US: “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Starts Monday

[Hellraiser]

I'm not arguing with you that they could keep the profits, like I said they couldn't. The mismanagement was present in the aspect that Kodak ignored that digital cameras will kill off its profits and didn't prepare. The top level management expected that the core business will be a goldmine with those markups forever or at least for the next twenty years, that it wasn't a problem they had to deal with now, despite the fact that the technology which made all that high markup business obsolete was developed and pushed for by even Kodak itself, ironically enough. They failed to realize that which is why there now where they are under bankruptcy protection (or just coming out of it). If they scaled back costs in time this wouldn't happen, sure hindsight is always 20-20 but it is not like digital cameras which killed the core business suddenly materialized in stores out of thin air.

One of the basic things you learn about managing a business nowadays are Porter's five forces, among them is the threat of substitution which itself is a very old concept predating what porter created. The threat was in before their eyes and the managers ignored it thus failing business administration 101. Sorry but this is textbook mismanagement. If a meteorite fell on Rochester and they had no insurance from meteorite impact I would say they can't be blamed, but the problems are the results of managements stemming from the inability to notice certain things. Likewise the killer margins of overpriced CDs won't keep the RIAA labels afloat anymore but piracy is a convenient scapegoat they can use to justify lowering profits to stockholders. Frankly they would be foolish not to as otherwise the stock owners would kick them out so they're covering their asses.

Leaving that issue aside and back to piracy and gaming like I said the economics of the situation are such that piracy itself isn't a huge factor, as like I mentioned you wouldn't get every pirate to buy your game for full price. However considering that the margins off high-budget titles got lower its impact becomes more noticeable especially during the current era of cutthroat competition.

Nevertheless it merely sped up things which would already happen. DLC, "F2P" (pay to win), MMO and other money schemes would still be invented because the publishers would have to get money to cover those large AAA (ignoring the facts its a bullshit marketing buzzword that doesn't have any meaning by itself) costs from somewhere. Publishers would still bail from the PC market as consoles are an easier market, the userbase is bigger because they are more accessible. Like I said before as much as piracy is hurting them it is not the primary factor why the industry is in deep shit. The boom years are over, margins are low, costs and risks are high and competitors are many. Its a battle royal free for all and there will be blood. THQ already bit it and more will follow unless the suicidal AAA race comes to an end. If you ask me publishers aren't helping themselves when they dump money into restrictive and controversial measures like U-Play or Origin that don't really combat piracy. For one they're assuming the masses of consumers will be misinformed as always but even the dumbfucks know how to whine in comment sections and on twatter/derpbook nowadays. A waste of money and of reputation among consumers.

 

[Moribund]

They didn't give a shit if they went out bankrupt. They milked all the money they could out of polaroids, which was the most profit they could hope to make. Cutting a bunch of employees would have made that impossible. And making money off cameras and film or lense is not something that can happen either.

Telling them "just adjust" means to simply go out of business. They can get whatever laws they want put in place with enough time, so how does that make any sense for them? They don't need to stop everyone, just people who can pay.

You act like this is something just coming to gaming but PC gaming is long dead. All this new nonsense is completely separate from any factors that did in PC gaming. Which I don't think is all piracy but it definitely didn't help any. Of course not all pirates would pay, the higher the price on something the fewer people will, but obviously what we have now is basically 10% of the people who used to pay will pay, or less. Just look at the MMO shit and how many people pay...if so many morons will pay for that stupid shit we know they'd play for a proper RPG.

 

[chestburster]

You can make up masturbatory fantasies all you like but piracy has had a big negative impact on PC gaming. And they did "get with the times" they made things into horrendous MMOs and made tons of DLC nonsense, and by and large switched to consoles. And those measures worked, especially the MMO and DLC shit.

This.

You need to look no further than the Chinese game market, where there are no consoles (illegally imported consoles do not count since publishers make no money off them), only PC.

Back in the 90s before the dawn of bittorrent, when piracy was not so rampant, there used to be a single-player market. You could usually expect some RPG and RTS each year.

And now almost the games in China are shitty MMOs or microtransaction P2Ws. In terms of single-player, the only survivors are the one most blockbuster RPG franchise ("The Legend of Sword and Fairy/Chinese Paladin") and occasionally some indie shit.

Piracy killed the single-player PC market of China.

 

[Telengard]

A company that complains a lot about piracy: EA. 25 years ago, EA was hopping up and down, over the moon to have sales of 100,000. Now, DS3 needs 5,000,000 just to keep going, and 10,000,000 to make them excited. So, EA needs a 100 fold increase in sales in less than 30 years, but it's only got half of that. And to them, a 50 fold increase in sales is a hugly troublesome development.

Piracy may be an issue, but there's something else majorly going wrong in there.

 

[DalekFlay]

You can make up masturbatory fantasies all you like but piracy has had a big negative impact on PC gaming. And they did "get with the times" they made things into horrendous MMOs and made tons of DLC nonsense, and by and large switched to consoles. And those measures worked, especially the MMO and DLC shit.

This.

Indeed.

I am the first to say "NEW BUSINESS MODELS IDIOTS" when it comes to movie and TV piracy. Unfortunately with games those new business models are exactly what we're seeing and what most of us bitch about, always online, microtransactions, social, etc.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

A company that complains a lot about piracy: EA. 25 years ago, EA was hopping up and down, over the moon to have sales of 100,000. Now, DS3 needs 5,000,000 just to keep going, and 10,000,000 to make them excited. So, EA needs a 100 fold increase in sales in less than 30 years, but it's only got half of that. And to them, a 50 fold increase in sales is a hugly troublesome development.

Piracy may be an issue, but there's something else majorly going wrong in there.

Seriously. PC gaming market (not consoles!) has shown strong record sales in 2011. So clearly, piracy is killing the industry.

If the shift to different business models (F2P, MMOs) increases profits massively over pre-piracy levels, then clearly it was done only b/c of piracy.

I think its plausible (but not proven) that sales would be even higher if there were no piracy, but the factors that have led to the growth of piracy--ease of digital distribution and widespread use of computers--have also led to the booming growth of revenue.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

the lengths pirates will go to to rationalize their degeneracy

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

You can make up masturbatory fantasies all you like but piracy has had a big negative impact on PC gaming. And they did "get with the times" they made things into horrendous MMOs and made tons of DLC nonsense, and by and large switched to consoles. And those measures worked, especially the MMO and DLC shit.

This.

Indeed.

I am the first to say "NEW BUSINESS MODELS IDIOTS" when it comes to movie and TV piracy. Unfortunately with games those new business models are exactly what we're seeing and what most of us bitch about, always online, microtransactions, social, etc.

I don't think its piracy alone that drives these shitty new business models. Always on DRM is clearly piracy driven, but that's not a business model (it is shitty however).

Everything else has an independent business motive that provides an increase in revenue independent of piracy concerns. Social is just a general, shitty trend followed by all businesses everywhere. MMO/F2P games would have happened even without piracy, as both are geared towards turning customers into continuing sources of revenue rather than one and done purchasers. WoW is insanely profitable b/c its a wildly popular subscription service, not b/c its an effective piracy deterrent. And F2P is primarily a way to suck people into an MMO that's not WoW. Microtransactions are used primarily in shitty, manipulative skinnerbox game design b/c their low price point facilitates impulse buys at those skinnerboxy moments. Farmville had no piracy concerns, but used microtransactions for this reason. But no one would pay for Farmville as a standalone game, even in a world without piracy.

DLC is actually something that tends to demonstrate the irrelevance of piracy. In addition to generating multiple purchases, it's beloved by publishers as a way to shut down the used game market (which is not piracy). The fact that publishers are eager to use something purely digital to do so shows that they are far more concerned about used games than piracy.

In other words, with the exception of DRM, all of these shitty business models would have developed anyway because they are either more profitable than they would be as standalone, single-player games or because the games themselves wouldn't warrant purchase as a standalone, single-player game.

 

[DalekFlay]

In other words, with the exception of DRM, all of these shitty business models would have developed anyway because they are either more profitable than they would be as standalone, single-player games or because the games themselves wouldn't warrant purchase as a standalone, single-player game.

Perhaps, but I would say piracy/used sales/retailer cuts and other such things are definitely motivators as well.

The core statement however is the same: a lot of people rant about how publishers should stop bitching and adapt to the market. Well, they are adapting to the market... to piracy, digital distribution, phones, tablets, WoW's success, Farmville's success, whatever else... They are adapting, and none of that adapting leads them back to core cRPGs in any way.

Digital delivery and kickstarter DO lead smaller teams without a big publisher behind them to core cRPGs though, as seen with Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, etc., so it's not all bad.

I would guess the future for gamers like you and I is a lot of the latter and a tiny bit of the former with a lot of retro-gaming in-between.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Of course not all pirates would pay, the higher the price on something the fewer people will, but obviously what we have now is basically 10% of the people who used to pay will pay, or less.

10%? Jesus Christ, kill this world with fire.

You can make up masturbatory fantasies all you like but piracy has had a big negative impact on PC gaming. And they did "get with the times" they made things into horrendous MMOs and made tons of DLC nonsense, and by and large switched to consoles. And those measures worked, especially the MMO and DLC shit.

IIRC the whole DLC shit has nothing to do with piracy but with psychology - with the discovery that people are much willing to part with small sums of money even if the bang for the buck is much smaller than in case of full expansions. So, it's very profitable to shit out tons of DLC because more people will buy them because it's "just 3 bucks" and stuff.

Just look at the MMO shit and how many people pay...if so many morons will pay for that stupid shit we know they'd play for a proper RPG.

The difference is that playing MMOs is a social activity and that people may feel pressure to pay for stupid shit just to not get marginalized in a group.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

In other words, with the exception of DRM, all of these shitty business models would have developed anyway because they are either more profitable than they would be as standalone, single-player games or because the games themselves wouldn't warrant purchase as a standalone, single-player game.

Perhaps, but I would say piracy/used sales/retailer cuts and other such things are definitely motivators as well.

The core statement however is the same: a lot of people rant about how publishers should stop bitching and adapt to the market. Well, they are adapting to the market... to piracy, digital distribution, phones, tablets, WoW's success, Farmville's success, whatever else... They are adapting, and none of that adapting leads them back to core cRPGs in any way.

That's true, adaption to the market is not necessarily going to give us what we want. Although to clarify, I was addressing adapting to the market in the piracy context (as in piracy is the reason devs and publishers are pursuing business models that lead to shitty games).

Plus, I personally don't like the adapt to the market argument that much. My view isn't that adaption to the market is the solution so much as that, in any market, the effect of piracy on sales is overrated. Purely anecdotal, but the vast majority of pirating from people I know is stuff they wouldn't have paid for (or couldn't have paid for) in the first place. I've seen research both supporting and contradicting this though, so maybe anecdotal evidence is as good as anything. Which is not to say that it doesn't affect sales, just that any potential effect on sales has to be (1) proven and (2) balanced against the benefits that the circumstances giving rise to piracy provide (reduction in distribution costs, etc.) before we start saying that piracy is killing the industry.

Digital delivery and kickstarter DO lead smaller teams without a big publisher behind them to core cRPGs though, as seen with Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, etc., so it's not all bad.

I would guess the future for gamers like you and I is a lot of the latter and a tiny bit of the former with a lot of retro-gaming in-between.

Agreed. Although if the Kickstarter craze leads to half of what I'm hoping for, it'll trounce what we've seen in the last 5-10 years. I look at the great old games, and many of them were created by small teams without hope of anything near the amount of sales expected by your average AAA studio.

 

[Misconnected]

Saying piracy killed any kind of personal software on the PC is implying reverse causality. Historically piracy has been the primary and often the only available distribution method on PC.

It's why things like Steam works, while things like DRM not only doesn't work but may actually exacerbate piracy. The distribution method needs to be superior to whatever the potential customers have created by themselves. So much more so that people are willing to abandon the cheap distribution method they're used to, in favour of a more expensive one they're not familiar with.

Saying that, for example, piracy killed the SP gaming market in China, is ass-backwards. Because it ignores the actual situation that no such market was ever established. Demand for the products caused improvised distribution that traditional distribution methods couldn't compete with when they finally were available - assuming they can even be said to be available at this point. And that's exactly what's happened everywhere else on this planet.

 

[Commander Xbox]

Saying piracy killed any kind of personal software on the PC is implying reverse causality. Historically piracy has been the primary and often the only available distribution method on PC.

It's why things like Steam works, while things like DRM not only doesn't work but may actually exacerbate piracy. The distribution method needs to be superior to whatever the potential customers have created by themselves. So much more so that people are willing to abandon the cheap distribution method they're used to, in favour of a more expensive one they're not familiar with.

Saying that, for example, piracy killed the SP gaming market in China, is ass-backwards. Because it ignores the actual situation that no such market was ever established. Demand for the products caused improvised distribution that traditional distribution methods couldn't compete with when they finally were available - assuming they can even be said to be available at this point. And that's exactly what's happened everywhere else on this planet.

jesus, check this retard out

they printed more than enough discs for people to buy before steam and bitorrent hit bro. console users still manage to go out and buy 20 million discs of cawadoody each year too

the rationialisation in this thread is crazy

 

[chestburster]

Saying that, for example, piracy killed the SP gaming market in China, is ass-backwards. Because it ignores the actual situation that no such market was ever established..

If by "established," you mean "mega-billion-industry established," then yes, China never established such a market.

However, if you mean "a viable market to support a few studios that produced several decent RPG and RTS a year," and take into account of China's underdeveloped economy in the 90s, then China DID have an established SP market back then. --Saying otherwise implies that you don't know much about China.

Would MMO/F2P/DLC develop in the absence of piracy? Perhaps. Would they advance decline at such an astonishing rate? I doubt it.

Capitalism greed is raping SP games, and piracy is the one that waxes the pole for the rapist.

 

[Misconnected]

the rationialisation in this thread is crazy

Yes, I did just apply logic & reason. But I don't suppose that's what you meant.

Do you acknowledge that legitimate and illegitimate products largely rely on discrete distribution methods?

Do you acknowledge that illegitimate products largely use improvised distribution methods?

Do you acknowledge that historically & in a great many places currently, improvised distribution methods combined have or do reach the vast majority of PC users?

Do you acknowledge that historically & in a great many places presently, legitimate distribution methods combined do have or do not reach the vast majority of PC users?

Do you acknowledge that historically & in a great many places presently, to a majority of PC users legitimate distribution methods combined are not as attractive as improvised distribution methods combined?

...

Just for reference, I don't pirate anything. I haven't for the last several years. But I used to pirate pretty much everything, because it was the only reasonably simple and immediate way to obtain anything. I stopped pirating not so much because I suddenly developed a conscience or anything along those lines. I stopped because I started living in a place where shops actually sold games, and because legitimate vendors started selling their shit online (which, you should really-really keep in mind isn't much of an option for people without a decent internet connection).

Accessibility and ease of use makes all the difference when it comes to piracy. It is, as already mentioned, why things like Steam works, while things like DRM at best makes no difference.

 

[chestburster]

Yes, I did just apply logic & reason. But I don't suppose that's what you meant.

Do you acknowledge that legitimate and illegitimate products largely rely on discrete distribution methods?

Do you acknowledge that illegitimate products largely use improvised distribution methods?

Do you acknowledge that historically & in a great many places currently, improvised distribution methods combined have or do reach the vast majority of PC users?

Do you acknowledge that historically & in a great many places presently, legitimate distribution methods combined do have or do not reach the vast majority of PC users?

Do you acknowledge that historically & in a great many places presently, to a majority of PC users legitimate distribution methods combined are not as attractive as improvised distribution methods combined?

But even if publishers legitimately put their games (DRM-free) on The Bay, side by side with the Reloaded version, would you agree that both legitimate and illegitimate copies are using the same distribution methods, and thus neither have an advantage in terms of distribution "accessibility and ease of use"?

However, even in the above scenario, an average consumer will still prefer the Reloaded version, because the legitimate version always carries a price premium.

Why such a price premium? Because the makers of the game need to be paid while Reloaded can distribute it for free, essentially free-riding on the game makers' work.

The cheap price of the Reloaded version is what drives piracy, in addition to "accessibility and ease of use."

 

[Cassidy]

the lengths pirates will go to to rationalize their degeneracy

But the lengths unpaid shills go to make the points mass media conglomerates and the usual suspects want them to make are more amusing.

 

[AngryEddy]

Saying piracy killed any kind of personal software on the PC is implying reverse causality. Historically piracy has been the primary and often the only available distribution method on PC.

It's why things like Steam works, while things like DRM not only doesn't work but may actually exacerbate piracy. The distribution method needs to be superior to whatever the potential customers have created by themselves. So much more so that people are willing to abandon the cheap distribution method they're used to, in favour of a more expensive one they're not familiar with.

Saying that, for example, piracy killed the SP gaming market in China, is ass-backwards. Because it ignores the actual situation that no such market was ever established. Demand for the products caused improvised distribution that traditional distribution methods couldn't compete with when they finally were available - assuming they can even be said to be available at this point. And that's exactly what's happened everywhere else on this planet.

jesus, check this retard out

they printed more than enough discs for people to buy before steam and bitorrent hit bro. console users still manage to go out and buy 20 million discs of cawadoody each year too

the rationialisation in this thread is crazy

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4035390/game-of-thrones-director-piracy

'Game of Thrones' director David Petrarca shrugs off piracy, says it doesn't hurt the show

3.9 million pirates, and yet it's still the most successful television show in recent history, and the director doesn't give a damn. Quit being a condescending shitbag, piracy leads to exponentially increased sales EVERY TIME AS LONG AS YOUR PRODUCT IS GOOD, if people steal your game, and they hate it, they wont buy it. Without piracy, GoT would be nowhere near as big as it is now.


Oh, and just in case you're wondering:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/06/04/game-of-thrones-finale-ratings-2/

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/s151/g...91/game-of-thrones-breaks-hbo-dvd-record.html

Nearly 4 million pirates, and yet it still breaks sales/ratings records. Suck on that.


Oh and before you worm your way out of this hole you dug, here's some more opinions about piracy from people who's very livelyhood is dependent on selling video games instead of television shows:

http://www.gamefront.com/gabe-newell-piracy-is-a-non-issue/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem

The proof is in the proverbial pudding. "Prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become [Steam's] largest market in Europe," Newell said.

“The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.”

 

[DalekFlay]

piracy leads to exponentially increased sales EVERY TIME AS LONG AS YOUR PRODUCT IS GOOD,

Making good media is too much pressure for most publishers.

 

[Hamziz]

piracy leads to exponentially increased sales EVERY TIME AS LONG AS YOUR PRODUCT IS GOOD,

Making good media is too much pressure for most publishers.

Why this is so hard to understand for some people I'll never know. Look at the recent talk about game demos decreasing sales that some 'serious' game industry analyst gave with a straight face, completely seriously, without ever ONCE MENTIONING that maybe, just maybe, the answer was to not make shit games.

Hell, look at the cable companies here in Amurica for the easiest to understand example - they've gone to extravagant lengths to set up regional monopolies, engage in price fixing, even pouring money into political lobbying to make it illegal for municipalities to create their own fucking broadband services that don't suck and financially rape the customer.

Because, and understand this applies to almost all industries, and all companies - they HATE competition, and HATE having to provide a better service, or a better price, because it's fucking HARD, even harder than the above anti-consumer measures, because it would require creativity and risk of failure, and everyone likes their lives to be easy. It couldn't be fucking simpler.

 

[Moribund]

So solution is to make everything a blockbuster?

Even before piracy went mental games like torment didn't sell all that many copies. What game was a blockbuster and also a classic? Fallout and ultima? But then there's all these other games, which really are better games in many cases. Wizardry, Gold Box, Realms of arcania, arcanum. Don't they deserve to be made, too?

 

[DalekFlay]

Even before piracy went mental games like torment didn't sell all that many copies. What game was a blockbuster and also a classic? Fallout and ultima? But then there's all these other games, which really are better games in many cases. Wizardry, Gold Box, Realms of arcania, arcanum. Don't they deserve to be made, too?

It's about proper budgeting and expectation. Obsidian made 4 million of Project Eternity pre-orders and will make a lot more if the game is good. They found a market, targeted it, and budgeted accordingly. They will make money but aren't going to be buying corporate jets.

What publishers want to do is spend as little as possible to create something that makes as much money as possible. This is a different kind of goal. It relies on a magic combination of mainstream pandering, lack of offense or complication and shrewd marketing to make everyone feel like they need it, even if it is not their thing at all. This requires a kind of smoke screen that piracy and demos shine right through.

 

[Hamziz]

So solution is to make everything a blockbuster?

Even before piracy went mental games like torment didn't sell all that many copies. What game was a blockbuster and also a classic? Fallout and ultima? But then there's all these other games, which really are better games in many cases. Wizardry, Gold Box, Realms of arcania, arcanum. Don't they deserve to be made, too?

If their publishers are fucking marketing morons and put a picture of a guy in mud facepaint on the cover, giving zero indication for what experience to expect from the product inside, then no, they don't deserve sales. Marketing is more than getting the most amount of people to buy your stuff - it's about conveying the essence of your product to the audience, then convincing them why they want it. If it's a good product, it's the first part that is challenging. If it's not good, then it's the second part.

Look at the marketing blitzes for AAA releases from the last decade or so and tell me which ones were dazzling you with brilliance and which were baffling you with bullshit the new shit.

 

[Moribund]

But game of thrones isn't that good, it's only popular because it panders to every kind of retard. Biggest fans on this board: Andhaira and Hiver.

That's also why PE got 4 million dollars. Biggest (almost only) fans: Roguey and Infinitron.

That kind of thinking is why we have the decline in the first place, why it was here even before piracy killed the last gasp of PC gaming.

 

[Hamziz]

But game of thrones isn't that good, it's only popular because it panders to every kind of retard. Biggest fans on this board: Andhaira and Hiver.

That's also why PE got 4 million dollars. Biggest (almost only) fans: Roguey and Infinitron.

That kind of thinking is why we have the decline in the first place, why it was here even before piracy killed the last gasp of PC gaming.

Whether or not you personally like it is inconsequential in this conversation. You can't nullify the example because you think it sucks - millions of people demonstrably like it, and millions of people pirate it, without killing it's economic success.

The argument you're dancing around is VALUE. If a product is a good value, ie, priced at what most people are willing to pay, they will buy it. If it isn't priced at that level, they will pirate or ignore it. Of course, value also takes into consideration things like ease of use, reliability and permanence of ownership, which is why heavily DRM'ed products also tend to see the most piracy; because the "good" version is the one that doesn't require always-on connections, activations, etc. These people aren't stealing, they're trying to get the deluxe version.

Regarding the pricing valuation, one of the reasons Crysis was so heavily pirated was because for millions of people it's primary value was as a benchmarking tool, and no one in their right mind pays $60 for one of those. What Crytek thought they were selling was NOT what people who pirated were trying to get. This isn't rocket science.