here. Pretty much 100% of iTunes' success in selling music comes down to the fact that it's faster to buy an album there than to hunt around a bunch of ultra-sketchy places to get a ripped copy.

Something copyright-oriented businesses have historically really disliked about this direction is that services like GoG, iTunes, etc. attack and delegitimize large-scale institutional piracy in part by enabling casual, friends-and-family piracy (by selling people DRM-free or DRM-lite content that can be shared locally without much trouble.) Monetarily this is a way better deal for the creators, but it does result in the loss of quite a bit of control and that seems to motivate a lot of pro-DRM activity much moreso than piracy does.

Steam has been the answer for the guys I know that pirate. Why bother messing with a torrent when you can buy the game for $3.75 and get it hassle free?

Yeah, the vast majority of my college gaming friends quit whatever level of piracy they engaged in once they graduated and got real jobs, but there was one guy who was still an inveterate pirate until just recently -- Steam, the Humble Indie Bundle, and PC indie gaming in general finally put an end to that.

 

[Crateman]

Here's my take on the issue, from a more global perspective.

Piracy will always exists, and no matter how many locks we implement, pirates will always find a way. It's part of the equation. Our best bet is to understand why people pirate and what can we learn from it. And if the lessons we are learning from this mean that we need to cut costs, skip the middleman, and offer more value, then we have to accept change.

Picture this: if a $60 dollar game is considered expensive for people living in developed countries, how do you think they are considered in other markets, where economical conditions are not as prosperous? Add import duties and store’s cut for each copy, and you’ll find an even more prohibitively expensive product.

What happens when your product is simply not distributed in certain region? Sometimes the only way people will have access to games is trough piracy. Is not that they pick pirate over original... sometimes pirate is the only option! You can’t blame people for pirating your product if your original product isn’t available to them.

Games are a global mean of entertainment and their content has multicultural appeal. Digital distribution, Free-To-Play, in-browser games and $.99 games are consequence of the need people all over the world have for games: affordable, good value, and easy to acquire.

 

[Snuggles]

If anyone still cares about this topic, IGN did another interview with Edmund McMillen to clear things up a bit.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/118/1186501p1.html

 

[Nemo]

If anyone still cares about this topic, IGN did another interview with Edmund McMillen to clear things up a bit.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/118/1186501p1.html

What is it with gamers and awful analogies?

It's like when you teach your kid about safe sex, you don't say "Don't ever have sex or you'll die and go to hell". That's not effective way. Kids are going to have sex and people are going to pirate sh&t, telling them not to do it isn't going to fix anything, it's simply time people understood that this stuff is happening and it's not going to away by telling people to stop and/or not talking about it.

 

[SpaceDrake]

McMillen: Following the article we did get a great deal of positive response from the public and many emails "confessing their piracy sins" and explaining how they went out and purchased the game on Steam after playing or shortly after reading the article. We were actually taken a back by the number of positive comments we got about speaking honestly on this issue and I think the response goes hand in hand with the idea that people don't like being lied to or talked down to. When you show the public respect, they give you that respect back.

Radical fuckin' thinking for this industry, right here, I swear.

 

[cametall]

Sounds like the Napster conundrum back in the day.

Indie artists liked Napster because it got their name out.

Mainstream/Popular artists were against Napster because it hurt them financially.

 

[domlolz]

So I've read through the entire thread, and just wanted to comment where I could. I notice there's a lot of clumsily irrelevant back and forths going on, notably in regard to piracy as a tool to gauge value, and as a personal choice. I think the real issue is largely understated, which is that software piracy (in all forms) is a manifestation of how society adapted to a new technology and how we choose to use it. Which historically speaking choosing to voluntarily share media for totally non-profit gain is quite extraordinary and speaks to another part of the human condition. And the fact that some people are willing to argue for it and fight for the right to share personal media, free from social/legal sanction is equally extraordinary.

Nice post, just replace every post in this thread with this.

 

[Draft]

It's not surprising that cutting edge indie devs would also be on the forefront of 21st century commerce. I almost feel bad for the publishers clinging to DRM like a child clings to his safety blanket.

 

[Dark Octave]

If I ever had access to anything for free, it would be impossible for me to go back to paying for it. All of the monetary value of that object/service would be gone.

 

[Petrie]

If I ever had access to anything for free, it would be impossible for me to go back to paying for it. All of the monetary value of that object/service would be gone.

But the service part is exactly what they're talking about, and something you can't get free. Sure you can play SMB free with a pirate copy, but you miss out on the leaderboards in particular, which are a huge part of any game like that. Same goes for many other games where the updates and such like that make even a pirate copy just like an extended demo. Sometimes a pirate copy can't ever emulate the legit one.

 

[Mario]

I know many people that pirate games. DRM has never stopped a single one of them from pirating a game, and has never convinced them to buy it instead. What convinces them to buy a game? It depends on the price, and how much they liked it.

I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary. We had a game where the DRM was never defeated, and people hanging out on the pirate boards started giving up on waiting for a cracked version and started buying it. They really, really wanted the game, but they weren't prepared to pay for it when they assumed they would be able to get it for free.


It is hard to guage the actual impact of piracy and whether there is a net positive or negative impact, and there is no way to prove it either way. My own estimate based on the numbers I've reviewed and examples I've been exposed to is that in general piracy creates 10-15% loss in revenues, and in general lowers personal perceptions of value.

Of course, perceptions of value for all media have been coming down due to not only piracy but also the proliferation of commercial content aggregation and distribution services as well as legitimately free content which have been bringing the average cost of content down. The amount of content you can access for free or "near free" is amazing.

Regardless of piracy, game developers have to adapt to that shift in consumer perceptions and adopt free to play business models. In doing so, they'd get the promotion otherwise resulting from piracy while eliminating the downside.