Slashdot Mirror
Piracy Forced id's Hand To Multiplatform Gaming
CVG is reporting on comments from a GDC talk last week by id CEO Todd Hollenshead on the necessity of multiplatform development. Essentially, said Hollenshead, id was forced to start developing for consoles because of the rampant piracy of PC games. "Enemy Territory: Quake Wars was given as an example of id's multiplatform direction. Originally in development for PC at the hands of Splash Damage and id Software, the multiplayer-focussed action game is now additionally heading to Xbox 360 and PS3."
Thank god nobody pirates console games! . . . oh, wait . . .
Speaking of which, I wish they would stop lumping some guy at home who burns a game from his buddy to play on his machine in with some guy in china who produces and sells tens of thousands of copies of a game.
Anyway, I can't remember the last time I played a truly great id game, so I would say the real reason they had to start developing for consoles was to pick from a larger and less discerning player base.
Just buy them used.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's not about dorks, it's about casual piracy. Anybody can download Quake 4 for th PC from piratebay and be playing. XBox 360 piracy involves modding your DVD firmware (and unless your console is old removing the epoxy from the firmware to do so), burning DL-DVDrs in just the right way, etc.
Many people who own consoles don't even think of piracy, know it's possible, or care. They just want something they can turn on and play.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It isn't that nobody pirates games, it's just that there's less people pirating games. When pirating requires that I solder some chip into my system, there's a good bet that I won't be doing it, especially with the more expensive systems. Playing pirated games was easiest with the PS1/Dreamcast where you could pirate games without modifying the hardware (PS1 required external dongle). Most systems now require that you physically alter the machine, which most people aren't willing to do. Also, players of PC games tend to be much more savvy, and therefore know where to go to get the pirated games. There's a lot of people on consoles who wouldn't know the first thing about where to get pirated games.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Others have pointed to Doom III's sales number, something like 1.5 million units, as proof of how pirates ruined the bottom line. Only 1.5 million units for one of the most anticipated games of '04!?! Balderdash!
Doom III was massively pirated, to be sure, but every pirate =/= a lost purchase. My theory is this: people pirated Doom III, realized it was complete and utter shit, and simply didn't buy it. That's what a certain person I know did...
In any event, online games are a sure-fire way to combat piracy, and a reasonable one at that. ET: Quake Wars looks amazing and I'll buy it the day it comes out.
But I can also pirate console games. It just takes a little more work.
Does this put an end to piracy or are there some new and clever forms that will emerge?
Two words... Private servers.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
"I wish they would stop lumping some guy at home who burns a game from his buddy to play on his machine in with some guy in china who produces and sells tens of thousands of copies of a game."
So, by this token, its alright to shoplift something out of a store for personal consumption, but dammit! don't lump me in with the guy that hijacks a truck full of cigarettes to sell back in Joisey.
Ignoring the idiots that are going to naturally tell me that even though I've lost a sale to someone that now has no need except for 'good will' to actually purchase my product, that piracy and theft are not the same. I'll never be able to explain to them how it is, and they will never have a rational explanation for why it isn't (yet some teen will try to explain).
Beyond that, Id is perfectly correct in stating that there is a huge difference in the levels of piracy between consoles and PCs. With a PC, you get all sorts of casual piracy. Download a torrent and its ready to play with no interaction on your part...the idiots can claim that it just jumped onto their hard drives and well, they didn't know it was a dupe because it just worked. With the console, rarely can you simply put in a duped disc. It either requires extensive hacks, such as bootloaders to memory cards, swap and switches (I remember a friend installing a door on his PS2 that could be opened without stopping the first disc from spinning and switching while the motor was still trying to do its job) or buying a $50 mod chip that has little to do with legitimate applications (i.e., I believe the new Wii ModChip can't do imports...something I believe one should ALWAYS be able to play...I'm not a fan of regionlocks...especially if its something I paid for and thats the only reason I know anything about this -- without the regionlock override, there really is no legitimacy other than I WANT TO PLAY 'BACKUPS')
So yes, big difference between a mass pirater and one that makes one or two copies. Its the difference between grand larceny and shoplifting. Glad you made this point. Not sure why...but glad you did either way.
Does anyone remember way back when, while Quake was coming out, and the over-board success of Dooom2.
If memory servers, John Carmack, Mr id., himself, once said 'that they are happy that there game is being pirated, because that means that so many people will want to play it. Eventually people will be happy to throw money our way'.
That came true in so many ways.
The whole foundation of their company is based on piracy.
Crazy, crazy days.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I really don't believe that piracy has made id go multiplatform. Their main money making is not from selling games, but from selling game engines. A multiplatform game engine is going to sell better than a single platform game engine, so its in their best interest to have the best multiplatform engines on the market. While all their previous engines have supported consoles, if they also make games for the consoles its likely to help them improve their engine because they'll have more experience with seeing what problems you get when using their APIs on specific platforms.
I hope that makes sense...
I can totally understand id's anti-pirating system. See, Quake Wars is almost a carbon copy of Battlefield 2142. So by making a game exactly the same as an existing game people will get confused and accidentally pirate the wrong game. It's foolproof!
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
I don't know Mr. Hollenshead personally, so all I have to go on are his public remarks. And it seems every time I see his name in the press, he's bleating about how much money he's "losing" to unsanctioned copies all over the net.
Let me clue in the business types at id Software on why they "lost" a sale to yours truly.
Doom III was widely anticipated, yes. And it looked like it was going to be a visually amazing piece of work. However, it was also widely reported that, unless you had the absolutely latest and greatest PC hardware at the time, it was going to run very poorly. Well, at the time, I didn't have the latest and greatest PC hardware. All I had was a paltry dual-CPU Pentium-III running at 1GHz (and 100MHz memory bus) with 256MiB of RAM and a GeForce FX5900. It was apparent from the press that Doom III would run like crap on this rig. So I didn't buy it. I didn't buy Quake 4 for the same reason.
It wasn't until last year that I finally bought a completely new machine (AMD Athlon X2 4400+, 2GiB RAM, GeForce 7900GT) which would run Doom III well. But after downloading the free demo and playing it, I decided against it. I just didn't find stumbling around in the dark to be terribly fun, and I'm not really into horror for its own sake.
Quake 4, on the other hand, seemed like it might be fun. However, every time I visited the shelf at Fry's, it either A) wasn't there, or B) was priced at $40.00. So I waited. And waited. Eventually, Fry's started selling them for $20.00 a copy, and that's when I bought it.
So there you have it: id Software "lost" money to me, but somehow it had nothing whatsoever to do with unsanctioned copying (imagine that!). The Executive Summary you should take away from this is, to make good sales, you should release games that are:
The importance of point #1 cannot be overstated. If you hit #1, you can kind of fudge on #2. I've grabbed all the Serious Sam games, despite their uneven game play, because they're reasonably priced. OTOH, there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy a copy of "Sonic and the Secret Rings" for the XBox 360 until it drops from the preposterously stratospheric $60.00 they're charging for it.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
While pirating games on the PC is much more attainable than on the console (no modding required,) there is more to it than simple piracy.
Probably the largest factor is that, today, console games are where the sales are at. A "hit" game on the PC might sell 250k copies, where on the console it would be at least a million. Of course, there are examples like WOW, that have become massive enterprises unto themselves, but for the run-of-the-mill AAA PC title those kinds of numbers are only a dream. The PC simply does not touch the consoles in terms of sales potential. Sure there are more PCs in the world, but how many of those are used primarily for gaming, or even gaming at all (excluding casual games, which we're not talking about.)
As budgets for triple-A titles grow larger, you can only respond in so many ways without raising prices on the game itself: Opt to keep the budget small (lower development costs), increase your potential consumer base (more platforms), or charge for "extras" (expansions, subscriptions, micro-transactions.)
In the end it's all business and a simple investment-benefit calculation: They believe that targeting consoles will bring in more money than what the additional work will cost them. As game budgets continue to grow, while simultaneously tipping more and more towards the cost of developing the artistic assets and the code behind the game makes up less and less, it only makes sense to hit as many targets as possible if the art assets can be shared with minimal or no tweaking, even to the point that it will make sense even if little of the code is shared between platforms -- which we'll see more and more of with the architectural differences between the 360, PS3, Wii and PC.
I think you'll find that if you took these two cases before a judge and jury, the outcomes would be very different, and they might even be prosecuted under different statutes. The OP never said personal-use piracy was OK, just that it was different from running a massive pirate empire for profit. And he's absolutely right.
Piracy and theft are different in two major ways. First, as many others have stated, when you steal something, you're depriving its rightful owner of physical goods. If you steal something, you have it and he no longer does. That's not the case with piracy.
Second, it's relatively straightforward to measure the (monetary) amount of damage a thief does, but it's extremely difficult to do so in software piracy cases. If someone steals a CD from Best Buy, that's $14 in damages. If that person instead downloads a rip of that album from a BitTorrent tracker, how do you measure that? Not everyone who pirates something would have purchased it at full price. If, say, 10% of pirates would have bought the album if they couldn't get it otherwise, does that mean the company is out $1.40? And who, exactly, was deprived of that money? Are all of the retail stores in which a person might have bought it entitled to a cut? It's not at all a clear-cut issue.
As I'm sure is obvious by now, IANAL. YMMV. LOLOMGWTFBBQ.
You're putting words into the grandparent poster's mouth.
The grandparent poster didn't say it is was all right, they said that there is a difference. Which there is. A gas station would rather you shoplifted a single pack of cigarettes instead of hijacking their next shipment of cigarettes. Both are still wrong, but they warrant entirely different responses.
Of course, it's a sillier comparison because you're comparing traditional theft (which deprives the legal owner of a scarce commodity) with copyright infringement (which reduces the artificial scarcity copyright creates). They're different problems with different economics to consider. Indeed...
I haven't been a teen for a bit over a decade now, but I'll try to explain anyway.
Theft of property and copyright infringement are different crimes. They have different victims and different economic effects. If a thief breaks in Best Buy and steals a $50 (retail price) Sony TV, Best Buy suffers because they no longer has a TV. Best Buy has lost $40 (or whatever wholesale is). Sony has lost nothing. If the thief breaks into my house and steals my TV, neither Best Buy nor Sony have lost anything, but I've lost $50.
Conversely, (for the sake of argument) if an infringer breaks into Best Buy and makes an infringing copy of a $50 (retail price) game, Best Buy still has the original. The value of that original is slightly reduced because the artificial scarcity has dropped. This is potentially a "lost sale." This lost revenue from potential sale impacts both Sony and Best Buy. How much? Definitely not $50. The reality is that some portion of copyright infringers, if infringement was not an option, would not purchase the game. It's hard guess what the percentage is, but let's guess only 10%. Now on average over multiple illegal copies, Sony has lost $36 (90% of the $40 they'd expect) and Best Buy $9. Total loss to "the world": $45.
By any stretch of the imagination, clearly individual copyright infringement cases are slightly less harmful than individual cases of theft. The total economic loss for the above hypothetical example is $45 to $50. Both are bad, but given the choice I'd prefer losing $45 to $50. The situation because even more clear if you believe the "can't or won't pay for it" percentage is higher, or if the thefts involve damage to other property (breaking a window to get in).
The situation gets even weirder when I buy the game. So when I bought my $50 Sony TV, I also bought this $50 game. Our hypothetical and slightly insane thief breaks in, steals my TV and makes a copy of the game. I'm out $50 for the TV, but for the game I've lost... nothing. Perhaps a very small amount of value from potential resale value on the game, but nothing significant. Despite the thief having broken into my house the real economic damage is done to Best Buy and Sony. That's a heck of a trick, to have a thief break into my house, "steal" my copy of the game, but have third parties suffer financially.
This is not to suggest that copyright infringement is "okay." Indeed, copyright infringement has a definite detrimental impact on society. But it's a different impact from theft. The steps to defend against these crimes are different.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
To someone like me, it is EXACTLY the same as theft. ... Ok, this is less theft and more rape.
I'd say it's less rape, less theft, and more like trespass to land. When someone steps onto your property, they aren't depriving you of the property, but they're using it without permission, which is sufficient for that offense. With copyright infringement, they're not depriving you of your copyright or of the creative work, but they are using the creative work without permission.
Still, given that you backed down from saying that it was "EXACTLY the same as theft" in nearly the same breath, I don't know if you're really the right person to judge the situation objectively.
Argue as much as you like, an illegal act is the same as another illegal act
So you're saying that you think that we ought to execute people for jaywalking because jaywalking is the same as premeditated murder? I'm going to have to disagree with you there, and I think that pretty much everyone else in the world will too. One offense is not the same as another. Even Hammurabi knew this.
The only muddying is coming from folks that want to distinguish two separate items into a group of tangible vs. intangible because the general public is still trapped into blue collar lifestyles and thus incapable of understanding the second.
Actually, I want to distinguish between them because they are not the same, and it is unwise (as we've seen) to treat them identically. I want very much for people to understand the latter, and many of my posts here, including this one, are aimed at just this. It doesn't bother me if you think that copyright infringement should be illegal. Even I think it should be illegal (though we may differ on precisely what should constitute it). It does bother me if the reason you think that is because you don't understand the issues. I'd rather have people making informed decisions.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.