Ubisoft games - poster children for piracy?

[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.

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.

It is not pretty clear that they are full of shit. First, it is better stated that they are losing revenue because of piracy: they do not claim you cannot make a profit. Second, so they quote in public a higher figure of attrition than might otherwise be the case: that is common in all sorts of fields. Regardless, you can be assured the beancounters inside each firm work out a rough estimate of what the more realistic loss is, and plan accordingly. And if that means saying, 'Stop focusing on the PC', so be it.

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?[/quote]

Which games have made this crazy money?

I make no assumption about Crysis being specially targeted. I used it as an example because (a) with an advanced engine, it has high development costs, (b) it was heavily pirated, (c) heavily pirated by we must fairly assume people able to afford a computer that could run it [which cost what, at least £1000 back in 2008?], so they are people able to afford it and (d) the developer explicitly stated they reduced their PC focus as a result.

The funny thing is, this is a developer that could afford this sort of attrition thanks to this particular product; smaller, more niche developers less 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.

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.[/quote]

*Shrug* (1) may be true. (2) may also be true (but due to consumer perception; and if you accept consumer perception as a valid cause of lost sales, then surely you have to equally accept developer perception as a valid cause of their behaviour?)

They have to try to do something. The three locks I have to get through to get into my house are a nuisance, and wouldn't stop a determined thief, but I use them nonetheless.

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?

The data makes this clear? Which?

What is this agenda the devs have? What is this anti-PC conspiracy? What is the benefit to them not just saying, "Sorry, consoles are easier to develop for."

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.

You are free to argue that of millions of downloads out there, they are all, every single one, by people who really wouldn't pay a cent for the game. (though it is interesting they are happy to spend the necessary time finding the best cracked version and then doing all the necessary workarounds to play something they really beleive they will derive no utility from). But it's not a very convincing judgement.

-- 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?[/quote]

I certainly haven't made the latter claim. What piracy does is make it harder to get into profitability and a return on your investment. Not impossible, but harder.

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?[/quote]

I am sure there are plenty of developers who don't think piracy is a problem. Who are they?

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.

Again, this is just you insisting the argument of the people engaged in the business of computer game making is bullshit.

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.[/quote]

Sure. But I don't see why these trends logically preclude the harming effect of piracy.

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.
[/quote]

Your statement doesn't logically prove anything.

Piracy has, in fact, changed; pretty much every single Western World PC user now has access to every pirated game out there via the internet, whereas before you needed to know someone with the game, or the game plus a crack if it had copy protection, or you needed to be one of the relatively few PC users with BBS access. Casual piracy, by the casual user, is easier now than it was in the 1990s.

What has also changed is the cost of developing a game, with their added complexity and the expectation of higher production values. The price consumers are being asked hasn't really changed in 30 years - if anything, it has gone down in real terms. (I paid £35 for a PC game in 1990; I can now download a recent game for about £30). This means publishers still generally are relying on high volume of sales to turn a profit (subscription based games are obviously an exception). If people don't buy the game, the profit margins come down. come down by enough, and the other platforms look more appealing.

What is again consistent with the developers' supposedly bullshit assertions is that it is far harder to pirate on consoles, and they are moving to this more secure platform.

[Iormlund]

Is it really harder to pirate consoles? Whenever the console gaming thing comes up I hear talk about piracy. Some even have two consoles of the same sort, one pirated, the other legit, to play MP.

[garbon]

Is it really harder to pirate consoles? Whenever the console gaming thing comes up I hear talk about piracy. Some even have two consoles of the same sort, one pirated, the other legit, to play MP.

It does take a little more effort as you have to buy a modded one, mod it yourself, or get/pay someone to mod it for you.

[Jacob]

Well, Matrix and Slitherine are pretty much exclusively PC - but they're in a niche that's unlikely to attract pirates in the first place.

Big titles - yes, I see how that's an issue, and it's difficult to come up with a scheme that's non-intrusive and secure. I'm not a big fan of "always on" or keepig content on the publisher's/developer's server, because that also raises the question of what happens when dev or publisher disapear (like recently Team Bondi, JoWood etc.).

I don't have any easy answer to that; on the other hand piracy is also possible on consoles - it's a bit more cumbersome (I think you still need mod chips?), but can be done; it's IMO a question of time when they'll introduce more restrictive DRM there, too.

Yeah, I don't think there's an easy answer to be honest.

[Jacob]

Interesting.  I didn't know about this.  Was that primarily because of piracy or was it just general PC decline?  Or more rise of consoles?

Probably a combination. Console development is generally more compelling to developers for a variety of reasons. I can speculate as well as the next guy, and maybe with a bit of insight than the average punter, but I'm no expert.

One of the advantages of developing on PC is that you don't have to deal with the hardware owners - you don't have to worry about them approving your game and they don't take a cut. On the downside, you have to deal with different specs on different machines, and piracy.

Personally I think piracy is the main driver of the decline of PC games. I can't think of any other compelling explanation.

[Jacob]

Yeah it seems like consoles would be a big part of it. I buy almost all my games now on consoles as I never need to worry about upgrading my hardware and wondering if the game will work. It just does without extra expense on my part to get it to work.

It's really the flip side of the same thing. If there's more money to be made in consoles, that's what publishers and developers will do. Certainly, the convenience of consoles helps reaching a wider audience as well. Conversely, however, there are plenty of people with PCs without consoles (even now), so ideally you sell to both; but not if you undermine your primary revenue source.

[Jacob]

I want to know how they got data for the future.  How much of that is due things like Facebook games or WoW?

Tons of that is Facebook games. There's a lot of money in Facebook games right now.

[Jacob]

I do think its funny that at least three people in this thread say it's all "nothing to do with piracy" when the developers themselves say yes, it is, in one of the very links provided earlier.

Yeah, I mean, I've had conversations with the kind of people who make the actual decisions whether to publish on PC, and they've listed piracy as the primary factor in their decision-making. Now, they may be misunderstanding the facts and numbers, but nonetheless piracy has a direct decision on developer and publisher decisions.

[Neil]

One of the advantages of developing on PC is that you don't have to deal with the hardware owners - you don't have to worry about them approving your game and they don't take a cut

Especially fucking Sony, who take forever and a day to cert anything for their shitty console.

[Jacob]

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

Not that hard to say, to be honest. Like I said, I've had that kind of conversation with the people who make the decisions.

"Are we doing a PC version?"
"Nah fuck PC, it's not worth it."
"Why not?"
"They'll just fucking pirate it."

So unless you consider the decision not to develop for or port specific titles to PC to be insignificant, then piracy does have a significant impact.

Now, I think it's perfectly fair to argue that there are other factors in play as well in the rise of console games compared to PC games, but the reality of piracy on PC definitely impacts the decision-making when it comes to development.

[Jacob]

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

Yup. And their customers aren't the pirates.

[Jacob]

It is not pretty clear that they are full of shit.

Well, they might be full of shit but it still impacts their business decisions. Ergo, piracy has an impact.


I never said it has no impact on some specific developers decisions. People who do not understand their business make bad decisions all the time, emotional decisions not driven by the numbers or data. All the time.

What I said was that the claim that piracy is what has caused a large amount of market share to shift to console games is not supported by data or reason - that there is no actual evidence that piracy is why the market is dominated by console gaming.

Like I said, people can come up with all sorts of analysis and justifications, but the reality is the development decisions on all sorts of levels - from the macro "will we develop this game for PC" to the micro "should we include this feature? How do we implement it" - are made with explicit reference to piracy.

I am sure that is the case in many cases, and not so much in others. There are a lot of people out there developing for the PC, and making money doing so, who don't seem that hung up on worrying about the boogeyman of piracy. There is this company called Paradox, for example, that does lots of PC games, and they seem to be doing ok despite the crushing burden of the pirates.

[Jacob]

Is it really harder to pirate consoles? Whenever the console gaming thing comes up I hear talk about piracy. Some even have two consoles of the same sort, one pirated, the other legit, to play MP.

It's harder yes, but only because PC piracy is so trivial to do. It's not that difficult to pirate for consoles if you know what you're doing (or find someone to do it for you).

[Neil]

It is not pretty clear that they are full of shit.

Well, they might be full of shit but it still impacts their business decisions. Ergo, piracy has an impact.

Like I said, people can come up with all sorts of analysis and justifications, but the reality is the development decisions on all sorts of levels - from the macro "will we develop this game for PC" to the micro "should we include this feature? How do we implement it" - are made with explicit reference to piracy.

And the used game market, which a lot of developers consider to be pretty much piracy anyways.

[Jacob]

And the used game market, which a lot of developers consider to be pretty much piracy anyways.

Yeah, but that's the same for console and PC.

On another note, if you wanted to raise venture capital to start a PC focused dev studio pretty much the first question you'd have to answer is how you'd plan to deal with piracy. If you don't have a good answer to that, you're not getting any money from anybody.

Right now the right answer to that is "Facebook". But while facebook games are getting a lot more complex than they used to be, they're still not the kind of games I think most of Languish would enjoy.