Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Independent Dev Reports Over 80% Piracy Rate On DRM-Free Game

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the trust-rewarded dept.

The Almighty Buck 422

An anonymous reader writes "Developer 2D Boy has written that they are seeing an 82% piracy rate for everyone's favorite DRM-free physics puzzler, World of Goo . Surprisingly, this rate is in-line with what they were expecting. The article also features a fascinating comparison with the piracy rate of another game that was shipped complete with DRM, at 92%. There seemed to be no major difference in the outcomes of the rate regardless of whether DRM was used or not ... well, no difference other than the cost to implement such nonsense."

cancel ×

422 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only sane conclusion (5, Insightful)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768661)

Which is all just proof that the DRM that the other game shipped with clearly isn't strong enough.

Or at least, this is how I'm predicting most industry execs would interpret this. There's always wriggle room for those who'd rather not face reality (particularly those who have their livelihood staked on it, such as StarForce [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:Only sane conclusion (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768781)

Which is all just proof that the DRM that the other game shipped with clearly isn't strong enough.

That's far from the only sane conclusion. The problem with World of Goo is that the "honest" customers may take advantage of one of the more convenient [wikipedia.org] and easier [wikipedia.org] download options. These additional options that do a better job reaching the target audience may artificially inflate the piracy figures for PC downloads. i.e. It's not that the game is heavily pirated, it's that the PC version is less popular among paying customers and thus at a statistical disadvantage.

Re:Only sane conclusion (0, Offtopic)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768821)

These additional options that do a better job reaching the target audience may artificially inflate the piracy figures for PC downloads. i.e. It's not that the game is heavily pirated, it's that the PC version is less popular among paying customers and thus at a statistical disadvantage.

That's the kind of the objective thinking the world needs more of.

Re:Only sane conclusion (1, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768931)

Hey, I'm sorry, but I have to tell you, that there is no such thing as objectivity.
What you meant, was that it fits your own personal world view of what is fair and right.
In other words: You said "I agree, and I want more people to agree with me."

This is perfectly valid, because everyone exists to spread his genes and views (the two methods of reproduction), and I with you good luck with it, as long as it does not hurt my reproduction.
But don't lie to you and to others by acting, as if this had anything to do with objectivity.

Please don't feel offended. I got this mixed up too, until some time ago. I thought there were some absolute "right" and "wrong" and "true" values.
The closest thing to this are physics laws and mathematics. But hey, in reality, what meaning does the number "3" or the word "gravity" have, if there is nobody (by definition with his own point of view) defining it? What is the definition of reality?
Maybe the only thing we all can agree on, is that everything in this universe/reality, whatever it is, is relative.

Re:Only sane conclusion (0, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768939)

Aah... I wish you luck. :)

Next time I'll try that "preview" thing. ;)

Re:Only sane conclusion (4, Informative)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769065)

just because you don't understand what objectivity is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. and just because people are inherently biased doesn't mean that we are incapable of being objective, or that everyone is equally biased. that's like saying that just because people aren't 100% rational all the time that logic doesn't exist, or that a creationist is as rational/irrational as an evolutionary biologist.

some things subjective, but not everything is. and it's certainly possible to be objective when it matters. adherence to sound scientific principles helps one to be objective in the search for truth. after all, objectivity is the fundamental measure of scientific & intellectual integrity. if objectivity doesn't exist, then all you have is useless rationalization/sophistry.

for instance, if i want to determine the effectiveness of a particular drug treatment, i can choose to conduct controlled experiments in a fair and aboveboard manner, or i can choose to accept bribes from pharmaceutical companies and fudge the data to fit predetermined results. similarly, if i'm conducting an experiment in which i know that my personal biases could affect the results, i can design double-blind tests to negate such biases whether they are conscious or subconscious.

the whole "everything is relative/subjective" played out cliche is just intellectual laziness.

Re:Only sane conclusion (4, Insightful)

HadouKen24 (989446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769243)

It may be a sign of intellectual laziness, but "everything is objective" is just as much.

Think about it for a second. What does it mean to say that a statement or a position is "objectively true?" By what standards could one make such a statement?

One common way to define it is to say that the objective is what is in accordance with reality as it is, but this renders "objective truth" entirely unreachable. We can only perceive the world through five meager senses. We can certainly infer beyond them, but even then we are limited by our own mental capacities. It is impossible for us to know--and must always remain impossible for us to know--whether or not there might be critical defects in our reasoning process which cause us to make errors which we cannot ourselves spot.

So let's move down to the next most rigorous definition of objectivity: what independent, intelligent, unbiased observers can come to agree on based on all the information. This, too, is plagued with problems. A group of people can only come to agree on something insofar as their faculties and mental processes are in accord.

This definition works very well for small things. We can easily come to objective agreement about, say, whether or not there are tigers in India or whether or not Mattel makes toys. It tends to break down where differences in faculties and mental processes become too great. Whether or not one believes in a God depends on what kind of rationality one uses to answer the question. It's not entirely clear how the "objectivist" (not to be confused with an Objectivist) will adjudicate such questions.

Compounded with this problem is the question of empirical underdetermination. It does not ever seem to be the case that there is only one possible explanation for a series of events. There may be only one explanation worth taking seriously, but this, again, is much easier with small stuff, and very difficult with big stuff.

And that's not even getting into the question of what it means to say that science is objective. Every serious experiment is designed based on theoretical principles, and thus all experimental results are inherently theory-laden.

The twentieth century made it very clear that dramatic conceptual shifts and reinterpretations of previous theories can occur. We cannot say that they will not happen again. By the second definition of "objectivity" it seems to be the case that what is objective changes with time.

Recognizing the inherent subjectivity in just about everything is not an excuse for lazy thinking, however. We can still say with a degree of certainty that certain ideas are self-contradictory or in direct contradiction to experiential fact. And indeed, the task of navigating between, correlating, and interrelating various viewpoints becomes much more difficult. The answer is not to give up on thinking, but to challenge oneself think harder and more incisively.

Re:Only sane conclusion (2, Insightful)

atraintocry (1183485) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769251)

If there's no truth, how can you be right?

Re:Only sane conclusion (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768893)

A quick search at PirateBay easily shows how full of shit your reasoning is. Between paying for digital content vs downloading, people prefer the later. But we've seen with much more expensive items that aren't so easily downloaded people will pay for them (ie iPods, iPhone, console games, console systems etc)

Re:Only sane conclusion (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768955)

A quick search at PirateBay easily shows how full of shit your reasoning is.

That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Either you don't understand the argument, or you think that Pirate Bay somehow tracks the number of copies pirated. Either way, there's no way that searching Pirate Bay disproves the argument I just made.

Just for fun, let's make up some numbers to demonstrate. Let's say I create a game for only the PC. Let's say that 500 people buy it. Later on I'm able to prove that 500 people pirated it. What is my piracy rate on the PC version? 50%.

Now let's say I create a game that can be distributed via the Wii, Steam, or a PC Download. Let's say that the Wii version sells 1500 copies, the Steam version sells 1000 copies, and the PC version sells 100 copies. Later on I'm able to prove that 500 people pirated the PC Download. What is my piracy rate on the PC download? 83%.

Except that in the second scenario, we can see that many of the previous customers shifted to the alternative content streams. If we assume that those other streams are well protected, this means that the ratio between pirated copies and PC Downloads is now out of whack with actual sales. Overall sales are great and piracy rates have not changed. Yet through some interesting misapplication of statistics, we have managed to create a 33% increase in piracy.

What that suggests is not that piracy kills all video games and that they should be destroyed. What it suggests is that the PC Download stream is far less profitable when alternative streams are available.

"There are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" --Mark Twain

Re:Only sane conclusion (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769049)

That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Either you don't understand the argument, or you think that Pirate Bay somehow tracks the number of copies pirated.

TPB may not show it, but the number of finished copies is easy enough to get from most sites, not to mention the number of seeders that all trackers show.

Is it accurate? Not particularly, but bad data is (a little) better than no data. The two most active torrents for World of Goo, at posting, have a combined total of about 625 seeders, and another 60 or so leechers. The busiest torrent at MiniNova has 837 seeds, and claims just under 32,000 completed downloads (though the one that seems to be more consistent in terms of filesize with what's correct has 367 seeds and 21k downloads).

Take it for what you will. Those numbers are definitely the low end of things, but for reference, Spore shows 2500 active seeds and 300k downloads at Mininova alone. Obviously their 'superior' DRM didn't do squat, other than have people like me boycott all of their future products.

Re:Only sane conclusion (3, Interesting)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769069)

the Steam version sells 1000 copies, and the PC version sells 100 copies. Later on I'm able to prove that 500 people pirated the PC Download. What is my piracy rate on the PC download? 83%.

Steam is not an "alternative content stream", it's a PC download. Valve will gladly tell the dev how many people bought it and quite often it's exactly the same game (as in it connects to the same score server). 2DBoy even accounted for it in their stats we divided the total number of sales we had from all sources . There is no significant systematic inflation for the PC version in their method that I can identify, outside of unsubmitted scores. 82% of PC players have stolen their game.

It's also worth noting that WiiWare games can be easily pirated too, and should be able to be counted in a similar fashion.

Re:Only sane conclusion (3, Insightful)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768905)

I'm sorry but how does Steam and Wiiware fall under the "counted as piracy" figure?

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768961)

They don't. In fact, they're not counted at all. That's the problem.

Read this post [slashdot.org] for an example scenario.

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768861)

DRM is just moving to the game creator's server. You make the game multi-player over the internet, and then it doesn't matter if the disk gets copied left right and center. The important part is the serial number, so they can readily track that number on the server that it has been sold, isn't being used by multiple people at the same time, and is generally used from the same geographic area.

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768937)

Which is why Blizzard really doesn't care about the distribution of their games. They care about the distribution of the serial keys.

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768993)

And 'pirate' servers.

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769037)

Not every game takes all of its value from online multiplayer though and for many markets that's not feasible to do (e.g. something like Wii Music would massively hurt its audience if it was worthless without an online connection).

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769063)

Which is what Blizzard has done for at least the best part of a decade (probably longer, but my first Blizzard game was D2 which I bought shortly after its release).

That works great for multiplayer games, but all of the antisocial types like me would have a pretty easy time going through campaign with a pirate copy if it was so desired, unless they required online connectivity even for single-player activity. And that always pisses users off - especially those on crappy connections (or those like me that want to have a little something fun to do installed on my laptop when I'm on the road but may not have consistent/reliable net access).

So while that's a perfectly viable solution for multiplayer-oriented games, it does nothing to address campaign-heavy stuff (e.g., HL series), or even games with a decent balance of both (most, I'd argue).

Only "/." conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768873)

Hmmm wiggle room:

A) People stop producing good content. Youtube wins.

or

B) Too much risk for too much loss. Sequel after boring sequel. EA wins.

or

c) Games move to another less hackable platform. Consoles and MMORGS win.

or

D) Games move to Steam. Everyone wins...except for those boycotting on principles.

Re:Only "/." conclusion (2, Insightful)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768995)

or
E) Game producers turn pirates into paying customers and embrace distribution methods people prefer without harassing them. Reality is that most people pirate stuff they wouldn't buy in the first place. No loss there except free marketing. The only problem is people pirating stuff they would normally buy. But with a good product, good support and harassment-free incentives to buy the product, you should be able to turn those people into paying for products.
PS:

D) Games move to Steam. Everyone wins...except for those boycotting on principles.

Personally, I don't like Steam for the simple reason it annoys the hell out of me. I can't start games without Steam throwing ads at me for products I don't care about and it increase the loading time of games significantly. Impulse from Stardock is much better in that respect (disclaimer: I purchase most of my games through Impulse. I used to buy games from EA, or well, the studios it has taken over, but I can't remember the last time I did).

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768965)

If causation is not correlation, then what is causation? Can you give me an example of causation that isn't merely correlation?

Cigarette smoke causes lung cancer? Where's the causation apart from correlation there? Smoke goes in habitually and cancer forms. They are just correlated. Or you can say that the smoke molecules cause the disruption of molecules in the cells. But where's the causation apart from correlation there? The smoke molecules enter in proximity to the cell molecules and then the cells molecules are changed. That's just correlation. Or you can say that those molecules are caused to do that because of electromagnetism. But where's the causation apart from correlation there? Opposite charges attract and similar charges repel. What causes that? That's just correlation.

The flip-side (4, Insightful)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769053)

Of course, if we were to look at the flip-side, 18% of the people who got their hands on World of Goo purchased it, whereas only 8% of those who got their hands on the other game purchased it. That's over DOUBLE the rate of purchase.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Re:Only sane conclusion (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769109)

particularly those who have their livelihood staked on it, such as StarForce

Ah, don't worry about Starforce. Just wait 'til the Federation hears about this.

huh ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768665)

world of goo ? whattzat ?

Re:huh ??? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768839)

Thank you. Even if we accept the absurd math and conclusions given, it could be that pirates are aware of the game but the public at large isn't. Hell, I probably spend more on games each month than on groceries and I've never heard of the thing.

Maybe the real issue here isn't DRM, but marketing. In fact a high level of piracy may be the only reason it got the sales its gotten!

Re:huh ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769013)

I guess that's because you're not a gamer. You're a shopping soccer mom.

The game was featured on many game sites, including Penny Arcade, and won a few awards.

Re:huh ??? (1)

ChangelingJane (1042436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769225)

If you haven't heard of this game, then you're not paying attention. PS. If you do try it, spend the money. It's worth it.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768667)

Goo

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769123)

Goo means shit all over India and many Asian countries.

One of the funniest stuff I heard in Mumbai was

Gaand me nahi goo....hagne chale Juhu.

My experience (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768669)

I bought a copy of this game and I gave a copy to my housemate who enjoyed the demo, but not enough to pay for the full game.

I didn't pass on copies to any other friends mainly due to the "this is a drm free game, please be nice" type message that came with the download link.

Re:My experience (3, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768997)

That's what I do too.

Unfortunately, my brother thinks, that as long as you can copy it, then why would you buy it at all?
It goes without saying, that his views to not fit with mine. Somehow he does not "get" the morality that is involved in being motivated to not hurt the developer if he's nice to you too.

And strangely, he's a media industry manager, who does not get why DRM is so evil, too.

Somehow, my theory is, that both sides, the one hurting the developer, and the one hurting the consumer, are two sides of the same character.
The type that does not trust people and thinks there is nothing else out there than a dog-eat-dog world, so if others fuck you anyway, and everybody can expect it, then he can act that way too.

The best thing is, that I even know the reason for this. His life was unfair and sometimes even horrible. And so was mine. I still do not trust many people.
But I could never stand someone good being hurt, because I saw it happening to my own brother.

So if you want to stop the **AA and those type of guys, just make the world a bit better, be nice to others and your kids, and hope that they end up defaulting to being good. (Oh, and wait one or two generations. ;)
(I know it's not realistic in the short run, but does it result in anything not good, to try it anyway?)

CORRELATION != CAUSATION (4, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768695)

there are more variables than "has DRM" and "does not have DRM" that could influence the steal rate. selling price, metacritic rating, marketing to name a few.

Re:CORRELATION != CAUSATION (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768751)

The price does seem a bit on the high side at $20,-. The point were I would consider buying this game based on an enticing demo and good reviews lies at $10,-. Spontaneously buying a game based on good reviews only I would do for $5,-. Of course, being a graduate student, I don't have much in terms of disposable income.

This makes me wonder. What if you set up a construction that has people initially paying $20,-, then when the game breaks even, split up the profit from new sales between pure profit and a payback fund. When the payback fund reaches a certain pre-calculated figure, lower the price of the game to, say, $15,-, and use the fund to payback $5,- to everybody who initially bought the game for $20,-. Do the same for $10,- and $5,-.

Could something like this work in the real world or is it too idealistic?

Re:CORRELATION != CAUSATION (1)

quizwedge (324481) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768871)

The overhead for the company in keeping track of who paid what and who got paid back what probably wouldn't be worth it... it'd take forever to pay all of the personnel before you could start giving customers money back.

Re:CORRELATION != CAUSATION (3, Insightful)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768875)

More variables indeed. Like "is the game worth actually spending money on?" is one variable that leaps to mind.

DRM is not about prevent piracy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768697)

DRM is about preventing sharing. I don't mean BitTorrent sharing. If you purchased a copy of a game from Walmart and want to lend it to a friend after you are done, DRM is designed to prevent that. Most (if not all) DRM solutions are bypassed before the game hits the torrents, making DRM worthless at preventing piracy. But a limited number of installs prevents honest customers from lending each other games. It also makes re-selling the game difficult if not impossible.

The game companies would certainly do this for consoles if they could (I believe Sony has a patent associated with it). It's one of the reasons why downloadable games are very popular. I've purchased the first two episodes of Penny Arcade Adventures for the Xbox 360. I have a friend who would like to give them a try. The DRM doesn't prevent an illegal download of the PC version of the game, it doesn't prevent me from lending a legal copy of the game to my friend.

80% seems pretty high (3, Insightful)

pablodiazgutierrez (756813) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768699)

Which explains why they're trying new ways of making people pay, as we saw recently...

Re:80% seems pretty high (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768959)

80% does seem pretty high, but a 10% difference in piracy rates would, generally speaking, strike me as statistically large enough to be called a "major difference".

Unless of course, their margin of error is greater than 10%, in which case their results are meaningless in any comparison.

sweet game (1)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768701)

I've been watching this game on Greenhouse - waiting for it to come out on Linux. It looks extremely cool, its sad that it gets pirated so much, but it seems it made no difference...

Re:sweet game (2, Informative)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768941)

I'm playing the Wiiware version now. It's a lot of fun if you like puzzle games. It reminds me of Armadillo Run [armadillorun.com] or The Incredible Machine [wikipedia.org] (if you're old enough to remember that game). I'd prefer a mouse over the Wiimote, so I'm considering getting the PC/Mac version which allows you to download the Linux beta [2dboy.com] now.

These numbers are misleading (5, Insightful)

Jimmy_B (129296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768703)

The problem with using a per-game statistic for measuring piracy is that a pirate can play far more games than someone who doesn't pirate, but will play each of them less. If you have 25 pirates and 75 people who pay, and each paying person buys five games but each pirate downloads fifty, then each game will be pirated more than 75% of the time. (All of these numbers are pulled out of the air; I don't know the size of the effect, but economics dictates that the number of distinct games per person is at least somewhat higher for pirates.)

Re:These numbers are misleading (2, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768765)

We can't let them get away with that, we must force them to play each game to the end, maybe with some kind of technological method?

Re:These numbers are misleading (2, Interesting)

Lordnerdzrool (884216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769147)

Each game could come with a masked guy holding a whip.

Plus it makes the pirated version much less exciting.

Re:These numbers are misleading (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769161)

Each game could come with a masked guy holding a whip.

Plus it makes the pirated version much less exciting.

The masked guy and whip only ship in the retail box?

Tough demand curve. (1, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768711)

The fellow interviewed in the Gamasutra link mentioned tracking piracy and purchase numbers across successive improvements of DRM. The punchline was rather chilling: For 1000 units not pirated, 1 additional sale resulted. At that rate, even if DRM were perfect, using it would be more about moral satisfaction than about economics.

I wonder: are those vast masses of pirates merely aquisitive types who enjoy the download and crack process(the way some people stockpile more music than the could ever listen to) but have no real interest in the product? Are they people without access to credit cards or other suitable online payment mechanisms(I suspect that at least some gaming minors would be willing to spend the money; but unable to get approval from somebody with a credit card)? Or are they merely cheap?

The second of those two categories seems like it would be the most interesting, and potentially profitable, to explore. If it turns out that transaction costs are turning people away, that would suggest that glomming onto actually functional electronic currency schemes(if one would get off the ground sometime before the heat death of the universe) or one of the existing consolidated payment setups(iTunes, Steam, etc.) could be of considerable use. If that isn't a factor, of course, then they'd probably be better off cutting out the middleman. I'd like to see some numbers.

Re:Tough demand curve. (2, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768841)

Methinks a lot of them are college students with fast Internet connections and little or no budget of their own. Or high-school students. (Myself, I got out of the computer-game piracy business after I started making several tens of thousands of dollars a year. I've gone out of my way to buy most of the games I spent any significant amount of time with, as well.)

Re:Tough demand curve. (2, Informative)

JLF65 (888379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768979)

Probably most of these people are more likely the "try before you buy" type. They used to rent the game for a night or two to see if it was worth buying. Now they use the internet instead of rental places. Given that 99.9% of games are worthless crap, most people who "try before they buy" will end up not buying the game. This makes it look like the game has heavy piracy when in reality it's simply crap not worth buying. Which do you think the game industry will claim? :)

Re:Tough demand curve. (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769097)

This is me, in a nut shell. Sure, I download X amount of games a month, but most of them live on my hard drive for maybe two days (up to a month if I wasn't horribly interested in the first place and don't get around to installing them) before they're uninstalled and deleted.

There's no (that I know of) place to get PC game rentals, and I'm sure as hell not shelling out $40-60 for a brand new game if I'm only lukewarm on it, on a college student working part time budget.

Re:Tough demand curve. (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768989)

Are you kidding me? Trying to download anything large over anykind of college or campus network is balls-achingly painful. The only college students who are going to be downloading anything are those with their own apartments and therefore own internet connection.

Re:Tough demand curve. (2, Informative)

supervillainsf (820395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769059)

Trying to download anything large over anykind of college or campus network is balls-achingly painful.

I don't know what college you go to, but I just downloaded the latest xcode dmg ( just under a gig in size ) in less than 3 minutes today on my campus. The experience resulted in no ball-aching on my part.

DRM and relative sales (1)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768713)

Yet more evidence to suggest that piracy is absolutely rife, but that DRM is not any kind of solution. Personally, I played someone elses copy of this game. I enjoyed it, but can't justify buying it for myself. I don't intend to REplay it. However, I've bought it for my dear sweet old mum, for Christmas. So... that's one pirated version and one sale, from a marketing perspective. Mind you, these days the corporate view of second hand goods is that they're evil, let alone borrowed ones!

On the subject of DRM:

Sales of Fallout 3, which does not have significant DRM, have been 3:1 in favour of the 360 over the PC.

Sales of Bioshock, which was the first of the new terrible fuckurom releases, were 10:1 in favour of the 360.

There are a lot of factors in play here, but I'd like to believe that we are seeing something like consumers voting with their wallets.

Bioshock was really the first time I started to see major mainstream lashbacks against DRM, and represents the beginning of consumer awareness. So I guess we have something to thank them for after all, just not a game that we can easily play. NB. Both Fallout 3 and Bioshock used 'securom' but there is a world of difference in the implementation. In the case of Bioshock the executable code of the game isn't actually even on the disc! You download the EXE as part of the install routine from an activation server!

Re:DRM and relative sales (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768797)

Unfortunately, customers don't seem to care about DRM per se, just DRM that fucks with their systems. In DRM terms, contemporary consoles are to PCs what cybernetically enhanced Yakuza ninja assassins armed with mind control shiruken are to mall security guards.

The latter are far more annoying; but the former are far, far more effective. It would not at all surprise me, given their experience with both WMRM and consoles, along with the overwhelming degree of dissatisfaction with current PC DRM, most of which does some seriously dubious stuff to your OS, if Microsoft simply decides to fold a DRM API of some sort into future versions of Windows. By virtue of controlling the OS, they would be able to offer equivalent or better DRM than would the third party stuff, with lower likelyhood of breaking things horribly.

Now, having the guys you buy your OS from in on the conspiracy to control your use of it is not exactly an improvement from the freedom perspective(and you might want to look into bidding fairwell to first sale); but it would quiet the people who oppose DRM merely on convenience grounds.

Fantastic summary! (0)

dosun88888 (265953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768715)

So, from the summary, we can infer that 8% of players typically buy DRMed games, and 18% of people bought this one, for an increase of over 100%, which makes the last part:

There seemed to be no major difference in the outcomes of the rate regardless of whether DRM was used or not... well, no difference other than the cost to implement such nonsense.

sound utterly retarded.

In the article you see that they think it's more like 90% and is at the very least 82%, so the summary is just crap. The god damn title of the post that it links to is "90%."

Anyhow, if it is actually 90% vs 92% then I disagree with their definition of significant, but who's counting. Yes, I think that selling 20% more is significant.

Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something big.

Counting IP's? Fail. (5, Interesting)

Presence2 (240785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768725)

They're counting IP connections of users who opt to check a box within the game as the foundation for their argument. It's difficult to take any Piracy/DRM conversation seriously when developers are using sensationally hyped math as a starting point. Pirates vs. buyers, static vs. dynamic IP's, and those who choose to check the box to upload their scores or not; three wildly oscillating figures they're saying = 90%.

Re:Counting IP's? Fail. (1)

C18H27NO3 (1282172) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768799)

Funny, that. Isn't it interesting that any time piracy is involved the hot air spewed from the mouths of the opponents are wildly arbitrary numbers that they can't possibly back up but will most assuredly `always` be very high. Anywho, to me this reads as DRM not doing anything for the piracy aspect and keeping the honest users honest but aggravating them during the process with all of the protection measures.

Re:Counting IP's? Fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768847)

Whoosh...

What? (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768757)

One versus one? Hardly a definitive sample size. This doesn't really tell us anything about the state of copyright infringement (NOT PIRACY GOD DAMNIT) or DRM, it just tells us about these two games.

odd math (5, Insightful)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768771)

TFA: we divided the total number of sales we had from all sources by the total number of unique IPs in our database, and came up with about 0.1. thatâ(TM)s how we came up with 90%.

Heaven forbid a legit user installs it on his laptop, takes it to the library, starbucks, work, university, a few friend's houses and whatever other wifi signals he comes across.

This math seems pretty flawed.

Re:odd math (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768783)

Flawed yes, but I think it's better than just pulling numbers out of your ass.

Re:odd math (1)

phanboy_iv (1006659) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768827)

That's the point. They are kinda pulling numbers out of their ass. The way they're measuring piracy rates is way to inaccurate to give a reasonable figure. Take me. I bought the game, have it installed on Linux via Wine, and also under WinXP. When they release the Linux version, I'll use that.

Re:odd math (5, Informative)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768895)

FTA:

it's just an estimate though... there are factors that we couldn't account for that would make the actual piracy rate lower than our estimate:
* some people install the game on more than one machine
* most people have dynamic IP addresses that change from time to time
there are also factors that would make the actual piracy rate higher than our estimate:
* more than one installation behind the same router/firewall (would be common in an office environment)
* not everyone opts to have their scores submitted
for simplicity's sake, we just assumed those would balance out. so take take the 90% as a rough estimate.

I think they make it pretty clear that their math is flawed and based on shaky assumptions. If you scroll down further in the article there is an update, too, with much more detailed math and the final conclusion of an 82% piracy rate.

Piracy != Lost Sales (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768777)

I downloaded it (the full version) to try it out. It's neat, but it's not my cup of tea so I deleted it. In my case there's no lost sale, as I was using the game as a demo. I'm sure a fairly large chunk of that "82%" probably downloaded the game so they wouldn't have to pay for it, but I think it's important to note that there are people who will just download something because it becomes available. They don't necessarily want it specifically, and will probably never touch it, but they download it anyway. It's my opinion based on my own experience (I have done zero formal research) that these people comprise the bulk of the "pirates". They didn't buy the game because they were never going to buy the game. Their downloads will get stashed on a DVD or a hard drive somewhere and then go ignored until the heat death of the universe.

Back when I was younger I was really into the "collecting" aspect of downloading software. I didn't know when or where I might need something (or indeed IF) but if I could get something my friends didn't have it felt like a victory of sorts, as did sharing what I had. I tell you, if I'd put half as much effort into my studies as I did into downloading I'd have a PhD by now. Now I waste all my time downloading music I never listen to. :D Some things never change.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (2, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768809)

I downloaded it (the full version) to try it out.

Here's an odd question: What is so horribly wrong with the demo that you refused to download it? If you had done so, you would be providing one less piracy statistic and instead providing a failed-conversion statistic. A failed-conversion tells the developer that they need to do better. A piracy statistic suggests that they're not getting paid for their hard work.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768915)

Hm. You know, and this says nothing good about me, it never even occurred to me to seek out a demo. I very seldom play new games because most games these days are either huge FPS/RPGs or strategy games or lame rehashes of Bejeweled, so when I saw something a little different I wanted to try it out. I'd hoped for a side-scrolling platformer, but alas, it was more like lemmings than anything else so...

To the devs, if you're out there reading this: I'm sorry. It's not you, it's me. I'm just an idiot. I hope you can forgive me.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768927)

Piracy is wrong for sure. However, some demos are not time trial or usage count based, but rather an annoying form of "cripple-ware" with features missing or turned off. So I can understand why someone would pirate the full version to try it out. I personally don't see a moral problem with that approach. What I *do* have problem is when someone pirates software for personal productivity or enjoyment without paying for it. The relative questions being when and at what point should that distinction be made.

I honestly think we need to go back to the root of this issue. No technology needed. Just pay your due for rendered services. If your trying to cheat another man out of his labor, you should be smacked. Simply put, we're on the honor system and it's up to us to keep our fellow peers in check when they step out of line.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769091)

If the honor system worked that well, the world wouldn't need lawyers...

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769217)

The demo in the case of World of Goo is the whole first chapter. There should be enough game to form an opinion.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768951)

Here's an odd question: What is so horribly wrong with the demo that you refused to download it?

Because you can't trust demos. Over the years, demos have been the subject of just about every anti-consumer dirty trick you can think of from polished demos for hastily finished games to significantly different game play. If the real thing is available, why even bother with a potentially misleading demo?

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769029)

"demos" come from shitty http download servers that are dirt slow and or make you wait. hey look at this ad too.

torrents dont

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (1)

dp_wiz (954921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769067)

Maybe it is time for them to start counting pirating as "failed conversion" too? Not buying after playing is just this - game is not good enough.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769087)

Unrelated person, but I was introduced to this game by /v/. A bunch of people were going "OMG THIS GAME IS SO AWESOME YOU GOTTA TRY IT" while posting rapidshare/megaupload/mediafire links to the full version.

I downloaded it, played for about 20 minutes, and stopped. It just wasn't all that great. It feels like a free flash/java game - and in all honesty, I've played online flash/java games that were far more enjoyable. When I found out it was selling for $20 I almost did a spit-take. IF I was going to buy this game, you'd be hard pressed to get $5 out of me. Hell, I'd rather take that $5 to the grocery store and buy some chocolate bars.

On top of that, what I've been hearing from others, is that the guy who made this originally did the basics of it for a competition that he won, and then added on more components in his spare time to make the game being sold today. With 20,000 units sold, even with the claimed "90% piracy" rate the guy still would've made a huge chunk of money. It's not like this guy's pan handling out on main street now. He's got a well paying job, and he's getting rich off something he was doing in his spare time. All we're really talking about now are whether he gets rich, or megabucks rich.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769149)

Demos can be severely limited, and also as creature creator showed us, they might piggyback some very very unwanted software.

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769181)

Demo's are rushed buggy low quality versions of the game (at least my experience).

Re:Piracy != Lost Sales (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769199)

I downloaded it (the full version) to try it out. It's neat, but it's not my cup of tea so I deleted it. In my case there's no lost sale, as I was using the game as a demo.

No, but from the game publisher's case it is. If you bought the game, hated it, and sold it at a break-even price, they still have your money. They honestly don't care whether or not you like the game, just that you buy it. Why do you think that most media is packaged in non-refundable shrink wrap?

Media publishers in the past were able to get rich off of hype and deceptive marketing because the potential buyers did not have the actual product yet. The Internet has, practically speaking, lessened the risk of buyer's remorse. It is harder to rely on customer ignorance than in the past since the bits can be downloaded free of charge, so from their perspective copyright infringement is costing them sales.

Awesome game (5, Interesting)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768779)

I only heard about this game because of the piracy story here on slashdot, went and played the demo, and loved it. I'm gonna buy the full version now.

Hows that for irony?

Re:Awesome game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768851)

I just bought it too.

Good production and looks really great. Also good that they are supporting Macs.

Re:Awesome game (1)

lokpest (1136949) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769051)

1) Make a Crybaby story about how many people pirate your DRM-free game

2)Make sure story hits /.

3) ???

4) PROFIT!

Re:Awesome game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769057)

You lie.

Re:Awesome game (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769061)

I did the same thing a while ago when the author of Democracy 2 [positech.co.uk] was featured on Slashdot when he asked the gaming community [slashdot.org] about why they pirate.

I had never heard of Positech or their games, but since this developer was being pretty cool with the piracy responses, I downloaded the demo of Democracy 2. Fun game. Bought it.

Re:Awesome game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769085)

I wouldn't call that irony, rather a perfectly played slashvertisement. 2dboy is just pimping his game here and pandering to the anti-DRM crowd.

Re:Awesome game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769159)

This looks like a fantasticcontraption knockoff.

slashnerds just hate paying for things (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768817)

it's not a great jump to see that because slashnerds get linux for free, they thing everything on the internetz should be free, fuck the hard work and money people put into games, music and movies.

mod me down to prove me right, bitches.

Re:slashnerds just hate paying for things (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768925)

Ha! I just copied your words and reposted them on another forum. Fuck your hard work in writing it, its on the internet!

Re:slashnerds just hate paying for things (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768973)

i had penis rot DRM on that comment. now your cock is going to drop off in an eruption of gonnarea

Re:slashnerds just hate paying for things (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769033)

Yeah, but I used a cracked clipboard. Fail again DRM boy!

Piracy = Sales? or DRM ftw? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768823)

I pirated this game for the windows platform to try out, really enjoyed it and then bought a copy for the wii platform. where it has natural wii DRM. hmm, but a better interface). I doubt this fits the statistics.

Wow, that's a really bad hed. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768865)

Isn't the point that the DRM-free piracy rate was NOT high, compared to the DRM rate? WTF?

Nothing to see here... (4, Insightful)

L4m3rthanyou (1015323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768869)

I don't see how such statistics are even useful, anyway. Piracy is an unfortunate market force, an inevitable cost of doing business. We all know that. Clearly, it hasn't stopped games from being profitable.

I think that even the most thickheaded publishers are starting to figure out that trying to stop piracy is futile, at least for single-player games. It would seem to me that most developers releasing their stuff DRM-free have simply stopped worrying about what's being "taken" from them, and refocused on maximizing their income. In the ever-expanding world of online gaming, where authoritative control is actually possible, the DRM makes sense and will continue to be used. It's all about the benefit against the cost.

In other words... DUH.

Popularity (1)

kasdaye (1243382) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768953)

Call me crazy, but I'd wager that the popularity of a title is a huge factor. More people want to play a EA or Microsoft Games title than something from an indie developer (usually), and thus a higher percentage of pirated copies of the former will be in use, thanks to the larger amount of interest in the game. Personally, I've never heard of World of Goo before.

Rate of piracy doesn't matter... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768957)

On the surface, at least, it seems to be a good thing that these guys are doing this sort of empirical analysis. But it seems to me that it isn't the rate of piracy that matters, it is the rate of actual sales. That is hard to control for because you have to take into account the sukekekeness of the game - but in theory you should have to account for teh sukeke when evaluating piracy stats too.

Terrible study (4, Insightful)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768977)

This study is deeply flawed. Optional checkboxes? A reliance on IP addresses (dynamic, logging in from multiple locations, etc.)? I eagerly await the technical analyses of the study's flaws.

This story is making the rounds surprisingly fast, which is fucking terrible. The study is flawed, but how many readers will see that? Will they take this 80% piracy rate at face value? I really hope not.

To those who think piracy will ruin PC gaming by making profitability impossible, I offer the following analysis of the sales of another DRM-free game: Sins of a Solar Empire.

In September, Stardock reported that Sins sold over 500,000 units: 400,000 at retail and 100,000 online. For the sake of these back-of-the-envelope calculations, I'll assume that the average retail price is $40. The online price is $40. I'll round down total sales to 500,000.

So 500,000 * $40 = $20 million. We know that Stardock took in at least $4 million by virtue of online sales. I don't know enough about retail sales to estimate how much retailers take in per sale.

Sins cost less than $1 million to make. After the retailers get their cut, and Stardock pays for Impulse's bandwidth, I'll estimate that they pocketed at least $10 million, probably more. (I'm being conservative.)

That's at least a 10:1 return on their investment. That sounds like a killing! And Stardock/Ironclad plans several micro expansions in the coming months.

Even with piracy, Stardock did quite well. Hell, even if piracy is 90% (which I think is a buncha crap), they still made plenty of dough. Why? As explained by Brad and others:

1) Ironclad/Stardock kept costs low. I hate how the industry creates these multimillion dollar games that necessitate a huge number of sales to recoup development costs. Piracy or not, the PC gaming market is simply too small to fully recoup the dev costs of today's AAA games (not enough high-end PCs etc. etc.). That's why big-budget games need multiplatform sales.

2) Relatively low system reqs.

3) Sins is a PC game. At the moment, you simply can't have a Sins-like experience on a console. Stardock's offering a game that takes advantage of the PC's strengths. Imagine that, appealing to your target audience. AFAIK, the game doesn't suffer from "consolitis."

4) Excellent customer support and relations. Patches, active forums, listening to customers. The other day, Brad left a post on a somewhat obscure topic at CivFanatics. He wanted to to clear up any misconceptions about Stardock's upcoming fantasy 4X game to an audience that's clearly interested in 4X stuff.

5) Lots of positive press. Slashdot and other PC/geek sites responded positively to the company's anti-DRM messages, the PC gamer bill of rights, etc. This probably attracted customers and overall goodwill.

Now if Sins isn't your kind of game, you probably don't care either way. What I'm arguing is that it's possible to profit handsomely in the non-MMO PC game market, provided you know your audience and release a game worth playing. Having good marketing and PR certainly helps, too.

Source: http://news.bigdownload.com/2008/09/04/over-500-000-total-sins-of-a-solar-empire-units-sold/ [bigdownload.com]

Re:Terrible study (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769039)

I think one of the reasons sins does well is that the main developer or manager targets these games at people who will pay for them: my guess is young adults who have money, like strats, and might want to play a game with friends. When I consider World of Goo, the target audience is much larger and the game size is much smaller. The former increases those who might distribute the game and the latter increases the likelihood of the game being distributed. I for one, would rather shell out 40$ then spend a week torrenting a 4gb game. I like World of Goo and hope the devs are successful but there are some features that make it more susceptible to piracy. My suggestion would be to make (non-lan) internet play a bigger feature and do some serial checking like steam or bnet. Otherwise, they might do better by focusing on a target audience that pays.

Re:Terrible study (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769103)

In September, Stardock reported that Sins sold over 500,000 units: 400,000 at retail and 100,000 online. For the sake of these back-of-the-envelope calculations, I'll assume that the average retail price is $40. The online price is $40. I'll round down total sales to 500,000.

Wow, that's quite a lot.

I wouldn't pirate Stardock's games though for one reason - They have nothing I want to obtain in the first place.

so what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769023)

I admit it, I pirated world of goo because I thought it sounded sorta cool. to be honest, it's still sitting in the torrent downloads folder and it hasnt been looked it. I guess that counts as part of the 80%, but you can hardly claim I would have bought it otherwise. I mean, shit, I havent even played with it yet and it cost me nothing. can you really claim I would have bought it if I couldnt download it for free?

Re:so what? (2, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769095)

I admit it, I pirated world of goo because I thought it sounded sorta cool. to be honest, it's still sitting in the torrent downloads folder and it hasnt been looked it. I guess that counts as part of the 80%, but you can hardly claim I would have bought it otherwise. I mean, shit, I havent even played with it yet and it cost me nothing. can you really claim I would have bought it if I couldnt download it for free?

The statistics they have are from people who actually played and submitted scores back online. So you wouldn't of been counted.

Maybe you should RTFA.

Piracy rate is an irrelevance (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769111)

It doesn't matter how many people pirate the game. What matters is how many people pirated the game instead of paying for it. Eliminate piracy and how many of those 80% will actually buy it.

Basic supply and demand says that if you decrease the cost to zero, demand will go up. Experience tells me that many people who have large collections of copied software still buy a considerable amount of media.

And before you all go off and miss the point and go off on one - I'm not trying to justify piracy here. Just pointing out that from a business point off view the percentage piracy rate is a useless statistic.

Offling PC gaming is (almost) doomed. (1, Insightful)

Inominate (412637) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769153)

And piracy is the reason. DRM cannot fix it and just pisses off the people actually giving you money.

The PC has always been a place for experimental games and has far more gaming firsts than any console platform could. It's a breeding ground for innovation and experimentation. But the same low barrier for entry that makes the PC good for this makes breaking copy protection trivial.

Consoles on the other hand require a substantial initial investment and lean very strongly towards games which WILL be a commercial success. Piracy on consoles is much less of an issue because a console is much more of a "black box" than any PC ever will be. It has the ultimate copy protection, piracy is less convenient than buying the game. For this reason, the blockbuster games will almost always be directed towards the consoles.

But all is not lost for the PC. Consoles are becoming closer to the PC. The xbox 360 is essentially a PC and microsoft has made sure that games developed for one can be ported to the other with a minimum of effort. This ensures that while PC users are 2nd class among the blockbuster games market, the market still exists and can be met with little extra cost.

There is however one form of copy protection that works. Games focused on online play are trivial to protect and with monthly fees it's often undesirable to even try. Valve has nailed this one on the head with steam. Make games easy to buy, easy to hold onto forever, and have a rudimentary drm system, while authenticating this in online play. The calling home DRM is somewhat invasive, but it's more than made up for by providing a useful service, that of having a permanent account that I KNOW whatever happens I'll have access to my games in the future. No CDs or keys to lose.

Steam is probably the best method of PC game sales/distribution that exists. It's not perfect but it's far better than any DRM, and provides independent developers publicity and an easy way to sell.

Palin could come up with more believable numbers (1)

halo112358 (940025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769169)

Or, "These numbers are so crap they should be attributed to Palin so we can all recognize them for the joke they are."

These numbers don't take DHCP addresses or multiboxing into account at all, in fact these two factors inflate the piracy percentage to dominating levels. I bought the game through steam and play it on two machines, according to 2D Boy's data collection method this means that they have a 50% piracy rate just from my copy (1 sale, 2 addresses observed.)

Now let me throw a couple of things into the mix, one of the machines has a dynamic address DSL connection, the address changes daily (roughly every 24hrs, and every DSL modem reboot). If I play the game daily for two weeks on this machine it means that there are an additional 14 addresses added to their tally for a grand total of one sale and 15 unique addresses (aka, pirated copies), all of this due to me playing my legitimate copy. This inflates the piracy rate of my single copy to 1 sold and 15 pirated, ie: 93.333% piracy.

This method and their numbers are so much bullshit it hurts me to even think about this. You could probably divide their figure (92%) by about 5 or 6 and have something more reasonable to work with, but it's really going to depend on how many dynamic addresses they're observing. I'd estimate they're wrong by a factor of 5 here.

Bias much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769175)

" the piracy rate of another game that was shipped complete with DRM, at 92%. There seemed to be no major difference in the outcomes of the rate regardless of whether DRM was used or not"

Why does the headline read "Independent Dev Reports Over 80% Piracy Rate On DRM-Free Game" when the piracy rate is higher on DRM'd games?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>