(demos, and various incentives are a great way to do this as the demo gets them actually interacting with your product and able to more fully evaluate it, and the incentives are effectively added to the value of the base product)
And then comes the pirate's whine "but it's not the whole game, I haven't gotten to see if I want to buy all of it."
Personally, I'm leaning toward either Steam or the safe-deposit box, although I thought of an interesting idea upthread: have a product key that is checked against a central server--but not for authentication. It will be entirely possible to have keys that have just not been issued. And the game won't be disabled--but it will be noted to be a pirated version, and the "register this game" link won't be grayed out.
It's an unhealthy thing on Slashdot, and most other places, that it's "unfair" for a developer to do something to protect his/her product. But it's never "unfair" to steal from them. To me, it's not about the money. It's about fairness. I really could just chuck it in a box. I wouldn't blink. But I'd rather be able to share it--but with sharing it comes an expectation that the work and effort put into the game be validated by the consumer. If it won't, I just don't feel strongly against not releasing it, even after it's done.
I like this idea. I've got something like six or seven full legal pads of various bits and pieces, could go through and find the interesting stuff. Plus, my artists have concept work, etc. which I'm legally entitled to use.
If it's not connected, yes, that would be the plan. "I can't verify if this was a legal key; if you'd like to verify later--you don't have to, but I'd appreciate it--please click here. If you aren't a legal purchaser, enjoy the game, but please consider registering on the front page."
I agree with pretty much all of your post. And it's all OK by me. I'm OK with not releasing it, and nobody caring. I make stuff, be it music, prose, or games, for me, and nobody else.
However, I'm big on the concept of a fair deal. I'm not going to put something out there to get screwed over. It's not part of my set of ethics. I'm OK with putting it into a safe-deposit box. I've already done the creative work, it's fine by me.
I do, however, contest the assertion that most gamers will pay for value. The games industry in particular is where piracy reigns. Perhaps gamers interested in indie gaming are different, but I kind of question it.
That's OK by me. I make stuff for me. This is not at odds with the idea of not releasing it: if I'm going to release it, I expect to be treated fairly by the consumer. If the consumer isn't going to treat me fairly and compensate me for my time and effort, I'm not against flinging it in a safe-deposit box once it's complete. My mind's at ease.:-)
Steam is probably the way I'll go, if not something a little more out-there and experimental.
But, frankly, if somebody thinks I'm an asshole for not wanting other people to avail themselves of utility from something I create without compensating me for my time and effort? I'm really OK with that.
I'm not looking to make millions, or even more than a couple nice dinners. But I'm big on ethics and moral fairness. If people want to call me an asshole for that, that's their call.
A key system that does phone home--but does the validation on the user side. If the key's not legitimate, i.e. a keygen result, it won't be in the server database, though the game still unlocks. It doesn't change the game at all, but instead displays a message that more or less says only "I know this key isn't legitimate, but I'm going to let you play the game anyway." Let the versions unlocked with this, just keep the "Register This Copy" button on the homepage. (I plan to do registration through PayPal, built straight into the game, in the first place, if somebody wants to bypass the need to go input the key themselves the first time--so they can still go get a legitimate copy if they want.)
Could be workable. I doubt a pirate is likely to spend any time cracking it when all they have to do is sit through a "do you really want to just steal this game?" message before being allowed in.
Eh. To an extent, you're right. Although I'm actually probably the exception in that it's really not about the money. I said upthread that I'd be A-OK with throwing it in a safe-deposit box--the money is less important than an ethical transaction where both parties tangibly benefit (the purchaser in the entertainment value and utility of the product, me in being able to take my girlfriend out to lunch).
Tangible stuff is an issue when my budget is essentially $0. A book has been tempting, as I've essentially written one as part of the design process (and not to toot my own horn too much, but I'm a pretty good writer)--but having no budget for printing, etc. is suck-worthy.
I'm still thinking Steam to be the happy medium. Only the dedicated few bother to crack Steam games. And besides, I'm aiming for a price point of $15...that seems about where Steam games tend to move copies.
Package a game with some tangible thing -- that increases both my costs and the cost of the game, and in theory drives more people to piracy. Plus, there's pretty few ways, if any, for an independent developer to actually provide anything in that tangible form that anybody would actually want.
Support -- dunno about you, man, but I'd hope that a game doesn't need support. If it does, I didn't do my job as a developer and a designer.
Online services -- this is possible/plausible, especially if I do add the possibility of a multiplayer component (the problem being that everything's balanced for single-player, and multiplayer involves ongoing costs).
Steam is looking more and more tempting, really. Or try to get a WiiWare kit (the game has HTPC and standard-TV resolution modes already, wouldn't be too hard!) and go that route.
I have zero interest in making life more difficult for those who purchase the game. But, at the same time, I just expect a modicum of fairness afforded to me as the creator ('specially as I've got a couple artists and a fellow musician to pay...).
I appreciate your candor, but at the same time it's still entirely unacceptable. Why should I--why should anyone, for that matter--release something that you'll pay for "if you feel like it"? Frankly, I question whether you buy "many" of those games at all. If you do, you're in the vast majority.
I have no interest in having my work valued at zero unless you "feel like it." I can just as easily not release it. I create for me, but if you're going to receive utility from it, I expect to be compensated. I mean, I'm not making this game to make millions, but I expect to be treated fairly by those who consume what I create. I've already done the interesting stuff. I can just as easily throw the code and assets in a safe-deposit box for all I care (and I mean that quite seriously). And while some people find it odd that I'd expect payment for something I could put away without blinking, I think it's consistent: compensate the creator for the utility you derive from the creation.
I'd rather see people enjoy it, of course. But I expect to be treated fairly, as a matter of principle. If not--oh well. Maybe I'll show it to people I like, who I think will like it. Or maybe I'll just take the J.D. Salinger approach. Doesn't really bother me either way.
So back to the original question: how do we ensure fairness for both parties? Steam is a possibility, with the average-user difficulty of breaking Steam's authentication (it's doable, but a hassle, and it's much, much easier to play by Steam's rules). Possibly the only really viable one right now.
Of course I want it to be that easy. But making that easy vastly increases the likelihood of small-scale copies (letting a friend borrow the disc, etc.), which for an independent game is considerably more problematic than TPB.
Your approach is "give it to us or we'll steal it." You know what my reply to that is? "Fuck you, I won't release it at all."
Creators deserve to make money, too. I want a solution where everyone benefits.
I'm working on a title that has no multiplayer component because it makes no sense for the game. How do you propose to address this issue for single-player games? I'm open to reasonable solutions--I do not expect piracy to stop because of any methods I can do, I'm just attempting to dissuade the casual copying; the "test-drive" argument doesn't hold much water because the first twenty percent of the game, about ten hours or so, will be freely available as a demo.
I bought it specifically for school. That it has grown into the role of supporting other stuff is a bonus, and paying more for it let me leverage it for that. I wasn't using 3DS Max or Poser or any of that when I bought the machine, but having the extra juice has helped.
I have no interest in keeping two computers around. Simple as that. My priorities involve not owning two machines just for everyday life. So, no, I would not have saved $200, I would have had something that wasn't what I wanted. And I really have no problem with spending more for what I want.
HTML is a markup language. It was NEVER designed to give a pixel-picture representation of content. EVER. That would break mobile browsing, not to mention different resolutions, and everything else.
What you're looking for is called PDF, and it works great. That makes the guarantees you want - every pixel is in its proper place.
Too many designers, used to working in pamphlets where they had complete control, moved to web design. They just aren't the same!!
You are mistaking original intent and design for what the fuck it's used for today.
It is not standards-writers who make decisions. It is the people paying to have those standards put into practice.
Clients want pixel-perfect? Shut the fuck up and give them pixel-perfect.
And you are not one of the thousands upon thousands of people who want an attractive website and thus will pay for it, so why the fuck should we listen to you?
When the people who pay the money want shitty boring crap like that, then I'll make shitty boring crap like that. They don't, so I won't.
I didn't mean to suggest box model problems, sorry. What I was referring to is that Gecko and WebKit can have slightly different sizes because of font differences, though, especially if you're using em-sizing. It's really annoying, because it depends on the sometimes-different ways that various browsers treat CSS inheritance (like I said upthread, one time Firefox showed a chunk of text in 10pt font, while Safari showed it in 14pt bold). This difference in inheritance can throw off sizing based on em units.
Because it looks like ass if it isn't done right. I don't want my "create new account" link wrapping to a second line. It looks retarded. As such, I specify a size that will work appropriately relative to the width of the login box. Gecko will do it right, Safari will not (or vice versa, in just as many cases).
You are a computer geek and clearly are not the target audience. Being formally correct means nothing. Looking correct is all that matters to the people who actually use the sites I am paid to build.
Different rendering of fonts (due to the anti-aliasing) method used, does not mean in the least that PAGES render differently. It's the layout that counts, not sub-pixel differences in antialiasing. This kind of font rendering differences is entirely outside the W3C specs.
Sigh. How about differences in how they handle CSS inheritance? I had a page once that had normal 10-pt text in Gecko and 14-pt bold text in Safari. Wasn't my code, but it was a bitch and a half to fix and never should have happened in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I have considered it and rejected it. As I said: I'm making it for myself. Not for anyone else, and not for some nebulous "community."
(demos, and various incentives are a great way to do this as the demo gets them actually interacting with your product and able to more fully evaluate it, and the incentives are effectively added to the value of the base product)
And then comes the pirate's whine "but it's not the whole game, I haven't gotten to see if I want to buy all of it."
Personally, I'm leaning toward either Steam or the safe-deposit box, although I thought of an interesting idea upthread: have a product key that is checked against a central server--but not for authentication. It will be entirely possible to have keys that have just not been issued. And the game won't be disabled--but it will be noted to be a pirated version, and the "register this game" link won't be grayed out.
It's an unhealthy thing on Slashdot, and most other places, that it's "unfair" for a developer to do something to protect his/her product. But it's never "unfair" to steal from them. To me, it's not about the money. It's about fairness. I really could just chuck it in a box. I wouldn't blink. But I'd rather be able to share it--but with sharing it comes an expectation that the work and effort put into the game be validated by the consumer. If it won't, I just don't feel strongly against not releasing it, even after it's done.
I like this idea. I've got something like six or seven full legal pads of various bits and pieces, could go through and find the interesting stuff. Plus, my artists have concept work, etc. which I'm legally entitled to use.
If it's not connected, yes, that would be the plan. "I can't verify if this was a legal key; if you'd like to verify later--you don't have to, but I'd appreciate it--please click here. If you aren't a legal purchaser, enjoy the game, but please consider registering on the front page."
I agree with pretty much all of your post. And it's all OK by me. I'm OK with not releasing it, and nobody caring. I make stuff, be it music, prose, or games, for me, and nobody else.
However, I'm big on the concept of a fair deal. I'm not going to put something out there to get screwed over. It's not part of my set of ethics. I'm OK with putting it into a safe-deposit box. I've already done the creative work, it's fine by me.
I do, however, contest the assertion that most gamers will pay for value. The games industry in particular is where piracy reigns. Perhaps gamers interested in indie gaming are different, but I kind of question it.
That's OK by me. I make stuff for me. This is not at odds with the idea of not releasing it: if I'm going to release it, I expect to be treated fairly by the consumer. If the consumer isn't going to treat me fairly and compensate me for my time and effort, I'm not against flinging it in a safe-deposit box once it's complete. My mind's at ease. :-)
Steam is probably the way I'll go, if not something a little more out-there and experimental.
But, frankly, if somebody thinks I'm an asshole for not wanting other people to avail themselves of utility from something I create without compensating me for my time and effort? I'm really OK with that.
I'm not looking to make millions, or even more than a couple nice dinners. But I'm big on ethics and moral fairness. If people want to call me an asshole for that, that's their call.
Except that in a real situation, you'll just burn your copy of the game for that friend, removing the need for getting-it-back. Hence the quandary.
Never seen Impulse. I'll take a look at them.
Publishing on demand could be nifty. I don't know if I've ever seen that done.
I actually thought of something interesting.
A key system that does phone home--but does the validation on the user side. If the key's not legitimate, i.e. a keygen result, it won't be in the server database, though the game still unlocks. It doesn't change the game at all, but instead displays a message that more or less says only "I know this key isn't legitimate, but I'm going to let you play the game anyway." Let the versions unlocked with this, just keep the "Register This Copy" button on the homepage. (I plan to do registration through PayPal, built straight into the game, in the first place, if somebody wants to bypass the need to go input the key themselves the first time--so they can still go get a legitimate copy if they want.)
Could be workable. I doubt a pirate is likely to spend any time cracking it when all they have to do is sit through a "do you really want to just steal this game?" message before being allowed in.
Eh. To an extent, you're right. Although I'm actually probably the exception in that it's really not about the money. I said upthread that I'd be A-OK with throwing it in a safe-deposit box--the money is less important than an ethical transaction where both parties tangibly benefit (the purchaser in the entertainment value and utility of the product, me in being able to take my girlfriend out to lunch).
Tangible stuff is an issue when my budget is essentially $0. A book has been tempting, as I've essentially written one as part of the design process (and not to toot my own horn too much, but I'm a pretty good writer)--but having no budget for printing, etc. is suck-worthy.
I'm still thinking Steam to be the happy medium. Only the dedicated few bother to crack Steam games. And besides, I'm aiming for a price point of $15...that seems about where Steam games tend to move copies.
Package a game with some tangible thing -- that increases both my costs and the cost of the game, and in theory drives more people to piracy. Plus, there's pretty few ways, if any, for an independent developer to actually provide anything in that tangible form that anybody would actually want.
Support -- dunno about you, man, but I'd hope that a game doesn't need support. If it does, I didn't do my job as a developer and a designer.
Online services -- this is possible/plausible, especially if I do add the possibility of a multiplayer component (the problem being that everything's balanced for single-player, and multiplayer involves ongoing costs).
Steam is looking more and more tempting, really. Or try to get a WiiWare kit (the game has HTPC and standard-TV resolution modes already, wouldn't be too hard!) and go that route.
I have zero interest in making life more difficult for those who purchase the game. But, at the same time, I just expect a modicum of fairness afforded to me as the creator ('specially as I've got a couple artists and a fellow musician to pay...).
This topic always pisses me off, and I needed a laugh. Thanks. :-)
I appreciate your candor, but at the same time it's still entirely unacceptable. Why should I--why should anyone, for that matter--release something that you'll pay for "if you feel like it"? Frankly, I question whether you buy "many" of those games at all. If you do, you're in the vast majority.
I have no interest in having my work valued at zero unless you "feel like it." I can just as easily not release it. I create for me, but if you're going to receive utility from it, I expect to be compensated. I mean, I'm not making this game to make millions, but I expect to be treated fairly by those who consume what I create. I've already done the interesting stuff. I can just as easily throw the code and assets in a safe-deposit box for all I care (and I mean that quite seriously). And while some people find it odd that I'd expect payment for something I could put away without blinking, I think it's consistent: compensate the creator for the utility you derive from the creation.
I'd rather see people enjoy it, of course. But I expect to be treated fairly, as a matter of principle. If not--oh well. Maybe I'll show it to people I like, who I think will like it. Or maybe I'll just take the J.D. Salinger approach. Doesn't really bother me either way.
So back to the original question: how do we ensure fairness for both parties? Steam is a possibility, with the average-user difficulty of breaking Steam's authentication (it's doable, but a hassle, and it's much, much easier to play by Steam's rules). Possibly the only really viable one right now.
That's not a simple question at all.
Of course I want it to be that easy. But making that easy vastly increases the likelihood of small-scale copies (letting a friend borrow the disc, etc.), which for an independent game is considerably more problematic than TPB.
Your approach is "give it to us or we'll steal it." You know what my reply to that is? "Fuck you, I won't release it at all."
Creators deserve to make money, too. I want a solution where everyone benefits.
I'm working on a title that has no multiplayer component because it makes no sense for the game. How do you propose to address this issue for single-player games? I'm open to reasonable solutions--I do not expect piracy to stop because of any methods I can do, I'm just attempting to dissuade the casual copying; the "test-drive" argument doesn't hold much water because the first twenty percent of the game, about ten hours or so, will be freely available as a demo.
Suggestions?
Please come back when you move out of your parents' basement and weigh less than a quarter ton.
I bought it specifically for school. That it has grown into the role of supporting other stuff is a bonus, and paying more for it let me leverage it for that. I wasn't using 3DS Max or Poser or any of that when I bought the machine, but having the extra juice has helped.
I have no interest in keeping two computers around. Simple as that. My priorities involve not owning two machines just for everyday life. So, no, I would not have saved $200, I would have had something that wasn't what I wanted. And I really have no problem with spending more for what I want.
HTML is a markup language. It was NEVER designed to give a pixel-picture representation of content. EVER. That would break mobile browsing, not to mention different resolutions, and everything else.
What you're looking for is called PDF, and it works great. That makes the guarantees you want - every pixel is in its proper place.
Too many designers, used to working in pamphlets where they had complete control, moved to web design. They just aren't the same!!
You are mistaking original intent and design for what the fuck it's used for today.
It is not standards-writers who make decisions. It is the people paying to have those standards put into practice.
Clients want pixel-perfect? Shut the fuck up and give them pixel-perfect.
And you are not one of the thousands upon thousands of people who want an attractive website and thus will pay for it, so why the fuck should we listen to you?
When the people who pay the money want shitty boring crap like that, then I'll make shitty boring crap like that. They don't, so I won't.
I didn't mean to suggest box model problems, sorry. What I was referring to is that Gecko and WebKit can have slightly different sizes because of font differences, though, especially if you're using em-sizing. It's really annoying, because it depends on the sometimes-different ways that various browsers treat CSS inheritance (like I said upthread, one time Firefox showed a chunk of text in 10pt font, while Safari showed it in 14pt bold). This difference in inheritance can throw off sizing based on em units.
Because it looks like ass if it isn't done right. I don't want my "create new account" link wrapping to a second line. It looks retarded. As such, I specify a size that will work appropriately relative to the width of the login box. Gecko will do it right, Safari will not (or vice versa, in just as many cases).
You are a computer geek and clearly are not the target audience. Being formally correct means nothing. Looking correct is all that matters to the people who actually use the sites I am paid to build.
More missing-the-fucking-point...
Different rendering of fonts (due to the anti-aliasing) method used, does not mean in the least that PAGES render differently. It's the layout that counts, not sub-pixel differences in antialiasing. This kind of font rendering differences is entirely outside the W3C specs.
Sigh. How about differences in how they handle CSS inheritance? I had a page once that had normal 10-pt text in Gecko and 14-pt bold text in Safari. Wasn't my code, but it was a bitch and a half to fix and never should have happened in the first place.
Android looks interesting, but it loses one very big thing.
It hasn't got the market share. It isn't profitable to write code for it.