Prime-Mover

1) Your claim is that the higher the price (while the risk of getting caught is the same/negligent), will actually discourage people from pirating it? First of all, that just seems like a wrong intepretation of human nature, as willingness to break the law seems to follow a direct payoff vs. risk calculation. Second, it's hardly clear from looking at torrent sites where extremely expensive software suites (gfx and 3d) are getting pirated at the same or higher rate as music. The reason why there is a reluctance to steal expensive things as you note, is that there is usually a higher price to pay if caught, not that it's morally worse. But a casual pirate, has close to 0% chance of getting caught. Further, there is the whole question of whether pirating digital media is even considere immoral on the same scale as stealing physical stuff among the general public, which again people's actual behaviour seems to disprove. So the pricing of music vs. games is not an issue, or at least, it does not support the idea that people wouldn't steal games - quite the opposite. Further, the existance of something like spotify does not support your view, indeed it is a further reason to suspect that people would much rather pirate games, than music, because of accessibility vs. price. Lastly, you may have a point regarding archivements. They may be important to some, and I don't know if there is a equivalent thing with regards to music ownership. But that's really the only point I can give you here, and it does not make music and software incomparable, or even support the notion that people are somehow less prone to pirating games. It's one minute difference between music and software piracy. 2) Well I can always simply state various views on human nature. But I assume that unless I refer to credible economic, sociological or psychological evidence and/or reasons, it's really still from my own perspective. But if that's what your looking for, let me drop the modesty for a second, because I have actually made inferences about other people than myself (e.g. about how many malcontents there are). However, with regards to my argument, I only needed to make the case that my kind would constitute a problem in terms of piracy. And I do extrapolate from my own personality and experiences to a lot of people, which is the relevant aspect here. And I fail to see what your doing as being any different. 3) Evidence that most games with DRM are cracked and available on torrent sites already on day one. Because we clearly have difference experiences here. And any evidence that one of us could put forth, would constitute a tie-breaker in this discussion. I don't have it, and I don't have the energy to do a quick google-search on the topic. 4) I don't follow your point of view here, but that's ok. It was just a matter of understanding your oppinion, not something crucial to the whole argument of whether releasing the game earlier would be a good idea or not with regards to the notion of respecting the backer.

A pirated version probably wouldn't hurt day 1 sales at all. Of course that is debatable but there are arguments for both sides and imho the net value of an early release for backers would still be positive. I'd like to hear those arguments then. If something is available for free significantly prior to release, what's going to stop many people from d/l'ing it instead of getting a copy for themselves? The urge is going to be too great for many people (look at the forums, PoE is like cocaine!). And once they have a full retail copy, why would they then go on to splurge more dough on the steam-store or GOG? Clearly many people will resort to piracy no matter what, but that number is obviously going to be bigger if there is a DRM free copy around prior to release date. (edit: this is all coming from a known pirate... for arguments sake *wink*) This is an empirical question of course, but I assume that you and that australian guy, would both consider the perceived threat of piracy as an exculpating circumstance here, right? Well, the answer is both simple and complex: there are multiple reasons why people pirate or buy a game. That's why the whole thing is debatable, especially the net amount. As you've said yourself, there is a big part who just buy their games no matter what. So an early pirate version wouldn't interest them since they don't search for it. Then there are people who indeed buy games if they like what they see in a pirated version. And then there are people who would pirate the game anyway, no matter if two weeks earlier or at release day. You can also see it a bit more simplistic by separating gamers interested in Pillars in two groups: those with money to spare and no problem to do so and those without. The former group already backed the game or just buy it. The latter group will pirate it anyway or maybe, eventually they'll buy it. But there is imho little reason to believe that they buy it just because there is NO early version availabe as torrent if they can have a "free" version at release day anyway. As long as you can't have a paid version before the pirated version is available (what strict DRM is actually trying to do!) there is no reason for an avid pirate to buy the game anyway. And then let's talk about the positive effects about giving out copies earlier to backer. First, backers are happy and feel good. That probably leads to even more excitement and to a huge word of mouth effect on social platforms and in real life, just like what they intend to do with Youtubers and Streamers on a much bigger scale. You create buzz and hype by that and it costs you nothing. So in the end you have questionable negative effects of pirating (which could be as well be positive if more people - who have money and no problem to spend it - try out the game and then decide to buy it at rellease for full price) vs very likely positive effects of word of mouth and player exitement. Not even speaking about long time effects like an even more loyal and grateful fanbase. Many developers underestimate the value of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase and so they don't do enough to keep them happy and indeed, "feeling special". Aks Larian or many other indie devs, they can tell you a lot about the value of community management... A early release leak is a terrible thing, as many recording artists have experienced in the past, which has forced them to release special editions of their albums to actually get people to pay for it. And many many people (including myself, had I not backed it) would be willing to pirate it, just to get it a few days earlier. I mean, that's the crux of your point of view here, right? That getting it earlier actually has some huge value? Otherwise I don't see the point, I mean, if it's not big deal whether you get it now or earlier. And there would be absoluterly no instrumental reason for buying a genuine copy at a later point for us pirates, because the GOG-version is the full copy, and not just some weak "cracked" version. The only reason would be to "donate" money to Obsidian, but I imagine that those of us who share that sentiment, already backed them two years ago. So I simply disagree with you whether it is a significant issue. But I guess that's not important here. THe important thing is whether Obsidian considers it a big issue, and if they do, this should be a mitigating or exculpating circumstance with regards to the complaint about lack of respect. And though I agree that keeping the fans happy is a extremely important, I just don't see more than you two really being concerned with it. If it could be documented that the fanbase was extremely put off by this decision (I really doubt it), then I could see how it would affect the cost-benefit ratio. But of course, you may be right about the business sense of releasing early to backers, but that's is not what you or the other guy are complaining about, is it. You are - if I read you correctly - complaining about the lack of respect, despite whether it makes good business sense. Music is a completely different playing field, mate. Hard or even impossible to compare with video games, really. One mistake of your argumentation is that you think other people act in the same way you do. And some people probably do so. But not all of them. Some might even act in a complete opposite way. Basing a line of argumentation simply on the own behaviour or experience isn't a really strong one... And since when is a "cracked" version not a full version? I have played a lot of cracked games a few years ago and none of them was any different from the normal version (except multiplayer which isn't existing here)... And no, we are very well concerned whether it makes good business sense or not. We just seem to evaluate the whole thing differently with obviously different expected results. Releasing earlier to the backers and making good business sense is pretty much alinged for us. 1) You need an argument to support your claim that Music sales are relevantly different from software sales here. They are both data, they are both DRM-free and fairly comparable in terms of ease of distribution. 2) As far as I can tell, everyone in this debate are basing their argumentation on extrapolation from their own perspective. So that's hardly a relevant complaint, or a relative weakness in my argument. Clearly it would be preferable to have empirical evidence to support any claim, and the minute you dig something up, I'll have a look. Untill then, this discussion is going to be based largely on hunches and intuition. From both sides mind you. 3) In my own experience (do you have access to something else?) when reading the discussion of the most popular torrent site (you know which one), there are often issues involved. Some of these have to do with patching problems, and some have to do with the cracked version not being tested adequately/at all. So you often wait for a later release by one of the major groups on the scene. 4) Is it about respect, or business sense? Are you PO'ed at Obsidian because you think they disrespect the backers, or are you PO'ed at them for being bad at business? 1) Different price level, different price structure, different distribution, different consumation, different product. Apples and oranges very much. 2) Yes and no. Of course we don't have solid numbers but we have something called psychology and human behaviour. You can make quite solid statements about human behaviour without being forced to base that on personal experience. 3) A release from a "major group" is there on release day for a regular Steam game usually. The games you talk about are games with a different DRM structure or even always-online DRM games. These are indeed hard to "crack". 4) It's about both. As I've said it would have been a win-win situation for everyone, the backers and Obsidian. On top of that I'm quite disappointed about Obsidian's whole stance on kickstarter and how they handled the whole campaign and the backer communication/involvement since the early days. That goes beyond this particular question of giving the backers an early copy or not. 1) Different price levels (games being generally more expensive) would make it more tantalizing to pirate a game vs. music. It doesn't make the two incomparable. Regarding distribution, most music is distributed digitally today, so that's the same. Different consumation? I mean, sure, one is consumed as audio, and the other as a game, but that hardly makes them incomparable in regards to piracy. So no, certainly not apples and oranges. Rather Cox Orange and Golden Delicious. 2) Alright, point me to those solide inferences about human behaviour which I apparently seem to miss in my own argument. Else this objection is going to seem very weak. 3) Maybe I've just been unlucky, or maybe you have a very selective view regarding the standard wait for the major releases. Evidence would be nice (though so far none of us have anything 'cept personal experience). 4) Fair enough. I personally can't muster any resentment towards bad business decisions (and I disagree that there is one), so I don't see why you're mixing the two. But that's really a matter of oppinion at this point, and the relevant concern is whether it is widely shared. And as far as I can see, it is not.

A pirated version probably wouldn't hurt day 1 sales at all. Of course that is debatable but there are arguments for both sides and imho the net value of an early release for backers would still be positive. I'd like to hear those arguments then. If something is available for free significantly prior to release, what's going to stop many people from d/l'ing it instead of getting a copy for themselves? The urge is going to be too great for many people (look at the forums, PoE is like cocaine!). And once they have a full retail copy, why would they then go on to splurge more dough on the steam-store or GOG? Clearly many people will resort to piracy no matter what, but that number is obviously going to be bigger if there is a DRM free copy around prior to release date. (edit: this is all coming from a known pirate... for arguments sake *wink*) This is an empirical question of course, but I assume that you and that australian guy, would both consider the perceived threat of piracy as an exculpating circumstance here, right? Well, the answer is both simple and complex: there are multiple reasons why people pirate or buy a game. That's why the whole thing is debatable, especially the net amount. As you've said yourself, there is a big part who just buy their games no matter what. So an early pirate version wouldn't interest them since they don't search for it. Then there are people who indeed buy games if they like what they see in a pirated version. And then there are people who would pirate the game anyway, no matter if two weeks earlier or at release day. You can also see it a bit more simplistic by separating gamers interested in Pillars in two groups: those with money to spare and no problem to do so and those without. The former group already backed the game or just buy it. The latter group will pirate it anyway or maybe, eventually they'll buy it. But there is imho little reason to believe that they buy it just because there is NO early version availabe as torrent if they can have a "free" version at release day anyway. As long as you can't have a paid version before the pirated version is available (what strict DRM is actually trying to do!) there is no reason for an avid pirate to buy the game anyway. And then let's talk about the positive effects about giving out copies earlier to backer. First, backers are happy and feel good. That probably leads to even more excitement and to a huge word of mouth effect on social platforms and in real life, just like what they intend to do with Youtubers and Streamers on a much bigger scale. You create buzz and hype by that and it costs you nothing. So in the end you have questionable negative effects of pirating (which could be as well be positive if more people - who have money and no problem to spend it - try out the game and then decide to buy it at rellease for full price) vs very likely positive effects of word of mouth and player exitement. Not even speaking about long time effects like an even more loyal and grateful fanbase. Many developers underestimate the value of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase and so they don't do enough to keep them happy and indeed, "feeling special". Aks Larian or many other indie devs, they can tell you a lot about the value of community management... A early release leak is a terrible thing, as many recording artists have experienced in the past, which has forced them to release special editions of their albums to actually get people to pay for it. And many many people (including myself, had I not backed it) would be willing to pirate it, just to get it a few days earlier. I mean, that's the crux of your point of view here, right? That getting it earlier actually has some huge value? Otherwise I don't see the point, I mean, if it's not big deal whether you get it now or earlier. And there would be absoluterly no instrumental reason for buying a genuine copy at a later point for us pirates, because the GOG-version is the full copy, and not just some weak "cracked" version. The only reason would be to "donate" money to Obsidian, but I imagine that those of us who share that sentiment, already backed them two years ago. So I simply disagree with you whether it is a significant issue. But I guess that's not important here. THe important thing is whether Obsidian considers it a big issue, and if they do, this should be a mitigating or exculpating circumstance with regards to the complaint about lack of respect. And though I agree that keeping the fans happy is a extremely important, I just don't see more than you two really being concerned with it. If it could be documented that the fanbase was extremely put off by this decision (I really doubt it), then I could see how it would affect the cost-benefit ratio. But of course, you may be right about the business sense of releasing early to backers, but that's is not what you or the other guy are complaining about, is it. You are - if I read you correctly - complaining about the lack of respect, despite whether it makes good business sense. Music is a completely different playing field, mate. Hard or even impossible to compare with video games, really. One mistake of your argumentation is that you think other people act in the same way you do. And some people probably do so. But not all of them. Some might even act in a complete opposite way. Basing a line of argumentation simply on the own behaviour or experience isn't a really strong one... And since when is a "cracked" version not a full version? I have played a lot of cracked games a few years ago and none of them was any different from the normal version (except multiplayer which isn't existing here)... And no, we are very well concerned whether it makes good business sense or not. We just seem to evaluate the whole thing differently with obviously different expected results. Releasing earlier to the backers and making good business sense is pretty much alinged for us. 1) You need an argument to support your claim that Music sales are relevantly different from software sales here. They are both data, they are both DRM-free and fairly comparable in terms of ease of distribution. 2) As far as I can tell, everyone in this debate are basing their argumentation on extrapolation from their own perspective. So that's hardly a relevant complaint, or a relative weakness in my argument. Clearly it would be preferable to have empirical evidence to support any claim, and the minute you dig something up, I'll have a look. Untill then, this discussion is going to be based largely on hunches and intuition. From both sides mind you. 3) In my own experience (do you have access to something else?) when reading the discussion of the most popular torrent site (you know which one), there are often issues involved. Some of these have to do with patching problems, and some have to do with the cracked version not being tested adequately/at all. So you often wait for a later release by one of the major groups on the scene. 4) Is it about respect, or business sense? Are you PO'ed at Obsidian because you think they disrespect the backers, or are you PO'ed at them for being bad at business?

A pirated version probably wouldn't hurt day 1 sales at all. Of course that is debatable but there are arguments for both sides and imho the net value of an early release for backers would still be positive. I'd like to hear those arguments then. If something is available for free significantly prior to release, what's going to stop many people from d/l'ing it instead of getting a copy for themselves? The urge is going to be too great for many people (look at the forums, PoE is like cocaine!). And once they have a full retail copy, why would they then go on to splurge more dough on the steam-store or GOG? Clearly many people will resort to piracy no matter what, but that number is obviously going to be bigger if there is a DRM free copy around prior to release date. (edit: this is all coming from a known pirate... for arguments sake *wink*) This is an empirical question of course, but I assume that you and that australian guy, would both consider the perceived threat of piracy as an exculpating circumstance here, right? Well, the answer is both simple and complex: there are multiple reasons why people pirate or buy a game. That's why the whole thing is debatable, especially the net amount. As you've said yourself, there is a big part who just buy their games no matter what. So an early pirate version wouldn't interest them since they don't search for it. Then there are people who indeed buy games if they like what they see in a pirated version. And then there are people who would pirate the game anyway, no matter if two weeks earlier or at release day. You can also see it a bit more simplistic by separating gamers interested in Pillars in two groups: those with money to spare and no problem to do so and those without. The former group already backed the game or just buy it. The latter group will pirate it anyway or maybe, eventually they'll buy it. But there is imho little reason to believe that they buy it just because there is NO early version availabe as torrent if they can have a "free" version at release day anyway. As long as you can't have a paid version before the pirated version is available (what strict DRM is actually trying to do!) there is no reason for an avid pirate to buy the game anyway. And then let's talk about the positive effects about giving out copies earlier to backer. First, backers are happy and feel good. That probably leads to even more excitement and to a huge word of mouth effect on social platforms and in real life, just like what they intend to do with Youtubers and Streamers on a much bigger scale. You create buzz and hype by that and it costs you nothing. So in the end you have questionable negative effects of pirating (which could be as well be positive if more people - who have money and no problem to spend it - try out the game and then decide to buy it at rellease for full price) vs very likely positive effects of word of mouth and player exitement. Not even speaking about long time effects like an even more loyal and grateful fanbase. Many developers underestimate the value of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase and so they don't do enough to keep them happy and indeed, "feeling special". Aks Larian or many other indie devs, they can tell you a lot about the value of community management... A early release leak is a terrible thing, as many recording artists have experienced in the past, which has forced them to release special editions of their albums to actually get people to pay for it. And many many people (including myself, had I not backed it) would be willing to pirate it, just to get it a few days earlier. I mean, that's the crux of your point of view here, right? That getting it earlier actually has some huge value? Otherwise I don't see the point, I mean, if it's not big deal whether you get it now or earlier. And there would be absoluterly no instrumental reason for buying a genuine copy at a later point for us pirates, because the GOG-version is the full copy, and not just some weak "cracked" version. The only reason would be to "donate" money to Obsidian, but I imagine that those of us who share that sentiment, already backed them two years ago. So I simply disagree with you whether it is a significant issue. But I guess that's not important here. THe important thing is whether Obsidian considers it a big issue, and if they do, this should be a mitigating or exculpating circumstance with regards to the complaint about lack of respect. And though I agree that keeping the fans happy is a extremely important, I just don't see more than you two really being concerned with it. If it could be documented that the fanbase was extremely put off by this decision (I really doubt it), then I could see how it would affect the cost-benefit ratio. But of course, you may be right about the business sense of releasing early to backers, but that's is not what you or the other guy are complaining about, is it. You are - if I read you correctly - complaining about the lack of respect, despite whether it makes good business sense.

I am not necessarily saying the backers all playing this may not have been a good idea and generated some positive buzz a day or two before release. Just saying I am not terribly upset they did not. In my experience once a game has been out for a few days everybody generally only remembers the game and not so much how the release went, unless it was a particularly massive debacle. Depends on the game - I can tell you now Double Fine isn't in anyones trust books - regardless how great Broken Age part 2 is I don't see DF getting another successful Kickstarter - same with Peter Molyneux. Granted this isn't a deal breaker for many but it is for some and thats potential backers gone - So while they made the 4 million this time maybe next time its only 2.5 million still enough maybe - but its a difference. I must say I doubt that your complaint is worth 1.5 million. On the whole wide web, I have only come accross it on the obsidian forums, and only by a couple of - admidtedly - very loud malcontents. And DF and PM's credibility has not been affected by them releasing a copy to "the media" a few days prior to releasing it to backers. It's rather that they have underdelivered on the product itself. But in this case, everything points to this product being kick-*ss, and that's what people will remember, not whether (it feel so silly even writing this) the game was, uhm, released to the media prior to the backers by a few days. So unless they drop the ball somewhere near the finishing-line (they haven't, they really haven't), people's memory will be of yet another epic, and whether they feel like funding another chapter. By the end of this, more people (partially due to their media campaign) will have heard about Obsidian, and this type of game, and if anything, it will make it much easier to garner support in the future, even if you tell a couple of friends about Obsidian's extremely shady business practices of releasing the game to the media a couple of days prior to official release in an attempt to avoid piracy, and create hype.

A pirated version probably wouldn't hurt day 1 sales at all. Of course that is debatable but there are arguments for both sides and imho the net value of an early release for backers would still be positive. I'd like to hear those arguments then. If something is available for free significantly prior to release, what's going to stop many people from d/l'ing it instead of getting a copy for themselves? The urge is going to be too great for many people (look at the forums, PoE is like cocaine!). And once they have a full retail copy, why would they then go on to splurge more dough on the steam-store or GOG? Clearly many people will resort to piracy no matter what, but that number is obviously going to be bigger if there is a DRM free copy around prior to release date. (edit: this is all coming from a known pirate... for arguments sake *wink*) This is an empirical question of course, but I assume that you and that australian guy, would both consider the perceived threat of piracy as an exculpating circumstance here, right?

Sorry just thought backers would be treated better ... After all if Chris Roberts can take time out of his day to put his backers first you'd think any KS developer would. I guess I've just been spoiled. Calm yer t*ts sir. There are very good reasons for Obsidian to keeping our DRM-free golden goose of those pesky torrent sites before release/review date. And those reasons have nothing to do you or lack of courtesy.