Slashdot Mirror
Game Publishers Doing More Damage than Pirates?
thenextpresident writes "Over on JoeUser.com, there is an interesting article, from the creator of the previously mentioned TotalGaming.net subscription service, that discusses two things: the PC game market vs the console market, and how one game developer views game publishers as a bigger problem than the software "pirates". "So don't talk to me about piracy. It's not the pirates that have ripped us off of hundreds of thousands in lost royalties. It's been "Real businesses" doing that thank you very much. The position of royalty eating parasite has already been taken." He also digs into all the problems PC games have: usually being buggy on release, CD keys, patches (and more patches), hard drive space while still requiring the CD be in the drive. All together, a really interesting look at the game industry from just one developer."
Whenever I've seen those figures of "The game industry lost x kajillion dollars last year to evil pirates," I wind up asking myself "How does that figure stack up to money spent on failed advertising, ineffective copy protection, or some useless novelty packaging feature? How about bloated development costs due to a rushed schedule?"
But then again, I'm not buying the bulk of these games, so I must be an evil pirate.
All that said, the article doesn't really address much. Mostly it's little "fight the power" and "I'm for the little guy" throwaway remarks interspersed with plugs for products. Shame about Strategy First not paying royalties. I wanted to like them.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
I really liked the game, it's the most retro game I've seen as far as copy protection (was released last year, with a decent ammount of critical acclaim). I could burn the CD without problems and the game didn't even require the CD in the drive to play it. That said, it did have a CD key, which I don't mind so much. And although the game was stable on release, they added NEW features accessable if you had a unique CD key.
If we'd like to change things, perhaps it's time you voted with your wallet. That, and if you'd like to play a really good Turn-based strategy game.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Why shouldn't the companies stop putting copy protection on games? I don't see these "legitimate users" threatening to boycott games with Safedisc on it. How many here have sent written letters through snail mail to their publishers saying they won't buy any more games with Safedisc on it?
Including copy protection on a game, thus far, doesn't cost a publisher any sales. Who looks at a game and doesn't buy it based on its copy protection? So it doesn't work with users' CD-ROMs? Release a post-mortem patch, and people will start playing the game and stop whining.
At this point, regardless of what Stardock's big cheese says or doesn't say, it costs companies more to exclude copy protection than it does to include it. Until consumers stop buying games with copy protection and there is a visible drop in sales that can be unquestionably attributed to the inclusion of copy protection (a visible boycott), it will always exist.
Why do you think that copy protection on music CDs isn't on every single CD? Because enough people return the CD to the store. The only CDs with copy protection are corporate experiments. They're the ones the publishers are using to test the waters. But computer game buyers have been so pavlov-ed into the idea of patching and the inability to return a game that it doesn't even occur to us that we deserve a product that works on first try.
We do, and maybe we should start acting like it.
Blame it on the console games. Ever since publishers thought the XBox and PS2 were going to kill PC gaming, there has been a shift in paradigm. I'm seeing shallower and shallower games designed to appeal to the average couch potato retard.
It is not only the copy protection that publishers are screwing up on. I hate copy protection as much as the next guy. I will not buy The Sims. I will not buy Battlefield Vietnam. I will not buy Soldner. I will not buy Freelancer.
But I will buy Doom 3; at least it has some creative direction and provides an immersive experience. I will buy Half-Life 2; at least it give syou a bigger possibility space (in the AI and physics) than other games. However, I will NOT buy, and will NOT even waste the time to download, titles that have been rushed out the door simply to make money. This problem exacerbates warez activity.
Is it the publisher getting whacked by its inability to meet the lowest common denominator (which is damned low these days) or is it laziness and incompetence on part of the developers? This is another reason people don't buy games sometimes and just download them. Freshness and originality are out and repetitive gameplay is in. Graphics, mindless multiplayer, and other console trappings are replacing personality, feel, and depth of gameplay. Do we want to ante up the cash for yet another Battlefield 1942 or Far Cry (which wins my award for repetitive unoriginality) clone? We don't; that's why we download games.
Does someone see a vicious cycle here? Developers and publishers work in tandem to develop games that aren't meant to be played but meant to make money. Jaded gamers routinely respond by doing the ole download-off-IRC and Throw-Away. The publishers feed back by introducing more copy protection, which fosters resentment in the community, which decreases the number of enthusiastic developers, which...
Exactly, and this is the same reason copy protection is going to hurt the music industry more than help it in the long run too.
People - regular people, not just geeks, are buying MP3 players. Lots of them. They want to turn their CDs into MP3s. If they can't press the "make MP3s" button on whatever software they're using, they're going to turn to their techie friends, and *they* are more than likely going to introduce them to the wonders of file sharing. (The CDs *will* be available on these services, regardless of the protection used. It only takes *one* smart person to make the original rip (somehow), then millions can not only download but upload to others.)
Once you get to the position that you *have* to go to the file sharing networks to get the MP3 version of most of the CDs you buy, a whole lot of people are going start wondering why they're paying for the CD in the first place...
You can largely ignore the monetary cost, and the fact that people would *like* to have a legitimate version, if the illegal version gives more utility, that's the way people are going to go.
Regards,
Tim.
Copy-protection methods are necessary. It's not the publisher's fault that copy protection is necessary, it's the fault of the software pirates. Placing the blame on the publisher for something that was caused by piracy is pretty poor planning.
The guy should have just said that we need less-intrusive copy protection schemes. Like those little scanners at the exit of every retail store in the United States. Ink tags and things *are* a hassle to consumers, but no one minds because theft drives prices up so much and the hassle is minimal.
This guy's view is shortsighted, but if he wants to self-publish his own games he's welcome to it. That's the proper solution, if publishers are *really* the problem.
Actual example: I bought SimCity 4 as a present for my fiancee. After installation the game won't run as it claims that it can't find the original CD. After much serching, googling and fiddling, it looks like the friggin copy protection requires that you have a CD-ROM drive to play the game on. Not a DVD-ROM, not a CD-RW, but an actual CD-ROM - who buys these things anymore?
I actuall had to find a no-cd crack to play the (bought!) game....