Slashdot Mirror


DRM-Free Game Suffers 90% Piracy, Offers Amnesty

bonch writes "Independent game Machinarium, released without DRM by developer Amanita Design, has only been paid for by 5-10% of its users according to developer Jakub Dvorsky. To drive legitimate sales, they are now offering a 'Pirate Amnesty' sale until August 12, bundling both the cross-platform game and its soundtrack for $5. Ron Carmel, designer of DRM-free puzzle game World of Goo, stated that his game also had about an 80-90% piracy rate, claiming that the percentage of those pirating first and purchasing later was 'very small.' He said, 'We're getting good sales through WiiWare, Steam, and our website. Not going bankrupt just yet!'"

39 of 795 comments (clear)

  1. Next step to prevent PC piracy by odies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 90% piracy rate is quite much the norm with PC games. The sad thing is that PC gamers will destroy their own gaming platform by doing so. Good example is Modern Warfare 2 which was heavily "consolised" and you have to admit, not having dedicated servers and everything else sucks.

    This also shows that the usual argument that warez versions of games are good to get to know the game before you buy it or that you would rather support indie developers and "small guys" are mostly bullshit. These indie game developers also have a 80-90% piracy rate.

    But you know what the next step to prevent piracy will be?

    Fully online games. You can already see this with the Ubisoft's DRM, the recent Starcraft 2 and the movement to multiplayer, co-op (left4dead), and mmo games. Personally I actually enjoy playing with other people especially in a good co-op game, but there are those who prefer single player games. I prefer with games like Civilization too. But ultimately this piracy will lead to most serious developers just to publish fully online games like World of Warcraft. While you can play it freely with piracy servers, it's really far from the real experience. Game developers will also look more into console development, because for example you still can't pirate games for PS3.

    1. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by rotide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All I want to know is, how many copies of this game has the company sold? Now, how many copies would they have sold if there was 100% unbreakable DRM? Obviously that data is impossible to gather... But I'd bet that most people who pirate games weren't going to buy them anyways. I have a job and when I want something, I just go to the store and get it. I don't bother with Warez anymore as it really is just kind of a pain. But those with no financial resources to buy whatever they want? Piracy is sometimes their only choice. I'm not saying that's right, but if my fictional next door neighbor who lives paycheck to paycheck and has no disposable income pirates a game, I don't consider that a loss to anyone.

    2. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      90% of the copies were pirated. NINETY PERCENT. If only 10% of people who pirated the game would have bought it instead, this small consumer-friendly company would have almost DOUBLED what they made from the game. ... and piracy is not their "only choice". Since when are people entitled to have whatever they want no matter their ability to pay - especially things that are merely entertainment?

    3. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by bjourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You enumerate only two of three concievable groups of customers; those that buy games because piracy is a hassle (you) or do it out of the kindness of their hearts. According to the article, only 10% of all those who aquired the game are like that.

      The second group are those who pirate the games because they have no money. They are a large part of the games audience. The third group are those who have money, would have bought it but preferred to warez it instead. Those two groups together are 90% of the games market. If the game had strong DRM, so that you could not pirate it, people in the third group would be enticed to buy the game. Assuming as little as 10% are in the third group, using DRM would almost double the number of sales the game makes.

      Ergo: it makes perfect sense for game publishers to use DRM.

    4. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by rotide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then you are forgetting another group, those of us who purchase games but will _not_ purchase games with stupid DRM schemes. I was excited for Spore and chose not to get it because I didn't want to support their DRM. Again, impossible to tell, but who comprises the bigger group? Those of us who won't purchase draconian DRM'd games or those that would purchase games (directly or indirectly) because it _has_ DRM? If those two groups are roughly the same size, what's the benefit to the DRM? Now calculating in the cost of implementing the DRM, what is the benefit? I don't have the answers, but I have and will continue to personally boycott games with overly intrusive DRM perceived, or real (hey, I'm human).

    5. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you think that group is bigger then the group who would buy a game if they couldn't get it for free from a warez site instead?

      I call bullshit. Most pirates are just cheapskates, nothing more.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    6. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by onefriedrice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good point, but I don't think your group is nearly as large as the other. Your anti-DRM group is comprised mostly of us nerds who have a problem with our computers not being completely under our control. Most gamers, I've found, are not nearly as savvy or idealistic. While DRM issues are becoming more and more publicized, it's still very unlikely that your average Joe is going to forgo the latest shoot-em-up or whatever just to try to make a point about DRM.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    7. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by rve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The second group are those who pirate the games because they have no money. They are a large part of the games audience.

      I call bull poopie on that. Someone who built a $2500 overclocked gaming monster has the money, and someone with a $300 PC from Walmart probably doesn't know where to get pirated games. The average gamer is over 18 and has a job. Even a school kid without a job could buy a few games a year by cutting down on candy.

    8. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by Andorin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ladies and gents, let's play Let's Count The Fallacies:

      1. The tired comparison of piracy to theft of physical objects. Don't do it.
      2. Implication that piracy is killing the industries because "everybody" just downloads instead of buying. That's not happening until someone comes up with indisputable proof that it is.
      3. What is "100% DRM"? Are you in favor of a certain amount of DRM? Are you aware that -all- DRM by nature is customer-hostile and ineffective? It doesn't stop people from sharing.
      4. "I buy all my DVDs and buy all of my music because I want to support those actors or musicians I like." If you're mostly buying mainstream, which I assume, then you're supporting the record labels and movie studios that make digital life hell by pushing for stupid copyright provisions and by suing people... but you're doing practically nothing for the actors or musicians.

      --
      That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    9. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by ultranova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your anti-DRM group is comprised mostly of us nerds who have a problem with our computers not being completely under our control. Most gamers, I've found, are not nearly as savvy or idealistic.

      DRM is inconvenient. At the minimum, you have to insert a disc to play a game that's already taking room on your hard drive; as the infection worsens, you start getting software that refuses to work if a CD burner or CD emulation software is installed, then installs malware (hello Sony!), then finally requires a constant connection to DRM servers.

      By contrast, the Pirate Bay Edition has been disinfected and works just like any other program in your computer. It's superior value and as an added bonus costs nothing. So, the coldly rational choice is to never buy from the store, since you don't know what trouble you might be getting, and only foolhardy ideologist would do that.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by morari · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since when are people entitled to have whatever they want no matter their ability to pay - especially things that are merely entertainment?

      Exactly! Especially entertainment! Entertainment has no inherent value, as it is not needed to survive. Thus it cannot command a price.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    11. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've missed the point: did they sell more than they would have without the piracy, or less?

      It's nearly impossible to answer. I've never heard of Machinarium, but I've heard "World of Goo" is incredibly addictive. Still, how many, if any, of the 82% who pirated World of Goo would have bought it on their own?

      The World of Goo guys had an 82% piracy rate, and it's pretty much expected. Another, similar class game with DRM had a 92% piracy rate. So what's the difference? 10% lower piracy rate and none of the cost to implement the DRM.

      Frankly, the piracy rate doesn't seem to change at all unless the DRM is insanely complicated. Implementing such a DRM scheme is incredibly expensive, and still won't eliminate the piracy.

      World of Goo also has a $20 price tag. How many of those pirateers would have bought it instead if it were only $10? Valve showed that by dropping the price in half on the right game you can quadruple the sales, doubling your money.

      It's a tough call to make, but it's my gut feeling that the high piracy rate is an indication that their prices are too high, not that non-DRM games are doomed to failure. I'll bet with a $10 price tag they'd have gotten more than a 100% increase in legitimate sales.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    12. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In my experience the vast majority of pirates will pirate almost everything they hear about and buy virtually nothing, ever.

      Consider this thought experiment:

      There is a community of 10,000 gamers, half of them only buy games, half only pirate.

      There is a pool of 100 games for these guys to choose from.

      Each paying customer buys about 5 games per year.

      Each paying customer has a ~5.1% chance of buying your game for an average of ~255 sales.

      We will pretend the unrepentant pirates will pirate half the games out there.

      That is ~2500 pirates for your game.

      Or about 90% of your player base.

      This is all completely unsubstantiated conjecture.

      But it might help put things in perspective.

      Even if every unrepentant pirate would buy games if they could not be bought, that wouldn't mean that you would get 10 times more paying customers, it would mean that at best your would get 2 times with these numbers.

    13. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Even a school kid without a job could buy a few games a year by cutting down on candy.

      nom nom nom nom...

      But without my gold-leafed hershey's kisses, I won't have enough energy to fight the zerg! ...nom nom nom nom

    14. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by SlurpingGreen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I personally feel DRM is kind of a side issue. The real problem here is a cultural expectation of free media. People think it's trivial to copy and therefore the cost should be zero.

      I know a guy who makes six figures and refuses to buy any games because he doesn't have to. Furthermore he makes fun of me for buying games. To him the norm is pirating and you're stupid if you don't.

      The consequences of this attitude will be bad for gaming, whether it's in the form of DRM, micro-transactions, or other schemes companies use to force people to buy their product.

      What we need is to get closer to the root cause. We need stuff like student prices and lower prices on older games. There needs to be some education that games cost money to make, even indie games. Maybe even some kind of forced government pool. I personally want there to be a huge investment in games and other entertainment and I think if people understood the whole process they'd agree.

    15. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by MakinBacon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Popularity doesn't pay the bills when 90% of your players aren't paying for the game.

    16. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to be arguing against yourself. Why would cheapskates pay if they couldn't get it for free? Wouldn't they be more likely to just play a different game that they could get for free / cheap?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by masmullin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're side-stepping the question. How many of those 90% would have bought it if it had had unbreakable DRM (and, on a related note, how many of the 10% would have not bought it if it had unbreakable DRM)?

      I think you're STILL side stepping the question.

      If you could eliminate piracy from ALL games, how many people would start buying?

      If a single game is uncrackable DRM'd, pirates will simply move to a different game, but if ALL games were uncrackable DRM'd, well they'd either have to stop playing or start paying.

    18. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      Valve showed that by dropping the price in half on the right game you can quadruple the sales, doubling your money.

      Doubling your revenue doesn't necessarily mean doubling your earnings. In some cases, the licensor of an underlying work (such as music, characters, a setting, etc.) wants a fixed royalty in dollars per copy, not as a percentage.

    19. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably the reason for the low pirate-first-buy-later rate is that the game isn't that good and people weren't impressed. You can't complain that people aren't buying your game if your game sucks.

      Blow it out your ass. Seriously. The game won multiple awards. The game sold a ton of copies via Wii-ware. They eventually realeased a free trial version with the first few levels, and that prompted it to sell a pile more. If you don't like it, fine. If you didn't think it was worth X$ fine. But singling World of Goo out as a "game that sucks" is just trolling.

      The reality, is that there isn't a single game on the market that has a HIGH pirate-first-buy-later rate. Go ahead, name one, name just one!

      Bottom line, by your logic there isn't a single game on the market that is any good and that impressed people. And that's patently absurd.

    20. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your not entirely wrong. But there is more to the story than that. The culture of fee media is propagated by business. How often do you hear that something is "Free", only to find out that it really isn't. The classic example is the age old "Buy one, get one FREE!" Obviously to those of us that have a decent grasp of logic and language know that if you have to pay, it isn't free. We read it as "Two for the price of one." or "Half off when you buy two." A huge portion of the population doesn't get that though. They really think they are getting something for free. The common practice of businesses convincing the naive that they are getting things for free when they are not needs to stop if you ever want to get away from a culture that expects free stuff. The software industry is particularly bad about claiming things are free in an attempt to fool people.

      Another problem is that copyright law has gotten so unbalanced that many people have simply gotten used to dismissing it. Even worse, big media will encourage people to dismiss copyright on one side, and and then cry about it on the other. A good example was a commercial that Nickelodeon (owned by Viacom) was running a few years back. They would run commercial showing 'cool kids' talking about what they do in their free time. They had a 10 to 12 year old girl, showing off her room. Her poster. Her bookshelf. Her CD wallet full of copied CDs...

      Lower prices for older games would be a start. If I could buy new PS1 games at a dollar a pop, I would probably buy literally every one ever released. Certainly, a CD in a paper sleeve can be sold at a profit for $1. Unfortunately, copyright is more and more frequently NOT used to make sure that the author get paid enough to encourge further work, but instead is used as a means to make desired products unattainable. This in turn pushes people to dismiss copyright, and consider it to be a bad thing.

    21. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by monkeythug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a single game is uncrackable DRM'd, pirates will simply move to a different game, but if ALL games were uncrackable DRM'd, well they'd either have to stop playing or start paying.

      If there were such a mythical beast as uncrackable DRM (and publishers have been searching for that since the 80's when we had things like LensLok and that coloured card thing for Jetset Willy that you used to copy with your felt tip pens in class) - then you might be right that some extra people might start paying - but certainly not 90%, most of whom don't have the disposable income to buy every $60 game that comes out. If in addition this perfect DRM was completely transparent to users and didn't piss them off by doing things like requiring you to be online all the time even in single player mode and killing your session if there's a glitch in your internet connection ... then you might not lose any of your existing customers either.

      It's just a shame that it's actually impossible for DRM like that to exist...

      --
      Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
    22. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lets see, I can buy this indie game I never heard of for $20, or buy the entire Freespace collection at GOG when it was on sale for $12. Which will I do? I would argue that $20 is too high, and the reason that "pay whatever" was a big fail is the kinds of folks that play indie games are the DIY types and frankly many of them just don't pay squat if they can help it.

      I mean look at how many enterprise admins had a royal living shitfit when it looked like CentOS was going tits up, why? Because these DIY types were running enterprise servers on a unsupported OS that's why! It is like how I was arguing Linux on the desktop is doomed to fail. The people that Linux appeals to, the geek hacker DIY types, simply would go somewhere else if Canonical started charging for Ubuntu, yet without serious money spent on R&D and bug fixes there simply won't BE any Ubuntu.

      It all comes down to finding an audience that will consider your product worthy of purchase and then giving them a good value. Hell I bought MoH: 10th anniversary even though I heard Airborne sucked! (which BTW it does BAD) Now why did I do such a thing? Because for $25 EA gave me MoH Allied PLUS both expansions, the directors version of Pacific Assault PLUS an interactive timeline of the Pacific War PLUS Airborne PLUS the music of MoH...all for $25. So it all comes down to perceived value for your dollar, and I would argue that if some indie guy isn't getting $20 for his game then the people he is marketing to simply don't consider it worth $20. Black markets will ALWAYS pop up where folks feel the price is too high, piracy is NO different, but sites like GOG and Steam have shown you can make money on goods that can be pirated, you simply have to give the user good value and make it convenient for them to pay.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:Next step to prevent PC piracy by omglolbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To give a real world example of the issue of DRM....

      I love the Command and Conquer games. To such a degree that when the "First Decade" collectors box came out I wanted to get it even though I have all the games sitting -somewhere-. Couldnt find discs etc as I've moved several times since I bought the games... mess...

      I downloaded the pirated version just to have a convenient archive of isos.

      A few months later I found that my local gaming store had dropped the price by almost 30% for the pack. I didnt hesitate. I bought it and have it sitting in my collection now.....

      Onwards to the issue that arrose:

      I deleted the pirated versions and wanted to install completely clean versions. And I did.......

      What happened? "Please insert the Red Alert 2 play disc" or somesuch.... It would not detect the disc regardless of what I did. I tried a multitude of things but ended up giving up and re-installing the cracks.

      THAT is why I hate DRM. And THAT is why I will continue to wait for a crack to come out before I buy a game (steam games being an exception as they just -work-). I will not be left holding the bag on a shitty DRM scheme that breaks due to unrelated software installed on my machine. If I pay the 90 bucks for a game (which they cost here..) then I bloody well expect the fuckers to work when installed...

      Meh... "it is just an excuuuuuse" and "people are cheap" are also the default comebacks used for the past 10 years. Come up with something new will you ;)

  2. Missing the point by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's say you release a DRM-free game and it attracts 1,000,000 players, 100,000 of whom pay you. The question you should be asking isn't "how can I get money out of the 900k people who are playing but not paying" but "how many of my 100,000 paying customers would I have lost had I released it with DRM". DRM reduces the value of your product; getting rid of intrusive DRM adds value. I can't tell you how many games I've bought at full retail and then promptly downloaded a crack or no-cd patch because the DRM got in the way of me enjoying the game I just paid for.

    DRM is a fantasy. Snake oil. It doesn't work. It's been proven time and time again for the last 25 years. EVERY copy protection system ever devised has been defeated quickly. You can't stop people from copying software by any means short of crippling the hardware, and (as the jailbreakers and console modders have shown) even THAT doesn't work in the long run.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Missing the point by mobby_6kl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to disagree here, I think the first question is correct. You know why? Because most people don't give a shit about DRM, even if they know it exists. If everything comes together just right, there might be a shitstorm of complaints and this might have an effect (like Spore, but being a bad game certainly had a greater effect), but mostly the games are sold just fine with DRM. Look at the consoles, and look at Steam - in many aspects it's actually worse than traditional CD copy protection, but people line up to get their games from Steam because it downloads updates automatically or some such shit.

    2. Re:Missing the point by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I use Steam because
      a) They regularly have sales, even on relatively new titles.
      b) My games follow my account, not my computer, so I don't have to worry if I'm using some random computer for some reason, just so long as I can log on to the internet for about 5 minutes (using the local backup ability means I just need to log on to the Steam service to get my list, not download the entire game).
      c) I don't need to keep CDs/DVDs around. I literally don't know how many games I can't play because I lost the disc or it's damaged just barely enough, and it's not sold any more.

      Downloading updates automatically wasn't even on my list, since most games have a "check for updates" feature built-in, either automatically on start, or through a menu, whatever. In my opinion, Steam is DRM done *correctly.* It offers various value enhancements to the user, rather than simply restricting rights. If you're against DRM on principle, it's not going to win you over, but if you only worry about the intrusiveness level, Steam is probably the most gentle scheme out there.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  3. Penny Arcade says it well by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

    As with many things game related, Penny Arcade says it best. In the struggle between pirates and game-makers, only the pirates win.

    --
    Qxe4
  4. Where do they get the numbers? by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there an online part to this game? Can they see 10-20 times as many players online as how many have paid?

    Or did they just find it on some torrent site and multiplied the number of downloads by a 1000 (and assumed they all liked the game and are still playing it)?

    --
    We are all God's parents.
  5. Slashdot Hypocrisy by jamesbulman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Follow the logic...

    Piracy = !Bad
    Piracy = Copyright Infringement
    GPL = Copyright
    GPL Infringment = !Bad

    Well, I'm off to infringe the GPL as it's not bad to do that apparently.

    1. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Follow the logic...

      Piracy = !Bad
      Piracy = Copyright Infringement
      GPL = Copyright
      GPL Infringment = !Bad

      Well, I'm off to infringe the GPL as it's not bad to do that apparently.

      I've heard this argument a few times, and while it's not completely wrong, it does oversimplify.

      The focus is more around for profit vs not for profit activity, and the scale of the individual activity. Very few people here will defend someone who runs a commercial scale piracy ring, copying movies or whatever, pressing the CDs and DVDs en masse and selling them on street corners for $5 each. And in reverse, there won't be much uproar over a guy who stole some GPL code and sold it to two friends for all of $30 profit. When both scale and motive combine in the wrong way -- essentially, profiting off of someone else's work repeatedly, no one sticks up for the offender.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  6. Supply and Demand by sonicmerlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's called a price versus demand curve. As the price tends towards zero the demand increases infinitely. Since there are practical limits, demand at free plateaus at about 10x demand at the original price. This isn't about people being able to afford the games. They just don't value these games at their original prices. There's nothing you can do about it. DRM'ing the game to high heaven won't make those people who don't value the game suddenly purchase it. You're not going to suddenly increase your sales by an order of magnitude. You likely won't even increase it, unless you lower your prices. That's why those ridiculous sales on Steam are so popular. Highly rated games for incredibly cheap prices on holidays or whatever other special day comes up attracts lots of customers.

    I'm not saying game prices are too high. In fact based on the rate of inflation I'm worried that the gaming market will bottom out as publishers are unable to raise their game prices to even match inflation, let alone the increasing costs of game development. But that "90% piracy rate" is totally misleading. These are not people who would have bought your game had DRM been implemented.

  7. Re:Starcraft 2 lack of LAN was to control pro game by Seth024 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, Korean law states that (in non legal terms): You may do what you want with what you bought.

    Kespa (korean e-sports association) ran SC:BW tournaments for many years on LAN and Blizzard couldn't do anything about that. Now that they would have to connect to the blizzard servers to play, Kespa would need to have authorization to host tournaments (which they won't get because Blizzard has already chosen GomTV to organize the tournaments)

  8. Re:That's cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If their games are shit, why are so many people pirating it? Don't answer that.

  9. illusionary numbers by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what?

    The "piracy rate" is a totally bogus number. It doesn't mean anything. Most importantly, what it definitely not means is "lost sales". You can't do mathematics with an illusionary number. It's like me saying the Bogeyman number is 12.5 - it doesn't mean anything. You can't say "oh wow, that means for today (8h), I earned (8*12.5 = 100) a hundred dollars!" Uh, no. Same thing, taking a "piracy rate" number and multiplying it by another made-up number (say, "potential conversion rate") and then multiplying it by an arbitrarily set number-with-unit (sales price) to arrive at a totally made-up number and then call that "loss due to piracy" is just dishonest.

    I'll be interested in the results of this guy, but my guess is any additional sales have nothing to do with piracy and everything with advertisement.

    Do yourself a favour and step away from this movie-and-music-industry created phantom that piracy == lost sales. There is something called "structural unemployment", to use a non-car metaphor. What it means is that you can never, ever, have 0% unemployment. There are always people without a job, even if there are a hundred open positions for every person looking for one. You have people on the move, people who just quit and haven't yet signed up for a new one, some people are just impossible to employ, and so on. You always have some unemployment that you can not get rid of no matter what you do (aside from playing statistics tricks).
    Same thing with piracy, just on a different scale. No matter what DRM you use, no matter how low the price, no matter what else, there will always be people who don't pay for your game.

    I've said this before. Think about your players as being in three groups:
    1.) the ones that will certainly buy your game
    2.) the ones that may or may not buy your game
    3.) the ones that will certainly not buy your game

    where 3.) includes the pirates. People who download your game from a torrent have all sorts of reasons to do so, most of them you can't do anything about. My advise is to ignore them and focus on the undecided bunch. The ones who may buy the game if you can catch their interest. Which you more likely do with more polish than with better DRM.

    And yes, I do sell stuff online. I don't care about pirates. The extend of my "anti-piracy" measure is that you get the download link after paying, and that's it. Any and all DRM is a waste of time and money.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  10. I presume you mean for DRM games by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And ya, that's the real question. We know people pirate games, both with and without DRM. The question is does DRM make a statistically significant difference in piracy rate? If it doesn't then it is de facto worthless. After all the only reason to have it is to reduce piracy rates so if it doesn't why have it?

    Now, if the answer is it does lower the piracy rate by a non-trivial amount the next question is does it increase sales? Less copies being pirated doesn't mean more being sold. You have to check it both ways. Unless you are generating more sales, it doesn't do you any good either.

    So assuming it does increase sales, then the final question is does it increase sales enough to cover the costs of DRM. There are three main costs:

    1) The cost of the DRM itself. Off the shelf DRM solutions cost money up front, and generally royalties per copy sold. If you develop your own there is the cost you pay developers to work on it. In both cases, there is implementation costs.

    2) The cost of support. People will have trouble with it, you'll have to have support staff for it. You cannot very well sell someone something that doesn't work due to DRM and say "Oh, sorry, nothing we can do."

    3) Lost sales due to people who don't like it. I don't know how big that is, but it does happen. I personally will not buy any new Ubisoft title. Both Settlers 7 and Assassin's Creed 2 were on my list until their new DRM came out. No, I haven't pirated them, I just play other games (I've got about 40 games on Impulse 50 on Steam and more in boxes).

    So for DRM to be worth it, it needs to cover the costs of implementation and then some in terms of a sales increase. What I would like to know is if it does this. I don't know that any company has studied it. they mostly seem to take on faith that DRM works.

  11. Re:Starcraft 2 lack of LAN was to control pro game by Vaphell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    needless to say, Koreans are in the right here

    you don't pay royalties to the manufacturer of the hammer you used to build a house and sell it with profit. You paid for the hammer - that's it.
    KeSPA did all the legwork to set up everything and now blizzard comes in and says 'pay up, bitches, you use our game'. Yeah, but they don't sell a game, they sell competition between players. Game is merely a tool, 50 bucks a pop.
    It's distasteful because greatly Blizzard benefited from increased sales for years thanks to the tv coverage and didn't have to pay a dime for that. Easy money. They got the best marketing possible for free and now they want the cut on top of that.

    Someone needs to step in and smack the software industry hard. They do anything they want because they can put whatever in their EULAs and ToSes and with no resistance circumvent common sense, basic user rights, first sale doctrines and whatnot.

  12. World of Goo's methodology is flawed by pantherace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/

    I haven't played the game, nor purchased it, but I have a big problem with their statistics: They basically took the unique IPs and divided by the number of sales. That might have been somewhat accurate in the 1980s.

    It's utter rubbish. People often have laptops. Today, my laptop will have at least 2 IPs. There are days that I've had 5 different ones, from different locations. (Actually probably more than that, considering that the university likes to subnet by building, which probably means that there are another 2 IPs. (possibly per day, unless their DHCP assigns the same one))

    So if I'd purchased the game, and played it on my laptop at various times throughout the day, over a week, I could very easily account for 10 IPs alone. The same methodology applied to Steam, could easily lead to Steam being well over 50% pirated.

  13. once again, bullshit by Nyder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So basicly they are saying, that of the 100 people that downloaded the game, only 10 of them actually decided to pay it.

    Cool. But that doesn't mean that 90 of the people that downloaded are playing it. How many of them tried it, didn't like it, and deleted it?

    Here's a quote from the article:

    "We released the game DRM-free which means it doesn’t include any anti-piracy protection, therefore the game doesn’t bother players serial codes or online authentication, but it’s also very easy to copy it," Amanita's Jakub Dvorsky explained. "Our estimate from the feedback is that only 5-15 percent of Machinarium players actually paid for the game."

    They ESTIMATE, which means, they are fucking guessing.

    Getting tried of this shit that is passed around as an excuse for journalism.

    First off, piracy isn't news.
    Second off, this isn't even news, it's fucking speculation. Shit, it's worse then that, the companies is using piracy to promote their game. They are trying to lay a guilt trip on people to buy their game.

    Ya, let's propagate that piracy is really bad on PC's, so we can sell our game, even though piracy isn't hurting our game at all. Nothing bad can come out of that, right?

    They just lost any future sales from me for this marketing stunt.

    --
    Be seeing you...