Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blacken]

It's not an ad hominem to imply that you have insane expectations that don't reflect the real world. An ad hominem would be to say that you shouldn't be listened to because you have insane expectations that don't reflect the real world. I encourage that many people listen to you, because a little bit of critical thinking reveals your blather to be ignorant of how things actually work.

How in the everloving fuck do you expect what you posit to work? In games alone--which leaves aside projects that almost the entire fucking world uses, i.e. Windows, Office, and so on--you see a massive outlay of funds necessary to bring it to completion. Many fully-funded projects still fail. Many fully-funded projects return subpar results. And you think "pledge drives" are going to fund the multiple millions necessary to make such a project work? Software development is a speculative venture precisely because the end quality is so variable. Copyright encourages that the gamble actually be made. When you take out the profit motive, you destroy the reason to actually build it. And no, open source software is not a valid comp--a cursory look at the results yielded from non-essential projects (and I mean really essential--the results from anything from window managers to games is generally shit in a can) points out why.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Maybe the trend toward multimillion dollar titles is a bad thing. You can make excellent games without spending millions and millions on development. Perhaps development will tend to stray away from a large game production house and toward smaller self-owned teams. That way, to show a profit, you just need to make enough to pay the team members and their costs. You don't also need to support cruft games, shareholder profits, the burly corporate structure of companies like EA, and the profits of the companies that own them.

That's just one method for getting a profit, and actually securing that profit motive. But perhaps a profit motive is only one component that can drive people to make cool digital content.

Perhaps your argument could be more persuasive if you didn't spend half of it attacking me, and then defending your attack, etc. I want to hear your ideas, and maybe other people do too. But they're kind of jammed in there with mysteriously angry stuff.

EDIT: Note that you can still make a good movie these days without spending $250 million, but you can make a bad movie that looks good by spending that much. Same with books, a single author can produce a book and a couple other people can edit, bind, and promote it for sale. A musician gets paid mostly from concerts, because the company who owns him takes almost all of the record sales.

And perhaps we stop seeing the huge titles. But you'll be too busy playing other awesome games to notice that it's been a decade since the last Madden game.

[Aqizzar]

Far be it for me to defend Blacken here, but I'm going to defend Blacken here.  You know why the software industry looks like it does?  Because the way the industry works works.  It develops multimillion dollar titles, with plenty of room left over for anybody with a computer and Internet access to make and publish whatever game they want.  I never understand these criticisms of software copyrighting and the business model, except as general complaints that someone's dream-game hasn't been made yet.  And while Blacken may be a little callous, he's still completely right.  Software development follows the money the way it does, because donation-funding doesn't make big projects.

[Blacken]

Maybe the trend toward multimillion dollar titles is a bad thing. You can make excellent games without spending millions and millions on development. Perhaps development will tend to stray away from a large game production house and toward smaller self-owned teams. That way, to show a profit, you just need to make enough to pay the team members and their costs. You don't also need to support cruft games, shareholder profits, the burly corporate structure of companies like EA, and the profits of the companies that own them.

A ten-man team, plus tools, hardware, and outside contracting (because you can't do everything) is still going to knock well over a million dollars. That 2D Boy--World of Goo, spent a few tens of thousands of their own money to make it--made back their money and then some is awesome, and a demonstration of the current system actually working and working well: total indie devs without any real backing, they invested money in it and people rewarded them by buying copies of their title. In your hypothetical system, there's no profit at all, and more amusingly, there's no way for them to effectively mass-market their game idea--and remember, it's just an idea, there's nothing to show--when they're begging for "pledges."

Modern technology necessitates more specialized team members. As such, your team is going to get bigger because you need more of those specialized man-hours. This can be combated by shrinking game scope: but then you get a bunch of World of Goo type games, which are great, but you are mortgaging the possibility of larger-scale work because there's no money there to do it.

EDIT: I can tell you that my four-guy startup--two programmers, one programmer/assorted-do-shit-guy (me), and one art guy--is looking at an operating/salary budget of probably about $80,000 for two relatively small-scale games. Which sounds really reasonable, and maybe even within "pledge drive" territory, but because we're such a small team, we have to spend even more on other stuff. Music for our games will probably run $20,000, if we don't skimp on quality (and yes, there is a fairly direct correlation between cost and quality). Networking infrastructure for our games may be as high as $50,000; I don't even know yet. This. Stuff. Ain't. Cheap. Those pay-us figures are also really low because we're doing it totally part-time, two of us are still in school, and the other two are gainfully (or soon-to-be-gainfully) employed...you guessed it...making intellectual property for other people.



Even something sorta indie, like STALKER--and remember, they're Ukrainian, where cost of living is vastly cheaper--probably bumped three or four million dollars in development, and employed between thirty and fifty people (I don't have hard numbers, these are estimates off the top of my head). You can't lump STALKER in with the Madden monolith of EA, but your plan just plain won't pay for that kind of game either. How do you plan to address this huge, huge gap between the two-man, $50,000 (still a fantastical number for most "pledge drives," by the way, the goddamn Jimmy Fund can't rake that in without the Red Sox's help--and the Jimmy Fund has a marketing/advertising budget that probably cost more than every house in my neighborhood!) games, and even the mid-range fifty-dev houses?

That's just one method for getting a profit, and actually securing that profit motive. But perhaps a profit motive is only one component that can drive people to make cool digital content.

Do you have any game development experience? I'm not saying that as a slag, I'm asking honestly. Because the exigencies of actually building something with modern technology, which I touch on above, mean that, no, "cool digital content" is going to either be very low-rent or cost a lot of money to build. There's not a lot of middle ground. (Most of those indies end up relying on other stuff anyway. People trumped Killing Floor as this great indie success, but the fucking thing is built on the Unreal Engine, which employs a metric kajillion people to actually build! Even the really good open source game Warsow is built on top of the originally-proprietary-and-very-much-copyrighted Quake 3 engine from iD Software. Building this stuff on a shoestring is not particularly doable.)

I have not heard anything proposed that encourages the continued development of content. The current system works. Pirates are, by and large, a bunch of Drano-chugging jackoffs, but they're a small enough percentage that they're a survivable hit.

Perhaps your argument could be more persuasive if you didn't spend half of it attacking me, and then defending your attack, etc. I want to hear your ideas, and maybe other people do too. But they're kind of jammed in there with mysteriously angry stuff.

It isn't "mysterious" at all. You are myopically attacking my livelihood. This isn't some principled stand against copyright or something, it never is. It's because people like shit for free. Your arguments indicate that you have trouble acknowledging that most of the really good stuff out there will disappear because there's no way to both keep a roof over your head and keep making it. Copyright needs some reform--length, mostly--but to throw it away is hilariously counterproductive.

EDIT: And to echo Aqizzar, I'm certainly "callous"--because, to be completely frank, this is stuff that's really obvious if you spent a little time doing actual research instead of looking at Pirate Party-esque propaganda. The numbers really don't lie.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Blacken: Allow me to start with pointing out that I am in favor of copyright protection. However, I have to begin with pointing out a little caveat (not a big one, mind you).

Downloading and playing quite a lot of legal freeware, that is software developed in open source or created for free by their creators, I have to point out that there are a lot of very good things out there. There are also quite a number of sites where people offer their music and graphics for free for usage in such software projects. So, the genuine freeware situation is not that bad (at least if you know Japanese :) :) :) ).

Now, while I also agree that the current copyright laws have their weaknesses (length as you indicated, but also dangers of fraud/trickery similar to the gene patents that are endangering regular agriculture), I do see copyright as a necessary thing. However, I see it more from a moral point of view.

Having seen people who have obviously been frequenting the illegal sites, I am time and again appalled by their callousness towards artists (I am using the term very broadly here, including most creative efforts except investment banking). They expect artists to create things for their enjoyment for free and do not show any feeling of gratitude towards the artist. Instead, they will denounce the artist in the vilest fashion should the artist's taste not always go in perfect accordance with their wishes. While it is already sad when they do it at places the artists never visit, I have also seen those very attitudes pushed right into the faces of artists.

Those people have invested a lot of time and effort to create something beautiful (remember, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder). They have worked very hard to get the results (I have been dabbling into programming and graphics, and while I think I have a good knack for programming, actually finishing a project is a herculean task). And they definitely do not deserve to be treated like slaves. Copyright protects even those who do not claim financial reward for their works (unless it is put into the public domain or otherwise copyright forfitted, all creations have the benefit of copyright when they are created). And like it or not, given how much effort they spend on it, it is quite reasonable for them to be allowed to ask for their work to be paid. Of course, the height of that payment is something that the market should regulate with too high prices resulting in a drop in sales, but the basic right is there.

For those pointing out the open source things and so on, also note that none of those are in the public domain either. They use special copyright licenses to protect against copyright fraud. So, copyright is not a simple issue of some big companies exploiting the masses or whatever theory you have. Copyright is a universal right that has many useful applications.

Deathworks

[eerr]

Once barack obama finishes reorganizing insurance to cover everybody, he will do the same to the videogame market.

Videogames will be paid for by everybody through taxes, while downloads cost nothing.

The buisnesses will be paid based on people using and downloading their videogame.

With the cost thus seperated from any individual person, anybody can download any videogame for free. With the cost of every videogame free, this eliminates any need for copyright. As well as taking maximum advantage of the properties of software: the ability to make infinite copies for approximately zero dollars. (50 bucks a month for internet, whatever).

[Blacken]

That still doesn't answer where my fucking unicorn is.

[Zai]

[Rather off-topic:]

Having seen people who have obviously been frequenting the illegal sites, I am time and again appalled by their callousness towards artists (I am using the term very broadly here, including most creative efforts except investment banking).

Wait what? You count investment banking as a "creative effort?" o,0

[Deathworks]

Hi!

[Rather off-topic:]

Having seen people who have obviously been frequenting the illegal sites, I am time and again appalled by their callousness towards artists (I am using the term very broadly here, including most creative efforts except investment banking).

Wait what? You count investment banking as a "creative effort?" o,0

:) :) :)

Well, I guess there used to be an original, serious business, but nowadays, judging from the news and the outcroppings that got forbidden resulting in panic, the real pros are inventing new ways of selling thin air. I mean, they are trading in nothingness no one in their right mind would have thought of doing several transactions with things they have not even bought and do not even wish to buy yet sell nonetheless. Since it has nothing to do with reality (except for them using it to drain the coffers of gullible banks) I place this as "very creative".

Deathworks

[Zombie]

This may make me unpopular, but here goes:

There is no substantial evidence supporting the claim that piracy truly negatively impacts sales. People who weren't going to buy the thing still don't buy it and people who are going to buy it will still buy it because they can afford it and obviously want to buy it.

If piracy is such a big issue then why are companies that sell legit games like Gamestop still posting profit increases? I work for them, so I know. There are still people buying games! Companies like EA, may I point out, probably are losing so much money because of their "avante garde"-esque approach to sports games.

Any company that releases a sports game every year is begging to hemorrhage money due to a few simple facts. Licensing is huge with franchises like Madden. Seriously. Those sports guys ask for a big cheque for a game that isn't even out, just to have their likeness in it or to have their face on the cover. Marketing is likewise as huge. EA pays companies like Gamestop to push its employees to sell the product. We compete to see who can get the most Madden reserves. Also, when Madden is near release my damn store will be coated in Madden promotional crap. Hype is also gigantic and filled with bullshit. Seriously, for the past few years I've heard how each new Madden has "more realistic" graphics and is "innovative" and has new "tackle dynamics". Buzzwords and bullshit, all of it.

Sales for games like Madden and Fight Night (Round 4, particularly) and UFC (2010, particularly) have been tanking hard. I'm not talking old school hard where they sunk a couple million in and aren't going to see it back. We're talking tens if not hundreds of millions for a goddess damned sports game. They do this every year and people are getting tired of it. Last year we were getting tons of reserves for Madden 10 because EA finally said, "Look, we're making this shit real, baby!" and people bought it, both figuratively and literally. Madden 10 came and went with very little bang. Madden 11 says the same shit. It's ridiculous that these companies then turn around and bitch about copyright and blame people downloading their crap for free.

Hell, I remember a pretty obscure game that some of you might know... It was called Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. That gem of a game was released in 2000 and I was pretty psyched when I got my copy. You guys remember 2000?! There was piracy then, too! However, ten years later, Bioware isn't even limping from piracy. They don't care. Why? Their shit is golden. You may not like them, but most of their games meet with critical acclaim and the sales follow. In fact, many games considered "heavily pirated" were games people weren't sure of. Also, that fucking manual. I swear to goddess, the Baldur's Gate II manual was enough to make you buy it. It was your bible for the game and served as a great way to make the purchase worthwhile.

Consider Spore and the Sims 3. EA's two gems from Maxis guy Will Wright. Let's look at Spore. Spore was designed by WW and developed by Maxis. Now, this game was "heavily pirated", although how they can reliably state an amount of illegally downloaded copies is anyone's guess seeing as this information would need to be identifiers of an individual and can then lead to an arrest... But I digress... Why do you think this game was heavily pirated? Well, people weren't sure what they were getting and the game was hyped so majorly. Sims 3, same thing. Many people already paid the two-hundered and some odd dollars that getting all the expansion packs and the core game when they came out cost. I know I did. Why would you want to add sixty to that to get the same thing? More uncertainty.

Let's think about this, though: Spore and the Sims 3 were giant financial successes.

When licensing for Spore on consoles is over (Damn you, Nintendo!) we will likely see a lot more expansions, sort of akin to what we will see when Sims 3 is out on consoles. Why? It is profitable.

Let's face it, these companies are still making huge profits off of these titles. The losses from piracy can't be that bad if the companies aren't financially suffering from it.

While this may seem like I'm attempting to say, "It's a-ok to pirate!" I am more saying that the crazed vilification of downloaders and the likening to car thieves, purse snatchers, and murderers is just fucking insane. The punishment should fit the crime and prison time, internet restrictions, and humongous fines are simply not working. Why? They all cost money. If someone is a pirate, it is likely due to financial issues and not due to "simply wanting to" or "thinking it's cool".

Here's another fun fact for you, by the way: Companies are focusing more money on crazy copyright protection schemes, like Ubisoft and their "Have to be online all the time!" DRM. This costs money. Maybe they are losing money because they are sinking their costs into creating batshit or invasive DRM instead of making quality product. They are failing to realize that most consumers do not see digital things as legitimate objects to purchase. When you buy a game, you want the physical artifact of it. If you paid a lot, it had better be an epic physical artifact. DLC is shifting this paradigm a bit, but the only reason is because you own that license for the game for all time. There is nothing to lose and no reason that license should be taken away. With PC games and whatnot, people want downloads to be cheaper. $59.99 for a game in store AND to download? Batshit.

People need incentives to purchase the product, instead of punishments for pirating. These incentives aren't even technically incentives and should be offered anyway, even though they are usually not. Here goes:

1) A reliable demonstration of the game. If shareware has taught us anything, it's that you need to put out your product for free with skirmishes completely unlocked with all the features they would have in the full game. If people want to play multiplayer or the singleplayer campaign or even unlock new content, they need to register for (insert normal price of game here). Registrations should be online-only and offer the ability to get shipped a physical copy with the same serial number for a slight fee. For strategy games, this would make piracy pointless. You get the skirmishes anyway, but if you want to do anything else or use expansions you need a key. Also, I am damn tired of games not having demos. How the fuck am I supposed to know it's not a piece of shit? Cut out some features or make it stop after 5 minutes. I don't care, just put out a demo that is actually the game and not a specially made piece of shit marketing tool.

2) Product support. You need it. End of story. I am tired of developers and publishers putting out crap and then not listening to customer inquiries for support. If you can't support your product, then don't charge money for it. Consumers don't pay for buggy pieces of shit and there should be some protection for consumers that get screwed over by giants like EA when it comes to support.

3) Content-based incentives. Make it so people actually want to give you money and see you make more stuff. Here's an example, a game a select few of you might have heard of: Dwarf Fortress. I won't be surprised if you haven't heard of it but-[/sarcasm]... Ok, enough of that. Seriously, though, people give Toady money. Does he charge for DF? No. Does he support DF? Yes. How is it that a two-man team can come out with a product that has little polish, excellent gameplay, and jaw-dropping mechanics? How is it they can do this fulltime and not charge for the game yet still make money?! People are simply so amazed and love DF so much, they pay for more.


This is all a crazed thing that is mostly shrouded in grey, although I believe that both sides have core ideals that are somewhat goodhearted and each is vilified to some extent. Pirates are seen as greedy asshats who want everything for free while DRM-supporters are seen as aloof asshats who want to control and sell the world.

In reality, many "scenes" that crack games look down on the release of their work outside of smaller communities. Also, many of them do it for rather simple, non-asshat reasons: As a show of skill. Much like football players do what they do to show how physically fit and able to play football they are, crackers disable DRM to show that it can be done and say, "Look at me, Ma! I can understand code and modify it to do what I want it to do!"

In reality, there is a large and growing group of "noble" pirates who claim to only pirate due to economic reasons and likewise claim to actually purchase things they have obtained for free if they like it and have the disposable income. These are the same people fighting against large publishers for music and games, believing that the internet is replacing these outdated methods of "getting yourself out there" and making it increasingly more viable to publish your own music and games.

In reality, DRM-supporters just want to ensure their favourite artists or developers keep on developing or doing whatever artistic thing they are doing. Many of these people may be "noble" pirates as well, and are supporting the spirit but usually not the method of DRM.

In reality, most of the DRM activity is being pushed by publishers. The developers are, usually, already paid when it comes to big projects like The Sims, and the people losing out on sales tends to be the publishers. In music, the publishers make most money off of CD sales while the artist makes most money off of things you cannot pirate, like concerts and public appearances.

I think the publishers are fighting a losing battle as we are seeing a trend where more artists and developers are choosing to work with companies like Valve (Steam) or Stardock (Impulse) and, even on mobile phones, we see more "accessible to anyone" publishing platforms like Android. Production of physical mediums is also getting more streamlined and the batch sizes are able to be lower and lower. There are talks of "books to order" and "CDs to order" so artists can pay to have 1 CD made at a time or 2000 CDs made at a time.

I support the open transmission of ideas and culture, but I also want developers and artists to keep being awesome. I'm very conflicted between the two sides as there is a beautiful, good, bad, and ugly side to each of them. Neither is completely in the right, but both are definitely in the wrong somewhere.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Zombie: While you didn't address me directly, I still want to clarify this: I am pro-copyright but against copyprotection and DRM as they do not solve any problems but create new problems for honest customers.

Deathworks

[Zombie]

tl;dr

EDIT: By the way, video game retail stores are increasing in profits because in times of economic recession, the entertainment industry balloons.

If it's such a recession, then people wouldn't be spending money on games. Actually, Gamestop (and by that I mostly mean the employees at the stores) fights that line of thought with a very simple reality: Crap doesn't sell and people always want to buy good games.

In more economically stable times, the cookie cutter sports games would fly off the shelves. Now, they don't. Gamestop actually had to force store managers to work full 6-day workweeks when Fight Night Round 4 sold terribly because it was essentially Round 3. We're seeing something similar happening with UFC 2010. The entertainment industry shouldn't "balloon" in times of recession. That makes little sense if people have less money to spend on entertainment. People are just being more picky where to spend it, which means that the sports game industry has to think more carefully about what they release. I've been hearing rumors that there won't be a 2012 version for some sports games. Madden was on the list.

Funny thing is, I don't think this is a true recession. People don't look like they're spending all that differently to me. I get people coming in and buying games "just because".

Also: Console sales are down. A lot. People aren't buying new consoles as much and most people would rather buy used than new because, with our return policy, they can return a game if they don't like it within 7 days.

ADDENDUM:

Hi!

Zombie: While you didn't address me directly, I still want to clarify this: I am pro-copyright but against copyprotection and DRM as they do not solve any problems but create new problems for honest customers.

Deathworks

I am for the rights and welfare of the developers and the artists, but against the exploitative nature of publishers. DRM is inefficient and punishes paying customers and copyright is only meant to be applicable if people try to steal your product and sell it as their own.

Also, stop being so damn polite! I swear, it's adorable! It just makes me want to snuggle you and say things like, "You're so polite!" and "You're so well read!" Damn you, Deathworks, and your reliable politeness, readability, and posting style! <3

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I am for the rights and welfare of the developers and the artists, but against the exploitative nature of publishers. DRM is inefficient and punishes paying customers and copyright is only meant to be applicable if people try to steal your product and sell it as their own.

While I do not actively fight the publishers like EA, I have no love for them either (okay, that is not completely true. I do bear a grudge against EA because of Infocom and Maxis). For me, the important thing is the artist and the people enjoying the art and how they relate. Thus, I think the two of us agree on our general goals.

And I would rather not go into too much detail on what I think about DRM - I might end up getting muted or banned if I adequately put my feelings into words (^_^;;

Just as a sidenote, with online shops, you sometimes see different DRMs applied to the same software depending on which shop there is - I frequent two shops, my favorite one having the great advantage that they only sell Soft Denchi games with a 100-year-license so I don't need to make sure I buy the right license. On the other hand, that same shop allows customers to sell their products using Buddy (in one word, the most horrendous abomination of DRMs). Amusingly the other shop, while having different Soft Denchi licenses doesn't support Buddy and since most of the Buddy-stricken games are sold on both shops, I can actually purchase a non-protected version of the software instead.

Sorry, but this little discussion reminded me of that fact - and checking on the shops seeing ads for Ys - Origin which is one of the Buddy-ridden titles (which I already bought but find rather uninteresting from the concept and thus haven't played yet (^_^;; ).

Also, stop being so damn polite! I swear, it's adorable! :o It just makes me want to snuggle you and say things like, "You're so polite!" and "You're so well read!" Damn you, Deathworks, and your reliable politeness, readability, and posting style! <3

Well, that is not really something I can do. But maybe it helps if I point out that I am a male who has left the years where he could be called a teenager long behind him? (I hope this has not completely creeped you out (^_^;; ).

Deathworks

[Grakelin]

People do spend money on games when they are in a recession, though. Also on movies and other forms of entertainment. This is a trend which has been observed again and again.

Where did my last post go? :O

[Zombie]

People do spend money on games when they are in a recession, though. Also on movies and other forms of entertainment. This is a trend which has been observed again and again.

Where did my last post go? :O

They do, and I realize this... But they also spend money on food, clothing, beer, etc. The gaming industry really isn't having much of a "boom"... It's just that there are some really good games that have been coming out. During summer, sales will be crap. They always are.