How the Pirate Bay Can Be an Asset To Game Developers

So he's made 300 bucks so far... by AmazingRuss · 2012-09-08 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

...kind of puts the lie to "pirates will pay in their own good time" trope.

Re:So he's made 300 bucks so far... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 06:18 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the humble bundle put that myth to rest
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/humble-bundle-gives-pirates-what-they-want-gets-ripped-off/
Not sure there is a more deserving cause of money in the software realm

benefit or harm reduction by Khashishi · 2012-09-08 05:50 · Score: 1

I wonder if having the game on TPB is actually benefiting the developer or the pay what you want model is simply harm reduction. No doubt he benefited from having it posted on Slashdot.

Re:benefit or harm reduction by Havenwar · 2012-09-08 08:33 · Score: 2

Seems like your question is fallacious. After all: even if it's harm reduction, it's beneficial. No matter what the cause, it's money he wasn't getting otherwise, and people who wouldn't have heard of it otherwise that's now hearing about the game. So in a way it's advertising he's actually getting paid for, which can't be seen as anything less than a win/win/win scenario.
Re:benefit or harm reduction by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-09-08 11:16 · Score: 1

Harm reduction isn't beneficial if the opp cost is too high.
For example, smoking less is harm reduction, but it isn't as good as stopping smoking.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:benefit or harm reduction by Havenwar · 2012-09-08 19:05 · Score: 1

It might not be AS GOOD, but it still REDUCES HARM. Any reduction in harm is by definition beneficial, compared to not reducing harm.
The accurate comparison would be smoking less compared to smoking more, not compared to stopping completely.
Re:benefit or harm reduction by Khashishi · 2012-09-10 05:04 · Score: 1

It's not fallacious if there exists an effective means of destroying piracy. Probably there isn't, I don't know.

It's called donationware. by DerekLyons · 2012-09-08 05:53 · Score: 3, Informative

It's called donationware, a variant of shareware, and its an old way of getting paid for your work. I think I saw the first example of it back in the mid 80's on the BBS scene.

It's not new, and it's not news.

Re:It's called donationware. by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-09-08 05:56 · Score: 1

I'm much happier with the model where you can play for free and either spend large amounts of time at the game or pay for advancements. No adverts, no depending on charity, a fair and equitable method to fund games, if its done right.
Re:It's called donationware. by joelsanda · 2012-09-08 06:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's called donationware, a variant of shareware, and its an old way of getting paid for your work. I think I saw the first example of it back in the mid 80's on the BBS scene.
It's not new, and it's not news.
I really miss those days. Being able to download something and use it for a week or so before deciding to get the full deal or pay the shareware fee. A few game companies do this, like Spiderweb Software - you can play a huge chunk of the game before it stops and requires payment. By the time the demo is over you're pretty sure it will run on your computer and there's no question about liking it or not.

--
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
Re:It's called donationware. by Nationless · 2012-09-08 06:21 · Score: 2

There may be prior art, but it is still a resurrection in a certain way of thinking which will provide hard numbers for larger companies to crunch and consider alternatives to expensive and restrictive DRM and lawsuits against pirates.
Re:It's called donationware. by Havenwar · 2012-09-08 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd agree, except in my experience most games with micropayments don't actually work like that - there tends to be plenty of things in most of them that you can't access at all unless you open your wallet. That's a dealbreaker to me when it comes to micropayments, because then it's suddenly a way to get more money out of people rather than a way to let you choose between putting time or money into it. If I want to put money into a game, I do it upfront, or I do it to unlock it once I've tried it - I am not willing to be nickle-and-dimed to death for little things I had no idea I'd have a reason to need when I started out, and have no other way of getting.
Re:It's called donationware. by DerekLyons · 2012-09-08 12:53 · Score: 2

No, the larger companies don't need numbers to crunch - they know the facts perfectly well, as does anyone that doesn't wear admantium blinders or otherwise wilfully disconnect themselves from reality. Donationware is a fine way to go stone broke.
Re:It's called donationware. by Nationless · 2012-09-09 04:35 · Score: 1

If they don't have data to crunch the numbers they can't "know the facts perfectly well". They're just making assumptions based on their outdated business models and nobody can prove them otherwise without said data. Stop contradicting yourself.
Although you could be right because they're totally winning that war on piracy, right?
Re:It's called donationware. by DerekLyons · 2012-09-09 07:32 · Score: 2

No, I'm not contradicting myself - because I *am* dealing with facts. It's a stone cold fact that this (donationware) model has been around nearly three decades, and always has the same result - the developer goes broke. Nothing fundamental has changed, and therefore there is no reason to believe this effort will be any different. (Especially since the early information confirms those decades of experience.)
There is no more need to collect more numbers than there is to put my hand in a fire to prove it will still burn.
The one dealing with assumptions and contradictions here is yourself - because your utter ignorance of experience, your disconnected from reality ideals, and your blinders to facts leads you to assume that somehow, some way, things will be different this time.
Re:It's called donationware. by Nationless · 2012-09-09 08:58 · Score: 2

I disagree with the idea that nothing fundamental has changed. The internet has changed. Things are easier to pirate than ever and peoples expectations have changed because of this. So has the simplicity of donating and there's a whole new generation of people with a whole new mindset growing up into this world where they have never experienced the old market model.
Radiohead/NIN would never have been able to hand out their albums for free on 14.4k modems or in physical form. These are experiments and we should take value in the results. Same with McPixel.
If you could please link me to the large amount of recent companies that have failed because of this then I would be happy to consider your viewpoint, but so far all I see is a big [citation needed] behind your arguments.
New numbers and information is ALWAYS relevant. We do not know everything and it would be ridiculous to assume that nothing ever changes. Just look at how scientists work, constantly disproving known theories as new tech becomes available to them.
We can, of course, agree to disagree and all you have to do is simply not reply to this post and we will leave it at that with differing opinions.

Re:Crappy game by Hatta · 2012-09-08 05:57 · Score: 2

3K doesn't sound so bad for a dinky flash app that he probably knocked out in a couple of weeks.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Radiohead by morari · 2012-09-08 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative

I seem to recall Nine Inch Nails playing with a very similar idea beforehand. Giving the multitrack files out for fans to make remixes, releasing digital versions of the album for free, etc.

--
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune

Re:Radiohead by UnknownSoldier · 2012-09-08 06:07 · Score: 2

That NIN's albumt. You could even download flacs!
To bad it was off in a different direction from the traditional NIN "space".
Re:Radiohead by UnknownSoldier · 2012-09-08 06:11 · Score: 1

damit ...
That was NIN's album: Ghost
Re:Radiohead by Nationless · 2012-09-08 06:26 · Score: 1

However due to the success of "Ghosts", Trent Reznor released the next traditional album "The Slip" for free saying "this one's on me,".
There is usually a lot of context that goes missing when people mention Ghosts which is odd since it was a huge success for both artists and fans alike.
Re:Radiohead by zixxt · 2012-09-08 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

That NIN's albumt. You could even download flacs!
To bad it was off in a different direction from the traditional NIN "space".
When was there ever a traditional NIN sound?

--
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:Radiohead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 11:06 · Score: 1

as has been pointed out time and time again, it will work if the person/band/etc is already famous, but will hardly work for up-n-comers. fanbase size will determine most anything of this kind of distribution. of course, it will also depend on how you quantify success. anything is better than nothing, but is it better than what you would have gotten in a traditional distribution model?
Re:Radiohead by helix2301 · 2012-09-09 02:48 · Score: 1

I know quite a few early Linux distros like slackware use bittorrent for there distribution.

--
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
Re:Radiohead by drkstr1 · 2012-09-09 08:47 · Score: 1

In what world is nin even vaguely related to techno?
Industrial is a form of electronica, and electronica is usually referred to as "techno."

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7

Re:Always the same fucking bullshit... by Hatta · 2012-09-08 06:01 · Score: 1

Sos Sosowski is famous?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Crappy game by LordLimecat · 2012-09-08 06:08 · Score: 1

Not $3000, $426. 300 x $1.42 average. Very slight difference-- goes from "maybe economically viable" to "OK as a hobby, not as a means of support".

Content Distribution by girlintraining · 2012-09-08 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

The real reason the Pirate Bay is hated is because it is a content distribution network. The BitTorrent protocol doesn't care whether it's a linux iso or a copy of the latest popular bluray rip that it transfers; It simply distributes the load to all of its participants. The RIAA, MPAA, and organizations they represent only exist because they have controlled the distribution of content (not its creation).

To hear that an author is distributing content on the 'honor system', is not surprising. All he's doing is leveraging a (free) distribution network, and probably making more money due to reduced overhead than he would if he went with one of the commercial solutions. Not to mention that gaining access to one of those solutions would require he give them a cut of the profits and pay regular fees on top of that. For a small-margins production like this, that would probably leave him with next to nothing.

The free market at work, that's what this is: And that's exactly why he has to die, horribly, painfully, and with many legal injunctions and fees. We can't have people using the internet to create money directly for themselves without any middlemen -- most of the jobs in our economy are middlemen. Burn the heretic.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Content Distribution by kermidge · 2012-09-08 06:57 · Score: 1

Bravo! (or is it brava?) No mods, so thanks. Last para is a keeper. [grin]
Re:Content Distribution by jfengel · 2012-09-08 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

The **AAs are/were a promotion and marketing mechanism, as well as a content distribution mechanism. That was, for a long while, a pretty good plan: they ginned up interest via marketing, which was expensive, and then made up their expenses on the content distribution side.
Content distribution is no longer a viable model; there is revenue but nowhere near what's needed to match the promotion and marketing required to generate nation-scale interest. What they really object to is the fact that they have been spending money on the promotion and marketing anyway, while other content distributors undercut their revenue.
As you say, it's broken and it's not coming back. For the RIAA, it's easy to see how they should abandon the whole thing: content creation in music is cheap. We can live just fine without them serving as promoters; between Pandora and America's Got Too Much Free Time, promotion gets done.
It's a bit harder for the MPAA. Home-grown movies still don't match what can be done by a real studio, and there really are seven-figure up-front investments. Losing control of the content distribution is a loss not just to them but to everybody, since it means certain kinds of movies can't be made profitably. They're still profitable, but it seems pretty unlikely that they'd continue to be if the MPAA gave up trying to control distribution and went for a "pay what you want" model.
I'm still not crazy about using Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead as a model. Their studios had already spent big bucks promoting them. For the average Garage Band garage band, they have a hard time giving stuff away. A better example is, of all things, Fifty Shades Of Gray, which really took off for reasons nobody can figure out except that word of mouth really spread. Do not, however, expect that to happen often. The real model is eight zillion apps languishing in the iTunes and Android stores, one of which might be awesome if only somebody got all Fifty Shades on it. But you just can't do that for a movie.
Re:Content Distribution by girlintraining · 2012-09-08 11:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're correct in that the business model does have a few advantages for funding. And if copyright lasted only a few years, perhaps it would be a reasonable tradeoff. But when something lasts 150 years plus the life of the author, then you no longer have a situation where cost and benefit are balanced -- it costs the consumer massively, for little to no benefit.
I personally think the aggressive enforcement of copyright and modification of copyright laws are what is causing the destruction of the industry, not piracy. It's just like what happened during the Prohibition in the United States -- they tried to cut off access to a common recreational activity by force of law, and drove its use underground, resulting in the creation of this country's first large-scale organized crime syndicates, which remain active to this day due to the War on Drugs. Had the Prohibition never happened, organized crime might not developed in this country, or at least not to the breadth and depth that is is today.
When I studied Macroeconomics, there was a man whose name I forget who proposed that beyond a certain point, increasing taxes would actually result in less tax being collected because the incentives to cheat the system would outweigh the risks. So a tax rate of 30% might earn the same amount of revenue that a tax rate of 70% would. I think the same situation has happened in the entertainment industry -- except the tax in this case is a amortized in the system -- there are hundreds of little fees and laws and procedures that all work together in a complex dance to create a similar framework at a macro level.
Or put more simply: The recording industry priced itself out of the market. Their attempts to raise prices to compensate for lost income (in the form of a distribution 'tax') passed the critical threshold where there were more incentives to evade the system than participate in it. And yes, we all lose because of it, in the form of less available income and lower quality material... but it is hardly the fault of the consumer (legal or illegal) -- it was, in the final analyis, caused by a lack of competition. Had the recording industry not been dominated by only a few players, the pricing couldn't have been manipulated enough to cause it to pass the critical threshold, as the price would have remained aligned with the market demands.
They did this to themselves, and they took us with them.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Content Distribution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 14:19 · Score: 2, Informative

man whose name I forget who proposed that beyond a certain point, increasing taxes would actually result in less tax being collected
Arthur Laffer
It's not just cheating. Another issue is that people simply have little incentive to increase their production if most of their income is going to someone else.
It's also worth noting that in regards to product pricing, this is basic microeconomics (not macro). Higher prices on a monopolized good tend to increase your profit per unit but can reduce your overall profit. There's a sweet point where the lost of sales just balances the profit increase per sale. That's the ideal price for a monopoly good.

Re:Crappy game by jiteo · 2012-09-08 06:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

So much arrogance and bitterness.

Read the guy's story (yes, I'm re-linking to TFA in a comment) on Ars and the guy's AmA over on Reddit. You don't have to like the guy's game (which most certainly isn't a dinky flash app that he probably knocked out in a couple of weeks - it took him 10 months), but you have to admire his class, and if you inisist on letting the Internet know you don't like his game, you should definitely be more polite than "quite frankly it's crap."

Re:Crappy game by Zocalo · 2012-09-08 06:19 · Score: 2, Informative

According to the article that $426 was made in less than one day (the first), and since you'll hopefully be getting donations seven days a week that makes it equivalent to an income just shy of $3,000 per week. Assuming that you can crank out equally successful games at a rate that out paces the inevitable waning interest in your previous works, while you are not certainly going to be making a fortune and will need to self fund all the benefits that an employer might provide as part of a package, it's still not a bad wage.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

Coming from different places by poity · 2012-09-08 06:42 · Score: 2

A nobody coming from the very bottom will undoubtedly benefit from the publicity of doing something like this, because the rush of publicity and the sympathy money will make up for the low sales to download ratio. AAA developers will receive no sympathy, nor will they benefit from additional publicity on their already famous franchises, which means it won't work for them except to lower their revenue.

So, Pirate Bay make sense for upstarts, and that's about it.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Re:Crappy game by Kjella · 2012-09-08 06:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

According to the article that $426 was made in less than one day (the first), and since you'll hopefully be getting donations seven days a week that makes it equivalent to an income just shy of $3,000 per week.

Uh, what? Opening day sales are usually way higher than your average day, usually people make up their opinion pretty quick if they want it or not. I'd be surprised if he breaks the $1000 barrier in a week and it's not like week two is going to be like week one either.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Financial Success by theArtificial · 2012-09-08 06:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

From TFS:

"It's been five years since Radiohead brought the pay what you want model to the public with their successful sale of their 'In Rainbows' album.

A curious thing about the (arguable) success is it hasn't been tried again. Subsequent albums have not used a similar model. Think about that.

--
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.

Re:Financial Success by rastoboy29 · 2012-09-08 15:31 · Score: 1

lol I think they just weren't content with the mere few millions they got. I mean who can live on that?

--
expandfairuse.org
Re:Financial Success by theArtificial · 2012-09-08 15:53 · Score: 1

lol I think they just weren't content with the mere few millions they got. I mean who can live on that?
Depending on where you live, for the sake of argument let's assume the first world, someone in the 3rd world could say the same thing about you. About half of the world lives off of $2.50 a day or less.

Buyers can pay zero or whatever they please up to £99.99 (about $212) for the album in MP3 form...

...The band and its managers are not releasing the download’s sales figures or average price, and may never do so. “It’s our linen,” Mr. Hufford said. “We don’t want to wash it in public.” A statement from the band rejected estimates by the online survey company ComScore that during October about three-fifths of worldwide downloaders took the album free, while the rest paid an average of $6.

Factoring in free downloads, ComScore said the average price per download was $2.26. But it did not specify a total number of downloads, saying only that a “significant percentage” of the 1.2 million people who visited the Radiohead Web site, inrainbows.com, in October downloaded the album. Under a typical recording contract, a band receives royalties of about 15 percent of an album’s wholesale price after expenses are recovered. Without middlemen, and with zero material costs for a download, $2.26 per album would work out to Radiohead’s advantage — not to mention the worldwide publicity.
From the New York Times. Obviously there is some merit to this model otherwise we wouldn't see more indy bundles. Unless the band releases figures we can merely speculate as to how successful it really was.

--
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.

Article not about rating game by EmperorOfCanada · 2012-09-08 07:05 · Score: 1

If anything the poor reviews that people are giving this game is a justification of the article. Many of us developers take a while to figure out how to promote things. Companies like EA have the whole promotion thing tied up in knots so any venue for people with sub zillion dollar marketing budgets is a good thing. I suspect that this is one of the main reasons that the movie and music industries are so fearful of the new digital world and that is that their machine had become so good at promoting anything they lost all incentive to produce things that are good. Taking the marketing machine partially out of the loop (I suspect many illegal downloads are still driven by the marketing machine) must leave them feeling fairly naked.

So kudos to this guy and TPB.

Re:Fantastic Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 07:14 · Score: 1

For the prices theaters charge I should be able to stream the movie to my home theater opening day in 1080p from vudu AND I SHOULD OWN IT not rent it. In fact, at Vudu prices there should be no rentals, just ownership. It costs less than traditional distribution and physical blu rays so why am I charged more?

As long as the movie and music industry want to artificially enforce an inferior experience on me I'm not going to give them a dime.

Re:Fantastic Idea by Pinhedd · 2012-09-08 07:37 · Score: 2

It's not your right to decide that. You don't pay the artist, you pay the copyright owner. That "corporation in hollywood" probably spent millions of dollars on funding, casting, scripting, construction, production, post production, marketing, analysis, and unfortunately on IP protection. In exchange for that, they get to choose when and how to distribute the works that they own. If you don't like that, don't use the product at all because you're part of the problem and not the solution.

Re:Crappy game by iamhassi · 2012-09-08 07:38 · Score: 1

Not $3000, $426. 300 x $1.42 average. Very slight difference-- goes from "maybe economically viable" to "OK as a hobby, not as a means of support".

Some areas of the world $426 in a week is decent money, even for a programmer, especially if he was able to do this from home, so I wouldn't knock it. I'm sure there's people that even look at that $3,000 like it's nothing and wouldn't work a week for that let alone a few weeks.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Re:Crappy game by LordLimecat · 2012-09-08 07:43 · Score: 3

and since you'll hopefully be getting donations seven days a week that makes it equivalent to an income just shy of $3,000 per week.

Thats not a safe bet at all; you cant simply extrapolate from one day's sales to one week's sales-- especially when every other industry recognizes far higher profits on day one than on subsequent days (check opening day sales on any major game or movie, vs the next several days, vs the next several weeks). Theres usually a pretty sharp drop-off.

"Pay what you want" by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-08 08:02 · Score: 2

I have a lot of faith in the honor system. The guy behind the popular bakery chain Panera Bread made an interesting and surprisingly successful attempt to open one cafe with the honor principle in mind. Of course, I suspect demographics can have a significant effect on a physically located business, and it is a gambit, but my faith extends beyond the physical well into the realm of the digital where I think it can work just as well. There will surely be abuse, though I think if we are to even have a future, similar concepts will become much more common some day, however remote from today.

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012

Would have been useful if he didn't use Adobe AIR by rklrkl · 2012-09-08 08:08 · Score: 1

The game uses Adobe AIR, which is a bad cross-platform choice because Adobe discontinued it in June 2011 on the Linux platform. They also ludicrously never released a Linux 64-bit version of Adobe AIR, so trying to install a dead 32-bit package on a 64-bit clean Linux system is such a nightmare that I gave up and never got to see the game on Linux after all. Even the instructions to do so mention Fedora Core 11, which is a 3-year-old distro 6 releases out of date, ho hum.

Re:Crappy game by wisnoskij · 2012-09-08 08:09 · Score: 1

$3000 is not a horrible salary for a third of a year. And if he can get that in 1 week, now that is nothing to scoff at.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

True commercial success story w/ TPB by SendBot · 2012-09-08 08:21 · Score: 1

I literally just purchased $110 (minus $.02) of video games from steam yesterday after browsing titles on TPB to see what was popular. The first one was plastered with "BUY NOW" everywhere as though you could buy it and play it, and then I didn't realize until afterward it was just a preorder. (BF3). Then I bought the GTA collection and had to go through a mountain of arcane technical hassle with windows marketplace (after buying on steam) just to be able to save games in gta4.

Also the collection included two games I've already paid for in the past, but whatever.

Those artifical losses due to piracy numbers can suck it.

such a pity then... by advocate_one · 2012-09-08 09:41 · Score: 1

that the bastards got TPB blocked in my country... a.holes...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.

Re:Crappy game by kelemvor4 · 2012-09-08 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

$3000 is not a horrible salary for a third of a year. And if he can get that in 1 week, now that is nothing to scoff at.

Then you will be excited to get a job at a local McDonald's where they pay at least $15,080.00/year because of minimum wage. I would describe $9000/year as a horrible salary. Won't keep a roof over your head, but you might be able to get high occasionally while living in a cardboard box.

Re:Fantastic Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 11:07 · Score: 1

go see the movies at the theaters and pirate dvds...

Hmmm. On the one hand, I do like the cinema experience, even though nowadays it's usually just some mall shoebox. But to me it's nice to enjoy a movie in the company of others. On the other hand, I do not like paying twice to see one movie, and that's what happens when I/we/you/one pays to see a film in a theatre: You buy a ticket, and then you sit through a shitload of commercials. I don't mean trailers for upcoming movies - I actually quite enjoy watching those - I mean commercials, just like the fucking shit on TV. Why should I have to watch commercials when I've bought a ticket? If they let me in free, I could understand having to endure a quarter hour or more of these things, but they didn't. So fuck them.

Then again, even though I could tell myself that the greed of everyone involved in/with the movie business justifies downloading movies and not wasting my cash at a theatre, I only ever download stuff for which I would never pay to see, such as old old old TV shows or fringe movies that usually aren't available to rent or buy. Sometimes I'll download a new movie, but then it's always some iffy title, to see if it's worth seeing on the big screen. Usually it isn't, and I'll stop watching part way through and delete the file. But I'm sure the MPAA would try to sue me, no matter what the facts or reality of the situation. YAAAARRRRRRR, MATIE!

Re:Crappy game by mark-t · 2012-09-08 11:39 · Score: 1

If that extra $3,000 spelled the difference between a product that was unrewarding for its creator(s), and one that provided fair compensation for all of the time and work that went into making the product in the first place, then I'd completely agree with you. Is that the case?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Corrections by brit74 · 2012-09-08 12:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

"It's been five years since Radiohead brought the pay what you want model to the public with their successful sale of their 'In Rainbows' album.

Yes, you mean that stunt that the Radiohead manager said they won't repeat again?
"Radiohead abandons ‘pay what you want’ for upcoming album release" - http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/radiohead-abandons-pay-what-you-want-for-upcoming-album-release/
"But Radiohead's manager has also said that the band likely wouldn't try a similar promotion again." - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9894376-7.html

Sorry, I just had to mention that because I'm tired of people using Radiohead as an example of "pay what you want" which was wildly successful, when it really sounds like it wasn't.

"Now, here's a fresh example of how a game developer is making The Pirate Bay work for him by offering his game, McPixel, for free and letting people pay what they want."

Yeah, I saw the McPixel developer trying to get fans on Reddit too. I saw a YouTube video of the game and it isn't very good. It wasn't worth a free download. But, he seems to be doing a good job of getting out there and marketing, as well as trying to build some fame by telling pirates exactly what they want to hear.

No thanks, McPixel developer. What you're doing by validating the PirateBay is undermining the game development industry while trying to make a few extra bucks. It's fundamentally self-centered. If this ever became "the norm", then the McPixel developer wouldn't get squat as far as free-advertising from sites like Slashdot. (It actually reminds me a little bit of the stunt that S.E.Cupp (an atheist) pulled a few months ago when she went on a news show and told people she'd never vote for an atheist politician because atheists can't be trusted. She's throwing other people (other atheists) under the bus by making those kinds of arguments, but I'm sure it did a good job of getting her extra fame and sales because she's saying the opposite of what you'd expect someone to say - and playing into the hands of conservatives. I can already hear them crowing, "See, even atheists admit they can't be trusted. We need only God-fearing politicians.")

would you like to be paid like this guy? by murdocj · 2012-09-08 12:56 · Score: 1

So for everyone who thinks this is a great idea: your employer says "work for us for a couple of months. We'll decide at the end whether we feel like paying your or not".

Sound like a good business model?

Re:would you like to be paid like this guy? by neminem · 2012-09-10 02:50 · Score: 1

Sounds like a pretty typical early-stage startup, just slightly more honest about it. :p

Re:Fantastic Idea by Elldallan · 2012-09-08 13:17 · Score: 2

As long as they keep lobbying to increase copyright duration I personally find that to be a deal breaker, the original 25 years was ok for it's time, these days everything produced is expected to show a profit within the year so copyright should be limited to 3-5 years after creation/publication.
Copyright was never made for the benefit of the creators, it was made for the benefit of the general public by giving the creators a monopoly on distribution for a limited time.
Personally I find these constant extensions whenever the copyright on mickey mouse etc risks running out is against the spirit of that "for a limited time" and as such in my opinion they have voided any right to protection under the law, hence I will choose not to respect their distribution monopoly. If that would eventually cause them to go bankrupt from that then so much better, then maybe what comes after will be a system that actually works to the benefit of all sides involved.

Re:Fantastic Idea by aez · 2012-09-08 15:04 · Score: 1

If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch it. That's how things work.

--
Disrupt Everything

Re:Crappy game by aztracker1 · 2012-09-08 15:06 · Score: 2

I've spent on the humble bundles just to support the model... I stopped playing most games when drm became rampant, and they started suing the homebrewers.. I've also backed a few kickstarter projects as well

--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info

Aaarrr by slick7 · 2012-09-08 15:29 · Score: 2

What good is a game if it doesn't have pirates?
September 19, talk like a pirate day.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Re:Crappy game by froggymana · 2012-09-08 19:01 · Score: 2

3k for a couple weeks of work? That sounds pretty fucking *horrible* to me, especially when you factor in the cost of development and test hardware, and ongoing support costs.

Assume it only took 2 weeks (it probably took much longer than this, as anybody who's ever done any significant commercial development is well aware) - that's $78,000 gross revenues for your *business* over the course of a year. Factor in dev/test hardware, dev time, ancillary operating costs (office, lights, electricity, business insurance, etc. etc.), and you're looking at significantly less than $78k per year as "actual" income. Then, whack off another 25-30% for taxes (remember, you'll owe SS, Medicare, and Federal/State Income Tax when DBA "you, inc." - not just your marginal rate you pay as a W2 employee of some other company.)

No, 3000 for "a couple weeks of work" sounds pretty much like a recipe for being (and staying) poor. It's a hobby, not a business.

Lots of people enjoy programming in their free time. Getting paid $3,000 for doing something I love doing sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

--
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT

Re:Fantastic Idea by ultranova · 2012-09-08 23:10 · Score: 1

That "corporation in hollywood" probably spent millions of dollars on lobbying and bribery. In exchange for that, they get treated exactly as they deserve.
Fixed that for you.
IP in general and copyright law in particular passed the point of having not the tiniest shred of moral authority long ago. There's no moral obligation whatsoever to obey them.
Laws are only respected as long as they're respectable. Copyright law is not: it's a harlot, a corporate crack whore, a fist that's been tightened till every last speck of stardust has slipped trough the fingers. Hollywood only has itself to blame, it's their own attempt to increase their rights without limit at the expense of everyone else that got theirs jury nullified at the court of public opinion.

--

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

No time to Explain by Trax3001BBS · 2012-09-09 11:15 · Score: 2

Used the same method of distribution (sept 2011) http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/09/14/0517245/indie-devs-upload-their-own-game-to-the-pirate-bay

It's a heck of a lot of fun, the louder it is the better I play :}
I have the PirateBay edition, it's different as my guy wears a pirate hat.

"No time to Explain" season 2 will cost you $3 (US) now and that's at 70% off http://tinybuildgames.com/

Re:Crappy game by McFadden · 2012-09-09 11:36 · Score: 2

but you have to admire his class

Why? That would suggest there's something almost altruistic about his decision, when it's pretty fucking obvious that he's doing this to make more money than his mediocre game would have otherwise. I suppose I grudgingly admire his PR savvy.

While these kinds of "gestures" by game developers remain a novelty, they will be treated as such, and garner more publicity (front page on reddit, slashdot and god knows how many other sites already) leading to considerably more sales than they would have achieved otherwise. The right-on crowd who still seem to think this is somehow a generous decision rather than a cunning marketing ploy will support it with their wallets and the developer gets more income for his distinctly "average" project than he could have hoped for if he'd tried to launch it at a fixed price.

Shame humblebundle's model has changed then. by recrudescence · 2012-09-09 20:02 · Score: 1

i.e. this: http://slashdot.org/submission/2192453/humble-bundle-introduces-partial-drm

There is no argument to legitimize TPB by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-09-10 06:44 · Score: 1

Seriously, there is no valid argument to legitimize TPB.

Bottom line is if a content provider distributes content under some protective license, regardless of how you feel about that license, does not entitle you to steal that content.

I agree that a lot of content providers need to learn how to embrace online distribution; charging ridiculous prices for online content, excessive DRM schemes or restrictions, or treating customers like criminals is NOT the way to embrace the 21st century model for content distribution. But again, this does not entitle a person to steal content.

I may not like the cost of a Porche 911, or am jealous if other people are driving one, but that does not give me the right to steal it. There is no difference between a physical product like a car, or a digital product like a movie, book, music, or TV show when it comes to someone 'rights" to steal it, there is no fundamental right to steal a product when there restrictions on distribution. People invested time, energy and money to produce a product and so it does not give someone a reason to come along and access it or re-distribute it for free because they do not like the conditions for its distribution.

Sure, if you want to use TPB as a distribution network for your content because you do not believe in being compensated for your time and investment then by all means do so. But then I would stop trying to promote TPB as a renegade "piracy" online source of content and set up a legit online promotion tool for those people looking to embrace 21st century content distribution. Stop trying to protest online content distribution and instead focus on setting up a real online content distribution mechanism.

If TPB was run by pragmatists, and not vapid idealists, then there is no reason why TPB (or some incarnation of the principle) could not have created a rival to iTunes, Google Play, or Amazon. But idealists cannot see the forest through the trees and are two busy trying to fight for a right they simply don't have. They are vaguely aware of the fact they can provide an exceptional service "for the rest of us" but are unable to execute it.

If I founded TPB I would end the practice of distributing illegal content (remove all illegal torrents, period) and instead focus on trying to promote an alternative distribution mechanism that focuses on DRM and license free content to rival that of the "paid" services in an effort to educate "traditional" content providers on the merits of this form of distribution.

TPB is never going to win by re-distributing retail content. Lawyers and content creators and providers are going to fight them every step of the way. If someone doesn't want to embrace free distribution then there is no argument on the planet that is going to protect someone from re-distributing their paid content, period. It's not the "good fight", its a dead end. But providing an example of and alternative way to distribute content is the only way to bring enlightenment.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

Which means... by AmazingRuss · 2012-09-10 12:13 · Score: 1

...that of the millions of people that got the game, under 100 paid anything at all for it.

Not a replacement for the old system by kazekirifx · 2012-09-10 16:12 · Score: 1

Even if this works for a few media products, if everyone started doing it I think people would stop paying for the majority of media content, and most producers wouldn't be profitable. Seems to me every time this sort of payment system is mentioned, the ears of the "all digital content should be unregulated" people perk up, and they try to tell us, "See?!" Might be just my imagination though.

Slashdot Mirror

How the Pirate Bay Can Be an Asset To Game Developers

67 of 107 comments (clear)