I'm sure the developer does value your money. He also values the money that he believes has come to him as a result of piracy. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but not everyone agrees that piracy brings a net loss to developers. There are plenty of entirely valid arguments reasoning why it MIGHT bring a net benefit, however unpalatable that idea may be to you. The developer even tried explaining one of them to you. The problem is that when a developer makes that point, and suggests that he believes it ultimately generates sales, he risks being boycotted by a shrieking hate mob. Therefore few developers are prepared to express that opinion in public, presenting a distorted picture of what the development community as a whole does or doesn't believe. I'm not making any statements on their behalf, I'm just noting that we don't actually know, because threads like this one stifle any debate. You, and most of the lynch mob on this thread, don't care about whether piracy damages developers - if you did, you wouldn't get angry at developers who disagree with you. You care about whether someone is getting something for nothing when you paid for it. That's a perfectly natural human emotion that you don't have to be ashamed of, but you shouldn't try to dress it up as some moral crusade. And you certainly shouldn't base your moral crusade on evidence as weak as that godawful excuse for an article.
PS It's a shame, though, that you can't see the irony in being so anti-dishonesty that you're prepared to punish someone financially for being honest...
Mm, I'd be interested in this "measurable extent" too. Who measured it? What were the measurements? What are the exact measurable criteria that define the "core audience"? What size is this "majority"?
Lynch mob? Have you even read the thread? I said the same thing. I have been overwhelmed by the amount of people who are defending theft. However, since, I believe theft is wrong you describe me as a lynch mob. Lets try this. No one pays and all developers can keep their friggin light turned on, off the revenue they get from the thieves. Wonder how long they will be sitting in the dark? Edit: it's not punishment since no one has a right to my money. If pirates are revenue generating this should be no problem.
I have 6 devices in my home with kids and wife. And I also have 3 more devices linked to my account with friends and dad. I buy the apps or they do on my account and we all share them freely so that's 8 people that didn't pay but can play legaly as well. could this be why they are so many differnt devices playing the game? It that the best way to mesure piracy? I might be an extream case but I know for a fact it's pretty popluar. Its the same as a group of friends getting together and watching ppv. Are all thoes devices playing on your servers pirates I'm sure some are but I'm pretty alot are not.
"Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice." I believe you meant to write "Yes it can be a crime in the US."
So let's just be clear on what you're saying: if developers don't all start agreeing with you, you're going to punish them by refusing to buy their apps, regardless of the quality of the apps themselves? That's your position, right? Again, I'm not telling you what to do with your own money. I just think we should be honest about what we're actually arguing. And you're arguing that if developers dare to disagree with you about the effects of piracy (and I'll be blowed if I can think of any reason they'd lie about it), then you're going to try to starve them out of business. I'm slightly confused about how this gives you any sort of moral high ground, but I'm sure you'll explain it in a reasoned and rational way. And just to be fair, I'll point out what I'm arguing: 1. That the article that started this thread is a laughable fabrication built from speculation, assumption and outright lies. The blog I linked to - written by a respectable games journalist and developer - explains why in great detail. 2. That there is no definitive truth about whether the net effect of piracy is detrimental or beneficial to developers. There are plausible arguments both ways, and developers arguing on both sides. I have not at any point "defended" piracy. Of course it suits the lynch-mob mentality to pretend that I have.
You realise this is the exact same argument as the one that runs "pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway so there is no loss", yes?
If what your saying is correct, then developers should not notice a thing when paying customers stop buying. By that logic I am not punishing anyone. Lets give it a try. Buying products from companies I respect is a fundamental component of capitalism. I decide where my money goes. No punishment involved. This should not concern anyone if you are correct. I wonder.....
Clearly I don't know what your point is. What exactly are we arguing about? If the premise is incorrect and developers don't lose money, then there is no problem with putting my money somewhere else. If it does cost sales, what exactly are you defending?
The numbers quoted by ngmoco and Fishlabs are public on web articles. We collect our own numbers from the products we've launched, and discuss with other companies to compare our findings. For Zen Bound, its launch piracy was half that of Stair Dismount, despite being the more media-visible product. The lifetime piracy rate of Zen Bound is roughly 30-40%. So, in a year we've seen launch piracy rate roughly double. As I said, this is a problem particularly for small developers. Our only marketing venues are enthusiast websites, and if we're creating awareness to an audience that's mostly pirates these days, it creates results that you're seeing repeat time after time: good games not making it to the charts. While launch week piracy is a huge problem for major publishers as well, they are better equipped to still hit the charts since their games have brand value. Games from independent developers more often do not. It's important to understand this: 4000 pirated copies may make the difference between a game selling thousands of copies or practically none at all. If the first 4000 enthusiasts steal the game instead of buying it, the game doesn't break into the Top Apps where casual users could find it. Many make the mistake of assuming that 4000 pirate copies only reduce the sales by that amount. The 4000 copies is taken from the Tap Tap Tap blog, which notes that 1200 daily sales wasn't enough to keep an app in the top 100. Since the top list is a weighted average with the last three days making the biggest difference, again... with a 95% launch piracy, those 3000-5000 pirates that were aware of the game since day one could have pushed the game to Top Apps list. Since they decided to steal the game instead, the awareness stops with them - casual users will not find it.
Devices that have synced a game from a legal iTunes library are not counted as pirated copies. Only cracked games (where the game has been modified from its sold version) do.
This is a total logic failure and a misrepresentation to boot. This doesn't mean that he does not value his work. This means that he values the (slightly) increase in traffic and sales that are the result of his game showing up on a torrent site. Your actions (deleting the game and boycotting any future games) doesn't seem to make any sense, nor does it seem to be in the spirit of "supporting developers," which is the whole point of your anti-piracy club.
Your premise is extremely bizarre. According to the developer you're so angry with, the current situation is that he receives money from direct purchasers, and ultimately also as an eventual result of piracy. In the situation you're describing, he no longers receives the direct-purchase money (because you're boycotting him for disagreeing with you) but still receives the via-piracy money. So clearly he IS losing money, because now he's only getting one revenue stream instead of two. It's interesting that you're so defensive about this. Why can't you simply admit that you're punishing the developer for disagreeing with you? 1. If he'd said nothing, you'd still buy his apps if you liked them. 2. If he'd agreed with you, you'd still buy his apps if you liked them. 3. Because he disagrees with you, you won't buy his apps whether you like them or not. You're withholding money that you'd otherwise have given him, for the SOLE REASON that he disagrees with you about something which he is much better placed to understand than you - namely, his own business. That's punishment. It's not a crime, you're allowed to punish him if you want, so I don't know why you're denying it so strenuously. I have to assume it's because deep down you're ashamed of it.
That depends on who is doing the counting and how they are counting. Some devs use sales against the number of devices. But for the most part you are right.
Do you mean legally or morally? If it's the latter, why not? They're being played by people who didn't pay for them. How is that different to pirates playing games they haven't paid for? How is it morally different if someone downloads a game their friend paid for off their iTunes library, rather than downloading it off a website onto their jailbroken iPhone? They didn't pay for it either way, yet they still get to play it.
The logic here is amazingly strange. Stair Dismount and Zen Bound are radically different games, released at different times and in different circumstances. The amount of competition in the App Store is on a huge upward trajectory, which means that more and more games are competing for the available revenue. So the chances of any individual app selling as well as one released several months earlier are inevitably smaller, which means that proportionately piracy rates are highly likely to increase even if sales are identical. I notice that you don't tell us which game has actually sold more pro rata. That doesn't mean the morals of the "core audience" has changed any, it simply means that the number of apps competing for sales is increasing faster than the financial size of the market is. The simple truth is that piracy is an easy excuse for developers.
I believe iTunes allows you to have five authorized devices. This works at least for music, I'm unsure if apps have the same mechanism in place. In any case, let's not forget about fair use, or start arguing about the shades of gray there. It's easy to lose sight of common sense when debating about semantics.
