Ubisoft games - poster children for piracy?

[Berkut]

The developers can state that their decisions to not do a game on the PC is a result of their perceptions that piracy matter, but that doesn't make it so.

And your claim is that the pirates are "getting their just deserts". That is clearly claiming that the decline in PC gaming (which apparently has not happened) is a result of piracy. That is simply not evidenced at all.

Does piracy have "an effect"? I am sure it does. Is it significant? Hard to say, I think.

THe article posted earlier detailed download figures for a selection of major games (and including some cheaply priced indie games). Given that to afford a high-power gaming rig to use such software, we may reasonably assume a minimum level of affluence that could afford the game, even if someone had to save up a bit. Therefore we may in turn reasonably conclude that piracy costs an amount of revenue.

You can safely assume it costs "an amount of revenue", but not that it costs an amount that actually has an effect on the overall health of the PC gaming market, which is, IMO, much more dirven by technology and ease of use.

The games that do well on PCs still are those that are not well suited to consoles and niche games.

[Berkut]

As one example the article earlier gave, Crysis. Despite an advanced engine with great graphics and good reviews, it sold what, 10,000 units?

If you define 3 million units with another 1.5 million in the expansion as about 10,000 units, then you would be correct. It was, in fact, one of the best selling PC games of all time despite also being one of the most pirated PC games of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis#Commercial

Which tells you everything you need to know about the impact of piracy on PC gaming, in reality, as opposed to in the heads of developers. The devs imagine that every single copy pirated is a copy they didn't sell, which is just idiotic on the face of it.

[Berkut]

I am rather curious where that 10,000 number came from. I didn't really think to check it when it was first mentioned, because for some reason I heard "Crsis" but thought something else. Then when it was mentioned again, I realized you guys were talking about Crysis, which I knew was in fact a hugely successful game, so I thought I would check...

Yeah, your entire argument uses an example that is not just wrong, it is incredibly wrong, so much so that it actually proves the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make.

[Slargos]

 

Burn. 

[Neil]

The developers can state that their decisions to not do a game on the PC is a result of their perceptions that piracy matter, but that doesn't make it so.

Yes it does.  If they don't port to PC because of piracy, then it's because of piracy.

[Neil]

I am rather curious where that 10,000 number came from.

Grey Fox gave that number for PC sales of Far Cry 2, based on a talk he had with the dev.

[Berkut]

What is funny about the Crysis dev whining is that they claim that absent piracy, it would have sold 4 times as many copies. So 12 million instead of 3 million. Which just so happens to be the number of copies listed as sold for the best selling shooter of all time - Half-Life 2. So their basic bitch is that their game did not do as well as the best shooter ever, therefore it must be because of piracy. Between HL and HL2, you are looking at 20 million copies sold, despite the fact that pirates make it impossible to sell to PCs. Hmmmm.......

Sorry, but the numbers just don't add up. Crysis was an excellent game, that sold very, very well, and made a lot of money. Far Cry 2 was a decent game marred by some odd gameplay choices, and some serious technical issues on release. I suspect that it tanked because it was buggy and not that compelling - not because of piracy. I suspect "piracy" is a good reason to excuse "Wow, maybe we shouldn't have released such a buggy game..."

[Warspite]

The developers can state that their decisions to not do a game on the PC is a result of their perceptions that piracy matter, but that doesn't make it so.

Well it sort of does, given that the business decision has explicitly been made on the basis of piracy. OK, I got my Crysis figure wrong rather embarrassingly, but as that link shows, the business decision-makers felt console format would have been far more profitable.

And your claim is that the pirates are "getting their just deserts". That is clearly claiming that the decline in PC gaming (which apparently has not happened) is a result of piracy. That is simply not evidenced at all.

Just deserts was in reference in part to DRM and other such inconveniences, which I am not sure even you would claim is not a result of piracy.

But how many developers have to say "we're de-emphasising the PC market" before you would agree piracy is having a detrimental impact?

I don't think there can be arguing with the fact that with millions of downloads, given the financial clout a gaming rig and broadband connection imply, there's a sizeable and financially significant loss of revenue -- particularly for a sector that works on tight profit margins and suffers from long lead times of development (ie your capital is tied up for months if not years before you can realise the return).

Does piracy have "an effect"? I am sure it does. Is it significant? Hard to say, I think.

Well between you and the developers, who have to deal with the commercial reality of their decisions, I'm going to go with the latter.

You can safely assume it costs "an amount of revenue", but not that it costs an amount that actually has an effect on the overall health of the PC gaming market, which is, IMO, much more dirven by technology and ease of use.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here in the latter point.

The games that do well on PCs still are those that are not well suited to consoles and niche games.

Yes, so the PC is heading towards a niche gaming platform serving up what you don't find on the consoles. That means the PC is not the generalist gaming platform it once was.

[Warspite]

What is funny about the Crysis dev whining is that they claim that absent piracy, it would have sold 4 times as many copies. So 12 million instead of 3 million. Which just so happens to be the number of copies listed as sold for the best selling shooter of all time - Half-Life 2. So their basic bitch is that their game did not do as well as the best shooter ever, therefore it must be because of piracy. Between HL and HL2, you are looking at 20 million copies sold, despite the fact that pirates make it impossible to sell to PCs. Hmmmm.......

Sorry, but the numbers just don't add up. Crysis was an excellent game, that sold very, very well, and made a lot of money. Far Cry 2 was a decent game marred by some odd gameplay choices, and some serious technical issues on release. I suspect that it tanked because it was buggy and not that compelling - not because of piracy. I suspect "piracy" is a good reason to excuse "Wow, maybe we shouldn't have released such a buggy game..."

I agree with you on one thing: there is no way all pirated downloads equal a lost customer. That is indeed a grievance I ahv with the figures put out by industry, they're far too fanciful.

But let's say of those 12 million pirated copies (or whatever he claims) is revised down to just 1 million pirated; so that's one in twelve pirates buying it, less than 10%.

That's what, 25% more revenue? That's not significant?

[Neil]

I don't really care about piracy costing sales, since that's impossible to know.  I'm only interested in developer decisions.

[Berkut]

The developers can state that their decisions to not do a game on the PC is a result of their perceptions that piracy matter, but that doesn't make it so.

Well it sort of does, given that the business decision has explicitly been made on the basis of piracy.

THat was poorly worded, but I thought pretty clear - the devs saying they are losing money because of piracy doesn't make it so, especially since the evidence otherwise is pretty clear that they are full of shit.

OK, I got my Crysis figure wrong rather embarrassingly, but as that link shows, the business decision-makers felt console format would have been far more profitable.

No, they say it would be, but I don't know that they even believe it. It certainly makes no sense - there are plenty of examples of PC games that made the kind of money that Crysis devs claim it should have made, and they had to deal with piracy as well. Why should we assume that Crysis was so specially targetted?

And your claim is that the pirates are "getting their just deserts". That is clearly claiming that the decline in PC gaming (which apparently has not happened) is a result of piracy. That is simply not evidenced at all.

Just deserts was in reference in part to DRM and other such inconveniences, which I am not sure even you would claim is not a result of piracy.

No, I don't claim that at all. I claim that the developers are hurting themselves a lot more than they help themselves with such inconveniences, since

1. They don't stop pirates,
2. They cost them sales
3. They are kidding themselves to think that a pirated copy equals a not sold copy.

But how many developers have to say "we're de-emphasising the PC market" before you would agree piracy is having a detrimental impact?

There is no number, when the actual data makes it clear that

1. Piracy has marginal effects on sales, and
2. There are rather obvious reasons to de-emphasize the PC market that have nothing to do with piracy, hence any de-emphasis is explained without need to rely on the "opinions" of people who are not objective and have an agenda.

How many consumers would have to tell you "I would not buy that game even if I could not pirate it" before you believe them?

I don't think there can be arguing with the fact that with millions of downloads, given the financial clout a gaming rig and broadband connection imply, there's a sizeable and financially significant loss of revenue

I think that can be argued in fact.

Just because people can afford a game does not mean they are willing to buy it. They might be willing to pirate it, since that has no additional cost. See, there you go - I've just defined people who can afford to buy a game, but choose not to, and yet still pirate the game.

-- particularly for a sector that works on tight profit margins and suffers from long lead times of development (ie your capital is tied up for months if not years before you can realise the return).

Meh. And yet at the height of the PC gaming market, plenty of people were making plenty of money when piracy was rampant. Does that not suggest that the decline in the PC market (to the extent that such a decline actually exists) is not driven by piracy?

How do you reconcile the fact that games like The Sims, Half-Life, Myst, Starcraft all had incredible success and made piles of cash when in fact all of them were rampantly pirated, with the claim that piracy makes it hard to make money on PC games?

Does piracy have "an effect"? I am sure it does. Is it significant? Hard to say, I think.

Well between you and the developers, who have to deal with the commercial reality of their decisions, I'm going to go with the latter.

This is not my opinion, just look at the numbers. No matter what "developers" (and there are plenty who would not agree with your claims that piracy has driven the PC gaming market more than technological factors) say, the numbers don't lie. Some developers, of course, have a vested interest in the issue, and are going to say what they think will send the message they want sent, rather than what is actually true. Why do you just believe them, rather than believing the words of the actual consumers, who say otherwise, not to mention the actual sales figures which ALSO say otherwise?

The fact that you got the numbers so wrong on Crysis is not nearly as interesting as the argument put forth by the Crysis developer, which is rather obviously complete bullshit, and should tell you how much credibility they have on the subject - none. The devs bitching about piracy are talking out their ass.

You can safely assume it costs "an amount of revenue", but not that it costs an amount that actually has an effect on the overall health of the PC gaming market, which is, IMO, much more dirven by technology and ease of use.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here in the latter point.

That the rise in the console gaming market as opposed to the PC market has everything to do with changing technology, and little to do with piracy. Developers can make more money on consoles because there are a lot more people playing games on consoles. The consumers drive the market, not the developers - they go where the consumers are at, and the consumers are at the XBOX, PS3, and Wii.

The games that do well on PCs still are those that are not well suited to consoles and niche games.

Yes, so the PC is heading towards a niche gaming platform serving up what you don't find on the consoles. That means the PC is not the generalist gaming platform it once was.

This is very true. Has nothing (or very little) to do with piracy.

Simple logic proves this. When PCs were the dominant gaming platform, piracy was rampant. Piracy has not changed, yet the market has - it is non-sensical to blame it on piracy.

[Berkut]

What is funny about the Crysis dev whining is that they claim that absent piracy, it would have sold 4 times as many copies. So 12 million instead of 3 million. Which just so happens to be the number of copies listed as sold for the best selling shooter of all time - Half-Life 2. So their basic bitch is that their game did not do as well as the best shooter ever, therefore it must be because of piracy. Between HL and HL2, you are looking at 20 million copies sold, despite the fact that pirates make it impossible to sell to PCs. Hmmmm.......

Sorry, but the numbers just don't add up. Crysis was an excellent game, that sold very, very well, and made a lot of money. Far Cry 2 was a decent game marred by some odd gameplay choices, and some serious technical issues on release. I suspect that it tanked because it was buggy and not that compelling - not because of piracy. I suspect "piracy" is a good reason to excuse "Wow, maybe we shouldn't have released such a buggy game..."

I agree with you on one thing: there is no way all pirated downloads equal a lost customer. That is indeed a grievance I ahv with the figures put out by industry, they're far too fanciful.

But let's say of those 12 million pirated copies (or whatever he claims) is revised down to just 1 million pirated; so that's one in twelve pirates buying it, less than 10%.

That's what, 25% more revenue? That's not significant?

Sure it is - but is it significant to the claim that one cannot make money BECAUSE of piracy? Obviously not - lots of people made money on lots of games despite piracy.

You might as well complain about how much Wal-mart loses to shoplifters. It is certainly "significant", but if Wal-mart went out of business, would it be reasonable to say it was because of shoplifting? Of course not - that is a sunk cost that all players in the market have to deal with. Successful companies make money despite loss factors like that, while doing their best to mitigate the losses without pissing off their honest customers too much.

Ubisoft is like if Target started pat down searches of every single customer leaving their store, and then complain when nobody wants to come to their store anymore, blaming it all on the "damned pirates!".

[Berkut]

I don't really care about piracy costing sales, since that's impossible to know.  I'm only interested in developer decisions.

Developer's develop for whatever system their customers use...

[Neil]

I don't really care about piracy costing sales, since that's impossible to know.  I'm only interested in developer decisions.

Developer's develop for whatever system their customers use...

Sort of, but not really.  AAA developers develop with the PS3 in mind, because it's a horrible piece of shit that doesn't allow you to do much of anything.  The Xbox 360 is very clever and flexible, so anything you can do on the PS3, you can do on the 360.  If you're building for PS3, it's easy to do for the other, although the reverse isn't true.  The PC takes a little bit more, because of the non-standard hardware and the different interface, and so there are some costs involved.

[Iormlund]

Yeah, incomplete console games that have launch-day patches aren't exactly unheard of.  OK, they aren't quite Paradox-incomplete, but they definitely need more polish.

Hell we do it in our sector as well if we can get away with it. It is much cheaper to hook up the facility to a VPN and fix bugs from the office than testing every single thing beforehand or sending a team there. It is no wonder the gaming industry does it routinely.