next »

[crowe]

Both methods will be around for a while yet, so if you're still buying and selling artificially scarce goods, then there's nothing wrong with that. You're a product of your environment, I understand, it's fine... "It's not your fault, but is is your problem."  So, don't get miffed when "pirates" (read: futurists) remove your bogus artificial restrictions and you're out money because you didn't get paid up front for the work.

Perhaps try being internally consistent next time? If you have trouble getting exposure, you won't be able to be paid upfront, which means you need the finished product to show off and gain support and popularity. But that's negated if "futurists" (read: pirates) use their false logic to justify taking your work away from you without compensation. Sometimes it's impossible to prove something is worthwhile until it is finished. I think that is very true in gaming especially, where the way something works or feels is very important to its value -- and I think over the coming months as kickstarters start to fail and their products often turn out to be less than was promised, people will understand that buying something sight unseen can be a very dangerous idea. Of course, "futurists" will be ok, because as you said they don't actually put money into things, because they believe it's justified that others pay for what they enjoy.

[VortexCortex]

@crowe: I'm not advocating copyright infringement.  Whether or not anyone can justify it, it's going to happen; The reason it even matters when it happens is because of sales systems built on artificial scarcity.  Regardless of how flawed the copyright infringer's logic is, it doesn't correct the fact that the current distribution model is based on duplicating bits and artificially restricting the flow of information...  If you want to talk about logic: Bits are effectively in infinite supply. Thus, trying to make a business out of selling copies of bits is even more illogical from an economic perspective; Indeed, it's down right flawed... To say nothing of the ethics involved.

As to my being "internally consistent": Screw that.  That's bad thinking right there: Life's not internally consistent.  Comments like these are like a pseudo-intellectual finding demons at fault where pebbles were responsible for the fall.  My aim is to communicate; If you get the gist then I've succeeded.  We're humans, our neural networks are fabulous and can extract lots of meaning despite tiny flaws in the signal without getting hung on the details.  If yours gets stuck on small imperfections, then consider retraining it.  Please tell me you didn't just dismiss the rest of my sentiments or that this wasn't the only point you found at fault if you did.

Besides, such statement is unwarranted: See my above statement about bootstrapping yourself into a more ethical position by leveraging the current artificial scarcity system.

If you have trouble getting exposure, you won't be able to be paid upfront, which means you need the finished product to show off and gain support and popularity.

First off: "Pirates" do not hinder your exposure, they're not the problem.  Protip: Radios play music, artists get exposure because people can hear the music for free, people come to concerts to watch them work (where the musicians get the bulk of their income).

Furthermore, if no one will buy into your idea, then it's probably just not a good idea.  You'll waste time creating said idea and end up only selling a few copies.  Ask around, this is actually quite common.  Hey, not saying that you shouldn't make whatever dream you have come true -- I love many quirky unpopular games, but this is the business forum...

No one has all the answers, but basic economic principals shouldn't be ignored.

Here's how I ACTUALLY make a living, without any DRM:

Instead of ignoring Economics 101, and trying to sell sand to beach bums via restricting who can be at the beach, I'm contracting sand castle constructions everyone can enjoy and when I work I get paid.

As a contract software developer I bid on jobs and create the software then get paid the agreed amount.  Sometimes it's time+ for ill defined tasks.  This labor model is the way every other industry works.  Even being employed at McDonald's is a weekly contract for your work.  Art and music consignments exist.  Established studios have the capital to pay developers for their work using the profits from previous games, but in the artificial scarcity system they gamble their futures on uncertainty.  Would you do manual labor if your boss said: I'll pay you if it's good enough?!  That's what publishers do.  Keep in mind they can afford to fail a few times.  If you can't afford to fail then why try and duplicate their business model?

When my business software work is done, the company doesn't pay me per seat of software installation -- copying the bits isn't the work I do, I'm a programmer not a hard disk drive or OS; I have other work to do.  Most of my work is open sourced; These efforts can enrich many companies and individuals not just those who had the problem and paid to solve it (this is a very powerful concept).

True, exposure is an issue.  Many of my jobs come by word of mouth based on my good reputation.  If your games are consistently good, your exposure will happen -- You'll have a reputation for making good games.  If your past works are good, and you want to make something you can't prove will be good until it's finished, then maybe people will fund development based on the fact you have a good track record (See: Double Fine, or Two Guys From Andromeda.  They just had an idea and a good rep).

Also consider that when you release games for free, your work is paying for advertising -- It's not wasted effort.  Giving away useful DRM free business software has helped me gain exposure and a rep for writing decent code...

[C.A. Sinner]

@crowe: I'm not advocating copyright infringement.  Whether or not anyone can justify it, it's going to happen; The reason it even matters when it happens is because of sales systems built on artificial scarcity.  Regardless of how flawed the copyright infringer's logic is, it doesn't correct the fact that the current distribution model is based on duplicating bits and artificially restricting the flow of information...  If you want to talk about logic: Bits are effectively in infinite supply. Thus, trying to make a business out of selling copies of bits is even more illogical from an economic perspective; Indeed, it's down right flawed... To say nothing of the ethics involved.

the problem is that right now videogame publishers want to have their cake and eat it. i.e. they want consumers to buy games as if they were physical products but then don't let them USE them like physical products. i'm talking about shit like always-online drm and the whole "you dont own the game just the license to play it" thing. imagine if the company that made your toothbrush could decide when, for how long and in which 3 bathrooms you get to brush your teeth.

either sell your products like physical goods and let consumers use them accordingly (no drm, reselling is legal etc.) or sell the "license" but at a more appropriate price.

[Evan Balster]

Vortex:

I contract too.  I like the idea of not having to and being able to work full-time on my own projects.  Anyway, a simple rebuttal.  By your logic:

1. The software industry will crumble when humanity as a whole becomes disillusioned to artificial scarcity and ceases to treat data like physical products, and contractors will go down with the ship, or

2. That won't happen, and selling one's own creations will remain just as viable as contracting for companies which do so, albeit with greater risk and reward.


Your remarks on artificial scarcity make perfect sense, but they don't seem like they bear much practical value.  They don't change my inclination to throw ten dollars at a game I think I will enjoy, and they don't change my outlook on the software industry: the significant consequence is that piracy will proliferate, as it is and has already.

So let's double back around to the proper topic of this thread.  Piracy increases awareness of a software product and its developer, much like free software increases awareness of a contractor.  The forward-thinking approach in a world where file-sharing is on the rise is to turn it to one's advantage.  If 100,000 illegal downloads of a piece of software can be turned into 3,000 sales, that's money to live on.  Money to make another game with.

Certainly, those bits don't cost anything and the work is in the past, but people don't think this way.  Why do we tip our waitress after our meal?  It isn't going to make her service retroactively better.  Why does the odd passerby throw five dollars to the street busker and his beaten-up guitar?  There's no economic sense to that; his music is FREE as the air through which it ripples.

People like to show their appreciation to the good things in the world, and to do their part in keeping those things alive.  In the worst of worlds -- or the best? -- that is what keeps a software developer alive, and that is why things will not change in the way you suggest.

[VortexCortex]

I contract too.  I like the idea of not having to and being able to work full-time on my own projects.  Anyway, a simple rebuttal.  By your logic:

1. The software industry will crumble when humanity as a whole becomes disillusioned to artificial scarcity and ceases to treat data like physical products, and contractors will go down with the ship, or

2. That won't happen, and selling one's own creations will remain just as viable as contracting for companies which do so, albeit with greater risk and reward.

1. I didn't say the industry would crumble.  You must fear this to be true, I never said that.  I only talk of change.

2. If you contract then you realize you have a contract to do work, you'll get paid for the work you do... That won't change when people stop charging for copies.  The free & open source software industries are built on the premise that getting paid to do work (provide a service, add new feature, etc) is just fine and needs no artificial scarcity sales.

Your remarks on artificial scarcity make perfect sense, but they don't seem like they bear much practical value.

This is only because you don't realize they already have.

They don't change my inclination to throw ten dollars at a game I think I will enjoy, and they don't change my outlook on the software industry: the significant consequence is that piracy will proliferate, as it is and has already.

Don't change.  Become extinct.  It's the way of the Universe.  Neanderthals didn't die out over night, but where are they today?  Piracy proliferating is the direct result of the disillusionment you mention.  That you'll still pay ten dollars for a game will likely hold true if it's to get a demo turned into a full game or to pay after it's created.  This is the first generation where the global bi-directional instant information networks have existed.  Just like the machine gun changed war, and the printing press changed publishing, change is coming in the digital world.

So let's double back around to the proper topic of this thread.  Piracy increases awareness of a software product and its developer, much like free software increases awareness of a contractor.  The forward-thinking approach in a world where file-sharing is on the rise is to turn it to one's advantage.

The even more forward thinking can prevent piracy from detracting any profit by collecting said profit up front.  Sure, this puts a cap on the greed of being able to make more and more money from little to no work, so established business will resist; However, there's no reason to play by the old rules now just because the old guys do.

Certainly, those bits don't cost anything and the work is in the past, but people don't think this way.  Why do we tip our waitress after our meal?  It isn't going to make her service retroactively better.  Why does the odd passerby throw five dollars to the street busker and his beaten-up guitar?  There's no economic sense to that; his music is FREE as the air through which it ripples.

You're wrong.  Tossing the money to the busker is a payment for providing the music.  You don't toss as much money to a bum as to a busker, that's why buskers exist.  You tip your waitress because of the social contract.  It's part of paying for your meal.  Return visits will reap rewards from tipping well in the past.  Time Exists.  Incidence are not isolated.  The busker can busk more, maybe buy a better guitar and make better music...

People like to show their appreciation to the good things in the world, and to do their part in keeping those things alive.

Well, it seems you're in perfect alignment with my way of thinking here.  This alone would allow us to transition from ransoming bits to getting paid to make good things.

In the worst of worlds -- or the best? -- that is what keeps a software developer alive, and that is why things will not change in the way you suggest.

Do you fail to see the changes I've cited already?  Publishing is becoming extinct, and with it goes their model of artificial scarcity.  They try to apply systems of tangible goods to purely digital products.   Self publishing is gaining a huge adoption among science-fiction writing, and other tech savvy writers.  Same goes for video games, music, movies...

Man, it's like a blind man telling me "blue" doesn't exist because they've never seen it.  I'm done here.

[Evan Balster]

Bear my ignorance for just a little longer, sage. 


I throw money to a busker in San Fransisco.  I do not expect I will ever hear his music again, as I'll return home soon.  Why might I do this?  If you say "the social contract" again, you undermine your entire argument by providing a counteracting force to this "disillusionment"; a sustenance that prevents neanderthals like me (and the airport waiter who rarely sees the same customer twice) from going extinct.

In a society of machines, your arguments might hold.  But ours is a society of people, the vast majority of whom don't even know what a "bit" is.  Even if that comes to change, our nature will not.

[RudyTheDev]

But ours is a society of people, the vast majority of whom don't even know what a "bit" is.

Asked my mate what a "bit" is and he said "it's the past form of byte." At first I didn't quite get it.

[Klaim]

There is an observation that have been done in the human psychology fields that says that we get more long-term pleasure when we give than when we get.

I think it is part of the thing we are discussing here. The polite drm would be more like a social link maker. Like, "hey, I'm a real human, me and my friends made this. want to chat about it? by the way, if you liked it maybe you want to reward us or help us make another game? no obligation though. that's cool that you enjoyed the game so far :D"

Communication between human beings is a powerful stuff. Not like when you get corporate emails asking you money.