I keep talking about Value in PC games and here are some upcoming titles and their prices:

Saints Row - 39.99
Dead Space - 49.99
Far Cry 2 - 49.99
C&C3 - 49.99
Fallout 3 - 49.99
CoD:WW 49.99
NFS:Undercover - 39.99
GTA4 - 49.99
Tomb Raider - 39.99
Prince of Persia - 49.99
Burnout Paradise - 39.99
Splinter Cell Conviction - 49.99

How many of those games would be willing to say are going to be "great" PC games? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say none.

Really? I see the potential for great games in Far Cry 2, C&C RA3 and Tomb Raider. I expect GTA4 to be damn good as well. CoD and Splinter can surprise and be brilliant. I guess if one is suffering from sequelitis, then that entire list could be a problem...

If somebody wants something, they HAVE to get it by any means. There is no such thing as self-restraint or discipline.

Huh? That statement makes no sense to me. Maybe you're just hanging around with the wrong people? Or were you being facetious to make a point?

EDIT: Re-reading it, I suspect I might have missed your sarcasm the first time.


This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 20:53.

I WANT Spore and Crysis Wars, but I'm not going to Buy or Steal them.

Nonsense. If somebody wants something, they HAVE to get it by any means. There is no such thing as self-restraint or discipline.

@Tumbler

Bravo! You stuck it to that limey fool! : )

*golf clap*

It boils down to the simple fact that if someone WANTS a game, they're either going to BUY it or STEAL it. There is no ambiguity there; and the game being good, bad or ugly is IRRELEVANT.

I WANT Spore and Crysis Wars, but I'm not going to Buy or Steal them.

Check and Mate.

You need to back up and look at the whole picture not focus on the 2 options you want people to choose. Not buying games is a big option that a lot of people are using and developers seem to ignore. I don't know why you think that everyone who wants your game is going to either buy or steal it.

I want a lot of things, but I'm not forced to buy or steal. With many products I just say it's not worth buying, and I don't want to steal it....so where am I in your world?

This is a very important comment that breaks down where I believe the problem lies. I don't think there will always be people who buy games. When game quality goes to a level that is undesirable there will not be people buying software. But there will be people stealing it. It's not a guarantee that when you put a game on the market that people will buy it. Ever.

No product ever gets that guarantee. Regardless if people want to steal it or not, the product must be worth it's asking price for people to spend money on it.

And an overpriced product might as well be a worthless product.

The concept I hear developers trying to hide behind is that if piracy did not exist, then people would be buying the game. The value of the product is not boosted by the absence of theft.

The games need to be better. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter what you do to thwart piracy, it doesn't make your games worth the asking price.

Companies like selling games on consoles because the game doesn't have to be very good to sell. They also love the idea that they can port it to the PC and make a few more bucks but they don't seem to get that this audience can see the real value of the game and won't pay the crazy prices they want. (in most cases, i'm guessing fallout 3 will sell fine)

uhm, I think you clearly took my comment out of context.

It boils down to the simple fact that if someone WANTS a game, they're either going to BUY it or STEAL it. There is no ambiguity there; and the game being good, bad or ugly is IRRELEVANT.

Truth. What many people fail to understand is that if something can be obtained for free, it will be taken. It doesn't matter how good it is or how much it is worth. Free = taken. If somebody downloads a game, it's not because they absolutely have to play it. They download it because they can. If piracy were to disappear, these people would not suddenly rush to the stores and buy everything they could get their hands on.

Yep


This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 15:54.

The value of the product is not boosted by the absence of theft.

Truth. What many people fail to understand is that if something can be obtained for free, it will be taken. It doesn't matter how good it is or how much it is worth. Free = taken. If somebody downloads a game, it's not because they absolutely have to play it. They download it because they can. If piracy were to disappear, these people would not suddenly rush to the stores and buy everything they could get their hands on.

Companies like selling games on consoles because the game doesn't have to be very good to sell.

Truth x2. This is easily the biggest appeal of consoles to developers and publishers. Why cater to fewer people with high standards when you can cater to the much larger demographic with low standards?

This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 15:48.

I keep talking about Value in PC games and here are some upcoming titles and their prices:

Saints Row - 39.99
Dead Space - 49.99
Far Cry 2 - 49.99
C&C3 - 49.99
Fallout 3 - 49.99
CoD:WW 49.99
NFS:Undercover - 39.99
GTA4 - 49.99
Tomb Raider - 39.99
Prince of Persia - 49.99
Burnout Paradise - 39.99
Splinter Cell Conviction - 49.99

How many of those games would be willing to say are going to be "great" PC games? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say none. They are all Console games, maybe great by those standards, but by PC standards they come up very short.

I don't see any reason to lower the bar and pretend this stuff is good software we should all be buying. DoW2 is the only PC game on the horizon that looks worth my money. The rest I'll happily rent on my console because buying it there would make even less sense.

One thing I will say is that it's becoming more common to see PC games down at the $39.99 level, either from the publisher, or by deals within the retail stores, that is a trend I want to see continue.

I don't see how online activations will push prices lower, so I'm not going to support it. I will try and support folks that put out software at a fair price provided they don't insult me with products that are loaded to explode (stop working) like Spore and Crysis Warhead. Both of these are games that I won't purchase simply because of the copy protections systems.

If making great games is hard, it's even harder to make a game so good that despite these DRM measures someone like me will buy it anyway... So good luck with that, shoot for the stars, but don't be surprised when your game fails because while it was good, it wasn't good enough to put up with stupid crap like online activations, and limited installs.

there will be those who buy their games and those who steal them.

This is a very important comment that breaks down where I believe the problem lies. I don't think there will always be people who buy games. When game quality goes to a level that is undesirable there will not be people buying software. But there will be people stealing it. It's not a guarantee that when you put a game on the market that people will buy it. Ever.

No product ever gets that guarantee. Regardless if people want to steal it or not, the product must be worth it's asking price for people to spend money on it.

And an overpriced product might as well be a worthless product.

The concept I hear developers trying to hide behind is that if piracy did not exist, then people would be buying the game. The value of the product is not boosted by the absence of theft.

The games need to be better. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter what you do to thwart piracy, it doesn't make your games worth the asking price.

Companies like selling games on consoles because the game doesn't have to be very good to sell. They also love the idea that they can port it to the PC and make a few more bucks but they don't seem to get that this audience can see the real value of the game and won't pay the crazy prices they want. (in most cases, i'm guessing fallout 3 will sell fine)

Using that as example, we all agree that Crysis - as a game - is cookie cutter rubbish. So if you took that, the review scores, the game sales and the pirated numbers, we can probably determine that it could have done better were it not pirated.

So you're saying that cookie cutter rubbish would have sold better had it not been for piracy. I agree. If somebody plays a crappy game, they aren't likely to buy it. In this case, piracy acts as a filter, ensuring that bad games don't get bought.

If you know anything, you'd know that I didn't pull numbers out of my ass.

I know you pulled numbers out of your ass... *logical paradox, earth asplodes*

This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 13:43.

Interesting read for anyone who cares

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/08/endwar-delayed-because-piracys-killing-pc/

@ Prez

Rest assured, I'm not. The developers deserve to be paid every penny they have coming to them. What I am saying is that piracy alone in my opinion does not cause a game to fail. While it is conceivable that it could, I have never seen any evidence to show that a failed game would have been successful were it not for piracy.

You're probably right, but there really is no way to tell.

Actually, the only way to tell would depend on public opinion, sales, vs pirated copy. In fact, thinking about it, remember that whole Unreal Tournament and Crysis argument we've all been having? Using that as example, we all agree that Crysis - as a game - is cookie cutter rubbish. So if you took that, the review scores, the game sales and the pirated numbers, we can probably determine that it could have done better were it not pirated.

UT on the other hand had no redeeming qualities that I can think of. So if you compared the sales to the pirated copies, one could then make the argument that it is one example of a crappy game that didn't fail due to piracy.

Anyway, you make a good point. But I don't think it has anything to do with PC gaming vs piracy because the fact is, PC game sales would obviously be better without piracy. And those additional sales - no matter how big or small - do go toward publisher's making the case for DRM, releasing on the console first etc etc.

@Jerykk

Uh, didn't you just accuse wallace of pulling numbers out of his ass..? Since there's no possible way to measure losses due to piracy, I'm guessing you pulled that 75% out your ass.

If you know anything, you'd know that I didn't pull numbers out of my ass.

Because that is all I'm seeing. PC game companies expect to bully us into paying too much for games that should only be on consoles. Many gamers do want to play console games on their PC's, but a 50% price cut on the product is needed. It's ridiculous that you'd try and charge $50 for a console game on a pc.

What exactly are you saying? You lost me somewhere in the firs part of that. Who is bullying you into buying anything? I fail to see what the price of games on consoles and PCs have to do with PIRACY.

PC gaming is NOT going to die out. It's a free platform to develop for and there are consumers willing to buy.

I was alluding to mainstream PC gaming which I thought was the general focus of this topic? Why would you imagine that my comment pertained to the likes of other PC gaming such as web based flash games, MMO games etc? Why else do you think I mentioned the use of online activation based DRM?

What we're seeing right now is an attempt by the big game publishers to try and force PC gamers to buy software designed for consoles.

Rubbish. Further, what has this got to do with PIRACY

Anyway, at the end of the day, DRM, like piracy, is here to stay. In between the noise, there will be those who buy their games and those who steal them. Thats not going to take away from the fact that publishers and devs will continue to favor console over PC releases in an attempt to reduce the inpact that PC gaming piracy has on their bottom line. It just makes sense.

Nobody clarified nor confirmed that Endwars was coming to the PC.


This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 13:14.

I sure hope you're not saying that just because you make $5, you should ignore the fact that you could've made $10 if some bastards weren't pirating the game.

Rest assured, I'm not. The developers deserve to be paid every penny they have coming to them. What I am saying is that piracy alone in my opinion does not cause a game to fail. While it is conceivable that it could, I have never seen any evidence to show that a failed game would have been successful were it not for piracy.

And in the very near future, most of said games will never see the light of day on the PC. Case in point: EndWar, Gears of War 2 and many other upcoming 2008 and beyond games.

EndWar is coming out for the PC. The developer basically confirmed it. And I'd be truly surprised if GoW2 didn't come out for the PC a year or so after the 360 release.

Contrary to your opinion, an increasing number of games are getting PC ports. NBA 2K9, for example, is getting a PC port for the first time. Capcom is now doing proper PC ports for almost every game. Hell, even Last Remnant, a JRPG from Square Enix, is getting a PC port. That'll be the first PC port of a JRPG in years. The current trend shows an increase in the number of PC ports rather than a decrease as you suggest.

At the end of the day, when you develop a game you plan on releasing for the PC, you better take into account that there is a very good chance that 75% or more of the sales is going to be lost to piracy.

Uh, didn't you just accuse wallace of pulling numbers out of his ass..? Since there's no possible way to measure losses due to piracy, I'm guessing you pulled that 75% out your ass.

Why else do you think so many devs & publishers are in trouble, most gone out of business, bought out entirely etc?

Bad management? No business sense? Lack of talent? You're not actually trying to argue that developers like Flagship failed due to piracy, are you?

PC game piracy is a serious problem and it - not DRM - is the single factor that is going to KILL PC gaming. The end result is that all the good games are going to be on the consoles. While the PC ports (assuming they even get done) are relegated to residual income status; much like DVD movie sales and rentals.

Fucking pirates.

PC gaming is NOT going to die out. It's a free platform to develop for and there are consumers willing to buy. What we're seeing right now is an attempt by the big game publishers to try and force PC gamers to buy software designed for consoles.

Yes, all games are designed on the PC, but most are designed with a console in mind. The software is simply not worth as much to PC gamers as it is to console gamers.

There are going to be many games that stop having PC editions and this isn't a bad thing. Flooding the market with console games in a PC box is hurting the pc gaming market. Instead of PC gamers spending money on games that are overpriced on that platform, they will have more games that actually use all the advantages of the PC platform.

Piracy is going to be the savior for PC gaming. It's going to send all these console game making hacks out of the PC gaming market and free up space on the shelves for titles that target that platform.

Piracy is only a problem if you design a game that doesn't have major online components. So make online features a major factor in your game. Offer content that is only available in online features. I think games like Guild Wars are a great example, I'm sure that people pirated that game but I'll bet their sales were fantastic because being able to play online with others in that game is something people want.

If you don't make owning a legit copy of the game a reward then people aren't going to buy your game when they can pirate it.

And they can. They always can and always will be able to. I don't think you (devs) want to accept that. As hard as you fight against it, you're only making the problem worse. Your outnumbered and out matched. You can either stop making games or adapt and offer content that people will be more willing to pay for.

I'd say the MMO style game is a good adaptation, TF2 that has most of it's cotent and entertainment value in it's online gameplay (if not all) is a good adeptation, DoW2 looks to have a good feature that will make people want to have legit copies (playing online against others). Ignoring these choices and trying to put huge locks on your game in hopes that people can't pirate is failing. Failing is spectacular fashion.

If you want to make money in the PC gaming market, adapt. If not you can go 100% console. It's your choice, but please stop asking PC gamers to help you sell your crap.

Because that is all I'm seeing. PC game companies expect to bully us into paying too much for games that should only be on consoles. Many gamers do want to play console games on their PC's, but a 50% price cut on the product is needed. It's ridiculous that you'd try and charge $50 for a console game on a pc.

"PC game piracy is a serious problem and it - not DRM - is the single factor that is going to KILL PC gaming."

How many people people have you heard say they won't buy a game because it was pirated? How many people have you heard say they won't buy a game because of DRM? Is the industry losing more customers or gaining more through the use of DRM? You sound pretty sure. I hope you have more than anecdotes. Since they don't ADVERTISE the restriction of use that come with DRM on television and in ads, i have to think they realise DRM is not in the best interest of the individual customer. Word getting out about these restrictions PROBABLY isn't winning over any hearts and minds. It sure hasn't stopped the illegal downloading, that's for sure. 1,000,000 downloads of Spore indeed...

Guess how long that would take - assuming it ever happens if you are losing even 50% of your sales to piracy.

Speaking of numbers pulled out of asses and foolish assumptions...

Yes. ".001" was a number to illustrate a point but I call your assuption that "50%" (you're suggesting it's higher...) of sales are LOST due to piracy equally braindead, foolish, and without merit. I do belive it's impossible to prove intent except on a case by case basis and you're suggesting it's SO OBVIOUSLY even higher than 50% of sales that are lost to piracy.

(the number .001 was made up to illustrate CONSOLE GAME sales lost because the PC VERSION was pirated. Spore piracy numbers prove dick since that isn't a console release. Please don't tell me you mean the DS version, for the love of god...)

The mcdonalds analogy was intended to imply a concept of "intent" - which you seem to have a super human understanding of. So go ahead and come up with a better one or just simply explain how you KNOW FOR A FACT that more than 50% of sales are regularly LOST to piracy. That is, a person who downloaded the game WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT. And please don't quote numbers of times Crysis or Spore was downloaded without actual PROOF that those numbers would have acutally BOUGHT THE GAME.

It is already a KNOWN fact that more and more triple-A games are coming out first on the console and then on the PC.

I don't even know how this "fact" is supposed to refute what I claimed about poor sales being related to things other than piracy. It's an argument for something, i think, just nothing that I said.

no matter HOW to slice and dice it, if piracy wasn't a problem in various mediums (music, movies, games) that DRM wouldn't even be an issue.

You arent that naive, I know you don't believe that. It has been admitted by people at the RIAA that various forms of copy protection and their hardline stance against copying music from a CD you own onto your ipod is intended to create NEW REVENUE streams, by selling you the content more than once, ie: ringtones, DRMed copy for your ipod AND a physical CD. It also serves to squash out the second hand market by not allowing you to resell your CD or DVD, forcing others to buy new store bought copies.

This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 12:21.

@ Prez

Spore got so many million downloads, blah blah blah. Last I heard, EA was bragging about ho much money they are making off of Spore. To me, that fact alone pretty much shoots the theory that piracy causes games to fail out of the water.

Coming from you, this is a pretty surprising statement. At least to me.

I sure hope you're not saying that just because you make $5, you should ignore the fact that you could've made $10 if some bastards weren't pirating the game.

If you are asserting this, then I'm sorry to say that your statements are a PERFECT example of WHY publishers will ALWAYS restort to Draconian - albeit ineffective - DRM schemes.

@ wallace321

I've never heard anybody (EVER) say that piracy isn't a problem on the PC but get something straight:

Piracy affects publishers.
DRM affects customers.

Piracy is a problem for publishers.
DRM is a problem for customers.

Piracy is a problem. But what is the solution to piracy? (or rather, what solution have publishers chosen?) DRM

And what's the solution to DRM? (Example problems: Ran out of activations after you upgraded your videocard? Securom detected DaemonTools or Nero and refuses to install your game? Your Direct2Drive game is asking for the CD? Lost the manual for your old game so you don't know what the 3rd letter in the 1st word on page 67 is? StarForce doesn't work in Vista x64?)

Ironic, isn't it?

The irony is not in the fact that this sort of problem exists, but rather in the fact that these inconveniences are actually a topic of discussion. Especially when you take into account that no matter HOW to slice and dice it, if piracy wasn't a problem in various mediums (music, movies, games) that DRM wouldn't even be an issue.

Result: people pirate the PC version and don't buy the console version? PC = bad. This is new. I've never heard this one before actually. I hope you're not serious - this take PC persecution to a whole new level. That's like saying people eating at McDonalds affects Red Lobster across the street (they're two ENTIRELY different products sold to ENTIRELY different people. please don't get technical, this is a fact.)

Maybe its new to you. But to someone like me who has been in the industry for more than twenty years and seen gaming since its VERY BEGINNING, it is nothing new.

That number - which you clearly pulled out of your ass - is just that: a number you clearly pulled out of your ass. Even the piracy figures for the likes of Spore, prove as much. Lets even get into Mass Effect, Bioshock etc.

Your McDonalds analogy is braindead, foolish and without merit. Its not even within the realms of Apples to Oranges because that would imply that it actually had some semblance of sensibility.

Scenario 2. Release a game on consoles a year or two before the PC version -
milk it for all its worth - it sold on consoles, it will be easy to port to pc and make a few extra bucks!

Result: the people who would have bought the PC version probably already got it for the console, PC version is a crappy port (from PS2 even?), PC version is overshadowed by much better titles released since original release. PC sales suck. PC = bad

Exhibit A: Gears of War - GfW:live + Copy protection issues + Bugs
Exhibit B: Halo 2 Required Vista, end of story
Exhibit C: Resident Evil 4 - PS2 Port, Console-itis (fixed with a patch?)
Exhibit D: Devil May Cry 4 - Console controls, 4th Game in a series never on PC before
Exhibit E: EA Sports Anything half assed port from PS2 version 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, etc...

Yet another foolish assumption.

It is already a KNOWN fact that more and more triple-A games are coming out first on the console and then on the PC. In fact, most upcoming games aren't even earmarked for the PC, past their development (ALL games are developed on the PC). And in the very near future, most of said games will never see the light of day on the PC. Case in point: EndWar, Gears of War 2 and many other upcoming 2008 and beyond games.

PC gaming is going to be relegated to the likes of unpopular genres and from publishers who are entrenched in PC gaming. While small publishers like Stardock - due to their much lower overhead and the fact that they can get games for dirt cheap (e.g. it is reported that Sins cost less than $250K to make. And that doesn't include Stardock's publisher expenses such as marketing and production, all of which are deducted from the developer's royalties anyway) can coast on e.g. 500K units of a game like Sins, that number isn't even in the ballpark of most top end publishers expectations for their sales targets.

At the end of the day, when you develop a game you plan on releasing for the PC, you better take into account that there is a very good chance that 75% or more of the sales is going to be lost to piracy. So you had better plan to make your money back on 25%.

So in retrospect, if you spend $500K on a $40 game, as a publisher, you're looking at around $25 per unit from retail. After marketing, production, DRM fees (which can be as high as .50c per unit in some cases) etc, you end up with about $22 per unit. Well, you'd need to sell about 228K units in order to just break even. Guess how long that would take - assuming it ever happens - if you are losing even 50% of your sales to piracy. That problem pretty much drops your per unit take to about $10 per unit. If you're a publisher. If you're a developer, who doesn't get paid until the publisher recoups, you're fucked. Pure and simple. Why else do you think so many devs & publishers are in trouble, most gone out of business, bought out entirely etc?

PC game piracy is a serious problem and it - not DRM - is the single factor that is going to KILL PC gaming. The end result is that all the good games are going to be on the consoles. While the PC ports (assuming they even get done) are relegated to residual income status; much like DVD movie sales and rentals.

Fucking pirates.


This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 09:53.

To say I utterly disagree would be an enormous understatement, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

That's fair enough, but clearly we're not going to agree on this matter.

By that logic, I shouldn't be allowed to watch a movie with friends or family. I mean, I only bought a copy for me. If anyone else wants to watch it, they have to buy their own copies!

Not at all. Many games allow for the scenario you describe, as Bionic Commando Rearmed allows you to plug in four controls for multiplayer on a single computer. What you're suggesting is like having three TVs in the house and finding a work around so that each can play the movie separately for different people.

Any game that requires aiming..? I will never play a shooter with a gamepad, even if it was designed for a gamepad. There is no greater sin in my book. I also have no problems playing certain genres on PC. I thoroughly enjoyed the recent Tomb Raider and Prince of Persia games, all of which were superior on my PC due to higher framerates and resolutions. I also have a gamepad, so controls aren't an issue.

Exactly. Having a gamepad for PC gives you the best of both worlds.

At the end of the day I believe the statement in the article is accurate - the rampant piracy on PC will reduce the number of sales, whether on console or PC.

I really don't think that's the case at all. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of console gamers don't have high-end gaming rigs. If you peruse the Gamespot, Gametrailers, IGN or any other console-centric forums, you'll notice a lot of console gamers looking at cool PC-exclusives and saying "If only my computer wasn't so shitty :(" If a cool game is multiplatform, the average joe will get it for his console because his PC sucks. In addition, given that a hefty chunk of the console demographic consists of kids below the age of 18, I think it's also safe to assume that said demographic couldn't afford a high-end PC.

In that scenario two-to-three people are using copies of the game they have no right to use. Just because one person in the house owns a copy does not excuse the others.

By that logic, I shouldn't be allowed to watch a movie with friends or family. I mean, I only bought a copy for me. If anyone else wants to watch it, they have to buy their own copies! Oh, I just read a great book. What? You want to check it out? Hah! Go buy your own copy, you scumbag thief. Hmm, these french fries are mighty tasty. Eh, you want to try one? Sorry, I don't support piracy.

I could care less about copyright law and EULA's; I care about doing the right thing.

Amen to that. Though, it's "couldn't care less," not "could care less." If you could care less, that means you actually do care.

I can't think of any game that was cross platform (designed for consoles) that would be preferable on the PC.

Any game that requires aiming..? I will never play a shooter with a gamepad, even if it was designed for a gamepad. There is no greater sin in my book. I also have no problems playing certain genres on PC. I thoroughly enjoyed the recent Tomb Raider and Prince of Persia games, all of which were superior on my PC due to higher framerates and resolutions. I also have a gamepad, so controls aren't an issue. I really have no problems with ports if A) They aren't for a game that should have been designed for the PC and B) Are done well. So, a port of a platformer is great. A port of an RTS? Not so great. Coincidentally, that's why I don't really care about EndWar. Keep that dumbed down filth on consoles, please.


This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 04:12.

In that scenario two-to-three people are using copies of the game they have no right to use. Just because one person in the house owns a copy does not excuse the others.

To say I utterly disagree would be an enormous understatement, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Ultimately, we make our own judgment as to what is fair and what our threshold is when it comes to this sort of thing. I could care less about copyright law and EULA's; I care about doing the right thing. And I see absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with playing a a game I paid for over my personal network, regardless of how many copies there are. It was perfectly legal to do so for years; that it's changed because of arbitrary and pointless restrictions is of no concern to me.


This comment was edited on Oct 9, 2008, 00:43.