EU Commission Says Piracy Increases Legitimate Game Sales

[DonFerrari]

Aeolus451 said:

DonFerrari said:

You know that the origin of the "first" widely distributed virus was a "copyright" prank? Two brothers in pakistan put a code in their medical SW that if someone would copy the content of the disk it would release this code that would say that you were breaking their copyright and if you wanted the message removed from your computer to call they number... but it spread much further than that and started showing overseas for people that never even touched their SW.

I didn't know about that and you make a good point in posting it. It's an interesting story, though. Hmm do you think someone copied it for shit and giggles or that it just spread from one infected HW to another? I think the game corruption would work though.

From what I understood it was something like the original disks had that code of showing the warning and infecting the new disk, so perhaps it also spread to local machine and when that person made a copy of a different disk it also got on that disk and when that other disk was copied (different SW) the code also were, and it started spreading to other PCs throught different copied disks that had been infected and replicating.

Leadified said:

Aeolus451 said:

I didn't know about that and you make a good point in posting it. It's an interesting story, though. Hmm do you think someone copied it for shit and giggles or that it just spread from one infected HW to another? I think the game corruption would work though.

Some companies did this during the 90s, although I think it was easier back then because pirated games were carts instead of digital downloads. You could try to make a game commit suicide if the copy protection is tampered with or something (the trigger). Although it could still be eventually cracked once people figure out how the trigger works.

I think your DRM just needs to work long enough to protect your game during launch and the months after, which is when you'll get the most revenue. That's the logic some companies have with Denuvo. The problem now is that Denuvo is getting cracked in less than a week after a game release, so who knows what the next big anti-piracy system will be.

Yep several people pay 60 on new games even knowing it will cost 20 6m 12m down the line, so if the DRM can survive for a couple months (or in the case of consoles that seem to be much more stable) then people won't wait for the cracked and will buy the original.

setsunatenshi said:

DonFerrari said:

Sorry but unless you have the full demonstrative of sales, profits, costs, etc then you can't just absolutelly say 100@20 is better than 10@60. If that was the case (that you would even get to sell 10x more by having price at 1/3) then why doesn't any company release the AAA at those prices? Perhaps they saw that they wouldn't have much more profit for lower prices?

well... i can literally say that 100@20 is in fact better than 10@60. that's just maths. what you might be arguing is if at 20, there would really be 100 sales vs 10@60

but you can simply go on Steam and check how the same game is priced differently depending on which market is being sold. a new game sold on a russian account is pretty much half the price of the same game in western europe. so yeah, this type of price variance already exists

You can literally say that based in which data?

Please show us how much profit would companies do on your premisse. So would GTA have sold over 850M copies if launched at 20? Because it have sold over 85M.

Give us hard data of projected sales by the developers at each starting point and total profit made.

Or you are claiming to know economics but mistakes revenue for profit and value with price?