I have a hard time believing anyone here who was well enough informed (and isn't Sumner Redstone) would support SOPA. I realize some people hear make games and software for a living and probably have felt piracy to at least some degree. You might not like piracy, but don't confuse SOPA with something that intends to protect you, because it's not.

We can defeat SOPA forever:

http://imgur.com/gallery/gqKK3

Then why does Steam collect a billion dollars a year?

In similar fashion as most mainstream portals do: they already have a huge user base, people who already purchased one or more products; people who most likely will purchase another (new) product. This is also how most casual game portals succeed.

BTW, if I'm going to the store for cookies but a shady guy on the street offers me a free cookie, I think I'd keep walking to avoid catching super AIDS. Same thing with games, but with super PC AIDS.

Okay, then according your assertion, AIDS should have disappeared years ago. It hasn't, has it? In similar fashion, computer viruses have not been extinguished and similarly, people *still* download pirated software, even though there are risks involved.

Ok, so if you killed piracy, there wouldn't be that huge warez penetration and no one would be stealing your game.... but you've still not penetrated the market yourself, so still no one is buying your game.

You would have gained time advantage: you could slowly build your user base and therefore get to a point described above (see top of this post). The existence of huge piracy industry makes this difficult because it eats your early sales and redirects web traffic to the sites other than yours.

they already have a huge user base, people who already purchased one or more products; people who most likely will purchase another (new) product.

So there are a billion dollars worth of users who will pay for a cookie, even though they do have the choice of getting the same cookie for free, right?
Why don't you focus on why these people aren't buying your product instead of focussing on the people who don't buy games, or get yourself a publisher that can sell your games to these people?

Okay, then according your assertion, AIDS should have disappeared years ago. It hasn't, has it? In similar fashion, computer viruses have not been extinguished and similarly, people *still* download pirated software, even though there are risks involved.[/quote]No -- if I was a homeless guy, I'd eat the cookie. If I was part of a minority that the cookie-store discriminated against, I'd eat the cookie. If I already had AIDS, I'd eat the cookie. If I was a stupid careless teenager, I'd eat the cookie. These people are still going to eat dodgey food if you kill the shady cookie-giving man.

There's three kinds of people here -- those that will simply pirate all their games, those that buy all their games, and those that do a bit of both.
If you somehow magically kill piracy, you're not going to convert the first group into sales, they'll just simply not buy games.
The second group are already buying games from places like Steam, and your real problem here isn't piracy, it's that the big mega-store has eclipsed the little ma'n'pa corner shop.
The third group are a minority in the grand scheme of things, and you'll do better to convert them with honey rather than vinegar. These people are the ones that can actually be converted, and to them, the warez version is just as good as a demo version.

You would have gained time advantage: you could slowly build your user base and therefore get to a point described above (see top of this post). The existence of huge piracy industry makes this difficult because it eats your early sales and redirects web traffic to the sites other than yours.[/quote]Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just looking for a scapegoat? I searched for your games and didn't find any piracy related links; I found the official site and reputable sites hosting demo versions.

You can't compete with warez web sites because they have powerful advertising schemes so people usually find about your game right from the warez web site and even if they search for it on Internet, they will most likely find another warez web site, as they tend to have higher SE ranking.

Googling Wicked Defense and Aztlan Dreams brings up ixchels.net as the #1 result. Sure, there are pirate links lower down, but googling your game brings up your studio site as #1. And I'll be honest. Looking at your site doesn't really make me want to buy the games a lot. The pictures help and are probably the most motivating thing there, but other than that it's like a wall of text. Even though you may not be able to advertise on other sites as much as you'd like, I think you need to make your own website much more attractive and inviting to customers. I don't think piracy is your main problem; I think your business and marketing execution are.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like piracy at all. But it's impossible to make it all go away, and those businesses that can't find ways to thrive despite the piracy will die.

We can defeat SOPA forever:

http://imgur.com/gallery/gqKK3

Unfortunately, I can't upvote you for the link/idea. But +1 for you anyway.

There's three kinds of people here -- those that will simply pirate all their games, those that buy all their games, and those that do a bit of both.
If you somehow magically kill piracy, you're not going to convert the first group into sales, they'll just simply not buy games.
The second group are already buying games from places like Steam, and your real problem here isn't piracy, it's that the big mega-store has eclipsed the little ma'n'pa corner shop.
The third group are a minority in the grand scheme of things, and you'll do better to convert them with honey rather than vinegar. These people are the ones that can actually be converted, and to them, the warez version is just as good as a demo version.

Although this is stereotyping and as I've said, seems more like a black and white thinking, try to think of the following. If you somehow kill piracy, those people who never buy and pirate all, won't have any new games to play, unless they find a way to *buy* games. Sure, some part of them will probably look for another entertainment like A) doing sports, getting girlfriend, having a party and so on, but some might actually look into the possibility B) for buying so they can continue to play new games. Now, judging from other threads on this forum, which option is more likely, A or B?

Although this is stereotyping and as I've said, seems more like a black and white thinking, try to think of the following. If you somehow kill piracy, those people who never buy and pirate all, won't have any new games to play, unless they find a way to *buy* games. Sure, some part of them will probably look for another entertainment like A) doing sports, getting girlfriend, having a party and so on, but some might actually look into the possibility B) for buying so they can continue to play new games. Now, judging from other threads on this forum, which option is more likely, A or B?

Assuming (#1) that you can kill piracy, and assuming (#2) that if people can't pirate then they will buy just as many games as they've been pirating, how many of those people are going to go to a niche self-publishing developer's website rather than a mega-store like steam? This isn't about piracy, this is about marketing/publishing.

Assumption #2 is false though -- taking something out of opportunity isn't driven by the same impulses as going out of your way to buy something. One incident of piracy does not equal one lost sale. Looking at your customer demographics, it's normal practice for businesses to apply some kind of price discrimination, etc... Unfortunately, your "pirate" customers (the people willing to get their games from those dodgy sites) mostly fall into the category of people who would only buy your product if it were free, hence any price other than $0 will not result in a sale to these people; instead you should focus on the demographics that you can sell your product to.

Anecdotally - I know that when I was a kid, I'd have maybe $100 a year to spend, and I would pretty much spend it all on games. I'd also copy pirated games from LAN parties, but if that wasn't possible, I wouldn't magically have more than my original $100 to spend. Piracy or not, I still spent the same amount of money.

Assumption #1 is definitely false, and gets us back on topic. You can't stop people from sharing information with each other, so trying to pretend we can is just ignorant, delusional, or fanatically authoritarian (SOPA supporters are probably all 3). Steam has adapted to digital piracy by offering a better distribution service than the pirates provide. Game studios have traditionally dealt with this by being paid up-front by a publisher, who then deals with the risks posed by trying to distribute a digital product. Many games studios have adapted by focusing on the online-multiplayer component of their games, where they've got more chance of authenticating real users. Other games studios have adapted by simply making their customers like them and want to support them financially. Others have made their games completely free to play and then made boat-loads of money selling in-game hats instead.
Blaming piracy for a failed business model is simply failing to accept the reality of the world - a reality that not even life under the Stasi would fully eliminate.

No, you were paying for a game itself, serial number was a non-intrusive means of protection. Think of it as a receipt. When you buy a bottle of water, you get a receipt; you are not paying for receipt, you are paying for the water. You can argument it however you want, but you are argumenting why people should pirate it in the first place. Piracy is not a legitimate market as you try to put it.

Therefore, California has already established SOPA for *pirates*. There is a law mandating that free water be available at any public building.

Oh noes, Evian will go bankrupt.

----
You launched a product, it sold, suddenly pirates took over. Fair enough.

You have an airline with a single airplane. It crashes due to unforseen malfunction. Airline goes bust.

There are two sides. First is the MBA-like relentless cruel side. Business had one product, it lost market viability, company having no other revenue streams died. Bad for employees, but business. Cold, hard business.
----

A business model is not a business, nor does it depend on a product or quality. It's just abstract way of describing incentives and means of converting those into money.


Old business model of having a store with a shelf, where people would pick up a product as they walk by and pay for it is gone (internet site with download, people hit it from search engines accidentally), except in a handful of cases. Having a vendor lock in (enforced through lobbying, monopoly, patents or copyright) or by cornering a resources (usually as result of niche or non-viable market). Cornering a resource can also be done differently, see Netflix vs. ISP movie offerings and associated net neutrality vs. per content fees.

Appstores seemingly still operate on this model, but ignore crucial differentiator. Appstores on phones, with built-in payments have lower friction than entering a code online. They don't, even by far, eliminate piract, nor do they fight it. In most cases, DRM isn't even present, or is trivially circumvented. It's not even fought, there are jailbreak "appstores".


None of this says anything at all about what you've built. It doesn't mention quality or effort that went into it. What you're missing is any kind of work towards raising the value of your product, of incentivizing your potential user base to pay for it. In mind of the consumer, having downloaded something they now have it. It's up to business to demonstrate that paying for this brings them additional value they would be willing to pay money for, even after the added effort of entering a credit card number into an online form.


There are many small-scale methods to add such value. One is by putting a human face on the product. Minecraft is synonimous with Notch. Even if most users don't know who he is, the fans do. Such personal connection means when they recommend Minecraft, they advertise something made by "their pal notch". You'd surely recommend your own friend's product. And conversely, when they see someone pirate Minecraft, they will show their annoyance over having bought their copy and from you "not paying their pal notch". Psychology and sociology.

World of Goo was another such attempt, Google around for 2DBoy and the strategies they employed. They were one of first more publicized attempts at indie distribution without traditional channels which met with widespread success and popularity.
----
Finally - a business loses the option of complaining. Markets are what they are. This observation is crucial for job seekers. If the business you are applying for has a lot of press regarding some complaint, it means they rely on handouts (government, subsidies, below-market pricing, labor pool manipulation) to stay afloat. It's only PR - all business do this, but a company that is publically advertising this relies on this as central means of staying profitable.


Only productive means of reacting to the piracy problem is learning about the new ecosystem. During past two years, the number of indie success stories with ramen budgets is surging. It's not a sure-fire way to earn money, let alone get rich (traditional publishers still hold this field), but it's getting easier due to an increasing number of published past studies and examples.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1327261806' post='4905176']
I think this is the part you are ignoring from the others even though you bring it up. Most people pirate because it is more convenient, not because the price is lower.

Exactly. It is more convenient to get a product for free with immediate download, than filling forms and getting product for a price. In other words, getting a free product *is more convenient*, then paying for it. Honestly, who will ever want to pay for a cookie if you could get exactly the same cookie for free? This "convenience" argument for piracy is a convenient myth that you can use to keep blinded from the truth: the piracy works because it's a viable business practice with minimal risks involved for all parties and no law sufficiently strong enough to prevent or stop it.[/quote]
This metaphor is way off base.

edit: It's more like you are selling your cookies at a farmers market I've never been to, as far as I'm concerned I have no idea you exist or are even selling cookies somewhere. Then there is another guy who is delivering your cookies to my door for free. I would take his cookies because as far as I know, that is the only way for me to get them. My taking his cookies has nothing to do with them being free, because, to be quite honest, taking free cookies from someone you don't know is creepy/dangerous just like taking pirated software is dangerous.

A high pirate rate can also occur when your market penetration is slow. Specifically, when you have few resources for advertising, you make people know about your game slowly, while on warez web sites it gets huge market penetration right away. I think that mentioning Minecraft here is an example of black and white thinking, it's a very different game and its marketing budget and distribution channels are completely different, not to mention the different platforms on which it can run. I'm surprised you didn't even mention Angry Birds, which by the way also used SPAM for its advertising (I've got quite plenty of these spam e-mails).
[/quote]
If you can't market your game better than a warez website can then you fucked up tbh. This is exactly the problem I talked about actually. You made it harder to find and purchase your game the legal way than it was to download it for free. This has nothing to do with price. This has everything to do with not making the legal way to buy your game known.

edit: the most damning part of your argument is the fact that the most comprehensive and least biased piracy study specifically says that piracy is more about convenience and value than it is about things being free. This is backed up by steam's position on piracy in Russia/localization.