Why no offline Campaign?

[Kasz216]

@123stw

Hey man, maybe you can, but I don’t process the magic of making people pay for nothing.

Yes the box is worth something, and people would buy the box for the box. But looking at the pricing difference between “collector’s edition” and the original, the difference is usually no greater then $20, which is usually the buying the game guide separately, except here you might get a poster or other junks to go with it. This is “bundling”, or selling multiple products at the same time. People keep the box, the game guide, the poster, and any other junk, showing that they do have utility values.

In the ice cream, you are not selling extra product. You are selling the illusion of “higher class” purely through packaging. The difference is that people do not keep their ice cream box after they are done, and is only bought under the perception that the ice cream itself is better. This is much harder to do in games.

For pirating, again until I look at “your” data, more precisely how they are collected, I will not be convinced that they adjusted for the increase in computer usage, increase in demand for games, and the separation between games with online features and games without. A lot of things happened over the last 10 years and we can’t just look at both an increase in pirating and sale and assume there’s a causal effect. Nor can we use “pirated vs non pirated” from the same time period because better and more popular game tend to be pirated more. So the quality and popularity of the product rather than pirating can easily account for the difference. Surveys to gamers are even more biased because selfish people tend not to take surveys unless they get paid.

You can’t just interpret data based on their face value. You can show all kinds of results just by under emphasizing some elements.

Would pirating increase a game’s popularity? Sure. Would people who already have all the features of a game in there hard drive still go out of their way to buy a copy? I don’t know of a single person who would do that. But I do know many people who pirated a game, and end up buying it because there’s an online feature they want to try.

I would say you were friends with a bunch of dicks then.

I mean, I know people that have pirated games then bought them. I’d actually say that was the case for the majority of the people I know who pirate.

Also, the box wasn’t supposed to have any relevance to GSB or anything. Just a comment based on “You’d be surprised what you think would have no effect would have one.”

In some cases, brand names are actually removed from products, because they show they hurt the product rather then help it… even though it’s a well respected brand.

Like if Kraft, came out with a cheaper version of cheese, they may find that the Kraft name actually hurts sales, even though it’s the name most people think, when they think cheese.

If your talking about the difference between “getting a game for free via piracy” or “paying for it” what your getting is actually pretty obvious. Legitimacy.

People who pirate, even with all the justifications in the world KNOW they are doing something “quasi” wrong.(Outside a few anti-social personality types)

Especially an Indy game like GSB where there are much less piracy defenses. (The corporations make too much money anyway!)

It’s hard to come up with any self justifications for why you wouldn’t give cliff money…

well except the “It uses an DRM system.” excuse that is popular with people.

I mean, people who pirate games, also do buy games, in a number that is seemingly indistinguishable, if not higher then the non pirate community (depending on the medium).

And I mean really, an offline campaign would of been no different then anything else GSB wise. Because the online campaign would STILL be superior. The only feature not available online before GSB was the challenge system. (I’d assume so anyway). Which, you can make your own scenarios so it’s really the same difference.

The online campaign is always going to superior anyway, because the online campaign is going to be far less repetitive and have so much more replay value it’s insane.

I mean heck, the pure inferiority of the offline campaign is the best reason to argue against it.

[123stw]

The “Kraft” was remove not because it hurts sell of the low quality cheese, but how it hurts sells on the high quality cheese. They want “Kraft” to be associated with high quality only. This is why different brands are used for different quality of product, and take money to promote each one. Just look at Procter and Gamble.

As for this whole “right or wrong” thing.

How many chronic pirates do you think actually cares about the game developer? Or even need a justification? You seen those comments on torrent sites? They not only get the game for free, but they complain when the game isn’t exactly as they wanted. OMG ZIP FILE WTF BABABA… You can put labels on them if you want, tell them what they should do, and likewise they call you a “moral fag”. Yup heavy internet stuff right there.

Nevertheless most big game company knows this. Their profit, which you presume to be high, comes with huge production and advertisement cost. Their actual % profit might be low, and often even negative. When pretty much every large titles are adding online features even for things that can be offline, you know that is the competitive optimal route. Security often comes at high cost. If the “let people pirate” model works, firms that don’t security their game from pirates will be doing better than those that do, which is clearly not the case.

I think we should trust big company in knowing how to maximize profits, when they are doing exceptionally well in a highly competitive market.

Why are online challenges different? Because I can beat “other people” with it, who will then actively respond with a retaliation. Or I can post challenges and see how many people attempt and win. Or a group can get together and do a series of chain challenges. This cannot be replicate that by making challenges offline, you simply do not get the same kinds of feedback.

Campaign, while draws information online, is primary a single player activity. Yeah I can brag about how many ticks it took to beat it on the forum, but again, nobody really cares. And nobody can actively respond to you in particular. You just don’t get the social element that you get in challenges.

GSB has great piracy defense by simply making most features online. You can’t play most of it without the Serial Key. That is as good as it gets.

[Kemp]

Just a quick couple of points.

@123stw

Would pirating increase a game’s popularity? Sure. Would people who already have all the features of a game in there hard drive still go out of their way to buy a copy? I don’t know of a single person who would do that.

I’ve purchased games that I’ve previously obtained via less legitimate means when I was young and foolish. If I liked a game enough to play it for more than an hour or two then I inevitably ended up buying it.

Actually, talking about it now, I can’t remember downloading any games in quite a few years. I sort of assumed that I still do, but apparently I’m more honest than I thought. Or maybe Steam is just too convenient. Either way, I seem to have grown out of the state of mind that I should be able to have what I want for the sole reason that I want it. Maturity or stable job, take your pick.

@123stw

How many chronic pirates do you think actually cares about the game developer? Or even need a justification? You seen those comments on torrent sites? They not only get the game for free, but they complain when the game isn’t exactly as they wanted.

I think we can assume that these guys wouldn’t be buying games anyway. Probably rely on their parents for income.

@123stw

Security often comes at high cost. If the “let people pirate” model works, firms that don’t security their game from pirates will be doing better than those that do, which is clearly not the case.

On the other hand, a lot of games (and other software) have taken flak for having draconian DRM schemes. Some even affected sales to the point that the publisher removed the protection (or at least downgraded it). We often hear of people that have purchased a real physical copy of a game and then only installed a pirated copy of it because the protection scheme used was incompatible with their system, or slowed it down too much.

Besides, games are usually available for torrenting within a day or two of release regardless of the protection scheme used. The only effective way of stopping people using pirated copies of games is to provide an online feature that requires authentication and, most importantly, that people actually want to use.

[123stw]

@Kemp

Just a quick couple of points.

I’ve purchased games that I’ve previously obtained via less legitimate means when I was young and foolish. If I liked a game enough to play it for more than an hour or two then I inevitably ended up buying it.

Actually, talking about it now, I can’t remember downloading any games in quite a few years. I sort of assumed that I still do, but apparently I’m more honest than I thought. Or maybe Steam is just too convenient. Either way, I seem to have grown out of the state of mind that I should be able to have what I want for the sole reason that I want it. Maturity or stable job, take your pick.

Probably stable job, or just me being an economics major so I am surrounded by cheap people talking about market equilibrium and marginal utility everyday. Nevertheless if your chain of thought makes up the majority, then companies that skip out on security should have a competitive advantage. This is not the case. We can therefore assume that “people who pirate but will pay if they can’t get” is greater then the total cost of adding security.

In econ, rational behavior means a consumer will always choose the lowest price for a given good. Studies have found that econ major in particular are more likely to become free riders. And those who studied game theory tends to be the cheapest of the bunch.

I think we can assume that these guys wouldn’t be buying games anyway. Probably rely on their parents for income.

Actually teenagers are a big consumer of games, and will pay if they can’t get it for free. They are not very good at controlling their desires.

On the other hand, a lot of games (and other software) have taken flak for having draconian DRM schemes. Some even affected sales to the point that the publisher removed the protection (or at least downgraded it). We often hear of people that have purchased a real physical copy of a game and then only installed a pirated copy of it because the protection scheme used was incompatible with their system, or slowed it down too much.

Besides, games are usually available for torrenting within a day or two of release regardless of the protection scheme used. The only effective way of stopping people using pirated copies of games is to provide an online feature that requires authentication and, most importantly, that people actually want to use.

This is true. The best anti pirating protection cost benefit considered is the online feature that requires a person to log into their server with cd key.

[Kasz216]

How many chronic pirates care about the developers?

I would say the vast majority.

After all the vast majority of chronic pirates spend money on the medium they pirate. This includes medium’s like music where there is asbolutely no benefit to buying legit digital download wise.

Piracy is a function of Supply and Demand, people who pirate, do so because they feel the price is too high for the product they want. People are generally programmed to want to pay a fair price.

I’m confused though, as an economics major, shouldn’t you know this about piracy? This is literally something you should of been tested on, I’ve never seen anyone with an economics degree disagree with this.

As for why big companies… I’m not sure what that has to do with anything since we’ve already established that small Indy developers are a completely different subset of people. Now your just conflating the point and getting off topic of Indy developers.

Which is where all evidence shows piracy helps, and there are plenty of cases of Indy developers getting a big boost from piracy and developing a competitive advantage. There are all kinds of cases where Indy developers have actually scored big due to piracy, whether it be in video games, movies, music…

The aforementioned “Punch’EM” is a good example, the developer couldn’t raise sales of his product at all. Then someone broke his DRM and his sales doubled.

in a lot of ways piracy is a good replacement for those who can’t afford the big market stuff, and those who don’t want to sell out to big publishers as indy devs can gain success stories through it.

Why would big companies be fighting against Piracy… well I think that question was just answered.

Though piracy is immoral, it really does seem to benefit the “little guy” so long as you can stomach the fact that a lot of people are using your content without paying.

It’s all about whether you care more about the principal of being paid, or about being paid.

I think about the Microsoft piracy policy. “Don’t pirate, but if you do… pirate us.”

Oh, and as for comments on the torrent site. I wouldn’t judge anyone based on comments… I mean, how many people comment vs people who torrent.

It would be like judging comic book fans based on the people who post on marvel.com or something. People who leave comments and engage in discussion are basically your “hardcore of the hardcore” condensed group, and should never be taken as the mainstream.

Can’t speak for what’s said on torrent sites, since I don’t pirate though. I’m kinda confused what would be posted there that would give you such a negative opinion.

[gnopgnip]

I disagree with the point that if you download a game on steam you are connected to the internet. I’m deployed in afghanistan and its rare for me to get internet access. Even then its usually on a work computer and not my own. I havent had any problems playing this offline though. It has been a great game! I will admit that the number of players able to be online while playing this campaign is much bigger than those like me who cant do that. Yeh its not ideal for me, but i cant expect the game creator to cater to a tiny number of players issues when this game isnt even being actively worked on any longer.

[123stw]

@Kasz216

How many chronic pirates care about the developers?

I would say the vast majority.

After all the vast majority of chronic pirates spend money on the medium they pirate. This includes medium’s like music where there is asbolutely no benefit to buying legit digital download wise.

Piracy is a function of Supply and Demand, people who pirate, do so because they feel the price is too high for the product they want. People are generally programmed to want to pay a fair price.

I’m confused though, as an economics major, shouldn’t you know this about piracy? This is literally something you should of been tested on, I’ve never seen anyone with an economics degree disagree with this.

Edit: I thought about this for a little while. And yes every company adding security is no proof that the pirating problem is rampant.

To put in mathematical terms, suppose a company earns 20% profit without security, and they can add security by adding 10% to their cost.

This means that the game developer can break even simply by having 8.3% more purchase. So even if purchase only increased 10% from pirates who will pay if they can get, company will still profit by adding security into their softwares.

However, because the profit margin for indie developer isn’t that high, after adjusting for the opportunity cost of just getting a job, missing just 20% sales from the pirates can be the difference between staying in business or closing down.

[size=125]In short: you only need a small amount of selfish pirates to cause a large economic problem.[/size]

[Kemp]

@Kasz216

Piracy is a function of Supply and Demand, people who pirate, do so because they feel the price is too high for the product they want. People are generally programmed to want to pay a fair price.

Maybe the motivation for the people creating the pirate editions of games is a bit purer, but the people who download them certainly aren’t looking for a fair price. They’re looking to get it for free. Allow me to rephrase your statement to be much closer to reality:

“Piracy is a function of greed, people who pirate do so because they can and they feel as though they have a right to have access to any digital property they desire*. People are generally programmed to take whatever they can.”

• Not because you can’t stop the signal, but simply because they want it and paying money is an inconvenience.

[123stw]

I believe that piracy is a function of curiosity. People might want to try the game, even telling themselves that if the game is good they would pay, and recalling the examples of when they did pay. But once they already got the game, and can get no more features by paying, they might

1. Pay
2. Procrastinate payment, and forgot about it after a while
3. Not pay (because the game stinks, because it’s a big company, or just plain greed on the part of the pirate)

Adding just some incentive, such as online features, can push someone from group 2 into group 1. Group 3 is usually not targeted and is generally regarded as a lost cause. If people feel a strong incentive to not pay, they will devote a lot of time and effort just to overcome the technical difficulties, putting in more labor then the cost of just buying the game legit.

[tenim]

first:
i´m a honest buyer of the space battles collectors edition.
second:
please quit about “you are in a very small minority”. what says the homepage? over 100.000 sold copies (the small minority,LOL).

i would buy the galactic conquest dlc but i don´t dit it because of its DRM. point. it is a drm, the “reason” to download online fleets is no argument. it is possible to
deliver the fleet-configurations of “other users” as compressed txt-files and switch between them randomly. if one config has 1kb(compressed)->1000 configs have 1mb. wow, thats extremly much. i´m also an ace programmer, i know about what i´m talking. the feature with this “fleets from other users” sounds better as, “online copy protection”.
don´t get me wrong: i have a permanent inet-connection available, thats not the point. the point is, that if positech games switch off their servers or goes insolvent, my investition in the game are lost. i buy(better:rent) a game for a short period of time, not forever. this is the first reason why i generally not buy drm stuff. the second is, my laptop on travels have no inet-connection. it would be very highly inconvenient for me to have to worry about that when gaming on the go. i´m not going out of my way to hunt down wifi hotspots. either this campaign does what i need it to do and do it my way 24/7/365, or it is a bad game, case closed.

in the case of the campaign it is sad, because i loved the idea and want to play this dlc but not for that “price”.
the less people stands up against “this” practise, the more games will have this features in the future. it´s not ok.

the best: on the faq in the main webseite, last question:

DOES THE GAME USE ANY DRM?
No.

CORRECT ANSWER:
No, except the DLC “Galactic Conquest”.

so there ya have it, case closed. have a nice day.

[joe1512]

Wow dude. You managed to post exactly ONE YEAR later. That’s one of the more impressive necros I’ve seen in a while. Grats! Sadly you almost completely failed to add anything of value to this thoroughly-settled discussion, but don’t let that stop you.

The GSB homepage says +100K copies sold. That’s the base game itself, Einstein! It’s not the number of people who bought the optional campaign add-on, which didnt even come out til over a year later, way later than the games original buzz and mindshare. Logic fail, dude.

Let’s just say, I wouyldn’t bet on the campaign being made internet-independent at this stage in time, and leave it at that. I think we can all agree on at least that much.