Quote: Original post by CodaKiller
Piracy ...

I wonder how many members of gd.net disagree with the term "piracy". Would that be worth a poll?

Quote: ... is really bad in for the indie gaming community.

If you count ((FLOSS && free-as-in-price) || free-as-in-price) game or game-related developers to be part of the indie community, then you probably really mean:

Quote: ... is really bad for the commercially interested parts of indie gaming community.

Assuming that unauthorized copies of indie games also contribute to word of mouth about free games, then, from that perspective, it is even good for FLOSS/freeware developers [smile].

Leading that further, if those unauthorized copies carry the word of mouth to places that would be impossible to reach with usual propaganda, "piracy" could even cause higher sales in total, not?

Quote: Original post by CodaKiller
I have world of goo and I have to say it was a very fun game though probably not worth $20 but I got it on sale for $10.

No one is going to tell me that with 90% piracy world of goo didn't lose profit. The fact is that the game was over priced and people wanted it because they played the demo but were not going to spend $20 on an indie game so they decided to torrent it.

If I get this right, then USD 20 is EUR 15.06, and seeing that a newly released Movie-DVD also ranges from EUR 10-25 here, then why should that be overpriced?

When I buy a DVD, I get in most cases not even 2hrs of distraction. How many hours would you play World of Goo?

Just to disarm arguments about cost of distribution (with an eye on that indie games are seemingly cheaper to distribute), they are irrelevant for both: Upload and hosting cost for online distributed games is just some cents per client, if any. Printing a cover-page and a booklet (if any; but often there is no booklet at all), carving a DVD, and packing it all into some cardboard box, then maybe stocking it for some time, and and and, if you divide all the cost by the number of sales, then it's just some cents as well.

Another argument: Cost of production. Honestly, I don't care much. I really care for what is on my screen now (and not what was before), measured in degree of entertainment and total time of distraction; and I think anyone who is not much interested in computer graphics, or other not-an-average-user interests, measures like this. For me, it does not really matter what exactly causes good entertainment: if it is humor, great; if it is innovative gameplay, great; if it is something else, great as well. The average user is not interested in cost of production.

[Edited by - phresnel on April 9, 2009 6:43:42 AM]

Quote: Original post by SimonForsman
IIRC L4D on steam saw its sales rise by over 3000% when they cut the price on it by 50% temporarily, ofcourse i think the fact that the price was cut was more important than the fact that the new price was low.

I suspect that its better to have a high list price for your game and instead use special offers to reduce the price or add additional value. People are probably far more willing to pay $25 for a game that "normally" costs $50 than they are to pay $20 for a game that normally costs $20.

Definitely, totally agree with that! There's a world of difference between a temporary sale and a permanent price cut. With a sale, the product is still subconsciously valued at the original price, but for a LIMITED TIME ONLY! you can get it at a discount (SO BUY NOW!).

That's another reason why I'm not fond of a US$10 starting price. There really isn't anywhere you can go with that. If someone told me their once US$10 was on sale at US$5, I'm not exactly jumping to save those five bucks, a siginficant potion of which is probably going to go in credit card charges.

Quote: Original post by phresnel
Just to disarm arguments about cost of distribution, they are irrelevant for both: Upload and hosting cost for online distributed games is just some cents per client, if any. Printing a cover-page and a booklet (if any; but often there is no booklet at all), carving a DVD, and packing it all into some cardboard box, then maybe stocking it for some time, and and and, if you divide all the cost by the number of sales, then it's just some cents as well.

To clarify that, if you buy direct from an indie developer, the distribution costs are usually about 10%. Most indie developers can't process payments directly, so they use an e-commerce provider with the secure server, merchant account, etc. Their cost is small and affordable but not completely insignficant. There's usually a fixed minimum charge which is why it's usually not worth selling extremely cheaply.

Quote: suspect that its better to have a high list price for your game and instead use special offers to reduce the price or add additional value. People are probably far more willing to pay $25 for a game that "normally" costs $50 than they are to pay $20 for a game that normally costs $20.

That's one of the most well-known marketing tricks. Place a price tag that's twice as much of your intended price, and have it shown - discounted ! - to only half that price.
It's a mind trick and it always works very well.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by phresnel
Just to disarm arguments about cost of distribution, they are irrelevant for both: Upload and hosting cost for online distributed games is just some cents per client, if any. Printing a cover-page and a booklet (if any; but often there is no booklet at all), carving a DVD, and packing it all into some cardboard box, then maybe stocking it for some time, and and and, if you divide all the cost by the number of sales, then it's just some cents as well.

To clarify that, if you buy direct from an indie developer, the distribution costs are usually about 10%. Most indie developers can't process payments directly, so they use an e-commerce provider with the secure server, merchant account, etc. Their cost is small and affordable but not completely insignficant. There's usually a fixed minimum charge which is why it's usually not worth selling extremely cheaply.

That's an interesting insight. Thanks. That contributes even more to the opinion that USD 20 is not overpriced, then.

Quote: Original post by phresnel
That's an interesting insight. Thanks. That contributes even more to the opinion that USD 20 is not overpriced, then.

That said, I went to check what 2D Boy is using, and it seems their purchase link goes straight to PayPal. I don't know how much they take from their merchant services, but it might be better rates. Many other indies use services like Plimus or BMT Micro. I think their rates are generally pretty reasonable for offering a secure shopfront, a range of payment options and some basic customer service for payment issues.

Quote: Original post by CodaKiller
If only 12% of the people who torrented it bought it for $10 then they would have made more profit. I am pretty sure that at least 12% of them would have been willing to shell out $10 instead of torrenting it.

What gives you the impression that nobody of those who torrented it has actually paid some fee for it after trying it a bit?

What gives you the impression that nobody of those who torrented it have actually gave their brothers, mothers, sisters, fathers, friends, classmates, neighbours, a copy of it? And that none of those bought a legal copy?

No weaseling, please.


edit: oops, this post is a bit late; I had it open in a remote tab and just pressed submit :/

Quote: Original post by phresnel

Quote: Original post by CodaKiller
If only 12% of the people who torrented it bought it for $10 then they would have made more profit. I am pretty sure that at least 12% of them would have been willing to shell out $10 instead of torrenting it.

What gives you the impression that nobody of those who torrented it has actually paid some fee for it after trying it a bit?

That is the most laugable defense of piracy of all.

The infantesimal number of people who actually use the "try then buy" piracy style are statistically insignificant.

Quote: Original post by brent_w
The infantesimal number of people who actually use the "try then buy" piracy style are statistically insignificant.

Source?

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by brent_w
The infantesimal number of people who actually use the "try then buy" piracy style are statistically insignificant.

Source?

I'll admit I have no documented "source".
It is pretty much impossible to get concrete numbers on this - after all.
Especially when the target population is extremely likely to lie about it. And anyone who would trust the results of such a poll would be, at best, naive.
Most who are aware that their activities are inethical will seek legitimization - a way to justify their behavior.


However.
We can get a pretty strong picture by going out and meeting people that pirate ... learing about them and their activities. Out of the many people I have met who pirate games - I've not met one, ever, who actually purchased the games they enjoyed. Most laughed or acted agitated when even asked about it. In fact, the only place I have ever seen people who claim to be the "good kind" of pirate is on the internet ... where most pirates encountered seem claim they are the wonderful innocent kind.

Given these experiences you must cirtainly understand my skepticism.


Edit:
Also, in my experience, almost everyone I've met who pirates games does not really equate the sale of a game to someone else's livelyhood.
It's just a cool game they can get for free.
The thought that someone might rely on its revenue isn't even there - so what possible motivation to purchase would they have?