Rock, Paper, Shotgun - Piracy is Not the Issue

Rock, Paper Shotgun's Keiron Gillen examines an essay by Brad Wardell, Ceo of Stardock, which presents the idea that when the dust settles on a particular game's success, piracy is less of an issue than sales. Wardell's entire piece, Piracy & PC Gaming, can be found here.
I actually found the original essay as interesting as the commentary, so here's a brief excerpt:

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...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.

Click to expand...

This leads to the quote Gillen references:

“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...

Click to expand...

Gillen then goes on to say

...With magazines and websites, I don’t think it’s actually anything to do with “cool” - it’s about what’s perceived as cool by the people who read them. As in, what will make them read. Regarding websites, there’s a nasty truth which no-one really has spoke aloud: Pirate’s clicks are as good as anyone else’s. Websites earn money from people who have no interest in paying for the game. If there’s several million pirate-only FPS fans, they’ll swell the page-impression count too. If there’s four million people who want to read about Call of Duty 4, even if only 400,000 want to pay for it, a website will earn more money by writing about it, rather than trying to do something for the 400,000 people who actually want to read about Sins of the Solar Empire, even if every single one of them buy the game...

Click to expand...

More information.

A good and intelligent article about thie topic of piracy. As a regular stardock software & games customers I can understand the man. Its quite simple, if you make games with a real, lasting value, not just fancy "coolness" people buy the game. But if you milk them with sims2 addon 32124 with MORE arbitrary trash and stuff, each time milking the customer blind, you dont need to wonder people start to seek copies. Its because the value of games is often so poor and the price relatively high which makes people get a copy instead.

All this fuzz about presumed piracy damage is quite hilarious. Its sheer guesswork to assume how many customers "would have" bought a game, and essentially as solid as tea leaf reading.

Stardock is very customer friendly (unlike som certain russian russians *wink*), their latest release was extra nice with the option that if you buy digital d/l you can buy box later too for only 5$ + sh if you want to. Its like they actually spend time thinking it out from customers POV.

I buy their games because I feel like I never get let down by their releases or screwed in other ways through the publishing methods. There are many things other than the games quality that can go wrong.

We have bought every single Sims 2 expansion so far, including the item packs. Many young women / girls have done the same. It's an excellent Christmas present when you just do not know what to buy. Sims 2 reaches a market that many great publishers simply ignore.

Brad Wardell's suggestion that piracy is moot makes sense only if he's right that pirates aren't potential customers, that they would never buy any of the games they now get for free.

It makes sense, because unlike other products that get stolen, there's no loss of inventory when software gets downloaded. So it's only a matter of whether or not there's any lost sales.

Brad Wardell must know his business, but I doubt his position is sincere. I think he's just being smart. Seeing no good way to combat piracy, he's taking a different tack.

If pirates are in the majority among players, then their opinions of you and your games matter most. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

elikal said:

All this fuzz about presumed piracy damage is quite hilarious. Its sheer guesswork to assume how many customers "would have" bought a game, and essentially as solid as tea leaf reading.

Click to expand...

This is true, but it's equally silly when the pirates claim there is no damage. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I'm glad that somebody wrote this. Piracy certainly doesn't help, but it's also too much of a scapegoat. Piracy has been around for as long as PC gaming itself. People can easily pirate any new movie, but apparently, that hasn't hurt DVD sales that much. I think that a bigger factor is the fact that Microsoft has been subsidizing console gaming with huge losses while encouraging the PC's best developers to make games for the X-Box.

I actually like this article very much, because

a) it stands like a rock out of the sea
b) it puts forward thoughts that are right and should've been made public much earlier.

I am not so crazy about the article. Behind all the "piracy doesn't matter" (which I partially agree with, see our previous discussions), its the good old ugly "make more casual games" philosophy that is rearing its head here, and that is not where I want PC gaming to go.

The implication seems to be that the PC market can only support casual games and the 'cool' stuff should move to consols where they sell.

Hmmm... but then, are Stardock's products really casual? I consider myself a hardcore gamer, yet I don't think that Wardell's sense of what hardcore buyers are considering 'cool' is anywhere close to what I think. Hardcore has been around for a while now, and those of us who were there back then and didn't let go are likely in a position (and mindset I dare say) to comfortably afford the few games that really attract their interest anymore. Most of the pirates I know are either shallow mainstream kids with a PC but no funds to buy that console that really fits their type or long-time tech freaks but casual gamers.
Maybe there is more than one hardcore, and maybe it would help this discussion if someone found a way to keep them apart...

Moorkh said:

Hmmm... but then, are Stardock's products really casual? I consider myself a hardcore gamer, yet I don't think that Wardell's sense of what hardcore buyers are considering 'cool' is anywhere close to what I think. Hardcore has been around for a while now, and those of us who were there back then and didn't let go are likely in a position (and mindset I dare say) to comfortably afford the few games that really attract their interest anymore. Most of the pirates I know are either shallow mainstream kids with a PC but no funds to buy that console that really fits their type or long-time tech freaks but casual gamers.
Maybe there is more than one hardcore, and maybe it would help this discussion if someone found a way to keep them apart...

Click to expand...

No, my comment wasn't really made with Stardock in mind. I wouldn't know if their games are casual or not, I haven't played any of their games. But it seems that that is the logical conlclusion that most developers would draw from his post.

The single most significant reason PC gaming is dying (if we're being
fashionably dramatic), is that gaming has become a mainstream industry. It's
been that way for several years already, and this means that the majority of
gamers are no longer hardcore gamers, willing to put up with technical
issues or other problems typically connected with the PC.

Furthermore, mainstream gamers are typically not interested in overly challenging gameplay, and they're MUCH more comfortable sitting on the couch and having as convenient an experience as possible.

Consoles are MUCH better suited to the mainstream gamer. There are no
performance issues, there are no compatibility issues, there are no interface issues (they pretty much all control the same and have limited configuration options), and most of all, they're MUCH cheaper than a high-end PC.

Game developers/publishers are watching numbers, and it's totally plain to
see that console games are more successful (as in A LOT more), simply
because that's where the mainstream gamers primarily exist. Not to say there
are not mainstream gamers on the PC, not at all, and games like The Sims
would seem to support that. However, given the choice, mainstream gamers
will generally prefer sitting on the couch and not having to deal with the
hassles. This migration to consoles of recent years is the primary factor in
the development we're currently seeing, and the cause of the uproar. Casual
gamers have been around for a long time, but today they not only strongly
outweigh the hardcore (and have been for years), they've also wised up and
are slowly moving to where they can have the most comfortable experience.

So, the end result is not that PC games sell less these days than they did in the past, it's that they sell much less than their console counterparts. Therefore, developers/publishers are going there, and all this talk about piracy and bad market research is not the core of the problem. The core of the problem is what happens when the mainstream is let inside. In short, they just want more money.

It's not rocket science.

This Brad Wardell is not stupid, and he has some good points. However, he's
clearly not a passionate game developer and he's advocating that developers
abandon their desire to make "cool" games, and instead go where the most
profit can be had. What a creatively bankrupt solution, and I don't think
that's the way we should be saving PC gaming. If we're going to destroy the
reason game designers become game designers, then what the hell are we
fighting for?

No, all we can do is keep working on making the PC platform as hassle-free
as possible, and to do this, we could start with eliminating the
ridiculously stupid copy protection implementations that are ruining the
experience of legit gamers, and amusing the pirates. Also, we need to FOCUS
on what makes the PC platform cool, and hold on to our strengths. If we
become artistically blank, as Wardell more or less suggests, then developers
will most certainly abandon the platform and move to consoles instead. Not
everyone has WindowBlinds on the side, and if they're into profit more than
art, they'll abandon the PC in a heartbeat.

That said, I don't give PC gaming much of a chance to be competitive as a
mainstream gaming platform. Only games like WoW are holding it above water
in that regard, and though WoW is an amazing product, it's not exactly the
pearl of PC game design - at least not in the creative sense. Actually, I think WoW has badly hurt the MMO market - and indeed the PC gaming market in general - in much the same way mainstream gaming as a whole has made the PC market so unattractive. Once you wake up the masses, you've called for the end of the minorities.

We should probably prepare to contend with becoming small potatoes. I
started out that way (gamers were rare in the early 80s), and I can do it
again. Here's hoping a few good men (read hardcore gamers/developers) will
stick it out with me.

I can only think of one game that was seriously hurt by Piracy and that was Arcanum. You might remember way back when a near finished version was sent to Europe for translation with Sierra planning to release the English language version at the same time in September. A few people took issue with this.

Regardless, that copy got out to IRC and in July that year and Troika scrambled to get the official version out early, trying to make sure there was extra content like MP ready on the updated version and that the patch would work on the old one. A game reviewer in Illinois was actually fired for reviewing the complete game early.

The was problems with the early release. that original copy wasn't quite perfect and the official version was preloaded with DirectX 8.0 without being fully tested (the new implementation of sound with it caused serious lag) leading to some poor reviews and bad word of mouth. Clearly it cost sales for Troika.

OTOH, one company exploited the wide distribution of games amongst piraters and that was Id. Crippleware versions Wolfenstein then Doom were widely distributed and thousands of thousands of people registered their versions online to get new levels. Not officially Piracy but a great exploitation of the grass roots distribution system.

I don't think he is saying that PC games should be casual games but that the devopers should make games for their customer base rather then all users like most companies have been doing lately. It means that if you make an RPG then make it for the RPG buying customers rather then trying to cover everyone who owns a computer.

One of the reasons why I think he means that is because that is what he does in the most part. Stardock makes the Galactic Civilization series which is a series of 4X strategy games and that is all they are and they don't mix genres. The new game they have made is a 4X RTS called Sins of a Solar Empire which does mix genres.

EDIT: They do need to bring Shareware back. Distribute the game online for free but with limit on levels or area you can play then you would have to register it to play further. That would let you play the game for free and pay for it if you like it. They should also think of where to stop the free gameplay and not just have the intro levels as the free gameplay since they usually don't represent the total gameplay.

Example: If you had The Witcher as shareware I would suggest that the ending of the free area be either during or after the second chapter since that is when you get an idea of how good the game is.

elikal said:

Its quite simple, if you make games with a real, lasting value, not just fancy "coolness" people buy the game. But if you milk them with sims2 addon 32124 with MORE arbitrary trash and stuff, each time milking the customer blind, you dont need to wonder people start to seek copies. Its because the value of games is often so poor and the price relatively high which makes people get a copy instead.

Click to expand...

Bullcrap. A $50 game is one of the best entertainment values you can get and the sales of products like The Sims proves people want more. Really, if this stuff is "trash", why would anyone want it, pirated or otherwise? And really great games simply get pirated more - not less. People pirate because they can. Full stop.

----------

I find the Stardock thing a bit frustrating because it skews the discussion. Any piracy conversation will have someone using Stardock as an example that DRM should be done away with (citing GalCiv or Sins) and it's a poor example, because Stardock is unique and people don't actually understand Wardell's views.

As several people have alluded in this thread, Brad is a very smart businessman. He is both sidestepping the issue and creating free PR by becoming some sort of anti-DRM poster-boy even though that isn't necessarily his position.

Kudos to him for a brilliant strategy that also benefits his customers - it's fantastic and win-win but it has limited application for other developers.

So, does Brad believe piracy is a big issue or not? Some quotes:

Stardock doesn't suffer from piracy quite as much because of the demographic we focus on. We don't, and won't, make FPS's or other action oriented games precisely because the demographic is appeals to is so full of piracy.

Click to expand...

Markets tend to evolve that way. The PC game market is going the same way. If first person shooters or action-oriented games don't sell well on the PC, the reason eventually becomes irrelevant.

Click to expand...

The PC game pirates are simply pushing certain genres of games off the PC (unless a more effective copy protection system is found).

Click to expand...

So, Brad does believe piracy hurts the PC, won't even touch certain genres and believes they are being pushed off the PC.

Again, his strategy is excellent and I wish more game producers would make modest 2nd tier games that don't need huge sales to survive. I don't really play many action games so it's no skin off my nose if action games move entirely to consoles but does anyone believe that is healthy for the PC market? Do you want a platform where some genres are pushed away because of piracy? What if RPGs were one of those genres?

Does Brad believe in DRM? He doesn't believe in inconveniencing the customer (great!) but most certainly believes in it otherwise:

If it didn't inconvenience customers and the technology was possible, I'd have the game send DNA data over the net to verify the actual person using the game.

Click to expand...

Why would that be attractive if he didn't realise the damage that piracy does?

So why does Stardock do these cool things but noone else does?

1. Stardock is self-financed through WindowsBlinds and other non-gaming products. The games are almost a hobby in comparison.

2. They own their own distibution platform. Easy to get the most income when you get all the money from a sale.

3. They operate with very limited genres. Can we really have every game producer only making 2nd tier strategy titles?

So, if I'm not Stardock, don't have a million sitting in the bank (GalCiv's cost) and so need a publisher to fund me and distribute my game, what illumination does Stardock's example provide?

Very little beyond the obvious - making a good game always helps.

Squeek said:

Brad Wardell must know his business, but I doubt his position is sincere. I think he's just being smart. Seeing no good way to combat piracy, he's taking a different tack.
.

Click to expand...

Wardell's position is built upon a mountain of feces. Worse, piracy is exactly the issue and this sort of article gives justification to those who are hurting the industry. If you can't beat em, go make console games. Otherwise, give up and call it victory.

"Piracy is not the issue"


Oh yeah? Let's DEFINE THE ISSUE then, shall we? Piracy is vastly worse, by orders of magnitude, on the PC platform as opposed to the console platform. As a consequence, when faced with rising devleopment costs and increasing piracy due to P2P and bit torrent, publishers have LEFT THE PC PLATFORM en masse to the extent that there simply is no funding available to make a PC game anymore if you are a startup or mid-tier developer.

Understanding the problem is important. If you are a start up or a mid-tier developer - there is no development money for a traditional PC game right now. That's the issue when we talk about piracy being bad for PC gaming. It isn't whether piracy is good, bad, indifferent, moral, immoral, pervasive or non-pervasive, legal or illegal or anything else. The issue is - piracy has wiped out funding for non-multi-sku cross platform games on the PC.

That's the premise behind "why piracy is very bad for PC gaming". And that premise remains entirely intact after Brad Wardell waves the white flag and says "yup, piracy destroyed the industry, other developers should just accept it like my company did and call it victory".

Because that's what Wardell does. Stardock throws in the towel and invites other devs to do so too and call it "success".

You don't think so? Let's look at what Stardock does:

1 - Publishes niche strategy games of restricted market appeal; ( Personally, I really like these games, but that's not the point. I know what's mass market - and what's niche.)

"Copy protection = Don't pirate my game because you won't like it."

2- Reduces development costs by offering graphics that are hopelessly out of date. And let's be clear on this - because the art direction on Galactic Civ II is just horrendously out of date and bad and Sins of a Solar Empire isn't that much better.

"Copy protection == Don't pirate my game because it looks stinky."

3- Releases a game on disc without copy protection, on the expectation that customers won't actually play with that version for very long, as the product is deliberately broken. In other words, they sell defective software by design without copy protection, which in order to get to run properly, you need to patch online anyways. (Stardock self-publishes, so they can do this. Any other dev wouldn't get a gold milestone approval, but I digress).

"Copy protection == Don't pirate my game because it is defective by design"

4- Even then it STILL gets pirated all to hell, as Stardock self-funds, self- publishes and even self-retails, (and has an extaneous source of non-game income to pay the rent and keep the lights on), because its titles are so cheap, it can make enough on limited sales. Plus, it has another source of income so who cares about being a full time game developer?

"We self-fund, self-publish and self-retail even, so the problems inherent in steps 1-3 above we can live with (whereas a publisher with a phone for tech support would not) , and please ingore the fact that there's *still* no funding for game development for PC games based on my model of "living with the piracy" but... whatever. I call it victory."

This is the model of PC game development in the future? This is playing it smart? This is PC game development where "piracy is not the issue?"

I call "bullshit".

guenthar said:

I don't think he is saying that PC games should be casual games but that the devopers should make games for their customer base rather then all users like most companies have been doing lately. It means that if you make an RPG then make it for the RPG buying customers rather then trying to cover everyone who owns a computer.

One of the reasons why I think he means that is because that is what he does in the most part. Stardock makes the Galactic Civilization series which is a series of 4X strategy games and that is all they are and they don't mix genres. The new game they have made is a 4X RTS called Sins of a Solar Empire which does mix genres.

Click to expand...

He specifically states that you shouldn't go for the hardcore gamer, and that you shouldn't target those of us who care the most about the industry as a whole, because we're not profitable in comparison. He's talking about "cool" stuff, which he apparently perceives as stuff that requires the very best hardware.

I'm not a business man, but his conclusions are pretty obvious and I sincerely doubt they come as a great revelation to even modestly intelligent developers.

He apparently thinks that games are deliberately designed to run only on high-end hardware, and that developers are so stupid they miss that it's not going to be very profitable. He's casting aside the possibility that many games end up with technical issues, or unreasonable hardware demands because the developers didn't have enough resources to finish what they started, or that they're forced into making promises they can't keep to get a publisher to fund their projects. Regardless of who is to blame, I choose to believe that only a minority of publishers or developers are deliberately targeting minority groups without a good reason. They're just not that stupid. Their ability to plan things correctly and actually finish a product with reasonable technical standards might be lacking, but that's another issue - and not something you can fix by stating the blatantly obvious, blowing your own horn in the process.

He's sitting comfortably on his WindowBlinds fortune, and he's obviously a talented business man. However, that is a gigantic step away from being a talented artist, and because he's not into making great art, it's not necessarily in the best interest of developers to imitate him.

There are countless factors contributing to the state of PC gaming, and I've already stated my view about what's the primary cause.

GhanBuriGhan said:

No, my comment wasn't really made with Stardock in mind. I wouldn't know if their games are casual or not, I haven't played any of their games. But it seems that that is the logical conlclusion that most developers would draw from his post.

Click to expand...

Huh? Be careful of flagrant displays of ignorance! Stardock's games are actually quite good space-based RTS efforts that are extremely popular with the hardcore set and have sold very well. It is like calling The Witcher a casual game ...

txa1265 said:

Huh? Be careful of flagrant displays of ignorance! Stardock's games are actually quite good space-based RTS efforts that are extremely popular with the hardcore set and have sold very well. It is like calling The Witcher a casual game ...

Click to expand...

Just as long as we agree that GalCiv 2 is a pale shadow of MoO2 (from 1996), without multiplayer