Piracy

[Malcador]

Well assuming they don't use a third party solution, or develop something in house that's used for many games.

[Zoraptor]

To be honest I have no issue with DRM, I always buy my games so I can't recall a time where a form of DRM effected my gaming experience?

I am supportive of any measures to reduce pirating.

No, you almost certainly aren't.

 

How about having to get every software install approved through Microsoft? It'll stop piracy, after all.

 

How about a big government repository of approved programs you're allowed to install? It'll stop piracy, after all.

 

How about cutting off internet access to those suspected of piracy, or entire countries if the piracy rate there is too high? It'll stop piracy, after all.

 

How about a nice always on internet monitoring program where every keystroke and action is logged for perpetuity? It'll stop piracy, after all.

 

How about a nice big government list of approved websites to visit? It'll stop piracy, after all.

 

Half+ of those aren't even made up.

[Orchomene]

About crowdfunding : no one said that a crowdfunding system should generate profit. In case the crowdfunding model is an economic viable alternative to the publisher/sale/copyright system, one may consider that a project that asked for 500K, funded at 2mil would in the end develop a 500K game and generate 1.5mil benefit.

 

Piracy is bad, sure. Is DRM a good answer for it ? I don't think so. I've never seen a game, whatever the DRM system, that has not been cracked the first week. I've never seen an estimation of the percentage of people that would have bought the game if there was no cracked version of it. Is it 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.01% ? I have absolutly no idea. Maybe it's because I have enough money for it and don't pirate games, but I can't imagine downloading a cracked version of a game if I can buy it. And if I can't buy it, either I don't play it or pirate it, but in the end, the publisher/developers won't see my money. So the percentage discussed above is not apparently high.

As said above, DRM system is a security system that seems to have mainly a psychological impact on shareholders. It's like security in airports (and I don't invent it, I've worked on reservation systems and discussed a lot with people involved in the airport security) : is security system in airport efficient to stop a terrorist from going in a plane and putting a bomb or having a ceramic knife ? OF course not. The security system in airport is there for customers to feel safe. Nothing more. After 9/11, airplane companies had a tough time, they had to find a way to stop the hemoragy of the decreasing of customers. Security system was the answer. But not because of an objective effect on decreasing risk, only decreasing fears.

 

In the end, DRM ruined (really, not 'ruined like a bad game ending', you know what I mean) two or three games for me : constant crashes with the drm system, always online system with a bad internet onnection that meant I couldn't play the game without having it stoping every five minutes. Old games I can't play anymore because the drm system is not win7 64bits compatible.

Economically, I am not sure that the cost of the drm system is lower that the cost of piracy (the real and uncomputable one). Nobody really knows because they don't care. They have DRM systems for psychological reasons, not for economical reasons.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Half+ of those aren't even made up.

 

Sadly that is true.

[Diagoras]

Hey Hurlshot, thanks for the reply.

 

I noted that this is assuming that crowdfunding ends up being significantly larger in scale, to the point where AAA games can be funded through it. Seeing as Kickstarter's growth rate has been pretty close to exponential over the years, this doesn't seem unlikely once we look five to ten years into the future - especially since it's consumer spending, and thus not subject to the unique issues that rapid investment growth brings (ie. bubbles).

 

And the point wasn't that crowdfunding as it is now is in some way killing copyright, it's that a successful crowdfunding economy is one that doesn't need copyright. And seeing that copyright is an intrusive government interference in the marketplace, it's difficult to explain why you should keep it if private industry is able to raise capital consistently without it.

 

The crowdfunding model doesn't forbid copyright, but it doesn't need it either. It's a monetization model completely different from the software-as-a-product mentality behind copyright. There are a bunch of other examples of alternate monetization systems (SAAS, microtransactions, advertising), but crowdfunding is both the most visible and the most conservative, in many ways.

 

Actually crowdfunded games still need some sort of protection from copyright, because the money they get are used only for funding the creation of the game, but the business as a whole needs some kind of profit after the release of the game, so that there would be at least some justification to create expansions and sequels...

 

If the current copyright system is good, is whole different question, and always makes flame wars, so I am not gonna open that can of worms...

 

No, it doesn't. If development costs for each new product can be covered without expectation of financial return from the people covering it, then profit is not needed to produce additional products. Hell, even start-up costs can be paid for by Kickstarting them. While crowdfunding is compatible with traditional profit motive systems, it isn't dependent on them. All of which is actually secondary to the crowdfunding/copyright system, as you can combine crowdfunding with other monetization systems (SAAS, microtransactions, etc.) to make a profit, or use crowdfunding to make a profit (ie. after-game pledges).

[Diagoras]

Well, profit is useful for growing a company and becoming self-sustaining and solvent and such, but even if a kickstarter game generates no profit, it should be fine for the company really, it just means they can't catch a break and need to immediately do some fund-raising via kickstarter for their second game to stay out of bankruptcy. In theory, all development costs should be covered by kickstarter funding. Granted, this obviously isn't probably the practical case, but debts incurred while using kickstarter funds should be relatively small, or I'd say the company failed to estimate its operating costs when they did their first fundraiser, which isn't a fault of the system.

 

I must be misunderstanding you, are you saying that you don't think that Obsidian would want to or need to generate revenue through sales of PE?

 

If you are I completely disagree with you, the profit from sales does go into keeping a company stable but any company would also want to make money from the years spent on the game, they would want to improve there quality of life and become individually wealthier. Like almost everyone who works aspires to become. I can guarantee you if PE sells badly, which I believe is almost impossible, Obsidian won't make another one. And frankly you can't blame because where is the financial incentive for there years of hard work on the project?

 

Finally pirating is a negative influence on the sales and development on PC gaming, it is a scourge and we should be opposed to it under any circumstances

 

I'm confused as to what you're specifically talking about. Individual employee's salaries are paid for by crowdfunded products, so they're getting compensated. The company is privately owned by the CEO, so there are no shareholders to please.

 

Chris Avellone specifically stated in his recent interview that if P:E failed to sell well, they would just Kickstart the next one. If it did sell well, they'd use the profits to make the next ones, until they ran out of profits, whereupon they would Kickstart the next one. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they won't make another one if sales aren't impressive.

 

Finally, not sure if pirating affects sales or not - I'm not sure if that's ever been established. Regardless, it's unrelated to the justification for copyright, which is not about the industry's sales but about the public interest.

[Gorth]

And the point wasn't that crowdfunding as it is now is in some way killing copyright, it's that a successful crowdfunding economy is one that doesn't need copyright. And seeing that copyright is an intrusive government interference in the marketplace, it's difficult to explain why you should keep it if private industry is able to raise capital consistently without it.

 

Rarely have I heard gibberish said with such certainty. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

Are you saying that anything financed through kickstarter should be public domain and nobody could build any franchises based on the work they create?

 

Copyright isn't an "intrusive government interference" (this is where I know you are making stuff up as you go along). It's a mechanism that attempts to protect people from being ripped off and protect their work. You do the work, you decide what happens with the result of that work. Not too complicated a concept.

[BruceVC]

I'm confused as to what you're specifically talking about. Individual employee's salaries are paid for by crowdfunded products, so they're getting compensated. The company is privately owned by the CEO, so there are no shareholders to please.

 

Chris Avellone specifically stated in his recent interview that if P:E failed to sell well, they would just Kickstart the next one. If it did sell well, they'd use the profits to make the next ones, until they ran out of profits, whereupon they would Kickstart the next one. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they won't make another one if sales aren't impressive.

 

Finally, not sure if pirating affects sales or not - I'm not sure if that's ever been established. Regardless, it's unrelated to the justification for copyright, which is not about the industry's sales but about the public interest.

 

My point is a simple one. A company of developers that produce an excellent game that sells really well surly would also want some kind of financial incentive outside there salaries. These generally include bonuses, end of the day this would come from the Net Profit that PE makes from sales, not the development costs that KS raised. Also if you take the owners of Obsidian isn't it logical that they would want to maybe improve there quality of life from the profit made from the sales of PE? This could include points like buying better cars, paying off there home loans, sending there kids to better schools etc

 

So the sales of PE are relevant to whether people think KS is a viable funding model for games and if end of the day it makes personal financial sense to the people involved in the project . KS is not just about a game being released without Publishers, it has to also be about the companies making money through sales. I can't think why anyone would want to do it without that consideration?

[Hurlshort]

This crowdfunding stuff is awesome, but it is completely unreasonable to expect it to take over the economic model of how media is developed. The customer is taking on too much risk. The customer is expected too wait to long for the reward. The appeal of crowdfunding lies completely among the hardcore fans. Call me when we get anywhere near a million backers on a project.

 

Are we going start paying writers to write all the books we want directly, and then wait for years while they miss their deadlines? I love George RR Martin, but I'd be furious if I had to wait for seven years after paying for a book to get it. Are we going to start choosing screenplays that we want to get funded, and then fund what actors we want in the leads? That actually sounds like a cool idea, but the average movie costs tens of millions to produce, and then it's only a couple hours in length. Do you really think there are going to be enough fans to raise that type of money? It sounds crazy because it is.

[pmp10]

This crowdfunding stuff is awesome, but it is completely unreasonable to expect it to take over the economic model of how media is developed. The customer is taking on too much risk. The customer is expected too wait to long for the reward. The appeal of crowdfunding lies completely among the hardcore fans. Call me when we get anywhere near a million backers on a project.

Judging success by numbers in this case is not entirely fair - some people in crowdfunding contribute to the project much more that a regular customer ever would.

If anything I'd say it's the long-term viability of such projects that is really suspect.

You can only milk nostalgia a couple of times before people realize that you cannot turn back time.

[Diagoras]

Rarely have I heard gibberish said with such certainty. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

Are you saying that anything financed through kickstarter should be public domain and nobody could build any franchises based on the work they create?

 

 

Erm...I'm saying that the justification for the existence of copyright is conditioned on its absolute necessity to solve a public goods provision problem. I'd think that'd be pretty uncontroversial. If that's true, and if crowdfunding ends up being a viable alternative to copyright, then the justification for copyright starts to look a little weak.

 

Copyright isn't an "intrusive government interference" (this is where I know you are making stuff up as you go along). It's a mechanism that attempts to protect people from being ripped off and protect their work. You do the work, you decide what happens with the result of that work. Not too complicated a concept.

 

...yes it is. That's why it's a power specifically delegated to the state in the US Constitution, as opposed to a right in the Bill of Rights. It's a government action designed to advance a compelling economic purpose. Its justification has absolutely nothing (at least at the time of its creation) about "protecting creator's rights", but rather is about balancing an incentive to publish works with the public domain. Copyright is in the same class of government actions as regulating financial markets and setting a minimum wage - an act of economic coercion due to a compelling state need.

 

Completely ignoring the background of copyright, it should be pretty clear that it's not about protecting people's work. Copyright enforces itself on third parties who are disconnected from a trade between two other parties (eg. You're prosecuted for receiving copyrighted goods from a second party who bought them), forcing them to get it from the first party. It's about enforcing an illusion of rivalry on a non-rivalrous good due to a compelling need, not enforcing property rights (which are disconnected from copyright, at least philosophically).

 

Are you from Germany, perhaps? I'm not super familiar with copyright law outside of the US or Hong Kong, but as I recall the Germans are weird in that copyright is actually considered to be a right, rather than a privilege. Don't quote me on that, though, it comes from a kerfuffle over a 40K fan film.

[Diagoras]

My point is a simple one. A company of developers that produce an excellent game that sells really well surly would also want some kind of financial incentive outside there salaries. These generally include bonuses, end of the day this would come from the Net Profit that PE makes from sales, not the development costs that KS raised. Also if you take the owners of Obsidian isn't it logical that they would want to maybe improve there quality of life from the profit made from the sales of PE? This could include points like buying better cars, paying off there home loans, sending there kids to better schools etc

 

I'm not sure they'd want a financial incentive outside of their salaries, but if they do that can easily be priced in to the Kickstarter instead of being taken out of net profit. All you're doing is shifting the point the customer gives the company money, what the company does with the money can still be the same.

 

The owner of Obsidian can just set himself a high salary, he doesn't need to take the cash out of the company. And if he does - that again can be priced into the Kickstarter.

 

All crowdfunding does is move the point where money changes hands to before the product is complete.

 

So the sales of PE are relevant to whether people think KS is a viable funding model for games and if end of the day it makes personal financial sense to the people involved in the project . KS is not just about a game being released without Publishers, it has to also be about the companies making money through sales. I can't think why anyone would want to do it without that consideration?

 

Because they love making games? Because they like being paid? Why does anyone do stuff for money?

[Diagoras]

This crowdfunding stuff is awesome, but it is completely unreasonable to expect it to take over the economic model of how media is developed. The customer is taking on too much risk. The customer is expected too wait to long for the reward. The appeal of crowdfunding lies completely among the hardcore fans. Call me when we get anywhere near a million backers on a project.

 

Actually, I'd say that crowdfunding makes way more sense that the traditional model. In the traditional model, investors put their money in publishers, publishers fund developers, publishers sell developer's games to consumers for a big cut/all of the profits, and investors then take money out of the publishers. So two layers of middlemen.

 

In the crowdfunded economy, consumers pay developers to make them a game. Then they play it. No middlemen, very simple.

 

As to a million backer...I've been on Kickstarter for a few years before the current gaming boom. There was a time when people said (seriously), "We'll never get over 10,000 backers on a project." The growth rate has been exponential, and I don't think it's going to slow down.

 

Are we going start paying writers to write all the books we want directly, and then wait for years while they miss their deadlines?

 

There have been many, many books on Kickstarter. I've even backed one.

 

Are we going to start choosing screenplays that we want to get funded, and then fund what actors we want in the leads?

 

Again, there have been many, many movies on Kickstarter, which I have also backed. They usually pick their own actors.

 

That actually sounds like a cool idea, but the average movie costs tens of millions to produce, and then it's only a couple hours in length. Do you really think there are going to be enough fans to raise that type of money? It sounds crazy because it is.

 

Let's look at this like economists: what value are publishers adding to the product by acting a go-between for consumers and developers (and writers, directors, etc.)? There's enough people who like the product that it can make back something close to 10x the development cost at least, so what value is added by having someone else front the development cost and eat all the profit? Note that this is disconnected from publisher's role in marketing, distribution, etc. We're just talking about their role as stockpiles of capital.

[Mamoulian War]

Back to topic...

 

Interesting article about prediction of how DRM would not work by 4 Microsoft engineers published in 2002.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/how-four-microsoft-engineers-proved-copy-protection-would-fail/

[NOK222]

Then why bother mentioning your history of pirating our games?

 

Because I don't have one? Did you not see all my registered games in BSN before you hit the hammer?

 

Anyways, back on topic, you have to be a total back of **** to pirate PE. When it's probably not going to be that expensive.

[alanschu]

So just yay non-sequiturs then.

 

It should be noted that I am a fan of striploin steaks. Remember this the next time you post NKKKK.

[Malcador]

Anyways, back on topic, you have to be a total back of **** to pirate PE. When it's probably not going to be that expensive.

 

Meh, it'll be no different from pirating any other piece of software either in how "bad" the people doing it will be or how much it'll be pirated, I guess.

[Guest Slinky]

So just yay non-sequiturs then.

 

It should be noted that I am a fan of striploin steaks. Remember this the next time you post NKKKK.

 

Next time you grill a strip steak, I will steal it from you, eat it and maybe even enjoy it if it's not good enough!

 

That should teach you a lesson!

[alanschu]

Meh, it'll be no different from pirating any other piece of software either in how "bad" the people doing it will be or how much it'll be pirated, I guess.

 

I think the idea that the justification of doing it to bypass DRMs, as well as sticking it to the publishers and whatnot, is no longer valid.

 

I'm curious how the rates will differ (if at all) though we likely will never see the data.

[Malcador]

I think the idea that the justification of doing it to bypass DRMs, as well as sticking it to the publishers and whatnot, is no longer valid.

 

I'm curious how the rates will differ (if at all) though we likely will never see the data.

 

I doubt it'll differ at all, then again with no DRM to break, not really worth a scene group's time, perhaps.

[alanschu]

The piracy won't require any group to crack it, no. But it'll be something that can be easily shared if it truly has no DRM.

 

I'd be skeptical that the rates differ much as well.

[Diagoras]

Meh, it'll be no different from pirating any other piece of software either in how "bad" the people doing it will be or how much it'll be pirated, I guess.

 

I think the idea that the justification of doing it to bypass DRMs, as well as sticking it to the publishers and whatnot, is no longer valid.

 

I'm curious how the rates will differ (if at all) though we likely will never see the data.

 

Is that...are those really reasons people have for copyright infringement? They seem a little unusual - I could understand cracking a legal copy if you want to bypass the DRM, but grabbing a pirated copy seems like overkill. And doing it because someone else fronted the capital for the game is...weird.

 

The most sensible reason, IMO, would be based on rejecting the moral/philosophical basis for copyright altogether, rather than having many little exceptions.

[alanschu]

Is that...are those really reasons people have for copyright infringement? They seem a little unusual - I could understand cracking a legal copy if you want to bypass the DRM, but grabbing a pirated copy seems like overkill. And doing it because someone else fronted the capital for the game is...weird.

 

I have actually seen someone state how they encourage pirating EA games for the explicit purpose of encouraging EA to create increasingly draconian DRM which would ultimately undermine EA and see them eventually go under.

 

I think it might have even been on this board, actually.

[NOK222]

So just yay non-sequiturs then.

 

It should be noted that I am a fan of striploin steaks. Remember this the next time you post NKKKK.

 

You're not funny, nonsensical posting when someone is debating with you makes you look bad.

 

Dragon Age 3, make it a good game, and it will sell. it's not good, doesn't sell? Don't blame it on piracy.

 

I don't pirate your games.

 

End of discussion.

 

Meh, it'll be no different from pirating any other piece of software either in how "bad" the people doing it will be or how much it'll be pirated, I guess.

 

People will pirate it, but I believe only the most vile will do. Reputation of publishers and devs, I think, is a big facot.

[Diagoras]

People will pirate it, but I believe only the most vile will do.

 

Huh? It's copyright infringement, not murder. Even if you think copyright law makes sense, violations of it are like trademark violations. I wouldn't call it "vile" to ignore a government mandated monopoly, even if it does exist legitimately.