By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Giving people reasons to buy

source

Indie Game Developer Points Out That It's Better To Give People Reasons To Buy Than Worry About 'Piracy'

from the figuring-things-out dept

Jay was the first of a whole bunch of you to submit the blog post by indie game developer Markus Persson that's been making the rounds, where he talks about why it's better to give people a reason to buy than to worry about "piracy":

Instead of just relying on guilt tripping pirates into buying, or wasting time and money trying to stop them, I can offer online-only services that actually add to the game experience. Online level saving, centralized skins, friends lists and secure name verification for multiplayer. None of these features can be accessed by people with pirated versions of the game, and hopefully they can be features that turn pirates from thieves into potential customers.
He also notes that the impact of unauthorized copies is somewhat ambiguous:
If someone pirates Minecraft instead of buying it, it means I've lost some "potential" revenue. Not actual revenue, as I can never go into debt by people pirating the game too much, but I might've made even more if that person had bought the game instead. But what if that person likes that game, talks about it to his or her friends, and then I manage to convince three of them to buy the game? I'd make three actual sales instead of blocking out the potentially missed sale of the original person which never cost me any money in the first case.
In the end, he makes the same point we've tried to make here for years: worrying about and fighting unauthorized copies just doesn't seem to be nearly as productive an approach as focusing on ways to actually give people reasons to buy. He doesn't support "piracy," but suggests that it's happening, and there are much better ways of dealing with it than fighting it. Nice to see more people recognizing this key point.


Around the Network

His not realistic and everyone who uses the same argument is also not realistic. If someone had the choice between a free game and a $60 game with a few extras, the free game will always win out. His Minecraft point is also stupid, if a pirate recommends Minecraft to his friends, then his friends will also pirate the game, because they recognise that as an option and will take advantage of it. Pirates are already missing out on retail game features like online play, DLC and the ability to use any console network features (this part obviously doesn't apply to PC).

His point about only ever having lost 'potential revenue' when someone pirates a game is also flawed because a single sale isn't what's hurting developers it's the increase of potentially lost revenue. More and more people are being introduced to the Internet every day and even more people are starting to take notice of all the illegal options that the Internet provides, which leads to more people learning how to pirate movies, music, e-books, games etc. Only a few years ago, people relied on shifty tech nerds to support their pirating needs by selling cheap DVD's from their basements for $5 each, these days a 10 year old can go to any torrent site and just download every newly released cinema movie without breaking a sweat.

Pirates don't have some noble justification as to why they pirate games, they just do it because it's free, it's easy and they can get away with it.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752