What can Developers & Publishers do to combat Piracy?

[Jaime_Wolf]

Make great games.

Replace current discussions of theft (even if you feel they're warranted, they're not doing anything) with discussions of compensation. Rather than stressing what a terrible person you are for not paying, suggest that it would be nice to pay for games you enjoy.

Alternative pricing schemes (see discussions by Gabe Newell for instance).

Trying to "stop" piracy is, at least currently, an unreasonable goal. A more realistic goal is to mitigate its effects. Currently, people are assuming that the best way to do that is to try to stop it, even if that effort is doomed. People are probably wrong.

 

[veloper]

A smart publisher will market it's studios in such a way to create fans.

Fans buy new, during the first weeks of release. They don't pirate, don't buy used, don't trade for them, etc. so fan's where most of the money is.

You put forward a likeable geek on the dev team, capable of getting a good message across in interviews. You put them on gametrailers and let them spend some time on official forums.

Eventhough I think Bioware are only so-so, this is something Bioware/EA do very well. Bioware have hordes of rabid fans who will buy all their games.

 

[Something Amyss]

Make great games.

Replace current discussions of theft (even if you feel they're warranted, they're not doing anything) with discussions of compensation. Rather than stressing what a terrible person you are for not paying, suggest that it would be nice to pay for games you enjoy.

Alternative pricing schemes (see discussions by Gabe Newell for instance).

Trying to "stop" piracy is, at least currently, an unreasonable goal. A more realistic goal is to mitigate its effects. Currently, people are assuming that the best way to do that is to try to stop it, even if that effort is doomed. People are probably wrong.

Barring borderline impractical policing methods, piracy will always exist and stopping it is not only unreasonable but implausible.

But we are a stupid, slow society. Corporations, who are otherwise profit driven, would spend a billion dollars to stop a thousand in piracy. We have such a vengeance fetish that this is the one case where it's okay to actually lose money on a venture. Developers can't even product a "pretty good" game with "pretty good" profits without facing the ax, but we can piss away millions on stopping people and get little to no success and that's okay. Money, I might add, that could go into development and make more "pretty good" games.

 

[Radeonx]

Make a great game so that consumers will pay the developer to make more great games.

Check the top pirated games list.
They are all popular/good AAA titles. (...), Call of Duty, (...), Assassin's Creed, all of these are massively pirated, and all of them are good.

Are they?

I have no idea why would someone pirate Batman or Starcraft, but those games are games that I don't find "good" nor would I pay for them. Why would I pirate them if I don't want to play? Can't really find an answer, but I can understand why many players don't want to pay for those franchises.


Funny story, the year BlOps was released the piracy statistics were made by checking the number of torrent file downloads. I downloaded the torrent file but never downloaded BlOps. It wasn't about playing it for free, it was about sending a message to the publisher.

As someone who loved CoD2 and BF2, I don't enjoy the fact that both franchises have been disgraced and whored out. I have better things to do than waste my time pirating rubbish games.

Okay. You might not have found them good, but tons of people did. A huge portion doesn't pirate games to send a message, because that is fucking stupid. They just pirate games because they are free. And when you can get something good for free, there isn't that much incentive to pay for it.

 

[Radeonx]

Make a great game so that consumers will pay the developer to make more great games.

Check the top pirated games list.
They are all popular/good AAA titles. Batman, Call of Duty, Starcraft, Assassin's Creed, all of these are massively pirated, and all of them are good.

Now check out the top sales lists. Oh, they're all on that too... What is this? Some sort of paradox?!?! While they are massively pirated, they also sell massively too. There was an article a while back about how music pirates actually spend more on music than non-pirates because they have more choice and can try the product so they know what they like. I don't see why the same couldn't apply to games too.

I don't really understand the point you're making...I completely agree with you (Well, it is a fact, so I can't disagree with you) on the top selling list, I was just listing stuff off the top of my head to prove that the good games get pirated the most.

 

[Dastardly]

This confuses me. You're suggesting that people who can't afford something (therefore will never buy it) can get it for free, and you condemn them. Why? It's no lost sale, if they can't afford it, they can't afford it, and as someone in Australia where games are marked up to a stupid degree, I can understand. You say "Hur, why can't you just live without it", but why would they?

If someone offered to give you a Ferrari for free, would you just say "No" because you can live without it?

The problem is that "I can't afford it" usually just means "I can't afford it at this moment."

On one end, the person could save up over time. And on the other end, they can wait for the price to come down. And a lot of people do this (and many more would if not for the ease of piracy). Piracy simply interrupts this process by offering a shortcut, but it's foolish to assume that such pirates would never have bought the game just because they used the phrase, "I can't afford it." They may not have bought it right now or for full price, but they may have eventually been a paying customer. That's a lost sale.

And if someone offers you a Ferrari for free, it's probably a stolen Ferrari. Better to "live without it."

 

[JonnWood]

I have a great idea! It's unconventional, but it'll work. Trust me.

Okay, so you know how, like, making a game means it'll eventually get pirated? Well, my idea is simple: Stop making games. It'll work. No more pirating can be done on new products, because, you know, there won't be any new products to pirate!
...
...
I got nothing.

The sad thing is, it's entirely accurate. Pirates often refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that thousands upon thousands of people playing a game they didn't pay for is a bad thing. I've actually read several arguing that it was actually beneficial to gaming, because it leads people to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise. The logic is like saying that if I sneak into a movie showing I didn't pay for, and I decided to see it again and pay for it based on that, then it's actually benefiting the theatre. I've also heard the argument that the pirate goes and recommend it to their friends, that makes it okay, which ignores the fact that a)they did not obtain the product legitimately in the first place, b)you can't pay the rent with recommendations, and c)the people pirates are most likely going to recommend things to are other pirates. If I joyride a car while the owner's out of town, then recommend it to my friends, that doesn't justify the joyride.

Both arguments ignore the fact that the people who buy the game after their "test drive" or recommend it to friends are in the vast minority of pirates.

/RAEG

 

[JonnWood]

The point is that whilst they get pirated the most, they also sell the most too, which shows that if you make a good game people will buy it. Yes, people will pirate it, but people will always pirate it. Concentrate on the people who are paying, not trying to punish the ones who aren't.

The Witcher 2: No DRM. In fact, the publisher bent over forward to accommodate PC gamers. It was still one of the most pirated games when it was released. AAA games are pirated in proportion to their popularity. Possibly more than lesser-known games.

So if a game with no DRM whatsoever gets pirated at a level comparable with games that don't, that indicates that DRM makes a lot less difference than people think.

DRM doesn't "punish" legit customers, it inconveniences them. Sometimes greatly, but it's still an inconvenience and/or frustration, not a punitive measure.

 

[Ytinasni]

Lower. The. Price.

Honestly, having to pay 50 bucks for a game, THEN add 25 bucks for the DLCs that pop up over the following year simply is too much. Why on Earth would anyone want to pay that much money for a game they don't even know whether they'll like? Of course that ends up with them not paying at all - if possible.

This.

Making better games and lowering the price WILL reduce piracy rates, by how much? I can't say. But I do know people who pirate games because they don't want to spend 60 bucks on a game with a 10 dollar day1 dlc.

The dlc model as we have adapted it is junk, I should not have to pay to see the ending to my game(prince of persia anyone?), DLC should work like an expansion pack (as many developers do do, namely the fallout games did a pretty good job with it) it should not sell me overpowered weapons it should not only expand on half of the game when 10 years ago I could have downloaded the toolkit and made all of the multiplayer maps I wanted.

You can't stop piracy, but you can increase sales.

 

[veloper]

The point is that whilst they get pirated the most, they also sell the most too, which shows that if you make a good game people will buy it. Yes, people will pirate it, but people will always pirate it. Concentrate on the people who are paying, not trying to punish the ones who aren't.

The Witcher 2: No DRM. In fact, the publisher bent over forward to accommodate PC gamers. It was still one of the most pirated games when it was released.

So if a game with no DRM whatsoever gets pirated at a level comparable with games that don't, that indicates that DRM makes a lot less difference than people think.

DRM doesn't "punish" legit customers, it inconveniences them. Sometimes greatly, but it's still an inconvenience and/or frustration, not a punitive measure.

Or maybe pirates just really like TW2.

Pirates never deal with DRM anyhow, because they simply DL cracks, so they don't even have to notice any difference between DRM and non-DRM software.

 

[s0p0g]

they could starting make them games as good as they used to be, don't charge your soul, dignity credit card information and the name of your dog plus a shipload of money for maybe ten hours of fun (if you're lucky)

oh, and stop punishing the honest buyer. that sounds like a good idea.

 

[incal11]

The problem is that "I can't afford it" usually just means "I can't afford it at this moment."

On one end, the person could save up over time. And on the other end, they can wait for the price to come down. And a lot of people do this (and many more would if not for the ease of piracy). Piracy simply interrupts this process by offering a shortcut, but it's foolish to assume that such pirates would never have bought the game just because they used the phrase, "I can't afford it." They may not have bought it right now or for full price, but they may have eventually been a paying customer. That's a lost sale.

You forget those who try it, then pay for it when the price has gone down. But that's just an example, if the appeal of just having it for free was so dominant with those huge download numbers there would be no sales at all. Instead the numbers of sales and downloads are proportional.
You might say we can't know which is pulling the other up (assuming it is more logical to say it is the sales), but in fact we can:
http://new-media.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/2010/10/piracy-trumps-obscurity-again/
http://amitay.us/blog/files/piracy_doubled_my_app_sales.php

 

[Phoenixlight]

You do realize that any company that would do this would pretty much go bankrupt within months due to people boycotting their software en masse, right?

No, they could disguise it as something else. Also, if GTA V came out with something like this people would still buy it since the series is awesome.

 

[WaruTaru]

Yes, and those are on the market right now, right? I mean, I can just pop one in my game system....

Oh, right.

But they'll be out soon, and feasible for gaming, because they will be cheap and freely available, right?

Oh, wait.

But they won't cost the devs an arm and a leg to use, making games ridiculously expensive and infeasible for consumers at least, right?

No? Damn.

so while you score points for being technically right, you lose them for it being ridiculously unfeasible.

As far as my limited business knowledge goes, for something to be feasible, someone had to make the jump and adopt the new technology first before consumers start accepting them. If the next gen consoles were to introduce the new format, the consumers will be more willing to accept them, thus bringing the price down naturally. So what is "ridiculously unfeasible" about it again?

Dear Lord, did you just use the "she was asking for it" excuse? And for NOT crashing the market by making things completely impractical for the consumer as well as the developer and publisher?

I thought you said you were being serious.

One of the real problems we have is that by the time holographic storage is actually being used (assuming it ever become commercially mainstream) or BDs reach 500 GB of storage (feasible, thanks to multi-layer processes) AND we have players/drives that can read them (Most drives can't read the required layers), HDDs will have grown to the point that pirating a large disc will be relatively minor.

You seriously want them to throw bad money after good simply to avoid condemnation in your eyes?

Pray tell what is wrong with the "she was asking for it" excuse? The way you put it, you are thinking like publishers who decided to remove DRM from their games and then to go out and complain about people pirating their games. Removing DRM from their game is just "asking for it", and no one will pity them. So do explain what is wrong with that?

I don't see the market crashing when people started switching from floppy discs to CDs, to DVDs, to Blu Rays. How exactly will the market crash when they adopt this? Do enlighten me as my severe lack of knowledge on such an important issue seems to irk you so.

Assuming HDDs are keeping pace with the growth of BDs, their internet connection will still prove to be a hindrance when downloading such large files.

 

[DaJoW]

Here's an idea: Reward people who buy games legitimately. Make a deal with retailers or have a card put into each physical copy and/or a code given to downloaders, have it take, say, 5 codes and you get a 20-40% discount on any game either from said developer or (if they're all willing to partake), retailers included any game you choose. Exclude this from used game buyers, pirates won't be able to use it, etc.

Flaws: Keygens, card theft, card copying (Can be fixed if codes are databased so they only work once).

Not sure I follow - you're suggesting making future game purchases cheaper if you buy 5? If so, that would do nothing to combat piracy, since that'd still be a lot more than $0 and no real incentive.

OT: Demos and lower prices would win over a lot, though far from all, pirates.

 

[Lunar Templar]

step 1) lower prices, while not ALL pirates are going to be stopped by this it will stop some. only way to get the prices down is EVERYBODY stops buying games for a while though.

step 2) stop selling disk locked content, for real, just stop, its not helping anything.

step 3) stop catering to graphics whores and FPS junkies, they stifle creativity

step 4) stop crowbarring multiplayer modes that don't belong in the game.

that's all i got

 

[GonzoGamer]

I can't think of anything that wouldn't screw over us gamers.
So,since the companies that ***** and complain about pirates and used game sales are the huge publishers that have always made tons of money, they should just accept the losses.
If it was the smaller dev studios that struggle to stay afloat, I might actually give a shit.