PDA

View Full Version : Stardocks take on Piracy and PC games


wysiwyg
03-11-08, 11:10 AM
http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

nekrosoft13
03-11-08, 11:12 AM
The problem with blaming piracy
I don't want anyone to walk away from this article thinking I am poo-pooing the effect of piracy. I'm not. I definitely feel for game developers who want to make kick ass PC games who see their efforts diminished by a bunch of greedy pirates. I just don't count pirates in the first place. If you're a pirate, you don't get a vote on what gets made -- or you shouldn't if the company in question is trying to make a profit.

The reason why we don't put copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.

One of the jokes I've seen in the desktop enhancement market is how "ugly" WindowBlinds skins are (though there are plenty of awesome ones too). But the thing is, the people who buy WindowBlinds tend to like a different style of skin than the people who would never buy it in the first place. Natural selection, so to speak, over many years has created a number of styles that seem to be unique to people who actually buy WindowBlinds. That's the problem with piracy. What gets made targets people who buy it, not the people who would never buy it in the first place. When someone complains about "fat borders" on some popular WindowBlinds skin my question is always "Would you buy WindowBlinds even if there was a perfect skin for you?" and the answer is inevitably "Probably not". That's how it works in every market -- the people who buy stuff call the shots. Only in the PC game market are the people who pirate stuff still getting the overwhelming percentage of development resources and editorial support.

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot. But then again, I don't romanticize PC game development. I just want to play cool games and make a profit on games that I work on.

evox
03-11-08, 11:23 AM
this man speaks the truth.

Epic, Infinity Ward, please take notes.

wysiwyg
03-11-08, 11:26 AM
this man speaks the truth.

Epic, Infinity Ward, please take notes.

+1 :cool:

EciDemon
03-11-08, 11:31 AM
I applaud Draginol, shame tho other companies will never follow Stardocks example, they are too greedy not to protect there IP, even at the expence of customers. More then once have I passed on games due to shoddy protection.

They could also do as they did with X3, after a while, they removed starforce with a patch, man was I happy :) No need to have my disc in, and I dont have to feel bad about removing it my self.

I always buy games I consider must have, and each time i get tripped by protection I get so mad, yet I go out and do it again. Would be nice to never have to worry about that again.

ViN86
03-11-08, 11:32 AM
here's the full article:


Piracy & PC Gaming
By Draginol Posted March 10, 2008 20:48:46

Recently there has been a lot of talk about how piracy affects PC gaming. And if you listen to game developers, it apparently is a foregone conclusion - if a high quality PC game doesn't sell as many copies as it should, it must be because of piracy.

Now, I don't like piracy at all. It really bugs me when I see my game up on some torrent site just on the principle of the matter. And piracy certainly does cost sales. But arguing that piracy is the primary factor in lower sales of well made games? I don't think so.
Is it about business or glory?

Most people who know of Stardock in the gaming world think of it as a tiny indie shop. And we certainly are tiny in terms of game development. But in the desktop enhancement market, Stardock owns that market and it's a market with many millions of users. According to CNET, 6 of the top 10 most popular desktop enhancements are developed by Stardock. Our most popular desktop enhancement, WindowBlinds, has almost 14 million downloads just on Download.com. We have over a million registered users.

If you want to talk about piracy, talk about desktop enhancements. The piracy on that is huge. But the question isn't about piracy. It's about sales.

So here is the deal: When you develop for a market, you don't go by the user base. You go by the potential customer base. That's what most software companies do. They base what they want to create on the size of the market they're developing for. But not PC game developers.

PC game developers seem to focus more on the "cool" factor. What game can they make that will get them glory with the game magazines and gaming websites and hard core gamers? These days, it seems like game developers want to be like rock stars more than businessmen. I've never considered myself a real game developer. I'm a gamer who happens to know how to code and also happens to be reasonably good at business.

So when I make a game, I focus on making games that I think will be the most profitable. As a gamer, I like most games. I love Bioshock. I think the Orange Box is one of the best gaming deals ever. I love Company of Heroes and Oblivion was captivating. My two favorite games of all time are Civilization (I, II, III, and IV) and Total Annihilation. And I won't even get into the hours lost in WoW. Heck, I even like The Sims.

So when it comes time to make a game, I don't have a hard time thinking of a game I'd like to play. The hard part is coming up with a game that we can actually make that will be profitable. And that means looking at the market as a business not about trying to be "cool".
Making games for customers versus making games for users

So even though Galactic Civilizations II sold 300,000 copies making 8 digits in revenue on a budget of less than $1 million, it's still largely off the radar. I practically have to agree to mow editors lawns to get coverage. And you should see Jeff Green's (Games for Windows) yard. I still can't find my hedge trimmers.

Another game that has been off the radar until recently was Sins of a Solar Empire. With a small budget, it has already sold about 200,000 copies in the first month of release. It's the highest rated PC game of 2008 and probably the best selling 2008 PC title. Neither of these titles have CD copy protection.

And yet we don't get nearly the attention of other PC games. Lack of marketing on our part? We bang on the doors for coverage as next as the next shop. Lack of advertising? Open up your favorite PC game publication for the past few months and take note of all the 2 page spreads for Sins of a Solar Empire. So we certainly try.

But we still don't get the editorial buzz that some of the big name titles do because our genre isn't considered as "cool" as other genres. Imagine what our sales would be if our games had gotten game magazine covers and just massive editorial coverage like some of the big name games get. I don't want to suggest we get treated poorly by game magazine and web sites (not just because I fear them -- which I do), we got good preview coverage on Sins, just not the same level as one of the "mega" titles would get. Hard core gamers have different tastes in games than the mainstream PC gaming market of game buyers. Remember Roller Coaster Tycoon? Heck, how much buzz does The Sims get in terms of editorial when compared to its popularity. Those things just aren't that cool to the hard core gaming crowd that everything seems geared toward despite the fact that they're not the ones buying most of the games.

I won't even mention some of the big name PC titles that GalCiv and Sins have outsold. There's plenty of PC games that have gotten dedicated covers that haven't sold as well. So why is that?

Our games sell well for three reasons. First, they're good games which is a pre-requisite. But there's lots of great games that don't sell well.

The other two reasons are:

* Our games work on a very wide variety of hardware configurations.
* Our games target genres with the largest customer bases per cost to produce for.


We also don't make games targeting the Chinese market

When you make a game for a target market, you have to look at how many people will actually buy your game combined with how much it will cost to make a game for that target market. What good is a large number of users if they're not going to buy your game? And what good is a market where the minimal commitment to make a game for it is $10 million if the target audience isn't likely to pay for the game?

If the target demographic for your game is full of pirates who won't buy your game, then why support them? That's one of the things I have a hard time understanding. It's irrelevant how many people will play your game (if you're in the business of selling games that is). It's only relevant how many people are likely to buy your game.

Stardock doesn't make games targeting the Chinese market. If we spent $10 million on a PC game explicitly for the Chinese market and we lost our shirts, would you really feel that much sympathy for us? Or would you think "Duh."


You need a machine how fast?

Anyone who keeps track of how many PCs the "Gamer PC" vendors sell each year could tell you that it's insane to develop a game explicitly for hard core gamers. Insane. I think people would be shocked to find out how few hard core gamers there really are out there. This data is available. The number of high end graphics cards sold each year isn't a trade secret (in some cases you may have to get an NDA but if you're a partner you can find out). So why are companies making games that require them to sell to 15% of a given market to be profitable? In what other market do companies do that? In other software markets, getting 1% of the target market is considered good. If you need to sell 500,000 of your game to break even and your game requires Pixel Shader 3 to not look like crap or play like crap, do you you really think that there are 50 MILLION PC users with Pixel Shader 3 capable machines who a) play games and b) will actually buy your game if a pirated version is available?

In our case, we make games that target the widest possible audience as long as as we can still deliver the gaming experience we set out to. Anyone who's looked at the graphics in Sins of a Solar Empire would, I think, agree that the graphics are pretty phenomenal (particularly space battles). But could they be even fancier? Sure. But only if we degraded the gaming experience for the largest chunk of people who buy games.


The problem with blaming piracy

I don't want anyone to walk away from this article thinking I am poo-pooing the effect of piracy. I'm not. I definitely feel for game developers who want to make kick ass PC games who see their efforts diminished by a bunch of greedy pirates. I just don't count pirates in the first place. If you're a pirate, you don't get a vote on what gets made -- or you shouldn't if the company in question is trying to make a profit.

The reason why we don't put copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.

One of the jokes I've seen in the desktop enhancement market is how "ugly" WindowBlinds skins are (though there are plenty of awesome ones too). But the thing is, the people who buy WindowBlinds tend to like a different style of skin than the people who would never buy it in the first place. Natural selection, so to speak, over many years has created a number of styles that seem to be unique to people who actually buy WindowBlinds. That's the problem with piracy. What gets made targets people who buy it, not the people who would never buy it in the first place. When someone complains about "fat borders" on some popular WindowBlinds skin my question is always "Would you buy WindowBlinds even if there was a perfect skin for you?" and the answer is inevitably "Probably not". That's how it works in every market -- the people who buy stuff call the shots. Only in the PC game market are the people who pirate stuff still getting the overwhelming percentage of development resources and editorial support.

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot. But then again, I don't romanticize PC game development. I just want to play cool games and make a profit on games that I work on.

ViN86
03-11-08, 11:40 AM
he makes a very good point.

why do they make games that target high end PC's? then, if their game ****s the bed, they just blame piracy.

|MaguS|
03-11-08, 12:39 PM
this man speaks the truth.

Epic, Infinity Ward, please take notes.

Fine, but then you will get lower budget titles and not games like Crysis that cost millions to make. Stardock is a pretty small company and when they were announced number #1 in sales they had nothing recently on the shelves to compete with.

You look at Stardocks revenue and sales when compared to the likes of EA and Ubisoft... they are dwarfed by a huge margin. They aren't even part of the equation. Everyone uses them as an example of how no copyprotection works but I bet if they did sell it with protection they would have far more sales but since we don't have figures we have nothing to go by.

WindowBlinds, has almost 14 million downloads just on Download.com. We have over a million registered users.

So they sold over 1 million copies of the software when 14 million people have downloaded it... I wonder how many millions are using the software without buying it... His example shows why it would help them to include some sort of protection, insted of a million copies sold they could have 5 million as of right now they have a pretty bad attachment rate.

BTW If you dislike EA and the rest of the large publishers choices then don't support them, Im sure you can get all the games you enjoy (like Crysis) from Stardock....

evox
03-11-08, 12:46 PM
BTW If you dislike EA and the rest of the large publishers choices then don't support them, Im sure you can get all the games you enjoy (like Crysis) from Stardock....
I dislike EA's **** first party titles (NFL/whatever) and I never buy them. I've been a fan of crytek ever since I saw the FC teaser way back in 2004, I support crytek, I bought Crysis. I'm not going to take a crap on my favorite games just because I dislike the publisher. BTW, good work comparing Stardock to EA. because comparing world's largest games publisher to a puny little company that recently entered game development makes so much sense...

|MaguS|
03-11-08, 01:06 PM
BTW, good work comparing Stardock to EA. because comparing world's largest games publisher to a puny little company that recently entered game development makes so much sense...

it does when anti pirate people use them as an excuse for the removal of protection since they "sell so well" but in contrast they sell poorly compared to other developers.

You support Crytek even though EA got your money? EA funded them... you funded EA...

evox
03-11-08, 01:36 PM
it does when anti pirate people use them as an excuse for the removal of protection since they "sell so well" but in contrast they sell poorly compared to other developers.

You support Crytek even though EA got your money? EA funded them... you funded EA...

Yeah, I'm a sinner. Still keeping my copy of Crysis, thought.

NarcissistZero
03-11-08, 03:41 PM
Fine, but then you will get lower budget titles and not games like Crysis that cost millions to make. Stardock is a pretty small company and when they were announced number #1 in sales they had nothing recently on the shelves to compete with.

You look at Stardocks revenue and sales when compared to the likes of EA and Ubisoft... they are dwarfed by a huge margin. They aren't even part of the equation. Everyone uses them as an example of how no copyprotection works but I bet if they did sell it with protection they would have far more sales but since we don't have figures we have nothing to go by.

Exactly... The blog made some good points, but in the end I don't like what it means... more dumbed down games, less advancement in technology, less genres and more focus on certain ones.

I like shooters... wait, I love shooters... and just because they're the most pirated this guy thinks PC developers should stop making them? That's kind of weak, in my opinion. Also, as Magus points out, he really has no idea how the lack of piracy protection effected his sales... if they had made some kind of online check a requirement for online play, the core of the game, they might have sold 200,000 more copies, who knows...

In the end I like the solution of online registration or Steam a hell of a lot better than limiting what kind of games get made and how much visual flair they can use.

Badboy_12345
03-12-08, 03:22 AM
1. Every protection out there gets cracked

2. You need a cd-key to download patches from stardock

3. They would not have sold more with a copy-protection as it would be cracked like every other.

4. Pirates dont care and never will care about the copy-protection because it gets cracked. Its only the people who bough the game that need to put up with the ****

LycosV
03-12-08, 03:46 AM
I don't agree with everything he said, but the paragraph "You need a machine how fast?" sums up my opinions fairly well. I think that PC game requirements are often too high for their expenses. While games often scale down in graphics for lower end machines, most don't scale very well.

A great example is UT3: Up untill last Christmas I was running an ATI x800 card. I regularly played UT2004 with everything cranked to max at 1600x1200 and the game ran great. When I fired up the UT3 demo the day it came out it ran like a decapitated mule. Even with all settings at minimum, looking like the view through a jagged kaleidoscope, it didn't run good. There was no way I was buying UT3 when the game I already had ran smoother and looked better.

This trend of new games looking and running worse (with similar settings) than those that preceed them isn't new, and it drives people away from PC gaming. I can handle buying a new graphics card to make my games look better, but I don't like having to buy a new card just to make the games look and play the same they did before.

Amuro
03-12-08, 03:55 AM
The world's largest game publisher isn't EA any more. :)

rudedog
03-12-08, 06:54 AM
This trend of new games looking and running worse (with similar settings) than those that preceed them isn't new, and it drives people away from PC gaming. I can handle buying a new graphics card to make my games look better, but I don't like having to buy a new card just to make the games look and play the same they did before.

But is this because they are trying to "cross platform consolize a game"? And for some strange reason they screw the PC side up more then the console side. - Think controls here as well.

For some reason I have a feeling any game that's using the U3 engine for it's "cross platform support" has seen the issues described above. Not to mention MP support, controls, in game browser.....

However COD4 looks amazing with old tech that they have "tweaked" and it runs very well on older platforms (well done IW). Now on the other hand Crysis is different, they are innovating the PC platform so we should give them some slack.

LycosV
03-12-08, 11:10 PM
But is this because they are trying to "cross platform consolize a game"? And for some strange reason they screw the PC side up more then the console side. - Think controls here as well.

For some reason I have a feeling any game that's using the U3 engine for it's "cross platform support" has seen the issues described above. Not to mention MP support, controls, in game browser.....

However COD4 looks amazing with old tech that they have "tweaked" and it runs very well on older platforms (well done IW). Now on the other hand Crysis is different, they are innovating the PC platform so we should give them some slack.

Cross platform development probably makes this worse, but I don't think it's the core issue. I think the main problem is lazy programmers with expensive work machines. It's hard to make a good baseline for low end machines if everyone programs on quad-core, SLI systems.

NarcissistZero
03-12-08, 11:40 PM
Cross platform developing is good in a lot of ways... this whole Microsoft philosophy of develop once and publish twice has gotten us games we might not otherwise have been able to play.

I know a lot of people say "I would rather not get the game on PC at all than have a simple port" but I don't agree with that. A lot of ports are good games.

LycosV
03-13-08, 02:24 AM
Cross platform developing is good in a lot of ways... this whole Microsoft philosophy of develop once and publish twice has gotten us games we might not otherwise have been able to play.

I know a lot of people say "I would rather not get the game on PC at all than have a simple port" but I don't agree with that. A lot of ports are good games.

I completly agree. We get a lot of our PC games because they're easy to port over from the 360. Look at Bioshock, great game whether it's on the PC or the consoles.

nekrosoft13
03-13-08, 07:47 AM
Cross platform developing is good in a lot of ways... this whole Microsoft philosophy of develop once and publish twice has gotten us games we might not otherwise have been able to play.

I know a lot of people say "I would rather not get the game on PC at all than have a simple port" but I don't agree with that. A lot of ports are good games.

true, some ports are quite good. even when a game is a port it still shows a lot of advantages the PC has to offer.

MS just better keep the live to them self

nekrosoft13
03-13-08, 07:48 AM
I completly agree. We get a lot of our PC games because they're easy to port over from the 360. Look at Bioshock, great game whether it's on the PC or the consoles.

PC version plays and looks better (nana2)