Exhibit 1: "I Am Alive" http://iamalive-game.ubi.com/iamalive/en-GB/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-23-why-i-am-alive-is-unlikely-to-launch-on-pc
QuotePost-apocalyptic survival game I Am Alive launches this winter on PlayStation Network and Xbox Live Arcade. Why not on PC?
For the game's creative director Stanislas Mettra, the reason is simple: PC gamers probably won't buy it, despite their moaning about it not being available.
"We've heard loud and clear that PC gamers are bitching about there being no version for them," Mettra told IncGamers.
"But are these people just making noise just because there's no version or because it's a game they actually want to play? Would they buy it if we made it?"
Ubisoft has had a troubled relationship with PC gamers in recent years. Many of its PC games force players to always be online to work.
Ubisoft game Driver: San Francisco came under fire recently for particularly stringent DRM that required gamers to be online all of the time. Ubisoft later tweaked this so an online sign-in was required once, at game launch; Driver: San Francisco can then be played offline.
PC game piracy, a subject Eurogamer recently investigated, is often blamed when publishers explain their PC-related decisions. Ubisoft has claimed its policy is a success, insisting it has seen "a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection".
Mettra said piracy makes porting games to PC financially difficult.
"It's hard because there's so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it," he said.
"Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC, it's not a massive cost but it's still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game then it's not worth it."
Exhibit 2: "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier"
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/23/ghost-recon-online-being-free-to-play-is-a-counter-to-piracy-says-ubisoft-producer
QuoteGhost Recon Online producer Sébastien Arnoult says that free-to-play games are a response to piracy – and an alternative to the restrictive DRM that's annoyed PC gamers in so many recent Ubisoft games.
"We are giving away most of the content for free because there's no barrier to entry. To the users that are traditionally playing the game by getting it through Pirate Bay [ :blink: ], we said, 'Okay, go ahead guys. This is what you're asking for. We've listened to you – we're giving you this experience. It's easy to download, there's no DRM that will pollute your experience.'"
While Ghost Recon Online is exclusive to PC, Ubisoft's other Ghost Recon game, Future Soldier, uses a traditional payment model and will only be available on console.
"We're adapting the offer to the PC market. I don't like to compare PC and Xbox boxed products because they have a model on that platform that is clearly meant to be €60's worth of super-Hollywood content. On PC, we're adapting our model to the demand."
The perceived value of PC games is heavily affected by piracy, Arnoult says – both for players and publishers.
"When we started Ghost Recon Online we were thinking about Ghost Recon: Future Solider; having something ported in the classical way without any deep development, because we know that 95% of our consumers will pirate the game. So we said okay, we have to change our mind.
"We have to adapt, we have to embrace this instead of pushing it away. That's the main reflection behind Ghost Recon Online and the choice we've made to go in this direction."
It's a different stance to that of Stanislas Mettra, Creative Director on console-exclusive Ubisoft title I Am Alive. In an interview with IncGamers, he questioned the value of porting games to the PC at all.
"Perhaps it will only take twelve guys three months to port the game to PC, it's not a massive cost but it's still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game then it's not worth it."
Both agree that it's a question of commercial viability, but the difference in approach is alarming. While it's great to see the Ghost Recon team treating the PC as a distinct platform with its own needs, we'd like to see that attitude reflected by Ubisoft as a whole.
Ghost Recon Online closed beta is currently active in France and Germany, and is due in the UK in the next few months.
I blame Slargos.
I found this article very interesting in regards to Piracy.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html
Would explain the lack of PC Red Dead <_<
The solution to stopping piracy is already known; lots of stuff from connecting online.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Would explain the lack of PC Red Dead <_<
The solution to stopping piracy is already known; lots of stuff from connecting online.
Yeah, that was one I really wanted to play. I like Westerns. If having the game constantly connected online for PC gaming to be a viable market I'm willing to tolerate it.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Would explain the lack of PC Red Dead <_<
The solution to stopping piracy is already known; lots of stuff from connecting online.
Not really. They released GTA 4 and LA Noire for the PC.
Forcing people to be always online for single player games is idiotic. DRM like that punishes the people that are willing to pay for games, not the pirates.
Quote from: Cerr on November 24, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Would explain the lack of PC Red Dead <_<
The solution to stopping piracy is already known; lots of stuff from connecting online.
Not really. They released GTA 4 and LA Noire for the PC.
Forcing people to be always online for single player games is idiotic. DRM like that punishes the people that are willing to pay for games, not the pirates.
What do you suggest then? If you can come up with something, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
Dongles.
Forcing people to always be online is crap. I've never encountered a game with such fortunately.
They should use the carrot, not the stick, giving rewards, extra modes of play, etc.... for connecting online however.
One of the big reasons half life did so well was people had to buy it so they could play counter strike online.
QuoteNot really. They released GTA 4 and LA Noire for the PC.
Why then not Red Dead if they have released LA Noire?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2011, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: Cerr on November 24, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Would explain the lack of PC Red Dead <_<
The solution to stopping piracy is already known; lots of stuff from connecting online.
Not really. They released GTA 4 and LA Noire for the PC.
Forcing people to be always online for single player games is idiotic. DRM like that punishes the people that are willing to pay for games, not the pirates.
What do you suggest then? If you can come up with something, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
Demos
Quote from: Cerr on November 24, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Forcing people to be always online for single player games is idiotic. DRM like that punishes the people that are willing to pay for games, not the pirates.
Is that because the pirates can still play those games without being online?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2011, 09:23:16 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 24, 2011, 08:16:23 PM
Demos
Still get pirated.
Everything gets pirated. You can not stop it. What you can stop is make the people that are on the shelf about buying your game try it & then buy it instead of not letting them try it & thus point them toward the pirated copies.
Plus it would help if they let us return our game. That's a god damn travesty.
The obvious solution is code wheels.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Would explain the lack of PC Red Dead <_<
The solution to stopping piracy is already known; lots of stuff from connecting online.
Diablo III will take "always on" DRM to the next level. Parts of the game will remain on Blizzard's servers (like in an MMO), so even in single player you won't be able to do much without logging onto their service.
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 08:13:38 PM
QuoteNot really. They released GTA 4 and LA Noire for the PC.
Why then not Red Dead if they have released LA Noire?
I dunno, you'd have to ask Rockstar but if the reason was piracy then they wouldn't have bothered releasing LA Noire on the PC.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2011, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: Cerr on November 24, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 24, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Would explain the lack of PC Red Dead <_<
The solution to stopping piracy is already known; lots of stuff from connecting online.
Not really. They released GTA 4 and LA Noire for the PC.
Forcing people to be always online for single player games is idiotic. DRM like that punishes the people that are willing to pay for games, not the pirates.
What do you suggest then? If you can come up with something, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
Retinal scans or DNA verification.
Or no DRM at all. Gog.com seem to be doing pretty well offering DRM-free games.
Gog.com isn't producing games.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 07:42:05 AM
Gog.com isn't producing games.
It's parent company does tho.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 07:47:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 07:42:05 AM
Gog.com isn't producing games.
It's parent company does tho.
Yeah they released The Witcher 2 DRM-free on Gog.com.
I wonder how profitable it has been. The thing is, I think the DRM's work from the company's point of view. Games that have DRMS often sell better then those that don't because they are harder to pirate.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 08:00:02 AM
I wonder how profitable it has been. The thing is, I think the DRM's work from the company's point of view. Games that have DRMS often sell better then those that don't because they are harder to pirate.
Far Cry 2 had insane DRM constraint. It sold 10 000 copies.
It's widely avalaible in it's pirated form.
DRM works for a corporate point of view because they wrongly think that 1 pirated copy = lost sale. That's not the case, 3/4 of those who downloaded the pirate version wouldn't have bought your game.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 08:08:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 08:00:02 AM
I wonder how profitable it has been. The thing is, I think the DRM's work from the company's point of view. Games that have DRMS often sell better then those that don't because they are harder to pirate.
Far Cry 2 had insane DRM constraint. It sold 10 000 copies.
It's widely avalaible in it's pirated form.
DRM works for a corporate point of view because they wrongly think that 1 pirated copy = lost sale. That's not the case, 3/4 of those who downloaded the pirate version wouldn't have bought your game.
That still equals lost sales. If a game was pirated a million times and 3/4ths wouldn't buy your game then presumably 1/4th would. That makes for 250,000 units sold which isn't bad.
Crysis 2 did sell 10,000 copies on the PC. In addition to many more. Looking around I'm seeing of at least 210,000 units sold.
Here's an example of a game with no protection sold by trusting gamers. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/11/13/world-of-goo-has-90-piracy-rate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+weblogsinc%2Fjoystiq+%28Joystiq%29
OH damn. I mistook Far Cry 2 for Crysis 2. Bleh. I can't find Far Cry 2 units sold for PC but it did top the charts for PC games the first week it was out and sold over 2 million copies. So I suspect they sold more then 10,000 copies for PC.
10k copies. I have no proof but the figure is from FC2's producer.
So you are saying that piracy can't be stop.
If World of Goo had DRM maybe instead of selling to 10% of it's user base, it might have been only to 2% of it's user base.
Pirated games won't go away, 80s style DRM didn't, this modern DRM won't either. DRM exist because publishers wrongly think that making their game harder to pirate people will buy them. That's not what happens, people skip overthem.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 08:50:35 AM
Pirated games won't go away, 80s style DRM didn't,
I rarely encounter "enter word #xx on page #yy of the manual" questions these days.
"work"
Place at your leisure.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 08:50:35 AM
10k copies. I have no proof but the figure is from FC2's producer.
So you are saying that piracy can't be stop.
If World of Goo had DRM maybe instead of selling to 10% of it's user base, it might have been only to 2% of it's user base.
Pirated games won't go away, 80s style DRM didn't, this modern DRM won't either. DRM exist because publishers wrongly think that making their game harder to pirate people will buy them. That's not what happens, people skip overthem.
Actually, that's exactly what happens. You can't stop piracy all together. But you can make it harder. Since the people who pirate a game still want the game, if they can't easily pirate it more will end up buying it. This is why console versions sell much higher then PC versions of the same game. It's much harder to pirate a console game. It can be done, but most people don't know how. Pirating PC games is easy.
I don't get this indignation about DRM. It's not like you have a
right to PC games.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 09:15:00 AM
I don't get this indignation about DRM. It's not like you have a right to PC games.
This comment is so typical of the tenor of the discussion, reactionary. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 09:15:00 AM
Actually, that's exactly what happens. You can't stop piracy all together. But you can make it harder. Since the people who pirate a game still want the game, if they can't easily pirate it more will end up buying it. This is why console versions sell much higher then PC versions of the same game. It's much harder to pirate a console game. It can be done, but most people don't know how. Pirating PC games is easy.
I don't get this indignation about DRM. It's not like you have a right to PC games.
I disagree with that premise. I think that people don't buy a game wether is hard to pirate or not. There's also a line where the DRM is just too much.
The indignation about DRM comes from the Starforce debacle that use to break your computer. It's hard to trust them after that.
People obviously value the game or they wouldn't pirate it in the first place. If they want a game and they can't figure out how to get the piracy stuff to work, what else are they going to do satisfy that desire? There is a threshold here. People who don't value a game enough to shell out the money to buy it, but still pirate the game are not going to buy it. But you'll find people who value the game enough to buy it but won't because they can easily get it for free. It's those people you are targeting with DRM.
Indignation about DRM came long before the Starforce thing. I can understand not wanting to be treating like a thief, but the truth is most PC gamers are scoff laws. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't pirated something. Even if it's just watching music on Youtube with out the creators consent. Hell, I don't think it's actually legal for Tim to post all those articles here on Languish, yet nobody really cares.
That's because IP rights & laws are retarded.
Tim's posting does, if not should, fall under fair use.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 09:41:52 AM
That's because IP rights & laws are retarded.
Tim's posting does, if not should, fall under fair use.
You don't IP should be protected?
Quickly, I would say Yes, I don't think it should exist but then that's unworkable in the modern world.
I, atleast believe that there has to be better the way then the current system Disney got us.
Quote from: Cerr on November 25, 2011, 07:53:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 07:47:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 07:42:05 AM
Gog.com isn't producing games.
It's parent company does tho.
Yeah they released The Witcher 2 DRM-free on Gog.com.
It was released with some DRM, which was patched out a few weeks/months later, IIRC.
Quote from: sbr on November 25, 2011, 01:10:47 PM
Quote from: Cerr on November 25, 2011, 07:53:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 07:47:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 07:42:05 AM
Gog.com isn't producing games.
It's parent company does tho.
Yeah they released The Witcher 2 DRM-free on Gog.com.
It was released with some DRM, which was patched out a few weeks/months later, IIRC.
IIRC as well, the Gog version was always DRM free, they removed the DRM from all other versions with the 2nd patch.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 25, 2011, 01:10:47 PM
Quote from: Cerr on November 25, 2011, 07:53:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 07:47:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 07:42:05 AM
Gog.com isn't producing games.
It's parent company does tho.
Yeah they released The Witcher 2 DRM-free on Gog.com.
It was released with some DRM, which was patched out a few weeks/months later, IIRC.
IIRC as well, the Gog version was always DRM free, they removed the DRM from all other versions with the 2nd patch.
Ah.
I still need to finish that game. Hell, I need to start it properly.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 10:48:00 AM
Quickly, I would say Yes, I don't think it should exist but then that's unworkable in the modern world.
I, atleast believe that there has to be better the way then the current system Disney got us.
Ah, I see we have a fundamental disagreement with it. I do agree that Copywrite has been abused, in particular by Disney, but I think that someone should have exclusive control over their own intellectual property. At least for a short period. Thus I see piracy is something wrong, and my support for DRM programs stem from this. I suppose you believe the opposite so that informs your opinion of DRM programs. I do not think we have much more to talk about.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 02:23:44 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 10:48:00 AM
Quickly, I would say Yes, I don't think it should exist but then that's unworkable in the modern world.
I, atleast believe that there has to be better the way then the current system Disney got us.
Ah, I see we have a fundamental disagreement with it. I do agree that Copywrite has been abused, in particular by Disney, but I think that someone should have exclusive control over their own intellectual property. At least for a short period. Thus I see piracy is something wrong, and my support for DRM programs stem from this. I suppose you believe the opposite so that informs your opinion of DRM programs. I do not think we have much more to talk about.
Maybe we could talk how on Ubisoft sucks at making PC games.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 10:48:00 AM
Quickly, I would say Yes, I don't think it should exist but then that's unworkable in the modern world.
I, atleast believe that there has to be better the way then the current system Disney got us.
There's a difference between thinking that our current copyright laws need changed and thinking that intellectual property shouldn't be protected.
When it comes to games, pretty much anything that would run on current systems would be protected under the old copyright laws we had before Disney cajoled Congress into changing them.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 02:23:44 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 10:48:00 AM
Quickly, I would say Yes, I don't think it should exist but then that's unworkable in the modern world.
I, atleast believe that there has to be better the way then the current system Disney got us.
Ah, I see we have a fundamental disagreement with it. I do agree that Copywrite has been abused, in particular by Disney, but I think that someone should have exclusive control over their own intellectual property. At least for a short period. Thus I see piracy is something wrong, and my support for DRM programs stem from this. I suppose you believe the opposite so that informs your opinion of DRM programs. I do not think we have much more to talk about.
I come from the stance that IP should be protected to some extent but DRM on games is an absurdly bad way to go about it. Current DRM doesn't stop the games from being pirated at all and they can't exactly make anything more invasive or harder to break than they already have and continue to sell games to legitimate buyers. Right now the current DRM schemes doing nothing more than hurt the real customer who can't get their games to work properly, cost the developers money for no real benefit, prevent some second-hand selling. I think most companies use DRM schemes to make the ignorant higher-ups (stockholders, boards, CEOs etc) think that something is being done, even though it is pointless and to end the small second hand PC game market.
Developers need to give paying customers more value for their dollar, rather than try and stop the irresistible force of piracy. Make demos so people can know if they like the game they have to spend $50+ on. I have been tempted for a while now to pirate War in the East because I really don't want to spend that much money on something and not know it I like it. Also going back to having real tangible things in the game box, whether a manual or art book or map or something else to give people a reason to buy your game instead of pirating it.
I think I have had trouble with DRM once and that was it. Maybe I would more if I pirated games more.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 03:03:03 PM
I think I have had trouble with DRM once and that was it. Maybe I would more if I pirated games more.
But the pirates have NO problems with DRM because that is the first thing to go when the game is broken, before it becomes available to priate. It is the paying customer who has to deal with it.
Are there any publishers who primarily do PC games and make decent money? Is Paradox primarily a PC publisher these days?
Whatever your argument about piracy, the fact remains that it is not worthwhile for most publishers to develop prime content for the PC unless it's tied to a server like WoW or the various versus shooters. You can wrap that up in "IP laws are stupid" or "DRM is stupid" or "make better games" or "free advertising" or "a pirated copy doesn't mean a lost sale" or any other kind of argument, but the fact remains that it is a lot harder to make money on PC games than it was, so it's not worth the time for most developers to do so outside of a hobby context.
Big console games get ported to PC as an afterthought. If it's possible to squeeze a bit of extra revenue out, why not? But that's basically it.
Why didn't RDR get ported when LA Noire did? My guess would be that the effort needed - probably for technical reasons - wasn't worth it compared to the projected revenue; and piracy was definitely part of that calculation.
Quote from: sbr on November 25, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 03:03:03 PM
I think I have had trouble with DRM once and that was it. Maybe I would more if I pirated games more.
But the pirates have NO problems with DRM because that is the first thing to go when the game is broken, before it becomes available to priate. It is the paying customer who has to deal with it.
I would imagine the people cracking it has to deal with it. If working around it is harder then they do have to deal with it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 03:31:27 PM
Are there any publishers who primarily do PC games and make decent money?
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.
Finally, I think society needs IP protection laws. However, I think they're overextending. They should be tied more closely to the lifetime of the original author (though that's of course an issue with team-designed corporate products).
I think to pirate on a console you need to modify the machine. Most people can't do that. Like I said, you can't eliminate piracy all together, but you can make it harder. For consoles it is harder thus less piracy. PC piracy is something like 10 times more common then console piracy. Possibly more.
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2011, 02:01:17 AM
They should be tied more closely to the lifetime of the original author
Why? Why not to date of creation/publication?
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 03:31:27 PM
Are there any publishers who primarily do PC games and make decent money? Is Paradox primarily a PC publisher these days?
Whatever your argument about piracy, the fact remains that it is not worthwhile for most publishers to develop prime content for the PC unless it's tied to a server like WoW or the various versus shooters. You can wrap that up in "IP laws are stupid" or "DRM is stupid" or "make better games" or "free advertising" or "a pirated copy doesn't mean a lost sale" or any other kind of argument, but the fact remains that it is a lot harder to make money on PC games than it was, so it's not worth the time for most developers to do so outside of a hobby context.
Big console games get ported to PC as an afterthought. If it's possible to squeeze a bit of extra revenue out, why not? But that's basically it.
Why didn't RDR get ported when LA Noire did? My guess would be that the effort needed - probably for technical reasons - wasn't worth it compared to the projected revenue; and piracy was definitely part of that calculation.
Quite. After years of waving away the publishers' and developers' complaints and warnings, the free-gaming crowd are now getting their just deserts.
Unfortunately, those of us who pay for games are suffering too.
Quote from: Jacob on November 25, 2011, 03:31:27 PMWhatever your argument about piracy, the fact remains that it is not worthwhile for most publishers to develop prime content for the PC unless it's tied to a server like WoW or the various versus shooters. You can wrap that up in "IP laws are stupid" or "DRM is stupid" or "make better games" or "free advertising" or "a pirated copy doesn't mean a lost sale" or any other kind of argument, but the fact remains that it is a lot harder to make money on PC games than it was, so it's not worth the time for most developers to do so outside of a hobby context.
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2011, 03:03:03 PM
I think I have had trouble with DRM once and that was it. Maybe I would more if I pirated games more.
The other way around, most likely. I had to crack my perfectly legal copy of Silent Hunter III to make it work after Starforce decided to stop letting me play. Had no issues after that.
Needless to say, I haven't bought a single Ubisoft game since.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2011, 07:20:58 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2011, 05:05:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2011, 07:20:58 AM
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?
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.
This. :yes:
I remember pirating games for my Atari as a teenager. Piracy was there from the start of gaming industry, so I seriously doubt that it is the reason PC gaming is in decline. The fact that pirated copy does not equal lost sale is relevant here too. But it's so much easier to make half-assed port from console and blame pirates. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2011, 05:05:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2011, 07:20:58 AM
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?
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.
They had consoles back 1998 when PC gaming had a bigger market share.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2011, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2011, 05:05:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2011, 07:20:58 AM
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?
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.
They had consoles back 1998 when PC gaming had a bigger market share.
OK
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
I haven't bought a Ubisoft game in several years.
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
You have to wait till something has happened irrevocably before you become concerned?
Quote from: The Brain on November 25, 2011, 08:53:00 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2011, 08:50:35 AM
Pirated games won't go away, 80s style DRM didn't,
I rarely encounter "enter word #xx on page #yy of the manual" questions these days.
Cause they don't make fucking manuals anymore. NO, now they force you to use your own paper, time and ink cartridge printing your own manuals, which never look as cool without the glossy covers. :mad:
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
Be interesting to see which dies first. PC gaming or PCs. I think it will be close.
I'm hoping Slargos.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2011, 07:54:25 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
You have to wait till something has happened irrevocably before you become concerned?
Why should I be concerned over something that is apparently inevitable? It would be like fearing my own death or, you know, leaving my basement.
I expexct people will develop games for the pc-equivalent 100 years from now. Hurricane in a glass of water, this.
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2011, 07:54:25 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
You have to wait till something has happened irrevocably before you become concerned?
Why should I be concerned over something that is apparently inevitable? It would be like fearing my own death or, you know, leaving my basement.
I expexct people will develop games for the pc-equivalent 100 years from now. Hurricane in a glass of water, this.
You seem overly concerned about the immigrants to Sweden and Norway.
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
PC gaming won't die, but it's changed in ways directly related to the effects of piracy - and not for the better.
Quote from: Warspite on November 26, 2011, 09:44:59 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
PC gaming won't die, but it's changed in ways directly related to the effects of piracy - and not for the better.
It already has. What annoys me about this the attitude of the pirates. They try to justify it to, and claim their actions aren't having an effect on the market. Or chose to believe it has an effect on the market selectively. "So-and-so game developer keeps putting DRM protection on their games! I'll show them! I'm not buying the game. I'll pirate it!", and when so-and-so game developer decides not to release on PC for the sequel or simply goes out of business they act shocked or outraged.
It's no coincidence that online type games have show the biggest growth over the last decade. World of Warcraft brings in something like 1/4th of the revenue of the entire PC game market.
Quote from: Warspite on November 26, 2011, 09:44:59 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
PC gaming won't die, but it's changed in ways directly related to the effects of piracy - and not for the better.
I think PC gaming is where it is today (and frankly, it isn't that bad) because of changing technology, not piracy.
The consoles have taken over because they have the lions share of the gaming market and gaming dollars. And I don't think people buy XBOXs and PS3s because they are safe from piracy.
PC gaming has taken a back seat to console gaming for reason that were well understood long before it actually happened. Has very little, if anything at all, to do with piracy.
Wow, Berkut you completely missed the point. Nobody argued that "people buy XBOXs and PS3s because they are safe from piracy".
Quote from: Warspite on November 26, 2011, 09:44:59 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM
People have been screaming that copyright infringement will kill [entertainment industry X] for literally centuries.
Wake me when PC gaming is actually dead.
PC gaming won't die, but it's changed in ways directly related to the effects of piracy - and not for the better.
Nah, I think Berkut is on the money here. It's changed due to new technology.
I'm willing to keep an open mind, though.
Would you please delineate the ways in which PC gaming is changing which are directly related to Piracy?
Note, I said PC gaming and not Ubisoft. Ubisoft may be changing their business practices in an attempt to get away from piracy (or using it as an excuse for failing to keep up with the marketplace) but I would expect someone else to take their place.
http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/119/1198547p1.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpcmedia.gamespy.com%2Fpc%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F119%2F1198547%2F1-graph_1317870483.jpg&hash=37d5970b743bbe7aa53fec19d61af244c46e9077)
I don't know how accurate this article is, but it seems to indicate that PC gaming is, in fact, just fine.
QuoteDoug Lombardi of Valve Software points out that the company's roots lie in PC game development. "That's where Valve started and exclusively spent the first eight years of the company's 15-year history. We've stuck with it because we've found it to be a great platform for our games and our business," he says. "I can't really think of a time when not developing for the PC was ever discussed. It has always been central to what we're doing." Since launching in 2002, Valve's games platform Steam has become an integral part of the industry for developers, publishers and gamers alike.
But I guess those Valve suckers are idiots, huh?
I want to know how they got data for the future. How much of that is due things like Facebook games or WoW?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 02:16:21 AM
I want to know how they got data for the future. How much of that is due things like Facebook games or WoW?
I would expect it's a prediction based on known quantities and observations.
For instance, I know that next year you will still be a worthless, jobless spitfuck, and next year hasn't come around yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/asia-powers-pc-rebound-computer-gaming-industry-185502578.html
Quote"I think this is a phenomenal time for the PC gaming industry," said Tan Min-Liang, the Singaporean co-founder and chief executive of Razer, which was founded in 1998 in San Diego, California.
QuoteEntertainment industry research firm DFC Intelligence said in a market report released in September that the PC could dethrone consoles as the dominant hardcore gaming platform in three years.
Data from the firm showed that the global PC games market raked in a record $16.2 billion last year, up 20 percent from 2009.
All these executives must be blithering idiots, and the projections crudely crafted lies, right? :rolleyes:
COULD the answer be that people aren't buying what Ubi is selling for the simple reason that it consists of boxed AIDS-infested feces?
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:39:24 AM
COULD the answer be that people aren't buying what Ubi is selling for the simple reason that it consists of boxed AIDS-infested feces?
Yes that is very possible. Do you always go to these lengths to justify your illegal behavior?
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:37:19 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/asia-powers-pc-rebound-computer-gaming-industry-185502578.html
All these executives must be blithering idiots, and the projections crudely crafted lies, right? :rolleyes:
Here's some quotes of my own.
We are suffering currently from the huge piracy that is encompassing Crysis. We seem to lead the charts in piracy by a large margin, a chart leading that is not desirable. I believe that's the core problem of PC Gaming, piracy, to the degree [that PC gamers who] pirate games inherently destroy the platform. Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us and I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future.
http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2008/05/09/crytek-and-epic-lost-millions-because-of-piracy-and-are-now-switching-game-development-away-from-pc.htm
It's hard to second guess exactly what the reasons are. You can say piracy. You can say user migration, but the ground truth is just that the sales numbers on the PC are not what they used to be and are not what they are on the consoles.
http://www.shacknews.com/article/54129/id-pc-worth-supporting-but
Here's the problem right now; the person who is savvy enough to want to have a good PC to upgrade their video card, is a person who is savvy enough to know bit torrent to know all the elements so they can pirate software. Therefore, high-end videogames are suffering very much on the PC. Right now, it makes sense for us to focus on Xbox 360 for a number of reasons. Not least PCs with multiple configurations and piracy.
www.totalvideogames.com/Gears-of-War-2/feature-13270.html
...people are going to stop making [games] on the PC because of my earlier point, what's happened on the PC with piracy. The economics are ugly right now on the PC. You're not going to see these gigantic, epic investments of dollars on the PC when it just doesn't work. The economics have to work. You're going to see those investments made on the console side and it's going to become a more console-centric investment. And then you're going to see them ported back over to the PC and that creates a different experience on the PC.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/853/853275p1.html
On another PC related note, we pulled some disturbing numbers this past week about the amount of PC players currently playing Multiplayer (which was fantastic). What wasn't fantastic was the percentage of those numbers who were playing on stolen copies of the game on stolen / cracked CD keys of pirated copies (and that was only people playing online).... the amount of people who pirate PC games is astounding.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/01/pc-sales-slow-as-some-despair-over-piracy.ars
I would have thought Slargos and Berkut would be more sympathetic to people suffering from the free rider problem. They ussually are politically.
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:19:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 02:16:21 AM
I want to know how they got data for the future. How much of that is due things like Facebook games or WoW?
I would expect it's a prediction based on known quantities and observations.
For instance, I know that next year you will still be a worthless, jobless spitfuck, and next year hasn't come around yet.
However, even as a worthless, jobless spitfuck I'll still be better then you. I'll always be better then you Slargos. You and I both know this.
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:37:19 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/asia-powers-pc-rebound-computer-gaming-industry-185502578.html
Quote"I think this is a phenomenal time for the PC gaming industry," said Tan Min-Liang, the Singaporean co-founder and chief executive of Razer, which was founded in 1998 in San Diego, California.
QuoteEntertainment industry research firm DFC Intelligence said in a market report released in September that the PC could dethrone consoles as the dominant hardcore gaming platform in three years.
Data from the firm showed that the global PC games market raked in a record $16.2 billion last year, up 20 percent from 2009.
All these executives must be blithering idiots, and the projections crudely crafted lies, right? :rolleyes:
Your knock-out evidence consists of PR department soundbytes and
projected sales figures?
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:11:34 AM
Would you please delineate the ways in which PC gaming is changing which are directly related to Piracy?
Pretty obvious isn't it?
First is the move to the subscription model and the massive growth of MMOs
Second is the release of intentionally incomplete releases followed by a blizzard of DLCs, expansions, etc.
The third is free to play micropayment games. This may suit Slargos, I don't know. I sorta miss some of the aspects of gaming ten years ago.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:11:34 AM
Would you please delineate the ways in which PC gaming is changing which are directly related to Piracy?
Pretty obvious isn't it?
Not at all, actually.
Quote
First is the move to the subscription model and the massive growth of MMOs
Funny, I thought the massive growth of MMOs was because they were fun and people wanted to play them. I had no idea that millions of people play WoW because it defeats pirates.
Quote
Second is the release of intentionally incomplete releases followed by a blizzard of DLCs, expansions, etc.
Ahh yes, that must be why you don't see DLC on consoles....oh wait.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 02:24:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:11:34 AM
Would you please delineate the ways in which PC gaming is changing which are directly related to Piracy?
Pretty obvious isn't it?
Not at all, actually.
Quote
First is the move to the subscription model and the massive growth of MMOs
Funny, I thought the massive growth of MMOs was because they were fun and people wanted to play them. I had no idea that millions of people play WoW because it defeats pirates.
Quote
Second is the release of intentionally incomplete releases followed by a blizzard of DLCs, expansions, etc.
Ahh yes, that must be why you don't see DLC on consoles....oh wait.
I don't see his point that way at all. Rather, the fact is that piracy has altered or defined the economic viability of various business models in gaming. The related point is that the feasibility of a product is to a great degree due to its quality as a means of entertainment (ie, how fun it is), but instead how resilient the product is to theft. WoW is fun for many people, but like all Blizzard games you are locked into a very strong anti-pirary system. Other games that have many millions of downloads, but illegal ones, are presumably still fun - but without that strong anti-piracy system, the developer and publisher are not realising that revenue from the consumption of their product.
THe other obvious trend is that fewer big gaming franchises are PC exclusive, on PC first, or on PC at all. Again, related to the relative profitability of PC vs console platforms.
In the very links Slargos posted you have developers quoted as saying the severely fine margins of profitability PC games work on is a big problem in the industry (and not helped at all by piracy).
Quote from: Warspite on November 26, 2011, 07:04:18 AM
Quite. After years of waving away the publishers' and developers' complaints and warnings, the free-gaming crowd are now getting their just deserts.
Unfortunately, those of us who pay for games are suffering too.
They are? It seems to me that everyone is winning, except people who buy PC games with DRM. The AAA publishers concentrate on the consoles and release most of their games for PC as an afterthought, netting them maybe another million or two in revenue. The smaller publishers are pushed into niches where they can be interesting, creative and profitable, where the pirates don't go. The pirates get to play their games for free. The DRM companies make crazy profits out of the desperate AAAs. Copyright lawyers get to ruin things and lobby Congress.
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:39:24 AM
COULD the answer be that people aren't buying what Ubi is selling for the simple reason that it consists of boxed AIDS-infested feces?
Has Ubi released something that doesn't suck lately? I can't think of something.
That is all fine, but we are still left waiting for the evidence that piracy has anything more than a marginal effect on PC gaming.
Pointing out that PC gaming is dominated by MMOs, for example, does not suggest that piracy has damaged PC gaming - it just suggests that Blizzard hit the super-home run with WoW. Other MMOs are doing ok, but plenty fail.
PC gaming is doing ok, so even the argument that PC gaming is tanking, therefore piracy is why (which is fallacius even if the first part were true) fails.
I still have yet to see any actual evidence that anyone is losing significant revenue as a result of piracy.
I think what has driven the rise of console gaming is the latest generation of consoles being the first that can actually compete with PC technically at a level that makes their obvious advantages in price (for the consumer), portability, and ease of use telling. Piracy has very little, f anything, to do with those things, and piracy was as much an issue previous to those technical changes, so it seems obvious that it is not piracy which drives this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2011, 02:11:34 AM
Would you please delineate the ways in which PC gaming is changing which are directly related to Piracy?
Pretty obvious isn't it?
First is the move to the subscription model and the massive growth of MMOs
Second is the release of intentionally incomplete releases followed by a blizzard of DLCs, expansions, etc.
This might something of a shock but not only there are MMO pirate servers, there's also plenty of DLC crap for consoles as well.
Those two have nothing to do with pirates and all to do with widespread availability of high-speed Internet access.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 03:17:48 PM
That is all fine, but we are still left waiting for the evidence that piracy has anything more than a marginal effect on PC gaming.
Pointing out that PC gaming is dominated by MMOs, for example, does not suggest that piracy has damaged PC gaming - it just suggests that Blizzard hit the super-home run with WoW. Other MMOs are doing ok, but plenty fail.
PC gaming is doing ok, so even the argument that PC gaming is tanking, therefore piracy is why (which is fallacius even if the first part were true) fails.
I still have yet to see any actual evidence that anyone is losing significant revenue as a result of piracy.
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.
I'm not saying PC gaming is dying, I'm saying piracy is having an effect, and not a good one.
As one example the article earlier gave, Crysis. Despite an advanced engine with great graphics and good reviews, it sold what, 10,000 units? Yet it was pirated many times this amount. I find it hard to believe that people able to afford rigs able to run Crysis and a broadband connection needed to download 4 gigs of data were all, to a man, so desperately poor as to be unable to pay for the game.
As for the effect, the developer announced that their next engine will not be for the PC. And in the article, someone from the company specifically says this is because of piracy.
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.
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.
QuoteTHe 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.
Quote from: Warspite on November 27, 2011, 03:48:11 PM
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.
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.
:lol:
Burn. :lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:05:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:16:12 PM
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.
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..."
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:05:53 PM
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.
QuoteAnd 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).
QuoteDoes 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.
QuoteYou 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:44:24 PM
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?
I don't really care about piracy costing sales, since that's impossible to know. I'm only interested in developer decisions.
Quote from: Warspite on November 27, 2011, 04:50:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:05:53 PM
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.
Quote
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
QuoteAnd 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
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
-- 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
QuoteDoes 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.
Quote
QuoteYou 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
QuoteThe 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 from: Warspite on November 27, 2011, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:44:24 PM
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!".
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 04:54:09 PM
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...
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 05:10:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 04:54:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 03:30:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 27, 2011, 04:50:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:05:53 PM
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteQuote
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.
QuoteQuote
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."
QuoteQuote
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.
Quote
-- 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.
Quote
QuoteDoes 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?
QuoteThe 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.
Quote
QuoteYou 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.
Quote
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 27, 2011, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2011, 02:01:17 AMWell, 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2011, 07:20:58 AMInteresting. 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.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2011, 05:05:54 PMYeah 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 02:16:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Warspite on November 27, 2011, 03:48:11 PMI 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.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 07:52:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:05:53 PMDoes 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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 05:10:42 PMDeveloper's develop for whatever system their customers use...
Yup. And their customers aren't the pirates.
Quote from: Warspite on November 27, 2011, 06:29:54 PMIt 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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 27, 2011, 06:48:31 PM
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).
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 08:13:46 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 27, 2011, 06:29:54 PMIt 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.
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 08:20:17 PMAnd 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.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 08:07:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 04:05:53 PMDoes 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.
I don't buy it - I think it is just a handy bitch by people who are pissed that people are stealing their stuff. Again, the data does not follow - lots and lots of games sold lots and lots of copies and made lots and lots of money despite piracy.
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
The whiner from Crysis illustrates the point perfectly - Crysis made more money than they projected, sold more copies than they projected. The entirety of their bitch is that it was pirated a lot. So we see that even though it was pirated at a huge rate, the game still made more money than they thought it would, and still sold more copies than they thought it would. So how can they possibly claim that piracy hurt them so badly that there is no point in making another Crysis?
Then they come along and say "Yeah, even though the product made more than we thought, and sold more than we thought, we aren't going to do PC games anymore because nobody will buy them - they will just pirate it!"
That makes no sense at all. People WILL in fact buy them, as Crysis clearly shows. As Half Life 2 clearly shows.
Of course, the game has to be good - and I suspect that what is really happening is that bad games fail, and the easy answer to why they fail is "ZOMG Its the piratz!".
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2011, 05:05:54 PMYeah 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.
And isn't that exactly what is happening?
It used to be that consoles simply did not have the power to compete with PCs - there was an entire class of games that simple could not be done on the XBOX/PS2 and earlier consoles. So the PC dominated the high end gaming market. Even after the internet made piracy easy (although prior to the internet it was sitll damn easy, and still the same scale of problem).
That is no longer the case though - now the consoles (while still not as powerful or capable) are capable enough to meet the needs of enough of the gaming community that their cheap cost, ease of maintenance, and predicatbility have trumped the PCs power. So they are the dominant platform, and that is where developers focus their attention.
If you could wave a magic wand and make piracy impossible, I don't think it changes the gaming market significantly, no matter what the developers claim. They are not an objective observer, they are a vested party.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 08:20:17 PMAnd 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.
The used PC market is practically non-existent. It is not the same at all.
Quote
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.
Again, is that really the FIRST question? Not "What is your good idea that will sell product?"
I suspect you are on the dev side, and feeding us the dev story. It is like asking a DA how they feel about defense attornies tactics - their answers might be interesting, but probably should not be accepted as being objective or balanced.
Quote
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.
Yeah, most of the games that Languish would enjoy are being developed and sold for PCs at a rather impressive rate.
Dragon Age
Skyrim
WoW
Paradox Strat games
Wargames
Seems like the claim that piracy has made PC gaming a poor choice doesn't hold up to the actual facts very well, no matter how many developers tell us that really, it is piracy that has stopped them from developing PC games...except for all the successful PC games out there, of course.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
Can you think of a time during the reign of the PC game where the piracy problem was as significant as it is now?
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
I suspect you are on the dev side, and feeding us the dev story.
I would hope he was on the dev side.
QuoteDragon Age
Skyrim
WoW
Paradox Strat games
Wargames
Console game.
Console game.
MMO.
Niche.
Niche.
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 09:13:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
Can you think of a time during the reign of the PC game where the piracy problem was as significant as it is now?
I can't think of a time when the piracy problem was any less than it is now.
Sure, technology helps pirates, but it helps the PC industry as well. Back when PC games like Kings Quest came on floppy disks, those disks were being copied and handed around. Was there less piracy in absolute terms? Sure - but there were less copies being sold as well, because less people had PCs. But those who did were still pretty savvy people, and still were quite capable of pirating like crazy, and many did.
I don't accept that the "piracy problem" is any more significant now than it is at some other point in time. And I am still waiting for evidence to the contrary- so far the only evidence is a bunch of people saying that other people told them that it was a problem. And one cited example of a developer going on record complaining that their game sold more copies than they expected, made more money than they expected, but since it was pirated more than they expected, supposedly they are not making PC games anymore?
Saying that piracy is worse now than before because some developers told you so is like saying kids don't respect their parents like they did before, and you know this is true because some parents were bitching about it just the other day.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
The whiner from Crysis illustrates the point perfectly - Crysis made more money than they projected, sold more copies than they projected. The entirety of their bitch is that it was pirated a lot. So we see that even though it was pirated at a huge rate, the game still made more money than they thought it would, and still sold more copies than they thought it would. So how can they possibly claim that piracy hurt them so badly that there is no point in making another Crysis?
Then they come along and say "Yeah, even though the product made more than we thought, and sold more than we thought, we aren't going to do PC games anymore because nobody will buy them - they will just pirate it!"
That makes no sense at all. People WILL in fact buy them, as Crysis clearly shows. As Half Life 2 clearly shows.
So at what point are you allowed to be upset that more people stole your product than bought it?
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PMI don't buy it - I think it is just a handy bitch by people who are pissed that people are stealing their stuff.
Again, the data does not follow - lots and lots of games sold lots and lots of copies and made lots and lots of money despite piracy
I think you're missing the point I'm making - people make investment, business and development decisions based on that "handy bitch". It doesn't matter whether you think the data does or does not follow. What matters is whether the people in the position to make decisions about game development are influenced by that "handy bitch".
In my observation, they are. They are, notwithstanding whatever arguments people put forth that they ought not to be.
QuoteIf piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
Budgets and dev teams were smaller in those days.
QuoteThe whiner from Crysis illustrates the point perfectly - Crysis made more money than they projected, sold more copies than they projected. The entirety of their bitch is that it was pirated a lot. So we see that even though it was pirated at a huge rate, the game still made more money than they thought it would, and still sold more copies than they thought it would. So how can they possibly claim that piracy hurt them so badly that there is no point in making another Crysis?
Why does it matter how they can possibly claim it? If they are not going to make another Crysis because of piracy, how can you possibly find it hard to say whether piracy has an impact on PC game development decisions?
QuoteThen they come along and say "Yeah, even though the product made more than we thought, and sold more than we thought, we aren't going to do PC games anymore because nobody will buy them - they will just pirate it!"
That makes no sense at all. People WILL in fact buy them, as Crysis clearly shows. As Half Life 2 clearly shows.
Yet apparently they're not going to make another one*.
*I'm just quoting what's being said in this thread. I have no specific insight into Crysis development decisions. In fact, I expect that if they did make as much money as you're saying they did they'll put it out on PC again after bitching.
QuoteOf course, the game has to be good - and I suspect that what is really happening is that bad games fail, and the easy answer to why they fail is "ZOMG Its the piratz!".
Nah, developers and publishers are a fair bit more sanguine (if not always in agreement) about the failure of any given title. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you can make that point in the same post as you're claiming Crysis was successful in spite of piracy, yet they're still complaining about it?
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
I don't buy it - I think it is just a handy bitch by people who are pissed that people are stealing their stuff. Again, the data does not follow - lots and lots of games sold lots and lots of copies and made lots and lots of money despite piracy.
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
The whiner from Crysis illustrates the point perfectly - Crysis made more money than they projected, sold more copies than they projected. The entirety of their bitch is that it was pirated a lot. So we see that even though it was pirated at a huge rate, the game still made more money than they thought it would, and still sold more copies than they thought it would. So how can they possibly claim that piracy hurt them so badly that there is no point in making another Crysis?
Then they come along and say "Yeah, even though the product made more than we thought, and sold more than we thought, we aren't going to do PC games anymore because nobody will buy them - they will just pirate it!"
That makes no sense at all. People WILL in fact buy them, as Crysis clearly shows. As Half Life 2 clearly shows.
Of course, the game has to be good - and I suspect that what is really happening is that bad games fail, and the easy answer to why they fail is "ZOMG Its the piratz!".
Wait, your argument is that developers are deliberately hindering themselves because someone out there is stealing their stuff and they are bitter? Your argument is that developers are simply irrational?
The question is not "will some people buy them", it's "will enough people buy them to make it profitable". Would Crysis have been profitable if it had sold only on the PC?
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 09:16:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
I suspect you are on the dev side, and feeding us the dev story.
I would hope he was on the dev side.
QuoteDragon Age
Skyrim
WoW
Paradox Strat games
Wargames
Console game.
Console game.
MMO.
Niche.
Niche.
PC game
PC game
MMO
Niche
Niche
But nobody has claimed that someone ought to develop ONLY for PCs for "big" games - that clearly makes no sense in todays market for reasons that have nothing to do with piracy.
The claim is that developers don't develop for PCs because of piracy - if that were true, they would not do PC ports of their console games at all. And yet the PC game market in absolute terms is as large as it has ever been. If piracy was the reason consoles have more share, then they would not even be developing for PCs at all, since developing console versions does not stop PC piracy.
No, the reality is that they develop PC versions where they think they can sell enough copies to make a buck. And some people will pirate them, just like some people will steal from WalMart and some people will download music, and yet everyone still makes money. Whatever the real dollar figure in lost revenue is for piracy, it is just another cost of business, and not significant compared to other driving factors. I will continue to believe that until someone gives me some actual data or evidence or even simple reason that suggests otherwise.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 09:13:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
Can you think of a time during the reign of the PC game where the piracy problem was as significant as it is now?
I can't think of a time when the piracy problem was any less than it is now.
Sure, technology helps pirates, but it helps the PC industry as well. Back when PC games like Kings Quest came on floppy disks, those disks were being copied and handed around. Was there less piracy in absolute terms? Sure - but there were less copies being sold as well, because less people had PCs. But those who did were still pretty savvy people, and still were quite capable of pirating like crazy, and many did.
I don't accept that the "piracy problem" is any more significant now than it is at some other point in time. And I am still waiting for evidence to the contrary- so far the only evidence is a bunch of people saying that other people told them that it was a problem. And one cited example of a developer going on record complaining that their game sold more copies than they expected, made more money than they expected, but since it was pirated more than they expected, supposedly they are not making PC games anymore?
Saying that piracy is worse now than before because some developers told you so is like saying kids don't respect their parents like they did before, and you know this is true because some parents were bitching about it just the other day.
Well, you're wrong and your reverse argument from authority doesn't make you sound any more clever. Passing around some floppies and photocopying a manual at the library is different from the massive scale of what Bittorrent allows.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 09:24:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
I don't buy it - I think it is just a handy bitch by people who are pissed that people are stealing their stuff. Again, the data does not follow - lots and lots of games sold lots and lots of copies and made lots and lots of money despite piracy.
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
The whiner from Crysis illustrates the point perfectly - Crysis made more money than they projected, sold more copies than they projected. The entirety of their bitch is that it was pirated a lot. So we see that even though it was pirated at a huge rate, the game still made more money than they thought it would, and still sold more copies than they thought it would. So how can they possibly claim that piracy hurt them so badly that there is no point in making another Crysis?
Then they come along and say "Yeah, even though the product made more than we thought, and sold more than we thought, we aren't going to do PC games anymore because nobody will buy them - they will just pirate it!"
That makes no sense at all. People WILL in fact buy them, as Crysis clearly shows. As Half Life 2 clearly shows.
Of course, the game has to be good - and I suspect that what is really happening is that bad games fail, and the easy answer to why they fail is "ZOMG Its the piratz!".
Wait, your argument is that developers are deliberately hindering themselves because someone out there is stealing their stuff and they are bitter? Your argument is that developers are simply irrational?
No my argument is that developers don't develop for PCs by and large because they don't think they will sell enough copies to make it profitable. Some of them may think this is because of piracy, but they are deluding themselves, the reality is that if it is not profitable (or not profitable enough)it is because the market has changed.
Quote
The question is not "will some people buy them", it's "will enough people buy them to make it profitable". Would Crysis have been profitable if it had sold only on the PC?
Crysis was sold only on the PC, and was one of the most successful games of all time.
Half Life. Half Life 2. Both PC games (primarily). Both pirated like mad. Both ridiculously proftiable. The Sims. The Sims 2. Civ games. Wing Commander. Myst. The lsit of very profitable PC games that were pirated like crazy is rather long.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:58:52 PMAnd isn't that exactly what is happening?
It used to be that consoles simply did not have the power to compete with PCs - there was an entire class of games that simple could not be done on the XBOX/PS2 and earlier consoles. So the PC dominated the high end gaming market. Even after the internet made piracy easy (although prior to the internet it was sitll damn easy, and still the same scale of problem).
I don't claim piracy is the sole cause, but it certainly has influenced the cycle.
That is no longer the case though - now the consoles (while still not as powerful or capable) are capable enough to meet the needs of enough of the gaming community that their cheap cost, ease of maintenance, and predicatbility have trumped the PCs power. So they are the dominant platform, and that is where developers focus their attention.
Personally, I think the two things go hand in hand; it's a feed back cycle. People buy games for platforms that have the games they want; developers develop for platforms where they can make money.
QuoteIf you could wave a magic wand and make piracy impossible, I don't think it changes the gaming market significantly, no matter what the developers claim. They are not an objective observer, they are a vested party.
I don't think anyone is claiming the developers are objective observers. All that's being claimed is that they're making decisions based on piracy; thus, piracy has an effect on game development.
Berkut, Crysis was not a PC exclusive. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/crysis See?
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 09:28:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 09:13:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
Can you think of a time during the reign of the PC game where the piracy problem was as significant as it is now?
I can't think of a time when the piracy problem was any less than it is now.
Sure, technology helps pirates, but it helps the PC industry as well. Back when PC games like Kings Quest came on floppy disks, those disks were being copied and handed around. Was there less piracy in absolute terms? Sure - but there were less copies being sold as well, because less people had PCs. But those who did were still pretty savvy people, and still were quite capable of pirating like crazy, and many did.
I don't accept that the "piracy problem" is any more significant now than it is at some other point in time. And I am still waiting for evidence to the contrary- so far the only evidence is a bunch of people saying that other people told them that it was a problem. And one cited example of a developer going on record complaining that their game sold more copies than they expected, made more money than they expected, but since it was pirated more than they expected, supposedly they are not making PC games anymore?
Saying that piracy is worse now than before because some developers told you so is like saying kids don't respect their parents like they did before, and you know this is true because some parents were bitching about it just the other day.
Well, you're wrong and your reverse argument from authority doesn't make you sound any more clever. Passing around some floppies and photocopying a manual at the library is different from the massive scale of what Bittorrent allows.
Not really - because the scale at the time was that much smaller. People who want to pirate, pirate. Then and now. It's not like the old barriers to piracy were significant.
How can you just assume that the scaling factor of the internet means that less people are going to BUY a game because of piracy? If anything, the ease of transferring files might make more people pirate, but it is a leap to assume that those more people were buyers otherwise. The data time and again has shown that increased piracy of a title if anything correlates to increased sales, although I would not claim there is a casual relationship there. Just that more desirable games get more pirating, AND more sales.
This is the central error of the "Oh, piracy has ruined PC gaming!" crowd. The assumption that every pirate is a lost sale, or that some significant percentage of them are such that it is crippling the industry, when there are many, many examples that prove that it is just not the case.
Crysis being a perfect example of how piracy does not matter to the financial feasibility model. It was one of the most pirated game ever...and still sold more copies than the people who wrote it thought it would. I am kind of amazed that people can look at that example and STILL claim that piracy is what is doing PC gaming in.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 09:34:38 PM
Berkut, Crysis was not a PC exclusive. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/crysis See?
The console version came out 4 years after the PC version. When the PC version was the best selling game of the year, and sold 3 million copies, it was a PC exclusive. The console version is a much later, and IIRC, somewhat crippled version of the PC game.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:35:47 PM
Not really - because the scale at the time was that much smaller. People who want to pirate, pirate. Then and now. It's not like the old barriers to piracy were significant.
Yeah, the barriers were far more significant. For instance, you had to know someone with a copy of the game. If there is nobody who has the game in your area in the days of Myst, you weren't going to pirate it. Internet connections just were fast enough in those day. Or at least not for most people. Now if your area releases a game three days after it's released in another, you can still pirate it on the first day of release even if nobody has to the game in hundred miles of you.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 09:40:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:35:47 PM
Not really - because the scale at the time was that much smaller. People who want to pirate, pirate. Then and now. It's not like the old barriers to piracy were significant.
Yeah, the barriers were far more significant. For instance, you had to know someone with a copy of the game. If there is nobody who has the game in your area in the days of Myst, you weren't going to pirate it. Internet connections just were fast enough in those day. Or at least not for most people. Now if your area releases a game three days after it's released in another, you can still pirate it on the first day of release even if nobody has to the game in hundred miles of you.
Right. Because it was real hard to find someone with a copy of Myst.
Christ Raz, I was a gamer in those days. I remember them just fine. It was not a problem to find any game I wanted via people who pirated games. And that was in a variety of different states.
I never actually played Crysis. Maybe I will give it a try...is it a Steam product these days?
You can't have both ways on this Crysis thing Berkut. You can't say that simultaneously that the markets are changing making the PC game less profitable thus devs are moving to consoles and at the same time Crysis was tremendously profitable.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:07:25 PMThe used PC market is practically non-existent. It is not the same at all.
Ok.
QuoteAgain, is that really the FIRST question? Not "What is your good idea that will sell product?"
Well maybe not the FIRST. Maybe not even the SECOND.
But it's going to be one that's asked before they give you any money. Of course, you're going to have a hard time finding any venture capitalist who's willing to put money into a PC house to begin with at all.
QuoteI suspect you are on the dev side, and feeding us the dev story. It is like asking a DA how they feel about defense attornies tactics - their answers might be interesting, but probably should not be accepted as being objective or balanced.
:lol:
You
suspect I'm feeding you the dev story? That's explicitly what I'm doing. I'm telling you what I know about devs and publishers making development and publishing decisions, and I'm telling you that piracy does in fact drive many of those decisions. I'm telling you that piracy does have a significant impact on what sort of games you see developed for PC.
QuoteSeems like the claim that piracy has made PC gaming a poor choice doesn't hold up to the actual facts very well, no matter how many developers tell us that really, it is piracy that has stopped them from developing PC games...except for all the successful PC games out there, of course.
So you don't think developers and publishers have any insight into why they make the decisions they make? Then I'm not sure what we're talking about to be honest, because the only thing I'm bringing to this conversation is what I know about developers and publishers and their decision making.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:43:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 09:40:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:35:47 PM
Not really - because the scale at the time was that much smaller. People who want to pirate, pirate. Then and now. It's not like the old barriers to piracy were significant.
Yeah, the barriers were far more significant. For instance, you had to know someone with a copy of the game. If there is nobody who has the game in your area in the days of Myst, you weren't going to pirate it. Internet connections just were fast enough in those day. Or at least not for most people. Now if your area releases a game three days after it's released in another, you can still pirate it on the first day of release even if nobody has to the game in hundred miles of you.
Right. Because it was real hard to find someone with a copy of Myst.
Christ Raz, I was a gamer in those days. I remember them just fine. It was not a problem to find any game I wanted via people who pirated games. And that was in a variety of different states.
Were you a gamer in Europe and Australia at the same time? These differences in release date tend to be by region. Your statement is simply absurd. You could find every game at any time pirated when you were a kid? Or did you just want the ones that people had pirated at your school? Could you also find all books on sale at your local book store? I mean, I can find nearly every book ever published on Amazon.com I couldn't do that at the local book store. Why do you suppose that is?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 09:34:38 PM
Berkut, Crysis was not a PC exclusive. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/crysis See?
From my quick googling it seems that both Skyrim and Crysis had better sales on 360 and PS3 than on PC, but I'm not quite sure what this proves either way.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:30:16 PMNo my argument is that developers don't develop for PCs by and large because they don't think they will sell enough copies to make it profitable. Some of them may think this is because of piracy, but they are deluding themselves, the reality is that if it is not profitable (or not profitable enough)it is because the market has changed.
"Because of piracy" is a subset of "because the market has changed."
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 09:46:43 PM
You can't have both ways on this Crysis thing Berkut. You can't say that simultaneously that the markets are changing making the PC game less profitable thus devs are moving to consoles and at the same time Crysis was tremendously profitable.
Crisis came out in 2008. It was incredibly profitable. Would anyone doing a "Crysis" today make it PC exclusive? Certainly not.
The point is that Crysis was PC exclusive at a time when piracy was rampant, and yet it made a lot of money, more than the people who developed it thought it would in fact, despite it being one of the most pirated games ever. That pretty much kills the argument that piracy has is the reason games like Crysis are not PC exclusive anymore.
The fact that the dev for Crysis made his well know whine about how Crysis should have sold more copies than Half Life 2 if only there wasn't so much piracy, when HL 2 was heavily pirated as well, just proves the point that the developers are full of shit.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 09:34:38 PM
Berkut, Crysis was not a PC exclusive. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/crysis See?
From my quick googling it seems that both Skyrim and Crysis had better sales on 360 and PS3 than on PC, but I'm not quite sure what this proves either way.
Did your quick googling point out the Crysis was a PC exclusive for something like 4 years before the 360 port came out?
The point is that Crysis did just fine at the very height of the supposed piracy era, when piracy was killing PC gaming. Oops. Turns out not to be the case after all...
Crysis 2 seems to have way more sales numbers on console than PC.
I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis 3 saw the PC version released significantly later (if at all) than the console ones a la Rockstar.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:04:46 PMDid your quick googling point out the Crysis was a PC exclusive for something like 4 years before the 360 port came out?
The point is that Crysis did just fine at the very height of the supposed piracy era, when piracy was killing PC gaming. Oops. Turns out not to be the case after all...
Yet Crysis 2 sold way more on Xbox than on PC. I can guarantee you that the publishers are asking themselves "if we don't release on PC, will the increase in sales on console make up for the lost PC sales?" If they think the answer is yes, and piracy is definitely part of that analysis, then this franchise which started out on PC will disappear from that platform.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 10:01:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:30:16 PMNo my argument is that developers don't develop for PCs by and large because they don't think they will sell enough copies to make it profitable. Some of them may think this is because of piracy, but they are deluding themselves, the reality is that if it is not profitable (or not profitable enough)it is because the market has changed.
"Because of piracy" is a subset of "because the market has changed."
But we have yet to see any data that suggests that piracy has had a significant impact on that market change, compared to other factors.
In other words, given actual data, if there was no piracy at all, the market would still pretty much look like it does right now.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:07:58 PMBut we have yet to see any data that suggests that piracy has had a significant impact on that market change, compared to other factors.
By "we" I assume you mean "you" right? Because for my part, I'm convinced by the data I've seen.
QuoteIn other words, given actual data, if there was no piracy at all, the market would still pretty much look like it does right now.
What's the actual data you base this conclusion on?
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 10:07:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:04:46 PMDid your quick googling point out the Crysis was a PC exclusive for something like 4 years before the 360 port came out?
The point is that Crysis did just fine at the very height of the supposed piracy era, when piracy was killing PC gaming. Oops. Turns out not to be the case after all...
Yet Crysis 2 sold way more on Xbox than on PC.
I don't doubt it - there are way more XBOX gamers than there are PC gamers.
Quote
I can guarantee you that the publishers are asking themselves "if we don't release on PC, will the increase in sales on console make up for the lost PC sales?" If they think the answer is yes, and piracy is definitely part of that analysis, then this franchise which started out on PC will disappear from that platform.
Piracy might be part of that analysis, but its actual impact is still almost completely in the imaginations of those worrying about it. Because at the end of the day, nothing has really changed on the PC side. Piracy is the same as it always was, and before people made games that were pirated and made plenty of money of of those games, and now, if they are not going to make plenty of money off of PC games, it will simply be because there are not as many exclusively PC gamers, and PC gaming is a secondary market for big games like these.
THAT is what has changed. Piracy has not changed since Crysis sold 3 millions copies. What has changed is the overall structure of the gaming marketplace, and where the dollars are being spent.
This is pretty simple analysis. One thing (piracy) has not changed at all. A large number of other things HAS changed. Why would you assume that the thing that has not changed is the driving force in a different decision?
It would not surprise me in the least if Crysis 3 is console only. The numbers are what they are, more is the pity. The console gamers outnumber the PC gamers, especially when you consider the key demographic age group that buys games.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 10:13:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:07:58 PMBut we have yet to see any data that suggests that piracy has had a significant impact on that market change, compared to other factors.
By "we" I assume you mean "you" right? Because for my part, I'm convinced by the data I've seen.
Someone told me so is not data. It is opinion.
Quote
QuoteIn other words, given actual data, if there was no piracy at all, the market would still pretty much look like it does right now.
What's the actual data you base this conclusion on?
The examples of games like Crysis that are incredibly successful despite rampant piracy. The example of current games being released for PC that are profitable despite piracy. The fact that ever since there have been PC games, developers have been saying that piracy is about to destroy their ability to make money, and yet they all seem to keep making money for the last 25 years I've been around gaming.
The fact that RIGHT NOW, even while devs like you tell us that nobody can get money for a game without answering the "piracy question" we still see PC games that have NOT answered that question, and yet are perfectly successful.
NOW that PC gaming has finally started its market share decline, for reasons that are rather well understood by everyone (technology, not piracy) those same devs are now going to say "See, I told you so! I correctly predicted the imminent collapse of PC gaming 20 years ago!"
The data is there - even when piracy was at its very worst, PC games succeeded or failed on their merits.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:07:58 PM
But we have yet to see any data that suggests that piracy has had a significant impact on that market change, compared to other factors.
In other words, given actual data, if there was no piracy at all, the market would still pretty much look like it does right now.
Actually, what is the data you are operating from?
Honestly, I find this odd. I didn't expect these arguments from Berkut, someone who has never shown much sympathy for free riders.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 10:21:56 PM
Honestly, I find this odd. I didn't expect these arguments from Berkut, someone who has never shown much sympathy for free riders.
I don't have any sympathy for them, I just don't buy the hysterical arguments that piracy is killing PC gaming because they don't make any sense.
They are logically fallacious, do not take into account basic economic principles, and every specific example of some game that has supposedly been harmed by piracy doesn't hold up to examination.
My position has nothing to do with my feelings about pirates, or whether I think piracy is morally justifiable.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:07:58 PM
But we have yet to see any data that suggests that piracy has had a significant impact on that market change, compared to other factors.
In other words, given actual data, if there was no piracy at all, the market would still pretty much look like it does right now.
Actually, what is the data you are operating from?
Already answered this - myriad examples of PC games that have been extremely successful by their own developers standards despite the fact that they were pirated extensively.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:14:16 PMI don't doubt it - there are way more XBOX gamers than there are PC gamers.
And more games too. Funny that. Almost as if there's more money to be made on console games.
QuotePiracy might be part of that analysis, but its actual impact is still almost completely in the imaginations of those worrying about it.
That doesn't make the impact insignificant.
QuoteBecause at the end of the day, nothing has really changed on the PC side. Piracy is the same as it always was
You don't think internet and torrents make a difference?
Quoteand before people made games that were pirated and made plenty of money of of those games, and now, if they are not going to make plenty of money off of PC games, it will simply be because there are not as many exclusively PC gamers, and PC gaming is a secondary market for big games like these.
There are plenty of PC gamers. There aren't that many paying PC gamers.
When someone releases a PC game and they get orders of magnitude more people hitting their servers with the game than they've sold copies, it puts the decline of PC gaming in a different kind of perspective.
QuoteTHAT is what has changed. Piracy has not changed since Crysis sold 3 millions copies. What has changed is the overall structure of the gaming marketplace, and where the dollars are being spent.
How are those two things separable?
QuoteThis is pretty simple analysis. One thing (piracy) has not changed at all.
What do you mean it hasn't changed? Torrents changed everything.
QuoteA large number of other things HAS changed. Why would you assume that the thing that has not changed is the driving force in a different decision?
Piracy ease and efficiency of piracy is one of the biggest changes.
QuoteIt would not surprise me in the least if Crysis 3 is console only. The numbers are what they are, more is the pity. The console gamers outnumber the PC gamers, especially when you consider the key demographic age group that buys games.
Exactly. Especially when you consider the demographic groups that buy games versus the demographic groups that pirate them.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:26:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:07:58 PM
But we have yet to see any data that suggests that piracy has had a significant impact on that market change, compared to other factors.
In other words, given actual data, if there was no piracy at all, the market would still pretty much look like it does right now.
Actually, what is the data you are operating from?
Already answered this - myriad examples of PC games that have been extremely successful by their own developers standards despite the fact that they were pirated extensively.
Your Data is that some games made money therefore Piracy is not a major factor?
Perhaps an entirely different way of thinking is needed.
Technology is afflicting TV in much the same way- thanks to piracy and sky+ advertising revenue is dropping sharply since people tend not to watch the adverts. This is gradually leading towards more product placement actually in the shows.
Perhaps computer games could try the same route of heavy advertising?
Sure, it has been tried before, often not entirely well. But...I could well see a bit of a place for it. Fill the streets on GTA with Coca Cola machines rather than generic brand machines and the like.
Doubt it will be enough to fund development costs on its own, it couldn't be a total replacement model, but it would help a little.
As I've said the true cure for piracy is online content.
Just to reiterate, though - I don't claim that piracy is the only factor driving development and publishing decisions. In the end, it all comes down to money. If a publisher think they can make money in spite of piracy, they'll of course do it. It's just that these days it's harder. Internally, publishers and developers do consider piracy to be a significant factor in their decision making, no matter how hard people argue on the internet that they shouldn't.
This doesn't mean that no one will ever develop for PC. It just means it's a tougher row to hoe, and that fewer people will attempt it since the rewards are lower than on other platforms.
Big studios will continue to duke it out to hit the top 10 on console, that's where all the money is in that market. Independent developers will be less likely to compete now there since the stakes keep getting higher.
Instead I expect we'll see them on the mobile devices iPad and Android or whatever; it's easier to see how you're going to make money there than on PC. There's a lot of new ground to be covered (and old ground not yet re-covered on those platforms), so it's a lot more inviting. And yes, piracy is part of that picture.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 10:34:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:26:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 27, 2011, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:07:58 PM
But we have yet to see any data that suggests that piracy has had a significant impact on that market change, compared to other factors.
In other words, given actual data, if there was no piracy at all, the market would still pretty much look like it does right now.
Actually, what is the data you are operating from?
Already answered this - myriad examples of PC games that have been extremely successful by their own developers standards despite the fact that they were pirated extensively.
Your Data is that some games made money therefore Piracy is not a major factor?
My data is that games that are heavily pirated are heavily profitable, hence the claims that piracy makes it hard to make money so much so that people are not going to bother trying are spurious. Crysis was the most pirated game of 2008, yet exceeded it's developers expectations for sales. And torrents were certainly around in 2008.
At this point, it is pretty clear you aren't even trying to understand my point anymore though.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 10:47:56 PM
Just to reiterate, though - I don't claim that piracy is the only factor driving development and publishing decisions. In the end, it all comes down to money. If a publisher think they can make money in spite of piracy, they'll of course do it. It's just that these days it's harder. Internally, publishers and developers do consider piracy to be a significant factor in their decision making, no matter how hard people argue on the internet that they shouldn't.
This doesn't mean that no one will ever develop for PC. It just means it's a tougher row to hoe, and that fewer people will attempt it since the rewards are lower than on other platforms.
Big studios will continue to duke it out to hit the top 10 on console, that's where all the money is in that market. Independent developers will be less likely to compete now there since the stakes keep getting higher.
Instead I expect we'll see them on the mobile devices iPad and Android or whatever; it's easier to see how you're going to make money there than on PC. There's a lot of new ground to be covered (and old ground not yet re-covered on those platforms), so it's a lot more inviting. And yes, piracy is part of that picture.
Well, lucky for me it doesn't matter. The PC will continue to decline in market share, while still being a significant market in its own right, and this is largely driven by factors that have nothing to do with piracy - as the actual data has shown.
Either way, we end up at the same place. I guess the devs can feel all justified in their whining (and that is a little unfair, I admit - they have every right to react to piracy emotionally, rather than rationally - we are talking about people stealing from them, of course they are going to cast that in the worst possible light) while they continue to make money where there is money to be made.
As a PC gamer though, I don't really feel at all hosed overall. While there are some annoyances, like dealing with console centric interfaces on PC games, there are also some incredible benefits to the current market, with some really high quality niche games out there that probably would not get made if the PC was still the dominant gaming platform.
And like you said - the tablet and phone gaming world is still in its infancy - all kinds of neat stuff is going to happen there - so far I don't think they've even come close to actually using the potential of those devices.
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2011, 10:41:11 PM
Perhaps an entirely different way of thinking is needed.
Technology is afflicting TV in much the same way- thanks to piracy and sky+ advertising revenue is dropping sharply since people tend not to watch the adverts. This is gradually leading towards more product placement actually in the shows.
Perhaps computer games could try the same route of heavy advertising?
Sure, it has been tried before, often not entirely well. But...I could well see a bit of a place for it. Fill the streets on GTA with Coca Cola machines rather than generic brand machines and the like.
Doubt it will be enough to fund development costs on its own, it couldn't be a total replacement model, but it would help a little.
As I've said the true cure for piracy is online content.
The new way of thinking has already been found, at least for games: it's called freemium/ micro-transactions. It may not produce the kind of games we're used to playing, but it solves the piracy issues. When you have a freemium/ micro-transaction revenue model you want people to give it away for free - the more the merrier.
There's that too. The trouble with such things though is on popular games the pirates crack them too. I guess on less popular games it helps a bit though.
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2011, 11:01:40 PM
There's that too. The trouble with such things though is on popular games the pirates crack them too. I guess on less popular games it helps a bit though.
Pirates crack them? Do you have an example?
And no it doesn't "help a bit", it's the whole revenue model (much more so than advertising). Have a look at the "World of Tanks" thread. That's the future.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:49:16 PM
My data is that games that are heavily pirated are heavily profitable, hence the claims that piracy makes it hard to make money so much so that people are not going to bother trying are spurious. Crysis was the most pirated game of 2008, yet exceeded it's developers expectations for sales. And torrents were certainly around in 2008.
At this point, it is pretty clear you aren't even trying to understand my point anymore though.
Does your data indicate all game that are heavily pirated are heavily profitable? I mean, I can find examples of games that were heavily pirated but not heavily profitable.
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2011, 11:05:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2011, 11:01:40 PM
There's that too. The trouble with such things though is on popular games the pirates crack them too. I guess on less popular games it helps a bit though.
Pirates crack them? Do you have an example?
And no it doesn't "help a bit", it's the whole revenue model (much more so than advertising). Have a look at the "World of Tanks" thread. That's the future.
Go search pirate bay for say Witcher 2 DLC and you'll see it there.
I imagine it's harder to add cracked DLCs to a game then just having full version. Cracks don't always work together well, and patching a cracked version of a game is difficult.
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2011, 12:25:22 AMGo search pirate bay for say Witcher 2 DLC and you'll see it there.
DLC is not the same as the freemium/ micro-transaction model.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 02:24:11 PM
Funny, I thought the massive growth of MMOs was because they were fun and people wanted to play them. I had no idea that millions of people play WoW because it defeats pirates.
You keep confusing the producer's perspective from the consumer's perspective. The question isn't why people play MMOs; the question is why other kinds of games that used to get made outside the paradigm don't get made anymore. Example - bioware made its name making the Baldurs Gate-Neverwinter series; but for the last 8-9 yearfs it has focused entirely on multi-platform games where the console drives development (with the exception of its planned Star Wars MMO).
QuoteAhh yes, that must be why you don't see DLC on consoles....oh wait.
Non sequitur. Just because something has one purpose doesn't mean that is its only purpose.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:49:16 PM
My data is that games that are heavily pirated are heavily profitable, hence the claims that piracy makes it hard to make money so much so that people are not going to bother trying are spurious. Crysis was the most pirated game of 2008, yet exceeded it's developers expectations for sales. And torrents were certainly around in 2008..
Sales is not the same as profits.
The business model of game development, like most IP-heavy productions, involves heavy investments up front before dollar one in revenue is made. The business model also typically involves hit projects carrying the costs of the inevitable flops and disappointments. The key element here is
marginal sales, because its on those marginal sales that all the profit is made. And of course it it those marginal sales - and hence profitability - that are most adversely impacted by piracy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 01:08:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 10:49:16 PM
My data is that games that are heavily pirated are heavily profitable, hence the claims that piracy makes it hard to make money so much so that people are not going to bother trying are spurious. Crysis was the most pirated game of 2008, yet exceeded it's developers expectations for sales. And torrents were certainly around in 2008..
Sales is not the same as profits.
The business model of game development, like most IP-heavy productions, involves heavy investments up front before dollar one in revenue is made. The business model also typically involves hit projects carrying the costs of the inevitable flops and disappointments. The key element here is marginal sales, because its on those marginal sales that all the profit is made. And of course it it those marginal sales - and hence profitability - that are most adversely impacted by piracy.
Uhhh, the Crysis people expected to sell X copies of the game. Presumablly that number was great enough to make the game profitable for them, or they would never have done it to begin with.
Instead it sold > X copies, and is one of the best selling PC games of all time. No matter how you dice it, Crysis was successful by their own measures. The only reason they are complaining is that it was also successful at being the most pirated game of the year. I can understand why that pisses them off, it would piss me off as well if I were them.
Sales is not profits, but when it comes to software, it is in fact profits, since all the development costs are sunk. Once you make it, you ahve to sell X copies to turn a profit, then after that it is all gravy. I don't know how many Crysis needed to turn a profit, but since they built it and it sold more than they expected it to, clearly it did what they were hoping it would do, or at least it did what they expected it to...
Ok B let's say I grant you Crysis made money for its developers back in 08 notwithstanding rampant piracy.
That is a sample size of one game made 4 years ago and it doesn't deal with the general nature of the problem.
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
Skyrim
An interesting example - as the vast majority of sales in units and dollars to date are on console, the game was designed specifically for console, and based on what I have heard, the PC version is gimped as a result.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 01:22:42 AM
Ok B let's say I grant you Crysis made money for its developers back in 08 notwithstanding rampant piracy.
That is a sample size of one game made 4 years ago and it doesn't deal with the general nature of the problem.
Granted, but I think it serves as a pretty good example, especially considering that its lead designer guy bithched and moaned about how they got screwed by pirates on it - it illustrates nicely how silly the argument that a lot of piracy MUST somehow result in so much lost sales that it is better to just get out of the market.
What DOES deal with the general nature of the problem though? There is no real data available out there, nothing that clearly suggests that PC piracy reduces profits to an extent that is significant when it comes to driving developers out of the PC market. I think that fact that piracy has always been around, and yet it didn't stop anyone before suggests that piracy is loudly complained about, but apparently isn't really that important.
The counter argument to that is to claim "Yeah, but piracy is so much worse now, because of the internets!". Well, the internets were around when Hlaf Life 2 was selling 12 million copies. And for the last 25 years we've heard about how piracy was on the verge of destroying the PC market NOW, not that it might if there is some technological advancement that allows it to do so - so I am skeptical.
Finally, if it is piracy driving develpers away from the PC....why are they still writing or porting for the PC at all? If piracy is so bad that money cannot be made on the PC, then developers would abandon it altogether, not just develop for some other platform and port it where it makes sense. Huge games like MW3 simply would not around for the PC at all.
But what do we actually see? Lots of copies sold, albeit not as many as before, even while there is a huge amount of piracy as well.
Like I said earlier though - from my perspective it doesn't matter. I think the PC gaming market is where it is at due to factors that have little to do with piracy, and those factors will continue to marginalize the PC as a market dominating factor, while at the same time keeping the PC around as a desirable secondary platform for those titles that just work better on a PC (MMOs) and of course to tap a huge overall market (some 1 billion PCs in existance even if most of those are not gaming).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 01:25:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
Skyrim
An interesting example - as the vast majority of sales in units and dollars to date are on console, the game was designed specifically for console, and based on what I have heard, the PC version is gimped as a result.
Yes, there is no question the consoles are where the real money is at these days.
But there is still lots of money to be made on the PC, despite the claims that piracy is what is driving developers away from the PC. I think if it was primarily piracy (instead of just going where the dollars are, which is the console crowd of teens and 20 somethings), then you would not see Skyrim on the PC at all. Why would you - if you cannot make money on the PC due to piracy, why port it?
The reality is that you CAN make money on the PC, and in fact you can make just as much now as ever, since the PC gaming market in absolute terms is still as large as it has ever been. There is just MORE money to be made on consoles. If that is the reality, then what we see today makes prefect sense: Major titles developed for consoles, with ports to the PC to capture that lucrative market, even if it isn't the focus anymore.
Okay, here's another example for Berkut.
QuoteUpdate: For 2009, the most pirated PC game as reported in this article was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The PC version had a staggering 4.1 million downloads via torrents alone compared with an estimated 200,000 - 300,000 actual sales via retail and Steam, demonstrating that the most popular game of 2009 was also the most pirated, and more importantly, that the actual number of downloads for the most popular game is now almost three times as high as in 2008, signalling the rampant growth of piracy. It is also interesting to note that while COD:MW2 sold around 300,000 copies on PC and had 4.1 million pirated downloads, the console version sold in excess of 6 million copies during the same period according to this article, and yet had a fraction of the number of pirated downloads at around 970,000.
From the article I posted on the first page.
So clearly the problem is not hardware on the PC, or lack of players. Naturally 4.1 million downloads is only one form of piracy. There are P2P site and programs as well. Still this fraction of piracy is a good indicator of how widespread it is. If as someone here previous said only 1/4th of those who pirated the game would have bought it that's still 1 million copies. Triple the number the number sold on PC.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 01:33:47 AM
The counter argument to that is to claim "Yeah, but piracy is so much worse now, because of the internets!". Well, the internets were around when Hlaf Life 2 was selling 12 million copies. And for the last 25 years we've heard about how piracy was on the verge of destroying the PC market NOW, not that it might if there is some technological advancement that allows it to do so - so I am skeptical.
Well one argument is that the internet has gotten more users in the past 4 years...although 2008 also saw Spore which required internet activation and that wasn't seen as unduly burdensome to even casual players.
I thought it was interesting that there were pirated copies of Skyrim for the 360 out and being played about a week before the release of the game, while the PC version was pretty well locked down. I assume because of the Steam release date thing.
It's really quite easy to pirate games on consoles. There's an extra step involved at first, usually to "unlock" the hardware, but then it's a matter of burning a DVD (or BluRay) and shoving the disk in there. I did it with my first Xbox, not the 360, the old one: modded it, put a new hard drive in there, got a subscription to GameFly. :P I just copied them to the HDD instead of burning a bunch of disks.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 12:41:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2011, 12:25:22 AMGo search pirate bay for say Witcher 2 DLC and you'll see it there.
DLC is not the same as the freemium/ micro-transaction model.
What do you mean then?
Like farmville and such crap?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 08:38:33 AM
Okay, here's another example for Berkut.
QuoteUpdate: For 2009, the most pirated PC game as reported in this article was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The PC version had a staggering 4.1 million downloads via torrents alone compared with an estimated 200,000 - 300,000 actual sales via retail and Steam, demonstrating that the most popular game of 2009 was also the most pirated, and more importantly, that the actual number of downloads for the most popular game is now almost three times as high as in 2008, signalling the rampant growth of piracy. It is also interesting to note that while COD:MW2 sold around 300,000 copies on PC and had 4.1 million pirated downloads, the console version sold in excess of 6 million copies during the same period according to this article, and yet had a fraction of the number of pirated downloads at around 970,000.
From the article I posted on the first page.
So clearly the problem is not hardware on the PC, or lack of players. Naturally 4.1 million downloads is only one form of piracy. There are P2P site and programs as well. Still this fraction of piracy is a good indicator of how widespread it is. If as someone here previous said only 1/4th of those who pirated the game would have bought it that's still 1 million copies. Triple the number the number sold on PC.
Why would you assume that 1/4 of the people who pirate the game would buy it?
Why not assume all of them would - that would mean it would become one of the best selling PC games of all time!
Is there point to that post Berkut? I took the 1/4th number from someone on your side of the argument. Grey Fox I think. He pointed out that not everyone who pirates would buy. This is true, but it's also true that the people who pirate the game value it some, and if they could not pirate it some would value it enough to buy it. It's hard to tell how many would would or would not buy it. 1/4th is as good a number as any.
My point is the fact that since at least 4.1 million people downloaded it (Likely many, many more), then there is a very robust market for PC games. At least equal to any one console and possibly larger then all of them put together. There are a lot of PC gamers out there, there is just not a lot of PC gamers who are buying their games.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 09:33:50 AM
Is there point to that post Berkut? I took the 1/4th number from someone on your side of the argument. Grey Fox I think. He pointed out that not everyone who pirates would buy. This is true, but it's also true that the people who pirate the game value it some, and if they could not pirate it some would value it enough to buy it. It's hard to tell how many would would or would not buy it. 1/4th is as good a number as any.
My point is the fact that since at least 4.1 million people downloaded it (Likely many, many more), then there is a very robust market for PC games. At least equal to any one console and possibly larger then all of them put together. There are a lot of PC gamers out there, there is just not a lot of PC gamers who are buying their games.
If we are just going to pick numbers, lets go with 1/20th instead. Or 1/50th.
Oh look, piracy isn't such a huge deal - most pirates were never potential purchasers anyway, and making piracy easier just means more people who were not going to buy will pirate. Ho hum.
What your example shows is that just like the Crysis example, popular games sell a lot and get pirated a lot.
I didn't pick it. As I said, one of your guys picked it. Did you consider 300,000 a lot? If it gets pirated around 20 times for every game do you not consider that a problem?
Your argument has been about the market changing. But if so many people are simply stealing games the market is still there. The lots of potential buys who can run the game and have an interest in it. It's just that most are stealing it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 09:52:33 AM
I didn't pick it. As I said, one of your guys picked it. Did you consider 300,000 a lot? If it gets pirated around 20 times for every game do you not consider that a problem?
I don't think I have any guys, except myself. So as long as we are randomly making numbers up, certainly I can choose one of my own instead of one chosen by someone else, right? I choose 1/50th.
Quote
Your argument has been about the market changing. But if so many people are simply stealing games the market is still there.
*Some* market is certainly there, true. Whether it is at a price that is worthwhile is unknown. It is like arguing that since the Chinese steal DvDs like crazy, there must be a market for DVDs in China. Sure, that is true - but what does it matter? You cannot stop the piracy, you can only manage its direct cost to you as best you can and then account for it. Which is what is happening.
Quote
The lots of potential buys who can run the game and have an interest in it. It's just that most are stealing it.
Yeah, that is a lot of potential buys - so? The argument is not that piracy is ok, or that piracy doesn't harm people, it is that piracy is killing the industry, or has killed the industry, or has some significant impact that has resulted in the dominance of console gaming. I think that argument is based on a lot of emotion, anecdote, and very little actual data or reason.
There is lots of piracy out there. There has *always* been lots of piracy out there. For as long as there has been a PC gaming market, there has been piracy, and developers claiming that piracy is destroying them and the market. It is understandable why they say so, but it almost certainly was not true 20 years ago, and is not true 10 years ago, or 5, or today.
Okay, Berkut lets back up. What do you think is the reason for the market change?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 10:43:58 AM
Okay, Berkut lets back up. What do you think is the reason for the market change?
Dear Christ, no way am I going over that ground again.
Oh and provide Data for it as well. You've been talking about data but provided precious little yourself. Incidentally, if we use your number of 1/50 sales. That's something like 120,000 more sales. At 50 bucks a pop that's six million dollars. That's like 40% more sales, which I would think is somewhat substantial. If you lost 40% of your income what would you think? Oh it's not a huge deal! Ho hum. If so, please send me 40% of your income. I would welcome it. I will PM for the details for this little transfer.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 10:55:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 10:43:58 AM
Okay, Berkut lets back up. What do you think is the reason for the market change?
Dear Christ, no way am I going over that ground again.
You really haven't gone over it the first time. Except for vague statements. About markets and consoles being better. That doesn't really make sense though. So lets try with your data you keep talking about.
I don't have the detailed data either, and I agree that discussing the matter seriously (from either "side") is a little pointless.
But I think from the limited data mentioned in this thread, it is reasonable to conclude that piracy has some non-insiginficant impact on marginal PC game sales, and hence on profits. And Econ 101 tells you that ceteris paribas, that will result in less supply of that good to the market than would otherwise exist.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 10:31:24 AM
There is lots of piracy out there. There has *always* been lots of piracy out there. For as long as there has been a PC gaming market, there has been piracy, and developers claiming that piracy is destroying them and the market. It is understandable why they say so, but it almost certainly was not true 20 years ago, and is not true 10 years ago, or 5, or today.
I certainly remember pirating computer games myself as a child for my Apple II, when I didn't have any money so I appreciate that such piracy has in fact been there since the dawn of computers.
But surely you'd acknowledge there's a huge difference in the ease of piracy from the days when you had to make physical copies of the disks, to when you simply have to download them from a torrent site?
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 10:31:24 AM
There is lots of piracy out there. There has *always* been lots of piracy out there. For as long as there has been a PC gaming market, there has been piracy, and developers claiming that piracy is destroying them and the market. It is understandable why they say so, but it almost certainly was not true 20 years ago, and is not true 10 years ago, or 5, or today.
I certainly remember pirating computer games myself as a child for my Apple II, when I didn't have any money so I appreciate that such piracy has in fact been there since the dawn of computers.
But surely you'd acknowledge there's a huge difference in the ease of piracy from the days when you had to make physical copies of the disks, to when you simply have to download them from a torrent site?
But then that begs the question - what did Crysis do right that so many people actually bought copies?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 11:40:42 AM
I don't have the detailed data either, and I agree that discussing the matter seriously (from either "side") is a little pointless.
But I think from the limited data mentioned in this thread, it is reasonable to conclude that piracy has some non-insiginficant impact on marginal PC game sales, and hence on profits. And Econ 101 tells you that ceteris paribas, that will result in less supply of that good to the market than would otherwise exist.
No argument from me.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 10:31:24 AM
There is lots of piracy out there. There has *always* been lots of piracy out there. For as long as there has been a PC gaming market, there has been piracy, and developers claiming that piracy is destroying them and the market. It is understandable why they say so, but it almost certainly was not true 20 years ago, and is not true 10 years ago, or 5, or today.
I certainly remember pirating computer games myself as a child for my Apple II, when I didn't have any money so I appreciate that such piracy has in fact been there since the dawn of computers.
But surely you'd acknowledge there's a huge difference in the ease of piracy from the days when you had to make physical copies of the disks, to when you simply have to download them from a torrent site?
Not really.
Now you can go download from a torrent site, sure - but you have to go through the entire mounting rigamorole to get it to install, right? All those ISO files and whatever.
Not that it is hard, but it isn't just downloading and off you go.
But more to the point is that I don'tthink piracy being easy is what is killing PC sales. Piracy being easy means more people will pirate, but those are mostly people who would not buy the game anyway.
Just compare Crysis to MW2. Both were the "best games of the year", Crysis 5 years ago, MW2 last year. Both sold more copies than any other game in their year, and both were the most pirated games of their year.
But Crysis sold 3 million copies, and MW2 sold a few hundred thousand. You cannot say the difference is because of piracy - Crysis was ridiculously heavily pirated!
The PC game market has changed, it simply is not as large as it used to be. Now, I think part of the difference is that Crysis was a "special" game, and MW2 not so much, but the majority of the difference is simply that MW2 was available on the console, because that is now the primary gaming platform. Crysis could barely run on a high end PC when it came out, no way it could run on a console in its release form.
The market has moved on.
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2011, 09:13:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 27, 2011, 08:51:35 PM
If piracy was such a negative driver, then there never would have been a time when PC games dominated the market even while they were being pirated like crazy.
Can you think of a time during the reign of the PC game where the piracy problem was as significant as it is now?
After all these years I can still remember the flags to unpack a multivolume .ARJ file. Hell, my first PC arrived with tons of pirated games in 5" 1/4 floppies.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 12:10:50 PM
Now you can go download from a torrent site, sure - but you have to go through the entire mounting rigamorole to get it to install, right? All those ISO files and whatever.
You download a mounter once and that's about it. :mellow:
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 09:41:23 AM
What your example shows is that just like the Crysis example, popular games sell a lot and get pirated a lot.
Well, d'oh. Of course a popular game is both going to sell a lot and be pirated a lot. And guess what--an unpopular game isn't going to sell a lot, nor will it be pirated a lot. Unless there's some reason to believe that the gaming tastes of those who pirate games differs from the gaming tastes of those who don't (and AFAIK, there isn't any such reason), then of course there's going to be some correlation. That doesn't really tell us anything.
But on a certain level, a popular game doesn't really illustrate the problem. Sure, if I produced a game that sold well, and was also pirated 4 million times, even if we use your figure of only 1 in 50 of those pirated games represent a lost sale, as Raz pointed out, at $50 a game, that's like $6M is lost revenue. I made money off the game, but I lost $6M to pirates--I'd be pissed off, too. But would I do it all over again? Sure, because I still made money on the game. But what if the game isn't a hit? The revenue lost to pirates could very well be the difference between making and losing money. And at some point, that has to become enough of a risk to deter the development of games for the PC.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2011, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 09:41:23 AM
What your example shows is that just like the Crysis example, popular games sell a lot and get pirated a lot.
Well, d'oh. Of course a popular game is both going to sell a lot and be pirated a lot. And guess what--an unpopular game isn't going to sell a lot, nor will it be pirated a lot. Unless there's some reason to believe that the gaming tastes of those who pirate games differs from the gaming tastes of those who don't (and AFAIK, there isn't any such reason), then of course there's going to be some correlation. That doesn't really tell us anything.
Exactly my point - it doesn't tell us anything. One of the things it does not tell us is that piracy is the reason developers are no longer focusing on the PC.
Quote
But on a certain level, a popular game doesn't really illustrate the problem. Sure, if I produced a game that sold well, and was also pirated 4 million times, even if we use your figure of only 1 in 50 of those pirated games represent a lost sale, as Raz pointed out, at $50 a game, that's like $6M is lost revenue. I made money off the game, but I lost $6M to pirates--I'd be pissed off, too. But would I do it all over again? Sure, because I still made money on the game. But what if the game isn't a hit? The revenue lost to pirates could very well be the difference between making and losing money. And at some point, that has to become enough of a risk to deter the development of games for the PC.
But how is that different from any other cost of doing business?
All costs "at some point" deter someone from doing business. So what?
I don't understand what lesson we are supposed to take from all this dev whining. Piracy sucks? Pirates are assholes? OK, I am down with that.
So?
Do they have some hope that if they bitch about it enough, pirates will stop pirating, or consumers will put up with ridiculous DRM?
Piracy exists, it has always existed, it will continue to exist. It even exists in the console world, and will likely become more of an issue over time rather than less.
As far as I am concerned, they might as well whine about the high cost of good software engineers, or how much their artists make, or the growing cost of marketing. Gosh, if it didn't cost so much to market a game, maybe some marginal games that aren't being made would get made! It's true - but so what?
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
As far as I am concerned, they might as well whine about the high cost of good software engineers, or how much their artists make, or the growing cost of marketing. Gosh, if it didn't cost so much to market a game, maybe some marginal games that aren't being made would get made! It's true - but so what?
Well, it's similar to the difference between a pizza place complaining about the high costs of their ingrediants, and complaining that more pizzas are being stolen from their delivery drivers than are being delivered to paying customers. If that was the case, they'd stop delivering pizzas.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2011, 04:59:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
As far as I am concerned, they might as well whine about the high cost of good software engineers, or how much their artists make, or the growing cost of marketing. Gosh, if it didn't cost so much to market a game, maybe some marginal games that aren't being made would get made! It's true - but so what?
Well, it's similar to the difference between a pizza place complaining about the high costs of their ingrediants, and complaining that more pizzas are being stolen from their delivery drivers than are being delivered to paying customers. If that was the case, they'd stop delivering pizzas.
Except that it is no different - it is a cost either way. Economically there is no difference.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 05:02:24 PM
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2011, 04:59:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
As far as I am concerned, they might as well whine about the high cost of good software engineers, or how much their artists make, or the growing cost of marketing. Gosh, if it didn't cost so much to market a game, maybe some marginal games that aren't being made would get made! It's true - but so what?
Well, it's similar to the difference between a pizza place complaining about the high costs of their ingrediants, and complaining that more pizzas are being stolen from their delivery drivers than are being delivered to paying customers. If that was the case, they'd stop delivering pizzas.
Except that it is no different - it is a cost either way. Economically there is no difference.
But legally, they are far different. One is just a normal cost of doing business, one is losses to criminal activity.
The lesson is that piracy shapes the range of PC games available.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 05:43:05 PM
The lesson is that piracy shapes the range of PC games available.
No, the lesson is that people have vivid imaginations.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 05:43:05 PM
The lesson is that piracy shapes the range of PC games available.
No, the lesson is that people have vivid imaginations.
You gonna give me that money anytime soon? It's not much. Ho Hum.
Do you actually have proof that piracy is as the same as it has always been? So far you've provided us with anecdotes of your childhood. No numbers or anything.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 07:42:07 PMNo, the lesson is that people have vivid imaginations.
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 11:54:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 07:42:07 PMNo, the lesson is that people have vivid imaginations.
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Well didn't you yourself say that piracy is certainly an issue because those who make decisions perceive it to be one?
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2011, 11:58:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 11:54:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 07:42:07 PMNo, the lesson is that people have vivid imaginations.
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Well didn't you yourself say that piracy is certainly an issue because those who make decisions perceive it to be one?
That doesn't preclude it from being an actual one. Some people perceive things as problems that are actual problems.
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2011, 11:58:05 PMWell didn't you yourself say that piracy is certainly an issue because those who make decisions perceive it to be one?
Yup. But I place the "vivid imagination" on this subject with Berkut.
I do hope he ends up giving me that money.
Quote from: Tyr on November 28, 2011, 09:12:27 AMWhat do you mean then?
Like farmville and such crap?
Yup. Like I said, have a look at World of Tanks.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 12:39:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2011, 11:58:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 11:54:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 07:42:07 PMNo, the lesson is that people have vivid imaginations.
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Well didn't you yourself say that piracy is certainly an issue because those who make decisions perceive it to be one?
That doesn't preclude it from being an actual one. Some people perceive things as problems that are actual problems.
I'm sure it is some degree of a problem but from Jake's posts it sounded like the industry could be blowing the problem out of proportion.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 12:39:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 28, 2011, 11:58:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2011, 11:54:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2011, 07:42:07 PMNo, the lesson is that people have vivid imaginations.
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Well didn't you yourself say that piracy is certainly an issue because those who make decisions perceive it to be one?
That doesn't preclude it from being an actual one. Some people perceive things as problems that are actual problems.
I'm sure it is some degree of a problem but from Jake's posts it sounded like the industry could be blowing the problem out of proportion.
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 11:40:42 AMAnd Econ 101 tells you that ceteris paribas, that will result in less supply of that good to the market than would otherwise exist.
And then what happens, when you consider the situation Crédit Suisse mutandis ?
I guess Berkut is going to ignore me because I revealed he made a fool of himself. :(
Yes, that is the reason. You've figured me out. Congratulations. Please keep your personal bullshit in the main forum though.
What Bullshit?
It appears that the only available consensus here is that Ubisoft produces shit-caked product.
I like Assassin's Creed!
It came bundled with my vidcard. I hated it. It was so badly ported you had to play it like a console game, with a handful of keys emulating gamepad buttons. If that's the way most games get ported it's no wonder they sell poorly on PCs.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 29, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
It came bundled with my vidcard. I hated it. It was so badly ported you had to play it like a console game, with a handful of keys emulating gamepad buttons. If that's the way most games get ported it's no wonder they sell poorly on PCs.
Oh definitely agree with that. That's why I switched to playing the rest of the series on a console.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:09:34 AM
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
I have an honest question for you Berk. I have been following this thread from the start, so I might have missed something but if I did it was unintentional. I am not trying to trap you, or get you to restate something you already have; no bullshit.
What is the industry's vested interest in blowing the piracy problem out of proportion? I mean if they don't want to make PC games anymore, for
any reason, why do they need a scapegoat? Why can't they just say "PC gamers are whiny bitches and consoles are easy to develop for and more profitable."
I don't see where they lose anything by just saying F You to PC gamers if that is their intention. What, are PC only gamers going to boycott games that are not made for their system? Console players won't care, they still get their game. The very small group that owns/uses both aren't likely to just give up gaming completely, talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
I just don't get the end game here for the PC devs in blaming something that isn't really a problem.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 29, 2011, 05:55:26 PM
It came bundled with my vidcard. I hated it. It was so badly ported you had to play it like a console game, with a handful of keys emulating gamepad buttons. If that's the way most games get ported it's no wonder they sell poorly on PCs.
Yeah, I tried it for the PC. unplayable. I guess I could have gotten a controller, but fuck it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:09:34 AM
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
Again, d'oh. Every industry is going to blow its problems out of proportion. That doesn't mean that we (as in society in general) should just ignore those problems.
Quote from: sbr on November 29, 2011, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:09:34 AM
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
I have an honest question for you Berk. I have been following this thread from the start, so I might have missed something but if I did it was unintentional. I am not trying to trap you, or get you to restate something you already have; no bullshit.
What is the industry's vested interest in blowing the piracy problem out of proportion? I mean if they don't want to make PC games anymore, for any reason, why do they need a scapegoat? Why can't they just say "PC gamers are whiny bitches and consoles are easy to develop for and more profitable."
I don't see where they lose anything by just saying F You to PC gamers if that is their intention. What, are PC only gamers going to boycott games that are not made for their system? Console players won't care, they still get their game. The very small group that owns/uses both aren't likely to just give up gaming completely, talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
I just don't get the end game here for the PC devs in blaming something that isn't really a problem.
Because it makes it a lot easier and much more palatable to have a reason. Telling PC Gamers that they can't be bothered to make reasonable ports is failing at basic PR. They avoid that issue if they point to the dastardly pirates preventing them from being honest and fair to their PC fans.
But why do you need a reason to pull completely out of a market? As I said above you can't exactly boycott games that aren't made.
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 29, 2011, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:09:34 AM
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
I have an honest question for you Berk. I have been following this thread from the start, so I might have missed something but if I did it was unintentional. I am not trying to trap you, or get you to restate something you already have; no bullshit.
What is the industry's vested interest in blowing the piracy problem out of proportion? I mean if they don't want to make PC games anymore, for any reason, why do they need a scapegoat? Why can't they just say "PC gamers are whiny bitches and consoles are easy to develop for and more profitable."
I don't see where they lose anything by just saying F You to PC gamers if that is their intention. What, are PC only gamers going to boycott games that are not made for their system? Console players won't care, they still get their game. The very small group that owns/uses both aren't likely to just give up gaming completely, talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
I just don't get the end game here for the PC devs in blaming something that isn't really a problem.
Because it makes it a lot easier and much more palatable to have a reason. Telling PC Gamers that they can't be bothered to make reasonable ports is failing at basic PR. They avoid that issue if they point to the dastardly pirates preventing them from being honest and fair to their PC fans.
Except the fact that major games are not being released for PC is hardly out of laziness. Surely the big game companies have some fairly logical basis for not releasing certain AAA titles for PC.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 11:31:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 29, 2011, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:09:34 AM
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
I have an honest question for you Berk. I have been following this thread from the start, so I might have missed something but if I did it was unintentional. I am not trying to trap you, or get you to restate something you already have; no bullshit.
What is the industry's vested interest in blowing the piracy problem out of proportion? I mean if they don't want to make PC games anymore, for any reason, why do they need a scapegoat? Why can't they just say "PC gamers are whiny bitches and consoles are easy to develop for and more profitable."
I don't see where they lose anything by just saying F You to PC gamers if that is their intention. What, are PC only gamers going to boycott games that are not made for their system? Console players won't care, they still get their game. The very small group that owns/uses both aren't likely to just give up gaming completely, talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
I just don't get the end game here for the PC devs in blaming something that isn't really a problem.
Because it makes it a lot easier and much more palatable to have a reason. Telling PC Gamers that they can't be bothered to make reasonable ports is failing at basic PR. They avoid that issue if they point to the dastardly pirates preventing them from being honest and fair to their PC fans.
Except the fact that major games are not being released for PC is hardly out of laziness. Surely the big game companies have some fairly logical basis for not releasing certain AAA titles for PC.
Laziness? I wasn't addressing laziness. I was addressing why it isn't a good idea to tell a base of consumers that you won't make a product because you simply don't feel like it. You know - the hypothetical that sbr raised. :mellow:
Quote from: sbr on November 29, 2011, 11:18:05 PM
But why do you need a reason to pull completely out of a market? As I said above you can't exactly boycott games that aren't made.
Because the market is no longer profitable? It clearly a win to produce games that are made for consoles. You've the capability of consoles to handle as close to PC capabilities as most consumers want and said consumers have to worry nothing about hardware restrictions as the devs can optimize games to work across several consoles systems. Why wouldn't the ideal consumer base now be said platforms?
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2011, 07:17:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:09:34 AM
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
Again, d'oh. Every industry is going to blow its problems out of proportion. That doesn't mean that we (as in society in general) should just ignore those problems.
I don't think I ever said we should.
I've repeatedly asked why people think this is the reason that PC gaming has declined, and the ONLY thing that has been given as data is that developers SAY that is the case.
I don't think it should be ignored, nor do I think it is ignored. I do think that there is little evidence that piracy is the reason that PCs no longer dominate the gaming market, and have stated why I dismiss the "evidence" provided. All it amounts to is "Game developers SAY that it is a huge problem and killing PC gaming". Hence my observation that the developers have a vested interest in over-stating the problem, and hence their word is not very good evidence.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:04:25 AM
I don't think it should be ignored, nor do I think it is ignored. I do think that there is little evidence that piracy is the reason that PCs no longer dominate the gaming market, and have stated why I dismiss the "evidence" provided. All it amounts to is "Game developers SAY that it is a huge problem and killing PC gaming". Hence my observation that the developers have a vested interest in over-stating the problem, and hence their word is not very good evidence.
I dunno - given that game developers are the ones responsible for making games, I'd think they'd be about the biggest experts on why they do or do not make PC games anymore. I mean, it's fair to say you should take what they say with a grain of salt, but to discount it entirely seems foolish.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2011, 11:31:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 29, 2011, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2011, 10:09:34 AM
You don't have to listen to Jake to figure that out though - the industry is going to blow it out of proportion because they have a vested interest in doing so.
It is like asking an auto insurance salesman how much fraudulent auto claims impact the industry.
I have an honest question for you Berk. I have been following this thread from the start, so I might have missed something but if I did it was unintentional. I am not trying to trap you, or get you to restate something you already have; no bullshit.
What is the industry's vested interest in blowing the piracy problem out of proportion? I mean if they don't want to make PC games anymore, for any reason, why do they need a scapegoat? Why can't they just say "PC gamers are whiny bitches and consoles are easy to develop for and more profitable."
I don't see where they lose anything by just saying F You to PC gamers if that is their intention. What, are PC only gamers going to boycott games that are not made for their system? Console players won't care, they still get their game. The very small group that owns/uses both aren't likely to just give up gaming completely, talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
I just don't get the end game here for the PC devs in blaming something that isn't really a problem.
Because it makes it a lot easier and much more palatable to have a reason. Telling PC Gamers that they can't be bothered to make reasonable ports is failing at basic PR. They avoid that issue if they point to the dastardly pirates preventing them from being honest and fair to their PC fans.
Except the fact that major games are not being released for PC is hardly out of laziness. Surely the big game companies have some fairly logical basis for not releasing certain AAA titles for PC.
Of course they do - there is more money to be made on the console side - a LOT more money.
Which isn't to say that there isn't any money to be made with the PC, it is just not as much, so we see what we have now - the AAA releases are mostly on the console, and where it makes a good investment, you see them ported to the PC. For games where the PC just makes more sense from a technical standpoint, the PC is still doing fine.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 12:06:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:04:25 AM
I don't think it should be ignored, nor do I think it is ignored. I do think that there is little evidence that piracy is the reason that PCs no longer dominate the gaming market, and have stated why I dismiss the "evidence" provided. All it amounts to is "Game developers SAY that it is a huge problem and killing PC gaming". Hence my observation that the developers have a vested interest in over-stating the problem, and hence their word is not very good evidence.
I dunno - given that game developers are the ones responsible for making games, I'd think they'd be about the biggest experts on why they do or do not make PC games anymore. I mean, it's fair to say you should take what they say with a grain of salt, but to discount it entirely seems foolish.
Which is why you should not discount it entirely - if someone does, I will be sure to tell them right along with you how foolish they are.
But to pretend that a huge market shift that is well understood and even predicted before it happened (the dominance of the console as a game system) is driven by piracy, when the data shows that piracy has been largely constant throught?
Buying that line would be even more foolish. It simply makes no sense. The Crysis example alone kills the general claim.
Any time someone claims that a particular piece of evidence "kills" the opposing viewpoint I start to discount what that person says.
Sorry Berkut.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 12:13:20 AM
Any time someone claims that a particular piece of evidence "kills" the opposing viewpoint I start to discount what that person says.
Sorry Berkut.
That is silly.
Someone made a claim. I pointed out that a particular example refutes the general claim. This is a perfectly normal way of responding to an argument. It's like some guy on the stand saying "I could not have killed that man Mr. Prosecutor, I would never lay a hand on anyone!" and you proceed to point out that he has a conviction on record for assaulting someone. It is an example that kills the general claim - if the claim were true, the example could not be true.
The claim here made is that piracy is what has killed the PC market. The specific example given for this was Crysis. But on examination, it turns out that the example is of a game that is in the top-25 most sold and most profitable PC games of all time
even though it was the most pirated game of the year the same year it sold more copies than any other game. I contend that that example, far from proving that piracy is killing PC gaming, as the Crysis developer claimed at that time, proves that even with massive piracy, good games still make plenty of money, just like they always have.
So some other explanation for the relative decline in PC gaming compared to consoles must be found. It just so happens that there is in fact a rather well know, well understood, and pretty simple explanation.
I am simply at a loss at this point why this is so seemingly hard to understand. We know why consoles are taking over the gaming market. It is very simple - because that is what most people who spend money on games play games on. Period. It isn't because all those people with their XBOXs and PS3s and Wiis all wish they could be playing non-existent games on the PC, but nobody will make them.
Honestly though, I am really tired of arguing about this, believe it or not.
Especially since it doesn't matter one bit - even if the devs are right, and it is all the fault of the evil pirates, the end result will be the same as if I am right, and piracy is a strictly tangential variable.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:27:00 AM
Honestly though, I am really tired of arguing about this, believe it or not.
Especially since it doesn't matter one bit - even if the devs are right, and it is all the fault of the evil pirates, the end result will be the same as if I am right, and piracy is a strictly tangential variable.
Yeah. I didn't tell you what I know because I'm trying to sway you. What the posters of languish might think about piracy means exactly fuck all. This is all a matter of general trends and while we can try to understand them, understanding doesn't shift what's actually happening.
I just figured you might be interested in hearing an inside perspective.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:27:00 AM
Honestly though, I am really tired of arguing about this, believe it or not.
Especially since it doesn't matter one bit - even if the devs are right, and it is all the fault of the evil pirates, the end result will be the same as if I am right, and piracy is a strictly tangential variable.
I should hope so, you've said the same thing over and over again long after it stopped being relevant. Your data (or Datum point really) is that one game sold well. Ergo Piracy isn't a major factor.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:09:36 AM
But to pretend that a huge market shift that is well understood and even predicted before it happened (the dominance of the console as a game system) is driven by piracy, when the data shows that piracy has been largely constant throught?
Surely you're not claiming that piracy has remained largely constant for the last 25 years or so (which is roughly the timeframe in which large numbers of games for the PC have been widely available commercially)? I have trouble believing that piracy was as bad in the late 80's when relatively few people had internet connections (and what they had was really slow dial-up) as it is now when most of us take the internet for granted (and have high-speed connections).
You'd be surprised.
Downloading was of course virtually non-existing but direct copying was very common. With the old spectrum I got off my cousin I only have about 10-20 real games out of hundreds.
The market and the companies making the games were a lot smaller back then too, quite a different situation.,
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: sbr on November 29, 2011, 11:18:05 PM
But why do you need a reason to pull completely out of a market? As I said above you can't exactly boycott games that aren't made.
Because the market is no longer profitable? It clearly a win to produce games that are made for consoles. You've the capability of consoles to handle as close to PC capabilities as most consumers want and said consumers have to worry nothing about hardware restrictions as the devs can optimize games to work across several consoles systems. Why wouldn't the ideal consumer base now be said platforms?
I missed an important word in my question, let me try again.
But why do you need a
contrived reason to pull completely out of a market? As I said above you can't exactly boycott games that aren't made.
Quote from: dps on November 30, 2011, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2011, 12:09:36 AM
But to pretend that a huge market shift that is well understood and even predicted before it happened (the dominance of the console as a game system) is driven by piracy, when the data shows that piracy has been largely constant throught?
Surely you're not claiming that piracy has remained largely constant for the last 25 years or so (which is roughly the timeframe in which large numbers of games for the PC have been widely available commercially)? I have trouble believing that piracy was as bad in the late 80's when relatively few people had internet connections (and what they had was really slow dial-up) as it is now when most of us take the internet for granted (and have high-speed connections).
My entirely anecdotal evidence points to piracy being much worse back then. I bought maybe two or three PC games during my teens, as did everyone else around me. It was not until I was almost in my 20s that I started purchasing them regularly, an activity which puzzled most of my friends.
Has big as piracy is today, it was much worse before the internet.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:24:09 AM
Has big as piracy is today, it was much worse before the internet.
Especially in the 16th-18th century in the Carribean.
It's tough to argue that anecdotal change in behavior stands for the market as a whole. Many of us pirated games when we were younger because we didn't have the money to spend on games. Now that we are older with money we'll tend to prefer the ease and security of not having to worry about malware or viruses in torrents. Buying is the better deal.
Most of the hot video games are specifically targeted at teenagers, who like us at that age were short of cash and not that worried about system security. Considering that there's a not insignificant cost to porting video games from system to system and the wide variety of hardware in pcs, it's an easy call to release just to console. Most of the target market has consoles, you don't have to worry as much about piracy, and the headache of dealing with different video cards, monitors and motherboards goes away.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:24:09 AM
Has big as piracy is today, it was much worse before the internet.
I don't believe that one bit. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 09:50:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:24:09 AM
Has big as piracy is today, it was much worse before the internet.
I don't believe that one bit. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Nothing but personal experience.
Did you buy games in the 80s?
I work with a lot of 40something gamer type. None of them buy games, they didn't back when they were young either. it used to be C64 games now they are console games.
I also have a C64, I've got a couple of boxes worth of games, all copies. My dad doesn't buy games, he copies them.
Our generation buys the games now. They never did.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 09:50:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:24:09 AM
Has big as piracy is today, it was much worse before the internet.
I don't believe that one bit. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Nothing but personal experience.
Did you buy games in the 80s?
I work with a lot of 40something gamer type. None of them buy games, they didn't back when they were young either. it used to be C64 games now they are console games.
I also have a C64, I've got a couple of boxes worth of games, all copies. My dad doesn't buy games, he copies them.
Our generation buys the games now. They never did.
Yes, I bought games in the 80s. I remember working as an umpire one summer. I got a months paycheque and being told by the guy giving it to me to "not spend it all in one place". I laughed because that was exactly what I did - I chashed the cheque and bought Ultima V.
But I had copies of 3 & 4 that I certainly had not paid for.
I certainly pirated games as a kid, but it was fairly limited because you had to know someone who had a copy before you yourself could get a copy. There's no limit on pirating a game these days.
Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2011, 06:33:23 AM
You'd be surprised.
Downloading was of course virtually non-existing but direct copying was very common. With the old spectrum I got off my cousin I only have about 10-20 real games out of hundreds.
The market and the companies making the games were a lot smaller back then too, quite a different situation.,
No shit. I pirate a lot fewer games now that I have a connection that makes pirating them trivial. In the era of "difficult" piracy (28.8k modem), I had several sources for games and waiting for more than a month after release was the exception rather than the rule.
Quote from: frunk on November 30, 2011, 09:16:02 AM
It's tough to argue that anecdotal change in behavior stands for the market as a whole. Many of us pirated games when we were younger because we didn't have the money to spend on games. Now that we are older with money we'll tend to prefer the ease and security of not having to worry about malware or viruses in torrents. Buying is the better deal.
Most of the hot video games are specifically targeted at teenagers, who like us at that age were short of cash and not that worried about system security. Considering that there's a not insignificant cost to porting video games from system to system and the wide variety of hardware in pcs, it's an easy call to release just to console. Most of the target market has consoles, you don't have to worry as much about piracy, and the headache of dealing with different video cards, monitors and motherboards goes away.
And how much money does
this generation of youngsters have? I remain skeptical about claims that there are actual
losses involved. Sure, it's irritating that people are enjoying your product without paying for it, but the money of gamers will eventually land in the pockets of developers regardless.
Put it this way: If Piracy was rendered impossible over-night, would there suddenly be a tremendous increase in the amount of copies sold? I don't think so.
When I was youger I certainly pirated a lot more than I do now. I bought very very few games, usually bought copies off some guy my dad or my uncle or whoever knew.
I only had very few original games for C64 (AD&D, Battles of Napoleon, Starflight ...).
Quote from: Slargos on November 30, 2011, 10:23:24 AM
Quote from: frunk on November 30, 2011, 09:16:02 AM
It's tough to argue that anecdotal change in behavior stands for the market as a whole. Many of us pirated games when we were younger because we didn't have the money to spend on games. Now that we are older with money we'll tend to prefer the ease and security of not having to worry about malware or viruses in torrents. Buying is the better deal.
Most of the hot video games are specifically targeted at teenagers, who like us at that age were short of cash and not that worried about system security. Considering that there's a not insignificant cost to porting video games from system to system and the wide variety of hardware in pcs, it's an easy call to release just to console. Most of the target market has consoles, you don't have to worry as much about piracy, and the headache of dealing with different video cards, monitors and motherboards goes away.
And how much money does this generation of youngsters have? I remain skeptical about claims that there are actual losses involved. Sure, it's irritating that people are enjoying your product without paying for it, but the money of gamers will eventually land in the pockets of developers regardless.
Put it this way: If Piracy was rendered impossible over-night, would there suddenly be a tremendous increase in the amount of copies sold? I don't think so.
Why put the qualifier of "tremendous" in there?
The better question is - if piracy was rendered impossible over-night, would there be any increase in the amount of copies sold? I'm certain there would be.
It is my opinion that for the mainstream crowd video games are like books. Copying a paper bound book isn't exactly easy but yet do they sell more copies of the same book because of it? Or does people simply loan the book to their friends & family?
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:00:22 AM
The better question is - if piracy was rendered impossible over-night, would there be any increase in the amount of copies sold? I'm certain there would be.
In the western world? Maybe.
However, there are studies outthere that prove that where most of the downloading for copies of games happen in country where the people couldn't afford the games anyway.
Piracy never equals a lost sale.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 12:11:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:00:22 AM
The better question is - if piracy was rendered impossible over-night, would there be any increase in the amount of copies sold? I'm certain there would be.
In the western world? Maybe.
However, there are studies outthere that prove that where most of the downloading for copies of games happen in country where the people couldn't afford the games anyway.
Piracy never equals a lost sale.
Not on a 1:1 basis, no.
But to argue that piracy has absolutely zero connection to sales is just silly.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 09:50:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:24:09 AM
Has big as piracy is today, it was much worse before the internet.
I don't believe that one bit. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Malware was much worse in the 1980's as well.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 12:11:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:00:22 AM
The better question is - if piracy was rendered impossible over-night, would there be any increase in the amount of copies sold? I'm certain there would be.
In the western world? Maybe.
However, there are studies outthere that prove that where most of the downloading for copies of games happen in country where the people couldn't afford the games anyway.
Piracy never equals a lost sale.
Not on a 1:1 basis, no.
But to argue that piracy has absolutely zero connection to sales is just silly.
Maybe a 100:1 ratio be good. Other then that it's Corporate not understanding how things work.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 02:36:10 PMMaybe a 100:1 ratio be good. Other then that it's Corporate not understanding how things work.
On what do you base your understanding of how things work?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 02:36:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 12:11:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2011, 11:00:22 AM
The better question is - if piracy was rendered impossible over-night, would there be any increase in the amount of copies sold? I'm certain there would be.
In the western world? Maybe.
However, there are studies outthere that prove that where most of the downloading for copies of games happen in country where the people couldn't afford the games anyway.
Piracy never equals a lost sale.
Not on a 1:1 basis, no.
But to argue that piracy has absolutely zero connection to sales is just silly.
Maybe a 100:1 ratio be good. Other then that it's Corporate not understanding how things work.
Last time you said 3/4ths wouldn't buy it. Berkut wanted to go with l/50th. Even with your new absurdly low number we are talking a major hit to revenue. Close to a fifth on the Call of Duty Game.
It's not like these are out of touch corporate behemoths who don't know how things work. A developer is what? 100 people for a major game? Less then that for a lot of games.
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2011, 06:19:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 02:36:10 PMMaybe a 100:1 ratio be good. Other then that it's Corporate not understanding how things work.
On what do you base your understanding of how things work?
I'm a gamer. They are corporate fat cats. They understand profits, I understand enjoyment.
Then perhaps you should take their word for it when they say Piracy is making profitability extremely difficult on the PC. :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:57:59 PMI'm a gamer. They are corporate fat cats. They understand profits, I understand enjoyment.
I see. That's what I figured.
One of the problems for AAA game developers is that the role of game consoles and PCs has flip-flopped. Once upon a time, consoles were low-powered computers designed expressly for running games without the overhead of a PC operating system.
Nowadays, the consoles are the high-powered machines, outperforming all but the $1,000+ gaming rig PCs. Even worse, since they're shipped with a premade configuration, they're so much cheaper and better-saturated than the gaming rigs that PC development becomes a prohibitive cost just to cater to a marginal number of potential customers.
Another problem is the mentality. PC gamers tend to circulate around the Internet where they're inundated by free-and-open-source initiatives as well as well-intentioned, if legally-questionable, sites and groups with very specific views on such things as abandonware. By contrast, the console gamers are typically disconnected from the computer while playing, so they'll stick more in a comfort zone like hanging around, say, an Xbox achievements forum instead of an emulation forum.
Yet another problem is the delivery method. PC gaming is almost exclusively download-driven, while consoles are still predominantly box-driven. Comparatively speaking, it's incredibly difficult to pirate a current-gen disc-based game; the drives tend to include some hardware modifications that are difficult to make media for with consumer-grade equipment (see: discs spinning backward, Sony's "wobbling" discs, etc.). I also believe there is a psychological sales benefit to boxing a game; I've had to break myself of the "this box feels like it's worth $30, so why should I pay $25 for a volatile digital copy?" mentality.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 01, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Nowadays, the consoles are the high-powered machines, outperforming all but the $1,000+ gaming rig PCs.
That's nonsense. It might have been true when they originally launched but the consoles tech is about 6 years old.
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2011, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:57:59 PMI'm a gamer. They are corporate fat cats. They understand profits, I understand enjoyment.
I see. That's what I figured.
So you agree that I'm right? ;)
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 01, 2011, 07:00:30 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2011, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:57:59 PMI'm a gamer. They are corporate fat cats. They understand profits, I understand enjoyment.
I see. That's what I figured.
So you agree that I'm right? ;)
No, he figured that you were talking out your ass, and you pretty much confirmed that.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2011, 07:12:50 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 01, 2011, 07:00:30 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2011, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2011, 08:57:59 PMI'm a gamer. They are corporate fat cats. They understand profits, I understand enjoyment.
I see. That's what I figured.
So you agree that I'm right? ;)
No, he figured that you were talking out your ass, and you pretty much confirmed that.
Yes, you always seem to miss it when I'm trying to be sarcastic.
but I'm still right.
Quote from: Cerr on December 01, 2011, 06:13:57 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 01, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Nowadays, the consoles are the high-powered machines, outperforming all but the $1,000+ gaming rig PCs.
That's nonsense. It might have been true when they originally launched but the consoles tech is about 6 years old.
Indeed.
My computer was maybe £400 max a year ago and it runs games that were originally for the xbox 360 with ease.
Quote from: Cerr on December 01, 2011, 06:13:57 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 01, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Nowadays, the consoles are the high-powered machines, outperforming all but the $1,000+ gaming rig PCs.
That's nonsense. It might have been true when they originally launched but the consoles tech is about 6 years old.
And if the piracy rates are any indication there is indeed a large market share of people who can both play these games and the desire to do so.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2011, 08:05:25 AM
Quote from: Cerr on December 01, 2011, 06:13:57 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 01, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Nowadays, the consoles are the high-powered machines, outperforming all but the $1,000+ gaming rig PCs.
That's nonsense. It might have been true when they originally launched but the consoles tech is about 6 years old.
And if the piracy rates are any indication there is indeed a large market share of people who can both play these games and the desire to do so.
Well, yeah. If a game is pirated a lot, that indicates that there are a lot of people who want to play the game but who aren't willing to pay the cash price for it. Common sense should tell us that some of those people aren't willing (or not able) to pay for the game at all and aren't going to get it if they can't pirate it, but also that some of the would pay for it if it were more difficult/costly to pirate. So of course there's not going to be a 1:1 correspondence between pirated copies and lost sales, but there's going to be some correlation. And I have major doubts that anyone knows what that ratio is (and in fact, I rather suspect that the ratio varies a great deal from game to game--actually, I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case).
Even if we use an absurdly low number like Berkut suggested it still adds up to a major loss. I don't think profit margins in that industry are so great that they can shave off several million dollars easily. Some bigger releases can, but most probably can't. 40% in sales could easily mean the difference between a profit and a loss.
The thing is that the more piracy becomes easier, the lower the bar to piracy becomes (obviously).
Lets say at some given level of difficulty, 100,000 people will pirate some game. Of those 100,000 people, the ones who would pay for the game in some fashion might be some constant, lets say it is y lost revenue due to people who would pay some portion of the purchase price if they could not pirate it.
Some people would pay full price, some some portion of the full price, some very little. But if you average them all out over those 100k people, you get some number. For arguments sake, lets assume that y=$1.00 for our example. If the bar for piracy was so high that it was effectively impossible, then we would see an additional $100,000 in revenue for our product from increased sales/recovered costs, etc.
I submit that if you lower the bar such that the set of people able to pirate becomes 200,000, then the value of y declines. In fact, I would bet that as the bar for piracy becomes lower and lower, the value of y declines as well - the additional thieves who become pirates when the bar lowers enough are generally people who are LESS likely to actually pay for the game.
Obviously the total dollars lost still goes up anyway.
However, as the number of people pirating a title rises, I bet the overall sales for that title rises as well - because what drives relative piracy rates is almost certainly relative desirability rate (assuming ease of piracy is constant across titles, of course). Therefore, the cost of piracy expressed as a fraction of realized sales likely declines as total sales and piracy rates increase.
Which is why our example of Crysis is so telling - even though it was pirated at an incredible rate, it still made a lot of money, because all those additional pirates are more and more likely to be people who were not willing to pay much at all for the game anyway.
I think this is all pretty well understood by game developers. Which is why they are willing to use DRM to raise the difficulty bar - because it means that less people who are willing to pay will pirate. They have to balance that with pissing off their regular customers though. And THAT is why they have a vested interest in over-stating the financial problem as much as possible. The greater perception of "woe is us, we are not going to be able to develop PC games anymore because of the nasty pirates!" that exists among the paying customers, the more they will tolerate invasive DRM that raises the difficulty bar, and justifies the developers efforts to reduce piracy.
But the idea that there is a fixed revenue per additional pirate is almost certainly false - the 5th million people pirating Crysis do not represent the same amount of potential loss as the first million people.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
However, as the number of people pirating a title rises, I bet the overall sales for that title rises as well - because what drives relative piracy rates is almost certainly relative desirability rate (assuming ease of piracy is constant across titles, of course). Therefore, the cost of piracy expressed as a fraction of realized sales likely declines as total sales and piracy rates increase.
And I would bet the opposite - that as piracy increases, number of sales decrease.
I think Berkut is right in this. Just about every non-MMO game gets pirated. The rate at which non-popular low selling games is pirated is way lower than popular large selling games.
The same goes for movies, music, everything else. The popular acts and movies (the ones that make more money) get pirated more frequently.
In all of these cases the marginal cost of the producer to make another copy is pennies compared to the price they sell it at. Most of the cost of production is in paying for development of the original product not the duplicates. The same reason why it is easy to pirate is also the reason it is easy to distribute widely. It's also why movies, music and games have been pushing towards bigger and bigger blockbusters in sales. It's better for them to have fewer big selling titles than many, individually expensive ones.
It's also why they so jealously protect their copyright. It's way cheaper to sell a dvd for a movie that was made years ago than to go out and make a new movie.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2011, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
However, as the number of people pirating a title rises, I bet the overall sales for that title rises as well - because what drives relative piracy rates is almost certainly relative desirability rate (assuming ease of piracy is constant across titles, of course). Therefore, the cost of piracy expressed as a fraction of realized sales likely declines as total sales and piracy rates increase.
And I would bet the opposite - that as piracy increases, number of sales decrease.
There are numerous examples that disprove this - the most popular games in sales are the most pirated as well.
Which makes perfect sense. The more people want a game, the more will buy it and the more that will pirate it.
Actually this is why example of Crysis is so useless (or relying entirely on one datum point as Berkut has done). Profit on a game means reaching a certain threshold. The threshold is met by total games sold, not a percentage pirated. So if Crysis sold enough for the threshold but was pirated it a trillion times it still makes a profit. However, piracy still represents some percentage of sales lost. If we use Berkut's number of 1/50 that makes 40% loss of profit for Crysis. If Crysis is making two dollars for every dollar spent on but loses 40% due to Piracy then it still successful. For another game that only barely meets profit say for every dollar they spend they make dollar and ten cents then that 40 % loss is enough to kill it.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2011, 05:58:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2011, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
However, as the number of people pirating a title rises, I bet the overall sales for that title rises as well - because what drives relative piracy rates is almost certainly relative desirability rate (assuming ease of piracy is constant across titles, of course). Therefore, the cost of piracy expressed as a fraction of realized sales likely declines as total sales and piracy rates increase.
And I would bet the opposite - that as piracy increases, number of sales decrease.
There are numerous examples that disprove this - the most popular games in sales are the most pirated as well.
Which makes perfect sense. The more people want a game, the more will buy it and the more that will pirate it.
The problem is you are looking at it backwards. As desirability goes up people getting the game goes up. Piracy is not a function of games sold or vice versa. You could presumably have a game that sold
no copies, but was pirated millions of times and equally have a game that sold millions and had no games pirated. While those are somewhat extreme, you can easily have situation where there is a massive imbalance in sales and piracy. Take for instance a game that is cracked before it was released. The only way you can get the game is to pirate it (or wait till it's released in your area). This happens sometimes. They call it "zero-day" piracy. It's devastating on game sales. On the other side piracy of cartridge games from the 1980's was probably much lower then games today. Most people didn't know how to do it, and without the internet find out how to modify the machine and get the code it was much, much harder to pirate. You may have several million copies of Mario 2 sold but only have a miniscule number pirated. Probably millions more sold then say Crysis, but far, far fewer then copies pirated.
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ Not sure if you guys have heard about this it seemed to fit this this post.
Quote from: Cerr on December 01, 2011, 06:13:57 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 01, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Nowadays, the consoles are the high-powered machines, outperforming all but the $1,000+ gaming rig PCs.
That's nonsense. It might have been true when they originally launched but the consoles tech is about 6 years old.
But it's still one configuration for a market of millions.
To develop for a PC, you need to develop for a range of OS (Windows XP, Vista, and 7 at the least), video cards, drivers, and other hardware and configurations. That's more expensive and more difficult than developing for consoles.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 18, 2012, 08:41:38 AM
Quote from: Cerr on December 01, 2011, 06:13:57 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 01, 2011, 12:57:01 AM
Nowadays, the consoles are the high-powered machines, outperforming all but the $1,000+ gaming rig PCs.
That's nonsense. It might have been true when they originally launched but the consoles tech is about 6 years old.
But it's still one configuration for a market of millions.
To develop for a PC, you need to develop for a range of OS (Windows XP, Vista, and 7 at the least), video cards, drivers, and other hardware and configurations. That's more expensive and more difficult than developing for consoles.
It might be one configuration but there is alot of certification to go thru. Especially with Microsoft.
It's easier to make PC games. How many indie devs make consoles games vs PC games outthere?
I dunno. I know that indie games like Bastion came out for Xbox live before the PC.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 18, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
It's easier to make PC games. How many indie devs make consoles games vs PC games outthere?
Indie devs don't have access to the monopolistic distribution systems for consoles. That may be more responsible that "ease to make games" for the indies' focus on the PC.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 12:38:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 18, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
It's easier to make PC games. How many indie devs make consoles games vs PC games outthere?
Indie devs don't have access to the monopolistic distribution systems for consoles. That may be more responsible that "ease to make games" for the indies' focus on the PC.
Yes. Microsoft tried to loosen their grip with Xbox Live Arcade but like a drug addict, it's hard to let go.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/02/legitimate-ubisoft-games-wont-work-tues/
QuoteWith Ubisoft's recent announcement that Rayman: Origin's splendid arrival on PC will have the barest DRM for the download version (a single activation – a pointless waste of everyone's time still, of course) and the retail version having none at all (although Ubi have yet to get back to me over whether it will work without the disc in the drive), it makes you wonder if the company is beginning to see the light. With other recent games having only required a single activation, there does seem to be a movement away from their moronic 'always on' system. A system that's proving its idiocy next week, when Ubisoft take their servers down for an indefinite period, meaning any games using it will cease working.
As if a sampler for what would happen should Ubi ever go south, Eurogamer reports that HAWX 2, Might & Magic: Heroes 6, The Settlers 7, and any other Ubi games infected with the malware will simply not run on your PC. We're not talking about the multiplayer, or downtime for an online game here. We mean, the single-player versions of the game played locally on your own PC.
Great, eh?! What a brilliant thing for everyone involved. Those with pirated version can carry on enjoying the games throughout, and those who paid money for them will receive an error message. Woo-hoo! Put it on a PowerPoint slide and present it to your shareholders as another victory!
This all happens on Tuesday 7th, when the servers are all moving house. But Ubi haven't said how long it will take, and for how long non-pirated versions of their games won't work.
However, for those missing out, you could spend the downtime repeatedly punching yourself in the groin, while throwing money out of the window.
Random but anyone know why they reversed the name for this game: Might & Magic Heroes VI?