Gaming industry lose 'billions' to chipped consoles

Fnz · 22-01-2011 4:36pm

gizmo wrote: »

Who cares what the exact figure is though? The fact is it does result in lost sales/revenue and given the more volatile nature of the games industry it cannot afford to continue to lose such funds. Look at Alan Wake for instance, going by the piracy figures here which, bear in mind, don't include private sites or usenet, they actually outstrip the actual sales of the game itself. Now are you going to tell me large amounts of revenue were not lost here?

The title of the article, itself, invites the question. If it's important to quantify the impact of piracy, then it's important to show how you came to the resultant amount.

I'd hate to find out the industry was pulling numbers out of their ass to satisfy their own, err, ends.

gizmo · 22-01-2011 4:44pm

Fnz wrote: »

The title of the article, itself, invites the question. If it's important to quantify the impact of piracy, then it's important to show how you came to the resultant amount.

I'd hate to find out the industry was pulling numbers out of their ass to satisfy their own, err, ends.

But the numbers will never really be known which is why they estimate them. Hell, they even say themselves the figures are estimates and aren't fully known. The problem of course is that no set of figures will ever be accepted by people so I don't know why people complain over specific ones. The fact of the matter is though, a large amount of money is being lost and that situation is unacceptable.

Spunge · 22-01-2011 6:06pm

Solution

the untitled user · 22-01-2011 7:00pm

gizmo wrote: »

Who cares what the exact figure is though? The fact is it does result in lost sales/revenue and given the more volatile nature of the games industry it cannot afford to continue to lose such funds. Look at Alan Wake for instance, going by the piracy figures here which, bear in mind, don't include private sites or usenet, they actually outstrip the actual sales of the game itself. Now are you going to tell me large amounts of revenue were not lost here?

It's in everyones interest to know the full picture though. For example, do the figures justify the draconian, invasive and borderline illegal DRM we are seeing on products? Do the figures even justify investment in DRM?

Secondly, given the anecdotal evidence we see of the potential positive effects of piracy, is it possible to leverage filesharing for the net benefit of both consumers and producers, through increased exposure, possible feedback mechanisms etc.

Thirdly, the download figures always appear frightening, but there is no direct correlation established to date (that I have seen at least) between the absolute piracy figures and revenue lost. For example, the more authoritative studies in the music industry suggest at most 7-8% is lost total, despite the staggering volume of downloads. And even then I would argue they haven't taken into consideration enough externalities.

edit: I wonder is it possible to get an English translation of the following? http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/01/dutch-government-study-net-effect-of-p2p-use-is-positive.ars

Varik · 22-01-2011 7:34pm

the untitled user wrote: »

It's in everyones interest to know the full picture though. For example, do the figures justify the draconian, invasive and borderline illegal DRM we are seeing on products? Do the figures even justify investment in DRM? [/url]

If all DRM verging on illegal someone or some group would have taken action and the cases of when it is they do. If you choose to buy a game then you get it and a person should consider that when buy it and not complain later.

The figure do justify the effort, some of these games are pirated more than are sold and if this effort can make even a few of those pirates buy the game then is a good use of effort.

the untitled user wrote: »

Thirdly, the download figures always appear frightening, but there is no direct correlation established to date (that I have seen at least) between the absolute piracy figures and revenue lost. For example, the more authoritative studies in the music industry suggest at most 7-8% is lost total, despite the staggering volume of downloads. And even then I would argue they haven't taken into consideration enough externalities.

On 360 the title of most pirated game in 2010 was Dante’s Inferno, not a great game so many would not have bought it but when there were 1,280,000 downloads made what percentage of that would be worth the effort of DRM to get some more sales.

If 10% of those 360 game would have bought the game other wise that would be 128,000 lost sales of a full priced game maybe this crap game would only have sold 1% of that 12,800 copies. When manufacturing in games is so low to print a disc most of that is profit and to go against the development cost. 12,800 copies at $60 = $640,000 if only an extra 1% of pirates would have bought the game instead.

the untitled user wrote: »

Secondly, given the anecdotal evidence we see of the potential positive effects of piracy, is it possible to leverage filesharing for the net benefit of both consumers and producers, through increased exposure, possible feedback mechanisms etc. [/url]

There may be positive results of music or movies piracy as people go to more concerts or to the movies but on games there is no reason to go use a legitimated source after getting a pirated game other than a pirate being force to buy a game for online play.

How many of these would have been bought other wise i don't know but it would have been a lot of lost money in any case.

PC Game Downloads on BitTorrent in 2010
as of December 26, 2010
1 Call of Duty: Black Ops (4,270,000) (Nov. 2010)
2 Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (3,960,000) (Mar. 2010)
3 Mafia 2 (3,550,000) (Aug. 2010)
4 Mass Effect 2 (3,240,000) (Jan. 2010)
5 Starcraft II (3,120,000) (Jul. 2010)

Wii Game Downloads on BitTorrent in 2010
as of December 26, 2010
1 Super Mario Galaxy 2 (1,470,000) (May. 2010)
2 Wii Party (1,220,000) (Oct. 2010)
3 Donkey Kong Country Returns (920,000) (Nov. 2010)
4 Kirbys Epic Yarn (880,000) (Oct. 2010)
5 Red Steel 2 (850,000) (Mar. 2010)

Xbox 360 Game Downloads on BitTorrent in 2010
as of December 26, 2010
1 Dante’s Inferno (1,280,000) (Feb. 2010)
2 Alan Wake (1,140,000) (May. 2010)
3 Red Dead Redemption (1.060,000) (May. 2010)
4 Halo Reach (990,000) (Sept. 2010)
5 Call of Duty: Black Ops (930,000) (Nov. 2010)

PS3 will be up there in the records these year with the hack.

Helix · 22-01-2011 8:01pm

ps3 aside, ive got the capability to use all my other consoles for evil purposes, however i can justify it by it being an emergency last gasp measure for beating deadlines if a publisher is being tardy about getting a game sent out

no lost sales here since i get them for free anyway

Varik · 22-01-2011 8:23pm

Helix wrote: »

ps3 aside, ive got the capability to use all my other consoles for evil purposes, however i can justify it by it being an emergency last gasp measure for beating deadlines if a publisher is being tardy about getting a game sent out

no lost sales here since i get them for free anyway

Don't think you count and at least on steam there are press accounts.

gizmo · 22-01-2011 10:30pm

the untitled user wrote: »

It's in everyones interest to know the full picture though. For example, do the figures justify the draconian, invasive and borderline illegal DRM we are seeing on products? Do the figures even justify investment in DRM?

The figure cannot be known though so there's no point in wishing for it.

As for DRM, well as long as the end user isn't punished (and by that I mean Ubisoft's old style of always-online DRM, not the whole install limit thing which isn't really being punished) then I think it's perfectly fine for publishers to try and protect their IP. If you don't like it then simply don't buy it, that doesn't then give you the right to steal it though.

the untitled user wrote: »

Secondly, given the anecdotal evidence we see of the potential positive effects of piracy, is it possible to leverage filesharing for the net benefit of both consumers and producers, through increased exposure, possible feedback mechanisms etc.

There is a mechanism in place to allow people to try games before they buy them, demos. This can also lead to games getting advanced press on top of already existing previews from various journalistic sources. If you give people the ability to download the entire game for free with no restrictions then the majority of them will simply not purchase it. If you do include time based restrictions then they will be circumvented by a huge number of people because they've already downloaded the full game.

the untitled user wrote: »

Thirdly, the download figures always appear frightening, but there is no direct correlation established to date (that I have seen at least) between the absolute piracy figures and revenue lost. For example, the more authoritative studies in the music industry suggest at most 7-8% is lost total, despite the staggering volume of downloads. And even then I would argue they haven't taken into consideration enough externalities.

As has been said countless times, the figures given are estimates, sometimes conservative and sometimes not. Common sense, however, dictates that there has been substantial loss in revenues over the last number of years as pirating has become mainstream. The 7-8% figure is, however, pure and utter horse****. Look at MP3 players for instance, the iPod Classic starts at 80GB while the Touch models go all the way up to 64GB. Do you really think many of the owners of these devices own that amount of legitimately bought music?

Fnz · 22-01-2011 11:09pm

gizmo wrote: »

But the numbers will never really be known which is why they estimate them. Hell, they even say themselves the figures are estimates and aren't fully known. The problem of course is that no set of figures will ever be accepted by people so I don't know why people complain over specific ones. The fact of the matter is though, a large amount of money is being lost and that situation is unacceptable.

As I've said, the industry should not be volunteering guesswork in place of information that appears impossible to know. These mythical 'substitution rate' numbers are not helpful and may find their way into reports that have real consequences.

It wouldn't be the first time.

the untitled user · 22-01-2011 11:10pm

Varik wrote: »

If all DRM verging on illegal someone or some group would have taken action and the cases of when it is they do. If you choose to buy a game then you get it and a person should consider that when buy it and not complain later.

The figure do justify the effort, some of these games are pirated more than are sold and if this effort can make even a few of those pirates buy the game then is a good use of effort.

I'll give you an example, FM2009, the activation servers crashed. Some people who bought genuine copies couldn't play it for days.

Secondly, I'm a pretty heavy consumer of games but there are plenty of games I don't go near because of the DRM on them.

Varik wrote: »

There may be positive results of music or movies piracy as people go to more concerts or to the movies but on games there is no reason to go use a legitimated source after getting a pirated game other than a pirate being force to buy a game for online play.

True, but there's still an unmeasurable possibility. As I said above, I've bought games on the back of playing illegal versions before.

gizmo wrote: »

The figure cannot be known though so there's no point in wishing for it.

We could have a much greater idea of it though if the industry weren't so selective about the data they publish.

gizmo wrote: »

There is a mechanism in place to allow people to try games before they buy them, demos. This can also lead to games getting advanced press on top of already existing previews from various journalistic sources. If you give people the ability to download the entire game for free with no restrictions then the majority of them will simply not purchase it. If you do include time based restrictions then they will be circumvented by a huge number of people because they've already downloaded the full game.

Fair point, but demos assume prior knowledge of a title's existence and the publisher site etc. Filesharing can raise the profile of an IP significantly because it starts appearing on loads of different message boards etc. Whether that results in any tangible benefit is of course, unmeasureable.

gizmo wrote: »

As has been said countless times, the figures given are estimates, sometimes conservative and sometimes not. Common sense, however, dictates that there has been substantial loss in revenues over the last number of years as pirating has become mainstream.

Common sense also points out that the industry is still growing. I find it hard to believe the lost revenues are as sizeable as made out, no industries could absorb such losses in the long run. That the games industry can points to one of two things i) either they are talking though their ass, ii) they are seriously overcharging their customers.

gizmo wrote: »

The 7-8% figure is, however, pure and utter horse****. Look at MP3 players for instance, the iPod Classic starts at 80GB while the Touch models go all the way up to 64GB. Do you really think many of the owners of these devices own that amount of legitimately bought music?

The 7-8% figure is not something I arrived at myself. And that example is utterly pointless. Sure everyone has an ipod these days with hundreds of albums on it, but was it the same 20 years ago? Did people count the LPs/CDs they had in terms of the hundreds? Very very rarely in my experience.

Secondly, you must also take into consideration the fact the industry is facing much greater competition from other forms of entertainment now, particularly video games.

Thirdly, the standard of the product. In recent years the record breaking touring revenues have been seen from artists 20-30 years plus in the business. That says a lot about the state of the industry imo.

Anyway, lots of fair points in both yer posts, the piracy figures are staggering. I still don't think it impacts the bottom line to the degree suggested, but obviously I have nothing to back that up with.

I would encourage you to read the link I posted above though to see what ye think. Although no doubt it's been long dismissed in most industry circles by now.

gizmo · 22-01-2011 11:41pm

Fnz wrote: »

As I've said, the industry should not be volunteering guesswork in place of information that appears impossible to know. These mythical 'substitution rate' numbers are not helpful and may find their way into reports that have real consequences.

It wouldn't be the first time.

True but most reports use the term "estimated" when giving figures so they're not being intentionally dishonest. You also have the issue that they're probably trying to re-instil the fact that piracy is wrong into people by giving them numbers they can relate too, i.e., revenue and jobs lost.

the untitled user wrote: »

I'll give you an example, FM2009, the activation servers crashed. Some people who bought genuine copies couldn't play it for days.

A nasty situation however I'm not sure how it's relevant here. Are you using it as an example of a way that legitimate customers are penalised?

the untitled user wrote: »

Secondly, I'm a pretty heavy consumer of games but there are plenty of games I don't go near because of the DRM on them.

Good for you, and I mean that sincerely. If you have an issue with a game because of the DRM that it uses then don't buy it. I do hope, however, that you didn't go and download it instead.

the untitled user wrote: »

True, but there's still an unmeasurable possibility. As I said above, I've bought games on the back of playing illegal versions before.

The exact amount is unmeasurable but common sense indicates that if someone can get it for free and has done so, they more than likely won't then pay for it unless they have some pretty strong feelings on the matter.

the untitled user wrote: »

We could have a much greater idea of it though if the industry weren't so selective about the data they publish.

You were right earlier, it is an unknown. We simply cannot tell conclusively that someone would have bought something if they did not have the ability to download it for free.

the untitled user wrote: »

Fair point, but demos assume prior knowledge of a title's existence and the publisher site etc. Filesharing can raise the profile of an IP significantly because it starts appearing on loads of different message boards etc. Whether that results in any tangible benefit is of course, unmeasureable.

There's a problem with your logic here, what is to stop demos garnering the same amount of chatter on message boards rather than a full pirated version?

the untitled user wrote: »

Common sense also points out that the industry is still growing. I find it hard to believe the lost revenues are as sizeable as made out, no industries could absorb such losses in the long run. That the games industry can points to one of two things i) either they are talking though their ass, ii) they are seriously overcharging their customers.

The numbers speak for themselves to be honest and lets face it, do you know anyone who doesn't pirate material? The industry is only able to absorb it for two reasons a) they're not losing a physical copy of something and b) they can sell enough of their higher profile games to make some sort of profit.

the untitled user wrote: »

The 7-8% figure is not something I arrived at myself. And that example is utterly pointless. Sure everyone has an ipod these days with hundreds of albums on it, but was it the same 20 years ago? Did people count the LPs/CDs they had in terms of the hundreds? Very very rarely in my experience.

You're missing my point. I'm referring to the capacities of these devices, ones which dwarf the actual size of the average music collection. You even said it yourself, how many people actually own hundreds of albums? 20 years ago, well that's the early 90s at this stage so I'd imagine the average number of albums owned would be quite similar, again certainly not in the hundreds.

the untitled user wrote: »

Secondly, you must also take into consideration the fact the industry is facing much greater competition from other forms of entertainment now, particularly video games.

I can see the connection between movies and games but music and games? Not so much unfortunately.

the untitled user wrote: »

Thirdly, the standard of the product. In recent years the record breaking touring revenues have been seen from artists 20-30 years plus in the business. That says a lot about the state of the industry imo.

Actually the majority of them are from newer acts, bar good 'ol Bon Jovi at the top there.

the untitled user wrote: »

Anyway, lots of fair points in both yer posts, the piracy figures are staggering. I still don't think it impacts the bottom line to the degree suggested, but obviously I have nothing to back that up with.

The problem is that we do unfortunately, both in terms of lower than projected sales for some games compared to their download rates, developers having to close due to these lowered sales, the figures quoted by MS for their ban waves and generally looking around at people who download stuff whether we know them irl or here on Boards.

the untitled user wrote: »

I would encourage you to read the link I posted above though to see what ye think. Although no doubt it's been long dismissed in most industry circles by now.

I fully believe the figure is often embellished, particularly in the music industry as they always seem to focus on CD sales which, less face it, are declining due to the meteoric rise in the popularity of the digital download.

BlitzKrieg · 22-01-2011 11:44pm

RedXIV wrote: »

It still is a valid point though. Fact is that if there was no piracy, there would be more money in gaming which would lead to more money in developing games which would lead to a higher standard. it sucks but its true

There would be more money in gaming, money in developing games and a higher standard if there was no 2nd hand game industry as well.

Now thats not me saying that we should stop all 2nd hand sales etc and we should impose draconian sales laws on every product. But it does highlight that on the list of *problems* that the games industry currently has, piracy is actually pretty damn far down the list on those that could destroy the industry.

Personnally the out of control 2nd hand market is its greatest risk. Its an unpopular view which Gabe on penny arcade got quite an abusive response to by the community over. And while I dont 100% hold the same position as him, I do feel that unlike any other product, the game industry is crippled by its 2nd hand market. You can name them all, dvds, music, cars. They all either have limited 2nd hand markets or a system set up that money from a 2nd hand sale goes back to the manufacterers. Games on the other hand have a 2nd hand market larger then its 1st sale market. It shares the same streets and shops (HMV sell 2nd hand games, but not 2nd hand dvds why?) and the developers are only now setting up viable recycling process of titles.

So piracy is the least of the games industry's problems. Its just easier to do an article telling off some unidentified hacker then to say the 1000's of retail jobs that gamestop/game etc provide are at the cost of the industry expanding.

Magill · 22-01-2011 11:50pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

There would be more money in gaming, money in developing games and a higher standard if there was no 2nd hand game industry as well.

Now thats not me saying that we should stop all 2nd hand sales etc and we should impose draconian sales laws on every product. But it does highlight that on the list of *problems* that the games industry currently has, piracy is actually pretty damn far down the list on those that could destroy the industry.

Personnally the out of control 2nd hand market is its greatest risk. Its an unpopular view which Gabe on penny arcade got quite an abusive response to by the community over. And while I dont 100% hold the same position as him, I do feel that unlike any other product, the game industry is crippled by its 2nd hand market. You can name them all, dvds, music, cars. They all either have limited 2nd hand markets or a system set up that money from a 2nd hand sale goes back to the manufacterers. Games on the other hand have a 2nd hand market larger then its 1st sale market. It shares the same streets and shops (HMV sell 2nd hand games, but not 2nd hand dvds why?) and the developers are only now setting up viable recycling process of titles.

So piracy is the least of the games industry's problems. Its just easier to do an article telling off some unidentified hacker then to say the 1000's of retail jobs that gamestop/game etc provide are at the cost of the industry expanding.

agreed, piracy is a smaller problem that sony microsoft and nintendo have the ability to stop or at least limit. The second hand market is a joke, and really needs to be clamped down on. It will bite retailers in the arse tho because its only pushing the games industry into digital distribution.

Activision could also do with getting ****ed, CoD just ****s up games sales so much that its not even funny. Kids will happily play MW2 or BLOPs for 6-12 months without wanting to buy another game. Good thing that they're running the series into the ground like every other cashcow they've ever had tho.

AlmightyCushion · 22-01-2011 11:59pm

gizmo wrote: »

You're missing my point. I'm referring to the capacities of these devices, ones which dwarf the actual size of the average music collection. You even said it yourself, how many people actually own hundreds of albums? 20 years ago, well that's the early 90s at this stage so I'd imagine the average number of albums owned would be quite similar, again certainly not in the hundreds.

I think you're forgetting that the vast majority of people (at least in my experience) over-estimate the amount of storage they actually need. They buy 500GB external hard drives for backing up photos and documents. Even I only use 8GBs of my phones 32GBs of storage and I'd be more realistic of what storage I'd need or use than the average person. Having big music collections isn't impossible either. My music collection is close to 40GBs (not including stuff that I have in flac format which isn't much right now but I plan to expand on it) and the vast majority was legally obtained and I haven't bought a cd in years. If I was as big into music as I was as a teen I'd be easily over 100GBs right now, if not a lot more. And I wasn't even that big into music back then.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

There would be more money in gaming, money in developing games and a higher standard if there was no 2nd hand game industry as well.

Now thats not me saying that we should stop all 2nd hand sales etc and we should impose draconian sales laws on every product. But it does highlight that on the list of *problems* that the games industry currently has, piracy is actually pretty damn far down the list on those that could destroy the industry.

Personnally the out of control 2nd hand market is its greatest risk. Its an unpopular view which Gabe on penny arcade got quite an abusive response to by the community over. And while I dont 100% hold the same position as him, I do feel that unlike any other product, the game industry is crippled by its 2nd hand market. You can name them all, dvds, music, cars. They all either have limited 2nd hand markets or a system set up that money from a 2nd hand sale goes back to the manufacterers. Games on the other hand have a 2nd hand market larger then its 1st sale market. It shares the same streets and shops (HMV sell 2nd hand games, but not 2nd hand dvds why?) and the developers are only now setting up viable recycling process of titles.

So piracy is the least of the games industry's problems. Its just easier to do an article telling off some unidentified hacker then to say the 1000's of retail jobs that gamestop/game etc provide are at the cost of the industry expanding.

Completely agree. Gamestop take the piss. Buying a game for €25 and selling it for €55 is a complete pisstake. I won't buy the second hand title unless there is a decent difference in price just out of principle but I can understand why many would. I don't have a problem with second hand sales, but I do have a problem with gamestop ripping people off with second hand sales.

the untitled user · 23-01-2011 12:04am

gizmo wrote: »

A nasty situation however I'm not sure how it's relevant here. Are you using it as an example of a way that legitimate customers are penalised?

Yes.

edit: and also as an example where invasive DRM may lead to reduced revenues. I and plenty others who are fans of the series didn't buy that particular iteration on the back of the DRM in it.

gizmo wrote: »

Good for you, and I mean that sincerely. If you have an issue with a game because of the DRM that it uses then don't buy it. I do hope, however, that you didn't go and download it instead.

I don't actually, as unbelievable as that may sound :pac:

gizmo wrote: »

The exact amount is unmeasurable but common sense indicates that if someone can get it for free and has done so, they more than likely won't then pay for it unless they have some pretty strong feelings on the matter.

fair point, but again, anecdotal evidence suggests this is far from absolute. Consumers are such an irrational creature afterall... if we were all that rational we'd never have recessions

gizmo wrote: »

You were right earlier, it is an unknown. We simply cannot tell conclusively that someone would have bought something if they did not have the ability to download it for free.

Yeah, but we could have more accurate estimates.

gizmo wrote: »

There's a problem with your logic here, what is to stop demos garnering the same amount of chatter on message boards rather than a full pirated version?

Well, it's an additional medium to gain exposure through. More people consume games than actively follow the gaming media, I'm assuming the same regards downloading.

gizmo wrote: »

The numbers speak for themselves to be honest and lets face it, do you know anyone who doesn't pirate material? The industry is only able to absorb it for two reasons a) they're not losing a physical copy of something and b) they can sell enough of their higher profile games to make some sort of profit.

Yeah, but the people I know who pirate the most of a particular medium are also the greatest consumers of said medium. So you have the weird situation where the industries greatest asset is also their greatest liability here (i.e. their loyal customers). So that their most loyal customers would feel the need to pirate is perhaps an indication that their pricing model is off, afterall my mates have a fixed disposable income.

gizmo wrote: »

You're missing my point. I'm referring to the capacities of these devices, ones which dwarf the actual size of the average music collection. You even said it yourself, how many people actually own hundreds of albums? 20 years ago, well that's the early 90s at this stage so I'd imagine the average number of albums owned would be quite similar, again certainly not in the hundreds.

I'm still not getting your point then... where's the lost revenue?

gizmo wrote: »

I can see the connection between movies and games but music and games? Not so much unfortunately.

Entertainment medium, competing for disposable income. They are linked and competing with each other.

gizmo wrote: »

Actually the majority of them are from newer acts, bar good 'ol Bon Jovi at the top there.

Ehhh, wrong. Only Bieber, Swift and Gaga are acts that started out in the last decade.

gizmo wrote: »

The problem is that we do unfortunately, both in terms of lower than projected sales for some games compared to their download rates, developers having to close due to these lowered sales, the figures quoted by MS for their ban waves and generally looking around at people who download stuff whether we know them irl or here on Boards.

But that's assuming we've been able to quantify the correlation, which we haven't. And on the subject of developers closing, well it's an entertainment medium and will always be notoriously competitive. How many actors or musicians do you know who have stable incomes? The majority don't.

gizmo wrote: »

I fully believe the figure is often embellished, particularly in the music industry as they always seem to focus on CD sales which, less face it, are declining due to the meteoric rise in the popularity of the digital download.

Yeah, the music industry is particularly notorious for being slow to adapt to market changes, so it's probably not as relevant as I thought. I'll shut up now

gizmo · 23-01-2011 12:28am

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I think you're forgetting that the vast majority of people (at least in my experience) over-estimate the amount of storage they actually need. They buy 500GB external hard drives for backing up photos and documents. Even I only use 8GBs of my phones 32GBs of storage and I'd be more realistic of what storage I'd need or use than the average person. Having big music collections isn't impossible either. My music collection is close to 40GBs (not including stuff that I have in flac format which isn't much right now but I plan to expand on it) and the vast majority was legally obtained and I haven't bought a cd in years. If I was as big into music as I was as a teen I'd be easily over 100GBs right now, if not a lot more. And I wasn't even that big into music back then.

You'd have over a thousand albums?

As for the rest, I'm referring more to the drive from companies to up the storage capacity of these devices. That's discounting the marketing side of "bigger means better" of course. There's also a more personal issue of knowing a bunch of people who do have iPods full of music.

the untitled user wrote: »

Yes.

Ah, well that is a downside alright but I still don't think it serves as an excuse for people to pirate the game. Perhaps temporarily so they can play it once they've purchased it but no more.

the untitled user wrote: »

Yeah, but we could have more accurate estimates.

Serious question so, what do you think would be an accurate estimate? Given that we're dealing with irrational consumers as you say (something I do agree with too actually) how would one measure the likelihood of them buying something when not given the ability to download it. Personally my go-to number would be 50%.

the untitled user wrote: »

Well, it's an additional medium to gain exposure through. More people consume games than actively follow the gaming media, I'm assuming the same regards downloading.

Slight misunderstanding here, you said that the ability to download games is useful as people would then talk about them on forums hence raising their profile. My counter-point was why do they need the full game to do this, why not the demo?

the untitled user wrote: »

Yeah, but the people I know who pirate the most of a particular medium are also the greatest consumers of said medium. So you have the weird situation where the industries greatest asset is also their greatest liability here (i.e. their loyal customers). So that their most loyal customers would feel the need to pirate is perhaps an indication that their pricing model is off, afterall my mates have a fixed disposable income.

Two different points here, the first was that people who download stuff also consume the most legally also. This can often be true however as I suggested on another thread on a similar issue, with the advent of services like Spotify which allow you to stream full albums, do people really need to download the full thing illegally in order to try before they buy?

The other point you kind of made there was that people have fixed disposable incomes, again I assume this relates to being able to try before they buy which is where streaming services (with music) and demos (with games) come in. If you mean they buy some stuff and just download other stuff because of this fixed income well then that's not really an excuse.

the untitled user wrote: »

I'm still not getting your point then... where's the lost revenue?

The fact that a lot of people are walking around with extremely full, high capacity mp3 players when there is very little likelihood of them owning those hundreds of albums.

the untitled user wrote: »

Entertainment medium, competing for disposable income. They are linked and competing with each other.

Ah yes, quite true.

the untitled user wrote: »

Ehhh, wrong. Only Bieber, Swift and Gaga are acts that started out in the last decade.

The Black Eye Peas only really got big in the last 5 years or so and I'd regard Dave Matthews Band and Eminem as still being pretty modern, certainly when compared to Roger Waters.

the untitled user wrote: »

But that's assuming we've been able to quantify the correlation, which we haven't. And on the subject of developers closing, well it's an entertainment medium and will always be notoriously competitive. How many actors or musicians do you know who have stable incomes? The majority don't.

Again we're dealing with common sense here. Look at the figures above and tell me that over 1m downloads of your game compared to just under 1m purchased copies won't have serious ramifications for your future as a company. As for the movies comparison, well the difference is, if a movie doesn't do well due to piracy the people behind the movie won't get sacked. It's also pretty unlikely that the leading man or woman will suffer either. The way people will be affected really is if the movie itself is poor quality which isn't what we're talking about here.

AlmightyCushion · 23-01-2011 12:37am

gizmo wrote: »

You'd have over a thousand albums?

100GBs =/= 1000 albums. Some of my albums are nearly half a GB, some are complete tripe that I don't listen to any more and others I just got bored of. I stopped buying CDs when I was about 19ish, and since then I've had a lot more disposable income so if I was as big into music as I was then I reckon my music collection would be a lot bigger.

P.S. I guestimated wrong only have 25GBs of music currently.

gizmo wrote: »

As for the rest, I'm referring more to the drive from companies to up the storage capacity of these devices. That's discounting the marketing side of "bigger means better" of course. There's also a more personal issue of knowing a bunch of people who do have iPods full of music.

What does any of that have to do with piracy. Just because someone has tonnes of storage space doesn't mean they'll fill it.

gizmo · 23-01-2011 12:40am

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

100GBs =/= 1000 albums. Some of my albums are nearly half a GB, some are complete tripe that I don't listen to any more and others I just got bored of. I stopped buying CDs when I was about 19ish, and since then I've had a lot more disposable income so if I was as big into music as I was then I reckon my music collection would be a lot bigger.

P.S. I guestimated wrong only have 25GBs of music currently.

The 1000 albums comes from an average of V0 quality rips which are in and around 100MB a piece. At 500MB I'm assuming you like your FLAC?

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

What does any of that have to do with piracy. Just because someone has tonnes of storage space doesn't mean they'll fill it.

Quite true, as I said above though I know plenty of people who do almost fill it.

previous user · 23-01-2011 12:42am

Is this another excuse for them to up the price on already expensive games, is that their excuse? cause if it is they can Fop off!

dreamers75 · 23-01-2011 12:44am

previous user wrote: »

Is this another excuse for them to up the price on already expensive games, is that their excuse? cause if it is they can Fop off!

"Its grand just download them anyway."

that will be the motto if that happens.

AlmightyCushion · 23-01-2011 12:50am

gizmo wrote: »

The 1000 albums comes from an average of V0 quality rips which are in and around 100MB a piece. At 500MB I'm assuming you like your FLAC?

I was excluding FLAC from that, although that's the way I'm gonna start going, I have the storage space so why not.

. The ones at nearly 500MBs are anthologies or multi-disk albums. Anywho we're going a tad off-topic.

Varik · 24-01-2011 3:28am

A reputable Dutch site "ps3 sense" posted that Sony's method to fight piracy if true uses a future unique Blu-ray id, a game serial key, PS3 Id, and some input from Sony(like activating windows over the phone or online) before the game decrypt and install some small files that allow the game to run on that singular PS3(needing more input from Sony or PSN for each console).

Might not mess with hacks for long but used games won't do well unless Sony make some deals with shops, but as any local system updates would do no good only activation from Sony's side would have any chance.

amacachi · 24-01-2011 3:42am

gizmo wrote: »

The 1000 albums comes from an average of V0 quality rips which are in and around 100MB a piece. At 500MB I'm assuming you like your FLAC?

I'm pretty sure you were basing it on the size of an average album as it's shared around. :pac: Even if I were to fill an iPod with music it's not a loss to the music industry if I wasn't going to buy in the first place.

Also isn't the attach rate for the Xbox far higher than for the PS3 despite how much more common piracy on the 360 has been up until pretty recently?

gizmo · 24-01-2011 3:23pm

amacachi wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you were basing it on the size of an average album as it's shared around. :pac: Even if I were to fill an iPod with music it's not a loss to the music industry if I wasn't going to buy in the first place.

If I was to do that it would be about half of that figure. I don't know about you but the first thing I do when I buy a CD nowadays, after listening to it first of course, is to rip it to my PC.

As for the second part, well that's the entire point of this thread or at least the point many are trying to make, if you couldn't pirate it would you buy more. Personally I find the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument bull****, if you wouldn't buy it then delete it. If you don't want to delete it and in fact listen to it often, they stop being a cheap **** and buy it.

amacachi wrote: »

Also isn't the attach rate for the Xbox far higher than for the PS3 despite how much more common piracy on the 360 has been up until pretty recently?

It's higher alright, but not that much higher. That can be attributed to the lead the 360 has had over the PS3 though in terms of release dates and initial library of big titles available for it.

Varik · 24-01-2011 4:08pm

gizmo wrote: »

Personally I find the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument bull****, if you wouldn't buy it then delete it. If you don't want to delete it and in fact listen to it often, they stop being a cheap **** and buy it.

The argument against these numbers of lost profits and the as said "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse is ****, whether you have cost a company to lose potential profits is irrelative these pirates have illegal obtain software/music/film/books that they have no right to.

From now on the industry should just say that €**** billion/million of illegal obtained software has been downloaded.

sarumite · 24-01-2011 6:16pm

I have a hard time believing that people only download games they genuinely wouldn't have payed for. I suspect a certain amount of cognitive dissonance is at play here.

Tallon · 24-01-2011 6:20pm

Games need to be made cheaper.. FACT

Even pre-owned games are an outrageous price

This cross platform that steam are doing with Portal 2 is deffo a step in the right direction.

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2011 6:42pm

Games publishers need to stop blaming poor sales on piracy using outrageously inflated figures. Take some responsibility. A good well advertised product will sell.

gizmo · 24-01-2011 8:06pm

Tallon wrote: »

Games need to be made cheaper.. FACT

Can't happen. It's been discussed to death around here but the fact of the matter is, paying at least 50 skilled people for around 3 years in order to make a game, then test it, manufacture it and advertise it isn't cheap.

How many more games do you think people would buy if they were cheaper, really? I mean books and the cinema aren't expensive but people only go to see a limited number of those which are released. Then you have the time consideration, even if games were cheaper and people could afford more, would they still buy more of them given the time needed to play them?

Tallon wrote: »

This cross platform that steam are doing with Portal 2 is deffo a step in the right direction.

Very true, the Steam Play idea is ****ing fantastic and I really do wish it was available not only outside of Steam games but also other media. I long for the day when I buy a book and get a copy of the ebook version too so I can bring it with me on my laptop/phone/eReader.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Games publishers need to stop blaming poor sales on piracy using outrageously inflated figures. Take some responsibility. A good well advertised product will sell.

They can dispense with the monetary amounts and just point to the actual download figures then, whichever you use they're too high and they tell the same story. Piracy is a problem. Not the problem but definitely a problem. As for advertising, that's ****ing expensive, plus the law of diminishing returns kicks in when every game is being advertised heavily and your title is being lost in the chaos of glossy full page ads.

Magill · 24-01-2011 8:35pm

gizmo wrote: »

Can't happen. It's been discussed to death around here but the fact of the matter is, paying at least 50 skilled people for around 3 years in order to make a game, then test it, manufacture it and advertise it isn't cheap.

How many more games do you think people would buy if they were cheaper, really? I mean books and the cinema aren't expensive but people only go to see a limited number of those which are released. Then you have the time consideration, even if games were cheaper and people could afford more, would they still buy more of them given the time needed to play them?

Very true, the Steam Play idea is ****ing fantastic and I really do wish it was available not only outside of Steam games but also other media. I long for the day when I buy a book and get a copy of the ebook version too so I can bring it with me on my laptop/phone/eReader.

They can dispense with the monetary amounts and just point to the actual download figures then, whichever you use they're too high and they tell the same story. Piracy is a problem. Not the problem but definitely a problem. As for advertising, that's ****ing expensive, plus the law of diminishing returns kicks in when every game is being advertised heavily and your title is being lost in the chaos of glossy full page ads.

I'd buy more if they were cheaper, 50 quid a pop is ****ing expensive ! Its not even remotely similar to going to the cinema. Ofc people will buy more games if they're cheaper. The best way to do this is by cutting out the middlemen, digital distribution will solve so many problems. They're sales wont just increase because they can sell the games cheaper, but they'd be taking a huge chunk out of the preowned market, which is far more damaging than piracy ever was. Also, it would be alot easier to tackle this piracy nonsense.

gizmo · 24-01-2011 8:44pm

Magill wrote: »

I'd buy more if they were cheaper, 50 quid a pop is ****ing expensive ! Its not even remotely similar to going to the cinema. Ofc people will buy more games if they're cheaper. The best way to do this is by cutting out the middlemen, digital distribution will solve so many problems. They're sales wont just increase because they can sell the games cheaper, but they'd be taking a huge chunk out of the preowned market, which is far more damaging than piracy ever was. Also, it would be alot easier to tackle this piracy nonsense.

Well yes you'd buy more, but do you think you and others would buy enough more to justify the fall in price? That's the question most industry people would be asking themselves.

And I don't see why it's so different from going to the cinema. Both are a form of entertainment that we spend our disposable income on. Despite the cinema being considerably cheaper than video games plus not lasting as long, I still don't go and see every movie that comes out that looks vaguely interesting.

Cutting out the middlemen is perhaps the only thing they can do, they're still left with development and testing costs which are extremely large. You're also left with the Steam type scenario of a multitude of games being released at the same time and many of them, some quite often great, going unnoticed.

As for the second hand market being more damaging, yes I'd completely agree with that. However we're talking specifically about piracy here, the second hand games market argument has also been beaten to death in other threads.

sarumite · 24-01-2011 8:47pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Games publishers need to stop blaming poor sales on piracy using outrageously inflated figures. Take some responsibility. A good well advertised product will sell.

Agreed....but its a two way street.

sarumite · 24-01-2011 8:49pm

Magill wrote: »

I'd buy more if they were cheaper, 50 quid a pop is ****ing expensive !

When you hear of people pirating games that are going for less than €20, I think people will always pirate something as long as it costs more than free.

gizmo · 24-01-2011 8:53pm

sarumite wrote: »

When you hear of people pirating games that are going for less than €20, I think people will always pirate something as long as it costs more than free.

There was widespread pirating of the Humble Bundle Indie pack, something you could pay whatever you wanted for.

Varik · 24-01-2011 9:06pm

gizmo wrote: »

Cutting out the middlemen is perhaps the only thing they can do, they're still left with development and testing costs which are extremely large.

It's fine for steam who could live very happily without gamestop getting a cut, but Sony, MS, and Nintendo have hardware to worry about and shops don't make much of a cut on those to make it worth their while.

Pblishers/developers don't start making a game and keep upping the budget until release and hope for the best, a lot of the time they try to estimate sales at the standard price early in development and workout a budget from that.

I don't think games are overly expensive for what you get from them compare to mostly everything else, but not every game should get the automatic 50/60 price tag. I've read and heard about this Mexican wrestling game that would have done far better in sale and profits at 30/40 from many reviews and critics who liked the game but could not justify the price.

There should be more level of price that games can come in under rather than the blanket €50 expected from anything on a DVD/Blu-ray(awesome PS3 HD collections excluded).

noodler · 24-01-2011 9:45pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Funny how the 360 and PS3 have comparable install bases, the PS3's security has so far not been compromised to the public while 360 piracy is rife and yet games sell the same or better on the 360.

Surely the fact the PS3 has only caught up recently would play a huge part in this?

amacachi · 24-01-2011 10:50pm

gizmo wrote: »

If I was to do that it would be about half of that figure. I don't know about you but the first thing I do when I buy a CD nowadays, after listening to it first of course, is to rip it to my PC.

Yeah but I was saying that a typical album download would be under 100MB whereas when I rip an album it's more like 300 usually, so there's 2/3 less straightaway. :pac:

gizmo · 24-01-2011 11:07pm

amacachi wrote: »

Yeah but I was saying that a typical album download would be under 100MB whereas when I rip an album it's more like 300 usually, so there's 2/3 less straightaway. :pac:

Hah, fair enough.

That being said, I still don't know anyone who owns 300 albums either.

desertcircus · 25-01-2011 12:06am

I don't play a huge number of games, but there is a trend among record labels that people should keep an eye out for. Interesting musicians and bands are progressively disappearing from major label rosters and being replaced by the kind of product that sells to people who don't know how to use torrents; small children and people over fifty. Sanctuary Records used to be a home for those interesting bands who were dropped by their labels - until it folded.

There's a very simple rule at play: if people are pirating the product you make, then you focus on making and selling products pirates aren't interested in. The trend that's operating in music is a few years behind in gaming, but sooner or later the money in games will be focused on selling not to you, but to your small child or your parents or grandparents. It's the reason Justin Bieber and Michael Buble are getting astronomical sums spent on them.

Make it unprofitable to sell to you, and you'll ensure nobody bothers producing anything aimed at you. Whether or not you'd have bought that game, the manufacturer thinks you would have, and your download is another signpost pointing towards Kinectimals and Nintendogs for them. It's the same with films - there's been a boom in simple, kid-friendly films with sequels already agreed, because there's simply no financial benefit to focusing on gritty films. Kick-Ass was turned down as an option by countless studios because it was too risky, and may not have made its budget back. You don't hire a huge team and make them work for months or years to produce something that's a huge piracy risk; it's financially insane. Far more sensible to hire a smaller team to work less and produce a sequel to a simple game that sold lots to people who aren't likely to be pirates.

Grumpypants · 25-01-2011 12:34am

desertcircus wrote: »

I don't play a huge number of games, but there is a trend among record labels that people should keep an eye out for. Interesting musicians and bands are progressively disappearing from major label rosters and being replaced by the kind of product that sells to people who don't know how to use torrents; small children and people over fifty. Sanctuary Records used to be a home for those interesting bands who were dropped by their labels - until it folded.

There's a very simple rule at play: if people are pirating the product you make, then you focus on making and selling products pirates aren't interested in. The trend that's operating in music is a few years behind in gaming, but sooner or later the money in games will be focused on selling not to you, but to your small child or your parents or grandparents. It's the reason Justin Bieber and Michael Buble are getting astronomical sums spent on them.

.

I read that and thought if you are writing songs no one wants to pay for try writing better songs.

gizmo · 25-01-2011 12:42am

desertcircus wrote: »

I don't play a huge number of games, but there is a trend among record labels that people should keep an eye out for. Interesting musicians and bands are progressively disappearing from major label rosters and being replaced by the kind of product that sells to people who don't know how to use torrents; small children and people over fifty. Sanctuary Records used to be a home for those interesting bands who were dropped by their labels - until it folded.

There's a very simple rule at play: if people are pirating the product you make, then you focus on making and selling products pirates aren't interested in. The trend that's operating in music is a few years behind in gaming, but sooner or later the money in games will be focused on selling not to you, but to your small child or your parents or grandparents. It's the reason Justin Bieber and Michael Buble are getting astronomical sums spent on them.

Make it unprofitable to sell to you, and you'll ensure nobody bothers producing anything aimed at you. Whether or not you'd have bought that game, the manufacturer thinks you would have, and your download is another signpost pointing towards Kinectimals and Nintendogs for them. It's the same with films - there's been a boom in simple, kid-friendly films with sequels already agreed, because there's simply no financial benefit to focusing on gritty films. Kick-Ass was turned down as an option by countless studios because it was too risky, and may not have made its budget back. You don't hire a huge team and make them work for months or years to produce something that's a huge piracy risk; it's financially insane. Far more sensible to hire a smaller team to work less and produce a sequel to a simple game that sold lots to people who aren't likely to be pirates.

Except, this mainstream pop stuff is still the most downloaded music out there.

ricman · 25-01-2011 1:41am

I buy all my games in shops,i dont usually pay more than 40 euros.ie mostly preowned or 2 games for 50special offers.
i have never met anyone with a modded 360.I think its like the music industry,ok some kid downloads a 1000 songs=1000 lost sales, its unlikely he would buy all those songs, or could afford to buy em ,its not 1000 lost sales.i see no point in modding, you cant go online, 1 game is 6gig ,its wrong and not worth the trouble.a ps3 game is 25 gig on average
i didnt know you could mod a ps3, how many people out there have blueray burners.
i buy high quality games ,eg red dead redemption,halo 3.etc i,d have no interest in buying pirated games.no more than i ,d want to buy illegal drugs.
THERE will always be people who ,ll try and get games, music for nothing.
You could say the publishers lose billions from the sales of preowned games,people have a limited amount to spend on games, or music,movies etc
A game is not like a lp, you cant buy one song,its the whole game or nothing at all.
When tapes audio cassettes came out, they said home taping will kill the music industry.
i remember when the ps2 came out, modded ps2 ,s were very common, you could just copy the games on a cdr.
i prefer just to buy legal original games.

amacachi · 25-01-2011 12:00pm

gizmo wrote: »

Hah, fair enough.

That being said, I still don't know anyone who owns 300 albums either.

Fair enough, when I was 16 I knew 3 or 4 people off the top of my head who did have that many albums. Most people I know now have a much narrower preference for music if any at all. I also don't know anyone who has filled an 80GB iPod.
Just out of interest, would anyone on this thread object in about 10 years time when games on the current consoles are unavailable if people then started to pirate them?

Sparks43 · 25-01-2011 12:11pm

Ok so i have an r4 card for my ds and im playing old Spectrum, Nes, Game boy,Snes and megadrive games.

Got them all from a download site and dont feel 1 bit guilty for doing it as most of the games im playing i owned when the Consoles where out 1st

Take that moral police

* switches on ds and plays jet pac *

Fnz · 25-01-2011 1:25pm

gizmo wrote: »

Except, this mainstream pop stuff is still the most downloaded music out there.

The 'most popular music' being the 'most downloaded music' is to be expected. Its mention is not really a counter-point to desertcircus's post.

gizmo · 25-01-2011 2:29pm

Fnz wrote: »

The 'most popular music' being the 'most downloaded music' is to be expected. Its mention is not really a counter-point to desertcircus's post.

His point was that the industry is replacing their roster of artists with those which "sells to people who don't know how to use torrents" and are deemed more risk free. I pointed out that these bands are in fact the ones which are being the most downloaded so it nullifies his point in this regard.

amacachi wrote: »

Just out of interest, would anyone on this thread object in about 10 years time when games on the current consoles are unavailable if people then started to pirate them?

Ah this is an interesting one alright. Personally, if people wanted to play a video game I created 10 years ago I'd love to enable them to do so with minimum hassle. As such I'd see no issue with them being able to download them for free if they couldn't legally buy it. This is the basis of abandonware imo and it's something which should be encouraged, not cracked down upon.

The main obstacle, of course, is the issue of IP and companies wanting to protect it in order to monetise it down the line. For instance, look at the Virtual Console on the Wii, there's still loads of interest in old classic SNES games on that and Nintendo can clearly make money from it. This makes the issue harder to deal with unfortunately.

Retr0gamer · 25-01-2011 3:26pm

amacachi wrote: »

Just out of interest, would anyone on this thread object in about 10 years time when games on the current consoles are unavailable if people then started to pirate them?

That's a damn good point. I'm all for the preservation of videogames, just look at the film industry and how many lost films they have from the early days of film, it would be a shame if the same thing happens to videogames. A lot of old japanese home computer games on systems you never heard of where going this way until there was a massive undertaking to try and collect them all and still some are missing and are at the mercy of shaky filesharing sites. A lot of games that are considered classics would have also ended up lost in licensing confusion when the companies that own the IPs went bust but have been kept alive by pirate copies.

Overheal · 25-01-2011 4:27pm

Duggy747 wrote: »

How can they tell how many consoles have been chipped? People who download these games usually do so because they can and wouldn't be bothered playing certain games in the first place because they cost money.

Take number of console sales and deduct the number who havent purchased their own copy of Hello Kitty Island Adventure. Based on the flawless logic that everyone will want to play Hello Kitty Island Adventure, there are currently 1.8 Million illegal copies of Hello Kitty Island Adventure out in the wild.

They can't say much about lost revenue when the reason I didn't buy spore is because I pirated it, the reason is SecuROM. Bought or stolen, they can shove that piece of crap back up the colon it came from. I'll keep buying and playing games that don't infect my computer.

desertcircus · 26-01-2011 12:27am

gizmo wrote: »

His point was that the industry is replacing their roster of artists with those which "sells to people who don't know how to use torrents" and are deemed more risk free. I pointed out that these bands are in fact the ones which are being the most downloaded so it nullifies his point in this regard.

It doesn't really, though. It's not about making sure that your pop releases are horrifying to anyone who knows their way around a torrent, but about making sure that your pop releases sound fantastic to people who don't. If pirates happen to download loads of it, fair enough. It's about who you're trying to sell it to - and Whip My Hair by Willow Smith is a pretty bloody clear indicator of who they're trying to sell to. They don't care if pirates download copies (well, they do, but it's not the primary focus); they care that non-pirates buy copies.

If your entertainment can be fed down a fibre-optic cable, then the people making it will focus on the people who pay money for it. If the people who pay money for it are children and the middle-aged, then you get entertainment directed at children and the middle-aged. Music may actually do better than cinema and games, as the entry cost of actually producing music is so low - you can produce a pretty absorbing album on a MacBook with a good pair of headphones, that gets just as many repeat listens as a major label production. It's harder to do that with movies and games, and the only reason we haven't seen it quite yet is because pirating music became feasible bandwidth-wise much earlier.

Ask yourself a simple question: if you were in charge of a major gaming studio, and your job was to produce a profit, would you focus on complex, richly patterned games that cost a fortune to produce and carry a higher risk of piracy, or shovelware for kids? Hell, you don't even have to choose shovelware; given the margins, you can probably hire pretty talented people as long as the game they produce is sellable to kids.

gizmo · 26-01-2011 12:59am

desertcircus wrote: »

It doesn't really, though. It's not about making sure that your pop releases are horrifying to anyone who knows their way around a torrent, but about making sure that your pop releases sound fantastic to people who don't. If pirates happen to download loads of it, fair enough. It's about who you're trying to sell it to - and Whip My Hair by Willow Smith is a pretty bloody clear indicator of who they're trying to sell to. They don't care if pirates download copies (well, they do, but it's not the primary focus); they care that non-pirates buy copies.

That's simply playing the numbers game though and it's slowly running out for those relying on selling more copies of something than people download, in order to survive. Think of the number of people who knew how to use bittorrent five years ago, now look at the number.

desertcircus wrote: »

Ask yourself a simple question: if you were in charge of a major gaming studio, and your job was to produce a profit, would you focus on complex, richly patterned games that cost a fortune to produce and carry a higher risk of piracy, or shovelware for kids? Hell, you don't even have to choose shovelware; given the margins, you can probably hire pretty talented people as long as the game they produce is sellable to kids.

Well every company I've worked for has done the former and is still around to tell the tale so between that and my own desire to make AAA games, I'd pick that one too. As for the profitability in shovelware, well sure there is plenty of money to be made but not as much as you think. Many publishers saw the Wii as a gateway to massive sales of these titles and that turned out to be an expensive mistake. The 360 and PS3 don't often play host to many successes either, with licensed titles being the odd exception. Which of course leaves the PC but there the main success stories have been edutainment titles rather than proper shovelware.

Gaming industry lose 'billions' to chipped consoles

Comments