Dragon Age 2 leaked

[Zechnophobe]

I don't see that. I see piracy spreading through word of mouth too. After all, consider if B, C and D also pirate the game. Then consider person E. He would've bought the game, but after seeing how easy it was for A through D to pirate it, he decides to pirate it too. Net gain: -1 sales

Making up hypothetical scenarios doesn't really prove anyone's point, because someone else can probably construct one in which the opposite thing happens.

Minecraft's Success is not hypothetical, however.

 

[Redingold]

I don't see that. I see piracy spreading through word of mouth too. After all, consider if B, C and D also pirate the game. Then consider person E. He would've bought the game, but after seeing how easy it was for A through D to pirate it, he decides to pirate it too. Net gain: -1 sales

Making up hypothetical scenarios doesn't really prove anyone's point, because someone else can probably construct one in which the opposite thing happens.

Minecraft's Success is not hypothetical, however.

How many people bought Minecraft because their friend pirated it? How many people who would've bought it didn't buy it, but pirated it instead because their friend did? It's difficult to find evidence of sales lost, and impossible to attribute Minecraft's success to piracy. For all we know, Notch might have made more money if people hadn't pirated it.

 

[Hiphophippo]

I don't see that. I see piracy spreading through word of mouth too. After all, consider if B, C and D also pirate the game. Then consider person E. He would've bought the game, but after seeing how easy it was for A through D to pirate it, he decides to pirate it too. Net gain: -1 sales

Making up hypothetical scenarios doesn't really prove anyone's point, because someone else can probably construct one in which the opposite thing happens.

Minecraft's Success is not hypothetical, however.

How many people bought Minecraft because their friend pirated it? How many people who would've bought it didn't buy it, but pirated it instead because their friend did? It's difficult to find evidence of sales lost, and impossible to attribute Minecraft's success to piracy. For all we know, Notch might have made more money if people hadn't pirated it.

I pirated Minecraft because I wanted to get a feel for the survival aspect of it instead of just the building bits. Then I found out I got all future versions for free if I bought it.

Sold. Not all pirates are bad. Some just want a demo.

 

[Redingold]

I don't see that. I see piracy spreading through word of mouth too. After all, consider if B, C and D also pirate the game. Then consider person E. He would've bought the game, but after seeing how easy it was for A through D to pirate it, he decides to pirate it too. Net gain: -1 sales

Making up hypothetical scenarios doesn't really prove anyone's point, because someone else can probably construct one in which the opposite thing happens.

Minecraft's Success is not hypothetical, however.

How many people bought Minecraft because their friend pirated it? How many people who would've bought it didn't buy it, but pirated it instead because their friend did? It's difficult to find evidence of sales lost, and impossible to attribute Minecraft's success to piracy. For all we know, Notch might have made more money if people hadn't pirated it.

I pirated Minecraft because I wanted to get a feel for the survival aspect of it instead of just the building bits. Then I found out I got all future versions for free if I bought it.

Sold. Not all pirates are bad. Some just want a demo.

My friend pirated the ME2 DLC, which he would have paid for, because I pirated it first.

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

 

[Hiphophippo]

My friend pirated the ME2 DLC, which he would have paid for, because I pirated it first.

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

Fair, but by that measure your point isn't valid either. All I was really saying is that -I'm honest-. Perhaps not everyone is, but some are.

Indisputable.

 

[znix]

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

The only way to get a really good look at piracy is by asking a huge amount of people a great deal of nuanced questions. As such, anecdotal evidence may form the basis for a theory. Right now, most of the industry's understanding of piracy is infantile at best.

 

[babinro]

I find Notch's argument to be complete crap. If I steal a new 3D TV but watching it convinces 4 friends to by it it is still stealing. If you pirate a game it is the same thing.

Oh great, more childish arguments like this. He's written a length post discussing the economics and intrigue in the scenario and you basically 'lulz' it away with the same old tired "But if you stole a material good blah blah blah" argument. As always incorrectly trying to apply physical goods economics to a virtual good.

His argument is very simple:

Case 1: Person A Pirates game. Persons B,C,D buy game. Net gain: 3 sales
Case 2: Person A Doesn't Pirate game, and doesn't buy game. Net gain: 0 sales.

This is his point. And yes, He'd much rather person A bought the game, but he can't deny that the availability of the game via other means did end up turning better than zero profit. He's making an argument from an economic standpoint, not an ethical one.

This kind of analysis is about as reasonable as saying "Buying games when they are on sale is unethical, because you didn't pay full price!" The merchant knows they can get more total sales by having the sale. They might even give away free ones to build up hype.

Yes there is a difference of volition here, in one case the merchant is purposefully taking the per unit price hit for the overall gain, and in the other they aren't, but they do end up with similar results.

Please, if you want to discuss this, at least address the full issues at hand, and don't reply to thought out prose with the equivalent of a 'party line'.

In my history, if person A pirates something...persons B,C,D all learn how A did it, or borrow a flash drive to get it. The single act of piracy, even from someone who had no intention of buying the product often leads to lost sales from others who wanted to purchase, but no longer will because they have it for free.

I suppose my life around those who pirate could be a huge exception to the norm since the above argument implies sales will increase...but I doubt it.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I hear PC version got leaked as well. Probably just someone who was able to buy it in a store before it's release date :/

 

[znix]

I hear PC version got leaked as well. Probably just someone who was able to buy it in a store before it's release date :/

Yeah, on the bright side the DRM is working to prevent access to the game code before the official release date. Only on the PC platform though. If they had implemented the same kind of online check for the console versions, they also would be locked down. There's always next time

 

[LiudvikasT]

I find Notch's argument to be complete crap. If I steal a new 3D TV but watching it convinces 4 friends to by it it is still stealing. If you pirate a game it is the same thing.

Oh great, more childish arguments like this. He's written a length post discussing the economics and intrigue in the scenario and you basically 'lulz' it away with the same old tired "But if you stole a material good blah blah blah" argument. As always incorrectly trying to apply physical goods economics to a virtual good.

His argument is very simple:

Case 1: Person A Pirates game. Persons B,C,D buy game. Net gain: 3 sales
Case 2: Person A Doesn't Pirate game, and doesn't buy game. Net gain: 0 sales.

This is his point. And yes, He'd much rather person A bought the game, but he can't deny that the availability of the game via other means did end up turning better than zero profit. He's making an argument from an economic standpoint, not an ethical one.

This kind of analysis is about as reasonable as saying "Buying games when they are on sale is unethical, because you didn't pay full price!" The merchant knows they can get more total sales by having the sale. They might even give away free ones to build up hype.

Yes there is a difference of volition here, in one case the merchant is purposefully taking the per unit price hit for the overall gain, and in the other they aren't, but they do end up with similar results.

Please, if you want to discuss this, at least address the full issues at hand, and don't reply to thought out prose with the equivalent of a 'party line'.

In my history, if person A pirates something...persons B,C,D all learn how A did it, or borrow a flash drive to get it. The single act of piracy, even from someone who had no intention of buying the product often leads to lost sales from others who wanted to purchase, but no longer will because they have it for free.

I suppose my life around those who pirate could be a huge exception to the norm since the above argument implies sales will increase...but I doubt it.

It's not like pirating is hard. Everyone know how to do it, so this argument fails.

 

[darkcommanderq]

Actually you have hampered the creator's ability to sell their product, as they must now compete with your free version.

Your and the Minecraft dev's biggest problem (in selling your work) is obsurity; no one knows you make a product they may want.

1st off, the hardcore pirates are going to pirate things just because they can. You are not going to stop these people, but they are in the minority. This ties into the the fact that most responsible gamers who have money will buy games/software if it is just as continent to aquire as piracy. (If not more convent like steam or stardock). You are correct companies do need to compete with the free copies, and by them slapping on unnecessary layers of DRM it makes it hard for some people to stick with them.

Game companies have experimented with this before, world of Goos chose your own payment, the humble indie bundle, etc... Each time a company tries these methods they still make a profit. Despite pirates.

Sure the minecraft guy was obscure, but he still made enough money off of one product despite piracy to START HIS OWN COMPANY. But how is he obscure now, every gamer practicably knows about it if not has played it. You can bet that people will buy his next game regardless of what it is, more people will buy that the first one.

 

[TechNoFear]

1st off, the hardcore pirates are going to pirate things just because they can. You are not going to stop these people, but they are in the minority.

Pirates are the majority, not the minority.

Devs like Stardock report piracy rates close to 9 times that of legit sales. When it released Demigod had 120,000 connections to the online servers, over 100,000 using pirated copies (85%). This conectivity problem lead one game site to give lower reviews for Demigod.

You are correct companies do need to compete with the free copies, and by them slapping on unnecessary layers of DRM it makes it hard for some people to stick with them.

The music industry sued its fans, the game industry uses DRM, neither has worked.

Locks on cars, houses etc will not keep out all criminals, but simply discourage the majority. DRM is (incorrectly) viewed in the same way.

No DRM will not work for long. Except for a DRM system as nasty as the 90's 'CIH' viruses, which screwed your BIOS often bricking your system, creating a real risk to pirates (of course this is just asking for trouble...).

We are already seeing game companies move to other business models (RMT, DLC, F2P etc) to combat piracy and give gamers a reason to actually purchase the games (ie new ways to compete with free by adding value only available to the orignal purchaser).

Sure the minecraft guy was obscure, but he still made enough money off of one product despite piracy to START HIS OWN COMPANY.

Sure, but...

Less than 1/3 of registered users have bought Minecraft.
Minecraft was created by 4 people (and uses some GPL software) so has a low cost per unit and break even point. [so did not require a lot of paying customers to make a profit]

This is not true of most games or any AAA game titles.

But how is he obscure now, every gamer practicably knows about it if not has played it.

So Notch has overcome the problem of obscurity and correctly states that piracy has 'helped' him do so.

My point was that his future releases will not need the publicity (as he is no longer obscure), so will piracy still be as 'helpful'?

You can bet that people will buy his next game regardless of what it is, more people will buy that the first one.

I would not be so sure of that.

 

[darkcommanderq]

snip

You have quite a few valid points. One though that I still feel your not sold on is that squeals attract more sales. (and more pirates just by ratios).

Just look at blizzard and starcraft. The original starcraft/brood war game did not really sell a ton of units compared to starcraft 2. It was because of starcraft success that starcraft 2 sold so well comparatively just because so many people knew about it from its predecessor.

Ill give you my personal example with anime. Several years ago my friend introduced me to fansubs of bleach. I enjoyed it and continued to download/stream them. Now that I have money to spend on DVDs I buy them fairly regularly. If it had not been for fansubs I would never have become an anime customer.

I think this has happened to a lot of people over the years. Honestly I would LOVE a subscription plan for HD legal speedsubs similar to netflix. So I really hope that the industries in general move towards that type of system. Sorry kinda changed topics a bit, but I think its related to games as well.