Slashdot Mirror
App Store Developer Speaks Out On Game Piracy
theguythatwrotethisthing sends in a write-up of his experience releasing an iPhone game on the App Store. By using a software flag to distinguish between high scores submitted by pirates and those submitted by users who purchased the game, the piracy rate is estimated at around 80% during the first week after release. Since a common excuse for piracy is "try before you buy," they also looked at the related iPhone DeviceIDs to see how many of the pirates went on to purchase the game. None of them did.
Harrr!
But seriously, I think the app store really needs to give you a trial period before you have to pay for apps. So many of the programs out there are crap, I'm not willing to pay for 5 programs just to find one that does what I want.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
It seems strange to me considering the pricing and how much more convenient it is (at least IMO) to just use the App store. In fact, all the apps I've got on my iPhone are from the App store and were either free there or I paid for them.
That's not to say I'm fervently anti-piracy, I'll admit that I've downloaded a fair amount of movies, music and software in my life but it's almost always been because it was too expensive, not yet released where I live or simply much more convenient to do so.
As an example, a piece large expensive "professional" software that I want to use at home for fun or some minor non-commercial purpose isn't something I'm about to pony up $300 or whatever it costs for (I try to use open source when there is a good alternative), I've also downloaded games simply because I wasn't willing to pay full price to play it once for a few hours with a friend or two and then never play again. As for music and movies it tends to be a combination of pricing ($20 for an album I've never heard that probably only has a handful of good songs?), convenience (DRM) and it simply not being available where I live yet (woohoo, ordering Region 1 DVDs from the US). But a $4 iPhone game that can be downloaded in a minute at the click of a button? That seems pointless to me...
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
How exactly do you set a software flag to determine whether it's pirated or not?
If I were this developer, I would display ads to the pirates, be it within the game or on an HTML formatted score board. This would hopefully recoup some of the lost money, and would keep everybody happy. I would be interested in their take on the idea.
Sig: I stole this sig.
I am the iPhone developer for the Notifications app (see http://www.appnotifications.com/). On the first day my app was published on appulous (that happened very quickly after my app was on the appstore), the piracy rate was 99.3%. On that 99.3% I had about 1% who bought the application after trying it.
That was in the beginning of September, I now have a total piracy rate of about 50%. My app requires network and connects on my server, therefor my stats are pretty accurate. I think the piracy rate would be way higher than 50% if my app did not have to connect to my server.
http://blog.penso.info
I must admit that prior to the days when I had money to throw away on games as I saw fit I truly did pirate a game now and then for the sake of a trial period. I found it effective, but mainly in convincing me not to buy the game. And see, there is this unexpected factor I discovered, actually only recently, that severely impacts this chain of actions...
Basically it amounts to this: I find, all too often, that many games are not worth playing beyond the amount you normally get in a demo! I have downloaded so many demo games, especially racing or fighting games, on the PlayStation Network or XBOX Live and found that... well that was enough. To spend $60 more dollars simply to add a few levels and get the same experience was not a valuable prospect for me.
I won't try to claim that any significant portion of these piracy observations can be explained by what I'm describing. I would say it's not without merit though. In these days, there are so many games. I mean, honestly, I think there are more games released in a year than I could humanly play through in their entirety. Even filtering out the disinteresting games I would still never have the time, given work and other responsibilities, to finish anywhere near say, 10% of the releases in a year.
So to go from trial period to purchase, especially on a game that's likely a shallow me-too on the iPhone... well let's demonstrate the thought process with another nugget: I have downloaded probably 25 different "Light" games and never even tried them before I deleted them because I simply lost all interest.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
If you slash the price of the game in half in a few months and re-advertise it (like Steam has been doing with their weekly sales), then you will see another jump in sales. If you cut it down to 1/4, you will get even more sales. Some people think $4 is a good price, but others won't pay more than $2, and still some will wait for the $1 or $0.50 sale.
Each step allows you to reel in more buyers, because everybody has their own price threshold.
Games depreciate in value quickly--that's just how it is. Eventually the game won't be worth anything to anyone. Then you should give it out for free, along with a big fat advertisement for your next game. You ARE working on the next game, right?
Some people wouldn't pay a cent for the game in the first place, and they are the real pirates. You can't negotiate with them, so don't even bother. It's wasted development time to fight them. Even if you somehow make your game unpirate-able, they will just ignore your game and find something else to occupy their time.
What you CAN do is try to net the would-be pirates who simply have a lower price threshold. Also you might net a few guilt-ridden pirates who think they are "redeeming their sins" by eventually buying the game they pirated, even though it's been a few months since release and the price has dropped significantly in the meantime. You might also pick up a few people who just like thinking they're getting a good deal.
They would only continue to crack and use the ad-free versions. It's been tried before.
Software pirates have an inflated sense of entitlement (which is why they are circumventing the payment structure instead of either paying for things or suffering the indignity of not having access to things they refuse to pay for in the presence of a payment structure); settling for second-class software versions is not part of their agenda.
I would only ask pirates not to fool themselves into hypocrisy over what they are doing, making excuses and deflecting guilt. Realize that you are a psychopath, whether you decide to hide the fact or not. :)
To start out with, I would like to mention that I have pirated a lot in my lifetime. I pirated more when I was unemployed and poor, because I had lots of time and less money. I still pirate some, but nowadays I also buy more now that I am earning good money. But anyway, here is my viewpoint of piracy.
Most of the excuses pirates use are just that, excuses.
* Try before you buy! It does happen, but rarely.
* Everything sucks! Then why are you pirating it in the first place?
* Damn the evil publishers!! You really believe most pirates are like that?
Want to hear a valid excuse
* It is free to pirate, so I don't have to worry about money.
Now, you will here people mention that these games aren't really that expensive. But that misses the point. There is a huge difference between cheap and free, and it affects behavior a lot. When something is free, you can consume it without feeling like you have to get value out of it. And that gains a certain amount of freedom which is very difficult to compete with if you are trying to charge for a product.
Now, the article in question I actually found was fairly unbiased. It did mention that piracy is high as soon as the game is released. This is not strange at all. As pirates have no restrictions on them in regard to money, they will play whatever they feel like. And the newest thing on the market is simply an easy target.
This may point out that Pirates generally have a lower attention span they quickly move on to the next game
This is a nice observation in the article. I would say that it isn't attention span per se. It is just that pirates have a fare wider selection of items to select from. Again, having to do with the freedom I mentioned above.
The author goes on to discuss ways to combat piracy. And here I want to mention an important thing. If you use piracy protection to fight against piracy, then you are using it wrong. If you use piracy protection to steal customers from a competing product that doesn't have piracy protection then you are doing it right.
If you fail to understand the difference, it is simple. Pirates buy products too. And they are more likely to buy something if they get value out of it beyond legal ownership. This is why authenticated multi player mode is a very efficient piracy protection mechanism. It gives the pirates something that they want to buy, without providing any negative effects on other customers (who may or may not pirate other products).
It is the same in other businesses. If a pirate has to decided between buying a CD of one artist, or attending a live performance of another artist, guess what they will choose. Same with DVD vs. movie theater.
Of course, there are always pirates that won't buy anything. Either because they have no money, or because they intend to use that money for other things. But, those are the kind of pirates that simply aren't worth spending any effort on. At best you can hope that their money habits will change over time, and that you as a developer will be a beneficiary.
This is the RIAA fallacy, presuming that all pirated copies represent lost revenue.
This being the same MLK Jr who plagarised large portions of his doctoral thesis? I'm not sure he would be in the best position to criticise copyright violation.
Actually, restaurants - aside from fast food restaurants - tend to be one of the few places where you routinely -do- pay after-the-fact, and can base your payment on your experience.
I'm not just talking about tipping the waiter either. I'm talking about telling the cashier that, for example, the steak was a bit rancid. Nevermind the fact that you could have complained about that when you had the first bite and probably gotten a replacement, the cashier will probably - on their own or through a manager - decide that you can pay a little less, or get a coupon for a next time you're there, etc.
Unfortunately, we can't play a game first and -then- decide how much we want to pay. Of course a big reason for that is because a lot of people would simply decide not to pay, even if they did enjoy the game ( as per your parent poster ).. the cheaptards.
You keep bringing this same thing in to every discussion, but are you saying that people should be allowed to download those songs *because* only 1 album sale is lost? So that's your rationalizing for piracy?
The other thing that is bringing down sales is the many streaming services, both free-with-ads and premium subscription. *Lots* of people in Europe use Spotify. It's not only piracy that is bringing down album sales.
Never the less, if you dont want to buy the album, use legit streaming services or get the songs (or software, games and so on) in some other legit way approved by the maker, why do you think you should be obligated to get them? Even more so if you want to get them for free. If you dont approve with the price, you just dont get it then. Live with it and dont go stealing it and try to rationalize it.
Wait... so you bought an iPhone despite not liking the terms and conditions that you agreed to when buying the iPhone? So you go out and pirate some independent developers game as a means of getting back at Apple for those terms that you voluntarily agreed to... and this somehow makes you not a pirate?
This is quite possibly the dumbest explanation for piracy I've ever heard.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
When you use the analogy you used, you stepped off into the "it's stealing" territory. The moment you used "I cant first order the food and drinks and only after that decide if it was good enough to be paid." you conflated the act of infringement with theft- making an unauthorized copy isn't really the same thing as what you compare it to.
In what you gave as an analogy, the hypothetical person STOLE food from the restaurant- the restaurant is out the food and drink the person took by not paying. In the case of infringement, someone merely takes a copy thereof- and nobody's out anything save maybe a cash transaction that might or might not have happened. They're not out their original copy, so it's not theft. There is a reason why the laws are written the way they are and define the actions differently. If you're going to be discussing the subject without people calling you out on things, you should perhaps choose your analogies with some better precision.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"Besides, why do you think you should be allowed to use the software or game if you haven't paid the author what he is asking for it?"
Why should you be allowed to read a book without the author's permission? Why should you be allowed to use the techniques described in a math textbook without the author's permission?
When copyrights were first envisioned, nobody was thinking, "Well, the general public should have to get the author's permission to read books." It was an issue of who was allowed to publish the book, not who was allowed to read it. Now we include software in copyright law, but the law should remain the same: an issue of who may publish, not who may use. Unfortunately, we have not updated copyright law to fit the times that we live in, and the line between "publishing" and "using" software has become blurred; instead of rethinking copyrights to compensate for this new age, we just pretend that everything is the same and pass laws like the DMCA to help prop up that fantasy.
So why should you be allowed to use the software without the author's permission? Because we live in a new age, and it is time for publishers of all sorts to adapt to that new age instead of clinging to the realities of a previous era.
Palm trees and 8
I'm wondering if his methodology is bad. I haven't read TFA as yet but it seems from scanning the posts here that he was comparing the deviceID that purchased with the deviceID that posted the score... in which case, how is he accounting for the fact that users are specifically allowed to share their apps with up to 5 devices?
I do this all the time between my wife and I. We download games for our kids to play as well as apps and music for ourselves when we find them... then sync up the phones via iTunes (as we are specifically allowed to do) - so that we can share our household purchases between the two phones.
If you assume a maximum of sharing.... take a sample of 100 downloads, then share it out to 5 people = 500 downloads, using his method you instantly have an 80% pirate rate!!!!
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
From Toucharcade:
"Ethan Nicholas is one of the big indie success stories of the App Store. Nicholas quit his job back in January after his tank artillery game iShoot grabbed the #1 spot in the App Store. Nicholas reportedly made over $800,000 within five months."
This is just one of MANY games that made a crap load of money via legal sales on iTunes. Such games as that include, Trisms, Space Invaders: Infinity Gene, 2 Across, Fieldrunners, Real Racing, Madden, Tiger Woods, Need for Speed, Flight Control, AIM, Baseball Stars, Texas Hold'em, Rock Band, Tap Tap Dance, and MANY MORE....
These games have made a lot of money in very short time. Trism's made the indie developer, $250,000 in 2 months. 2 Across, also made an indie developer $1800 a DAY in sales. Tap Tap Dance, made $6,927 a week when it launched. Now Tap Tap has several games out, which are HUGE successes for an indie developer on the iphone. You can only imagine how profitable they are now.
This developers game (Tap-Fu) is bad. Its not a good game. Its not even a complete game. Its missing most of the story mode, as it hasnt been made yet. It has very simple gameplay that really doesnt work well.
There was no trial version for the game. Many games have free trial versions known as "lite" versions on iTunes. The developer tries to shoot down the idea that warez users tend to try out software, then some possibly buy it.
Frankly by not providing a free trial version via itunes, he forced people to try out a warezed version.
I bought Tap-Fu after reading about it on Toucharcade.com. It looked promising, but it fell flat. Its bad. iTunes has a no return policy.... perhaps that forces more people to use warez versions because the proof is that... PEOPLE DO BUY these apps legally... IF they are good and worth it. These companies do make good money selling them. The App store has helped keep the indie developement scene alive. Many people have quit their day jobs to code Apps full time that generate $200,000 in profit in 2 months.
TAP-Fu was simply not a good game. At least in my opinion
The fact is, all of those games I mentioned above have made a LOT of money, under the same circumstances as this developer's "Tap-Fu" game. They all faced the "threat" of piracy. The difference is, those other games were worth owning, and Tap-Fu is not. That's the real reason why its not selling well. Not some silly piracy excuse.
The developers score board data is certainly interesting, but it is not proof of ANYTHING, other than people didnt find his app worth buying. MOST apps arent worth buying, or even installing illegally...
There are a good handful of ones that are... and they do make money. Lots.