I never attacked your character. I asked how many publishers you have worked for, I can understand that people from outside the industry that havent shipped many PC titles and worked for publishers dont believe things etc. But they also have no clue. All the numbers I have seen and heard both from others and things you pick up here and there through the years in the industry points towards the exact same percentage area, around 90-95%. I also know one game I worked on was pirated more times during two weeks, from one torrentsite only, than our entire launchwindow sales (first two months). Like I said, I cant prove it, and the ones who can prove it dont want to, because angry shitstorm is bad PR even if they are right.
People believe you when talk about art because you're artists. People believe you when you talk about getting hired in the game industry because you've been employed in the game industry. Now, you're not a statistical researcher nor in any other scientific profession, as far as I know, but you expect me to take your word on statistics that you aren't qualified to speak on as an expert. The claims you're making are extraordinary and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find it quite dubious that when piracy rates are mentioned, they're invariably in the 90-95% range and lack any verifiable data. As I said before, the MPAA made similar claims and when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated, they found those claims to be false and baseless. So you'll excuse me when I find such claims to be hard to accept. Given that, I have to go with the hypothesis that those numbers are probably not accurate and potentially skewed.
I'm not sure why the percentages would even matter. If you go by "piracy is killing the industry" as your argument against illegal downloads, then it would, hypothetically, be totally okay if you were the only pirate or if you were pirating Blizzard games, which will make their money back anyway — as long as it doesn't 'kill the industry'. Which is silly. The reason you shouldn't pirate games is because it's amoral to declare yourself the authority on whether or not you should pay for someone else's work.
Percentages don't really matter, it's just a bit of "hey that's fucked up isn't it?" and carry on. The idea that this is some industry driven conspiracy doesn't stand up, piracy numbers really started making headlines when game developers decided to go out on their own. Like I said before, the big publishers want you to think piracy is a problem that they have under control with DRM.
I'm not sure why the percentages would even matter. If you go by "piracy is killing the industry" as your argument against illegal downloads, then it would, hypothetically, be totally okay if you were the only pirate or if you were pirating Blizzard games, which will make their money back anyway as long as it doesn't 'kill the industry'. Which is silly. The reason you shouldn't pirate games is because it's amoral to declare yourself the authority on whether or not you should pay for someone else's work.
To be honest, I think it's the failing of the artist to put themselves in a position where people can make such a determination. There are other options that lack that vulnerability and complaining that you can't pick option X and have everyone else abide by your choice is irrational.
I guess that sorts it then, discussion over until the Polycount statisticians show up.
You're just being facetious. You know that isn't the point. Others claimed that people only trust them when it suits their ends, but the truth is, people trust them for topics they have training and experience for, which informs their statements. The statistic claim is purely an appeal to authority fallacy. We don't need a statistician if we can review the data and methodology used to come to the 90% piracy rate claim. To just take it on faith and then cite it to support your argument is plain irresponsible.
That's also why Valve touts steam as being so successful for stopping piracy - they've made buying a game easier than pirating it.
That right there is why I believe the new consoles are going to be successful. Sony has basically say ya, you can play used games if you ahve the disk. IF you have the disk. but they have such a huuuge focus on their online store, I bet 80% of all games for the ps4 wont HAVE a disk. they`ll be digital only.
You're just being facetious. You know that isn't the point. Others claimed that people only trust them when it suits their ends, but the truth is, people trust them for topics they have training and experience for, which informs their statements. The statistic claim is purely an appeal to authority fallacy. We don't need a statistician if we can review the data and methodology used to come to the 90% piracy rate claim. To just take it on faith and then cite it to support your argument is plain irresponsible.
Still you trust my training and experience in art yet distrust my training and experience in making games. You also ignore my ultimate lesson from all of this: people are going to pirate your game whatever you do so don't worry about it.
Spending money trying to convert pirates into customers is almost as futile as spending money trying to prevent piracy. Putting the effort into trolling pirates might not be the best expenditure of funds either but the result this time has really paid off in positive word of mouth AND all this for a shameless clone.
Still you trust my training and experience in art yet distrust my training and experience in making games. You also ignore my ultimate lesson from all of this: people are going to pirate your game whatever you do so don't worry about it.
Spending money trying to convert pirates into customers is almost as futile as spending money trying to prevent piracy. Putting the effort into trolling pirates might not be the best expenditure of funds either but the result this time has really paid off in positive word of mouth AND all this for a shameless clone.
That is most definitely not what I said. As a game artist, I trust your ability and experience in making games and art. I don't doubt that at all. However, many in the industry don't seem to understand business models or even what business they're really in (i.e. it's not the plastic disc with stuff on it business). Trolling people that share copies of games is a huge waste of time and money when you can leverage them as part of marketing in a different business model. In fact, any countermeasure towards discouraging file sharing is a huge waste of time that could be spent on leveraging value that can't be had through simply copying a game.
I'll explain what I mean by that. Why do publishers hire and/or own game studios? Because they know how to make games. The studios provide a service to create games that publishers can turn around and sell to the public. Now, yank out the middleman (i.e. the publisher). What do you have left? You have the studio and the public. So what the studio could do is have their audience/fans "hire" them to make a game (like Doublefine and InXile, but going whole hog). Figure in salaries, overhead, benefits, marketing, taxes, and so on for a typical year. Then divide by 2080 hours (that's 40 hours per week over 52 weeks) and you have the studio's hourly rate. So when a studio puts up a game project for the public to pledge for, they can estimate the number of hours necessary to complete it. Then, multiply the studio's hourly rate by the span of the project, and BAMF! you have the cost of a game project and your funding goal. A two year project at a rate of $1000 an hour would run about 4.16 million, just as an example. Then you just have to give people a reason to pledge their money for a game that's two years away.
I was looking at the gameplay videos but I could not see the option anywhere to find a popular game on the market and reskin it, would've made a fantastic in-game feature
I bought the game and I have been playing it non-stop. I thought it was from GameDev Story team too, and this is very very similar, clone basically but still fun.
This whole conversation of who to believe/not to believe is ridiculous.
Indeed.
It does't matter what the exact percentage is or where it came from. Fact is, developers do not earn what they should, for the work they put into it. It's reasons like that the industry is having problems. Publishers and devs do not earn enough money and as such, they take less risks in creating amazing new experiences.
That is most definitely not what I said. As a game artist, I trust your ability and experience in making games and art. I don't doubt that at all. However, many in the industry don't seem to understand business models or even what business they're really in (i.e. it's not the plastic disc with stuff on it business). Trolling people that share copies of games is a huge waste of time and money when you can leverage them as part of marketing in a different business model. In fact, any countermeasure towards discouraging file sharing is a huge waste of time that could be spent on leveraging value that can't be had through simply copying a game.
I'll explain what I mean by that. Why do publishers hire and/or own game studios? Because they know how to make games. The studios provide a service to create games that publishers can turn around and sell to the public. Now, yank out the middleman (i.e. the publisher). What do you have left? You have the studio and the public. So what the studio could do is have their audience/fans "hire" them to make a game (like Doublefine and InXile, but going whole hog). Figure in salaries, overhead, benefits, marketing, taxes, and so on for a typical year. Then divide by 2080 hours (that's 40 hours per week over 52 weeks) and you have the studio's hourly rate. So when a studio puts up a game project for the public to pledge for, they can estimate the number of hours necessary to complete it. Then, multiply the studio's hourly rate by the span of the project, and BAMF! you have the cost of a game project and your funding goal. A two year project at a rate of $1000 an hour would run about 4.16 million, just as an example. Then you just have to give people a reason to pledge their money for a game that's two years away.
Oh I remember arguing with you about this. I get your view now and there's nothing wrong with it from a content point of view, but unfortunately this is not how the consumer thinks. Maybe it'll all change over time thanks to things like Kickstarter and F2P and the like: but right now most consumers (consumer like me) consider their games a self-contained product and pay form them as such. Even if you remove the middle-man I still expect developers to develop and release a completed game before I purchase it - I certainly don't consider my transaction a fee for service or a pledge, but as a trade of money for object. Allowing the developers direct sales without a middle-man won't change this perception overnight.
The only opinion I have on this story is that when studios see that their game has been hacked and put on torrent sites, they should flood those sites with versions that have some kind of bug. And make the game saves unusable with a fully working pirated version too hehe.
Indeed.
It does't matter what the exact percentage is or where it came from. Fact is, developers do not earn what they should, for the work they put into it. It's reasons like that the industry is having problems. Publishers and devs do not earn enough money and as such, they take less risks in creating amazing new experiences.
That's a huge assumption and your opinion, not a fact. The reasons the industry is not doing well is mostly internal. The landscape is changing and they're slow to adapt, so they respond to flagging profits by canning studios and employees.
Poisoning the torrents is not the proper response. You're never going to solve anything by devising ways of punishing people. It's a waste of time and resources. It's also vengeful thinking, not justice. All you're going to do is put more people off the idea of paying for it and make things worse. It would make far more sense to give them a reason to buy that a torrent can't provide.
I disagree, they are ready. Due to the advent of file sharing, radio, TV, other free at the point-of-access services, a lot of people are of the mind of getting the content for free and supporting the creators in other ways (e.g. merch, premium services, Kickstarter, etc.). Seeing the success of the Doublefine and InXile Kickstarters, it would appear that people are very much ready to throw their money at supporting the development of games, if they can be sure that the money is going directly to the people that are making them and the developers are making the games the audience wants to play rather than what the publisher think will sell to the lowest common denomenator. Consumers see the publishers as slimy middle men taking a cut of other people's hard work and they want to reward the people that do the real work. It's these people the industry should be putting their focus on those people because they are the bread and butter of the content industry.
I was thinking. Maybe a way to sedate the pirates would be to release a non gimped version for them that might display ads in game. And/or has a note in further level loads, that if they like the game, why not consider buying it and support the developer? Sorta.a PBS/NPR model. After all if they are playing later levels that would imply they liked it enough to continue.
Would that satisfy them Overload? Or would they still share the paid version?
Releasing a working version but with adds inside the game sounds like quite the decent idea. Kinda like how youtube does it with videos. Instead of having a loading screens you could have a loading screen with commercials. People hate commercials so I think doing something like this would convince more of the ones that pirated the game to buy it. And simply at the start of the commercial simply put "Buy this game to remove the adds and support further development." And the company would get some money back from the pirates, although probably not that much, but still better then getting nothing.
I was thinking. Maybe a way to sedate the pirates would be to release a non gimped version for them that might display ads in game. And/or has a note in further level loads, that if they like the game, why not consider buying it and support the developer? Sorta.a PBS/NPR model. After all if they are playing later levels that would imply they liked it enough to continue.
Would that satisfy them Overload? Or would they still share the paid version?
You know, that might work. People are pretty accustomed to ad supported content. It just needs to be appropriate ads, like on loading screens and banners for multiplayer lobbies/in game chat. I wouldn't guarantee some people might strip the ads, but there is a point of diminishing returns where stripping ads isn't worth the effort. Some things to consider though:
1. The ads can't interfere with the game. That would piss people off.
2. Loading screens shouldn't linger just to show more ads.
3. Avoid annoying ads. Like that viagra spam.
4. No "always on" connection to the internet tethering the player. Just cycle the downloaded ads if they're not connected. Download ads when a connection is available. If they get sick of seeing the same ads, hey, that's their problem.
I agree with some of it Overlord. I do think we're underestimating the lowest common denominator when it comes to consumers: while people have been showing a stronger desire to support the creators of what they love, I know there's people who wouldn't know crap or care crap about it just a stones throw away. I also disagree that things like Kickstarter represent a) a predictable force to a majority and b) selfless intangible investment in services. Most of the people contributing to Kickstarters are expecting a tangible product as a result (yes I'm counting digital as well) Yeah they're paying well ahead of time but I'm sure their perceptions have not switched to 'you're hired' but are still 'give me that game'.
At least that's how I feel, maybe I'm the exception but for the only Kickstarter I've paid I don't view it as supporting the devs but as payment for a product to exist - all the way into my possession.
Also I don't know why my post didn't go through earlier to reply:
Originally Posted by Joshua Stubbles Fact is, developers do not earn what they should, for the work they put into it.
Is that sustainable though? Money spent on games is money lost for something else. The most common argument against the concept that piracy equals lost sales is that it's unprovable that consumers would have bought the product if they couldn't pirate it. There is never going to be figures that support that but a pretty good case to be made is that there's no way the average pirate could afford to buy all of the things they've downloaded, I mean the money is just not there to go around.
My point being that while every developer definitely should deserve to get paid for their hard work, where's all that money going to come from? We would have to at some point admit that a pirate would not have bought some developers game and therefore that developer would have gone without.
So for me anyway, I just don't care about piracy - no wait I do, on a rational level, like I care about global warming but I'm not out running protests. Basically I have a lot of backups and cracks for games I own because I'm afraid the DRM may crap out on my collection but really even if I was able to pirate everything I've discovered that I can't even keep up with the games I've bought - at the rate I get to actually play them all I couldn't contribute to devs any faster.
how do games know they were pirated and activate this stuff? or is it like the first post and they release bugged versions on pirate sites
Well think about what copy protection usually does, it detects whether or not a copy is legit and if it isn't the game fails to launch. So when a cracker gets the game launched and it appears to be running fine they might think the crack is a success and release it.
But there can be other layers of copy protection in the game that still detects the illegit copy even after the crack, but instead of keeping the game from starting it disrupts the gameplay in ways that a cracker may not notice until someone has actually tried to play the game through.
Replies
People believe you when talk about art because you're artists. People believe you when you talk about getting hired in the game industry because you've been employed in the game industry. Now, you're not a statistical researcher nor in any other scientific profession, as far as I know, but you expect me to take your word on statistics that you aren't qualified to speak on as an expert. The claims you're making are extraordinary and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find it quite dubious that when piracy rates are mentioned, they're invariably in the 90-95% range and lack any verifiable data. As I said before, the MPAA made similar claims and when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated, they found those claims to be false and baseless. So you'll excuse me when I find such claims to be hard to accept. Given that, I have to go with the hypothesis that those numbers are probably not accurate and potentially skewed.
To be honest, I think it's the failing of the artist to put themselves in a position where people can make such a determination. There are other options that lack that vulnerability and complaining that you can't pick option X and have everyone else abide by your choice is irrational.
You're just being facetious. You know that isn't the point. Others claimed that people only trust them when it suits their ends, but the truth is, people trust them for topics they have training and experience for, which informs their statements. The statistic claim is purely an appeal to authority fallacy. We don't need a statistician if we can review the data and methodology used to come to the 90% piracy rate claim. To just take it on faith and then cite it to support your argument is plain irresponsible.
That right there is why I believe the new consoles are going to be successful. Sony has basically say ya, you can play used games if you ahve the disk. IF you have the disk. but they have such a huuuge focus on their online store, I bet 80% of all games for the ps4 wont HAVE a disk. they`ll be digital only.
Still you trust my training and experience in art yet distrust my training and experience in making games. You also ignore my ultimate lesson from all of this: people are going to pirate your game whatever you do so don't worry about it.
Spending money trying to convert pirates into customers is almost as futile as spending money trying to prevent piracy. Putting the effort into trolling pirates might not be the best expenditure of funds either but the result this time has really paid off in positive word of mouth AND all this for a shameless clone.
That is most definitely not what I said. As a game artist, I trust your ability and experience in making games and art. I don't doubt that at all. However, many in the industry don't seem to understand business models or even what business they're really in (i.e. it's not the plastic disc with stuff on it business). Trolling people that share copies of games is a huge waste of time and money when you can leverage them as part of marketing in a different business model. In fact, any countermeasure towards discouraging file sharing is a huge waste of time that could be spent on leveraging value that can't be had through simply copying a game.
I'll explain what I mean by that. Why do publishers hire and/or own game studios? Because they know how to make games. The studios provide a service to create games that publishers can turn around and sell to the public. Now, yank out the middleman (i.e. the publisher). What do you have left? You have the studio and the public. So what the studio could do is have their audience/fans "hire" them to make a game (like Doublefine and InXile, but going whole hog). Figure in salaries, overhead, benefits, marketing, taxes, and so on for a typical year. Then divide by 2080 hours (that's 40 hours per week over 52 weeks) and you have the studio's hourly rate. So when a studio puts up a game project for the public to pledge for, they can estimate the number of hours necessary to complete it. Then, multiply the studio's hourly rate by the span of the project, and BAMF! you have the cost of a game project and your funding goal. A two year project at a rate of $1000 an hour would run about 4.16 million, just as an example. Then you just have to give people a reason to pledge their money for a game that's two years away.
Indeed.
It does't matter what the exact percentage is or where it came from. Fact is, developers do not earn what they should, for the work they put into it. It's reasons like that the industry is having problems. Publishers and devs do not earn enough money and as such, they take less risks in creating amazing new experiences.
Oh I remember arguing with you about this. I get your view now and there's nothing wrong with it from a content point of view, but unfortunately this is not how the consumer thinks. Maybe it'll all change over time thanks to things like Kickstarter and F2P and the like: but right now most consumers (consumer like me) consider their games a self-contained product and pay form them as such. Even if you remove the middle-man I still expect developers to develop and release a completed game before I purchase it - I certainly don't consider my transaction a fee for service or a pledge, but as a trade of money for object. Allowing the developers direct sales without a middle-man won't change this perception overnight.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/04/29/eight-of-the-most-hilarious-anti-piracy-measures-in-video-games
That's a huge assumption and your opinion, not a fact. The reasons the industry is not doing well is mostly internal. The landscape is changing and they're slow to adapt, so they respond to flagging profits by canning studios and employees.
@everybody that supports bugged torrents
Poisoning the torrents is not the proper response. You're never going to solve anything by devising ways of punishing people. It's a waste of time and resources. It's also vengeful thinking, not justice. All you're going to do is put more people off the idea of paying for it and make things worse. It would make far more sense to give them a reason to buy that a torrent can't provide.
@snacuum
I disagree, they are ready. Due to the advent of file sharing, radio, TV, other free at the point-of-access services, a lot of people are of the mind of getting the content for free and supporting the creators in other ways (e.g. merch, premium services, Kickstarter, etc.). Seeing the success of the Doublefine and InXile Kickstarters, it would appear that people are very much ready to throw their money at supporting the development of games, if they can be sure that the money is going directly to the people that are making them and the developers are making the games the audience wants to play rather than what the publisher think will sell to the lowest common denomenator. Consumers see the publishers as slimy middle men taking a cut of other people's hard work and they want to reward the people that do the real work. It's these people the industry should be putting their focus on those people because they are the bread and butter of the content industry.
Would that satisfy them Overload? Or would they still share the paid version?
You know, that might work. People are pretty accustomed to ad supported content. It just needs to be appropriate ads, like on loading screens and banners for multiplayer lobbies/in game chat. I wouldn't guarantee some people might strip the ads, but there is a point of diminishing returns where stripping ads isn't worth the effort. Some things to consider though:
1. The ads can't interfere with the game. That would piss people off.
2. Loading screens shouldn't linger just to show more ads.
3. Avoid annoying ads. Like that viagra spam.
4. No "always on" connection to the internet tethering the player. Just cycle the downloaded ads if they're not connected. Download ads when a connection is available. If they get sick of seeing the same ads, hey, that's their problem.
Yeah, that might work. Nice idea.
hahaha this is awesome
how do games know they were pirated and activate this stuff? or is it like the first post and they release bugged versions on pirate sites
At least that's how I feel, maybe I'm the exception but for the only Kickstarter I've paid I don't view it as supporting the devs but as payment for a product to exist - all the way into my possession.
Also I don't know why my post didn't go through earlier to reply:
Is that sustainable though? Money spent on games is money lost for something else. The most common argument against the concept that piracy equals lost sales is that it's unprovable that consumers would have bought the product if they couldn't pirate it. There is never going to be figures that support that but a pretty good case to be made is that there's no way the average pirate could afford to buy all of the things they've downloaded, I mean the money is just not there to go around.
My point being that while every developer definitely should deserve to get paid for their hard work, where's all that money going to come from? We would have to at some point admit that a pirate would not have bought some developers game and therefore that developer would have gone without.
So for me anyway, I just don't care about piracy - no wait I do, on a rational level, like I care about global warming but I'm not out running protests. Basically I have a lot of backups and cracks for games I own because I'm afraid the DRM may crap out on my collection but really even if I was able to pirate everything I've discovered that I can't even keep up with the games I've bought - at the rate I get to actually play them all I couldn't contribute to devs any faster.
But there can be other layers of copy protection in the game that still detects the illegit copy even after the crack, but instead of keeping the game from starting it disrupts the gameplay in ways that a cracker may not notice until someone has actually tried to play the game through.