Warez: A discussion - Page 2

Phaelon · 2004-03-12, 12:15 PM

Hold on there a second Pilgrim, I don't know where you shop, but I can buy every game to date, that comes out 2 days after release at Best buy here in Wisconsin for 40 dollars, no more, no less. SO prices have not generally shot up to the extent you think they have.

Second off, a lot of the prices you mentioned are pure speculation and don't actually show true profit margins. The profit for Production company's is HUGE where the profit for the actual developers is very small. That is why Black Isle went out of business. They had a huge fan base, but few people actually bought the game, and Interplay hosed black Isle for all the money they could. If 23 dollars is the end profit, 4 dollars of that goes to the developers, and 19 goes to the production business.

Developers in the end are always the one getting short sticked, but don't go spouting about how the margins are so small. They are not.

About MMO's, the profit margin for MMO's is Gigantic. A brand new DL 380 from Compaq fully loaded costs about 6,000. With OS and other operations, it could be around 10,000 fully loaded. That is a Enterprise server rated for 3 years of full on site in 4 hour repair. Now take one Network engineer to monitor it, and keep it running with say around 20 other servers for him alone. For a decent administrator lets say a salary of 50,000 dollars. Now lets talk internet lines, Depending on who you are dealing with, lets say you want 100,000 subscribers. that comes to 20,000 online at any given time. 20,000 subscribers at 7 KB/s down and 4 KB/s up. so I pay for 25,000 * 7 down just to be safe. That is 175,000 KB/s down which is 175 MB down. Theoretically you would not need that, but for the heck of it, lets say you want that much. SO you get three OC-192 lines, capable of 77.75 MB/s of pure download and upload heaven. That comes out to 24,000 a month for that.

Lets add our costs up
Intetnet - 24,000 dollars a month
personal - 4200 dollars a month
servers - 20 *10,000 one time initial cost - 200,000
total - 228,200 dollars and 28,200 a month after that, for a basic 100,000 subscriber game. THEORIES to principals here.

Money brought in a month - 12.95 * 100,000 = 1,295,000

They are making over one million dollars a MONTH in net profit before taxes and other issues.

100,000 subscribers is big, but most MMO's are starting to really grow in size as people start wanting to play them more.

Think about it a sec, seriously, EQ has over 430,000 active subscirbers, that is 5,568,500 dollars a MONTH. For that many subscribers, I would estimate monthly hardware and resource costs to be around 1.1 million dollars. Which means they have a net profit of over 4 million dollars a month. That is insane.

Madcow · 2004-03-12, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by _-Gunslinger-_

The logic is simple and very sound. The company isnt being cheated because they woudnt of gotten the money anyhow. Like I photoshop 7 and use it about once every two weeks. Now if I were to have been forced to purchase it instead of downloading it then I would have just not gotten it. So the company gets nothing in BOTH scenarios.

Oh, the logic is simple. It's not even remotely sound. It's half-assed validation, just like I already mentioned. If you "don't have" the money for the program then your choices are to use a cheap free version of the same program or to save up the money to actually buy the program. Are you telling me that taking the program for free isn't a crutch that allows you to not have to worry about scrounging up the necessary scratch? The company is being cheated, and you are pitching in to cheat them. On some level you're obviously aware of what you're doing because you are attempting to validate it.

Cyanide · 2004-03-12, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Funny thing is

Before piracy became so prevelant games cost 30-45$

after piracy is the way that the 1337 kiddies get their software then the price goes to 50-60$

Yet no one thinks that maybe... just maybe the piracy is driving up prices?

Here's a shocker for you. The gaming industry is worth more than it's ever been worth in the past. Game companies are making more money now than they ever have before. So saying that piracy is a legitimate reason to drive up prices is BS.

Also remember that computers in the last 5 years have jumped ALOT in ability. To take advantage of the new features (and any game that wants to sell will take advantage of as many as possible) game developers have to spend more time and effort and therefore money.

Actually, it's not really that much harder to develope a quality game now than it was back then. DirectX makes things easier with every new version. Unified drivers make programming for multiple cards easier. Existing tools (3D studio max, etc) are getting easier and improving workflow all the time. There are more and more existing physics and graphics engines on the market. So no, it's not that much harder to develope a game now than it was 5 years ago.

As a reality check a game without a licensed engine costs on average 3-4 million to produce. that's a non-mmo. An MMO will cost between 3-6 million.

Now take a company that puts out 5 titles of those 2 may sell over 100,000 so that $55 or so per broken up

A game selling only 100,000 copies in its entire life span would deserve to lose money. Diablo2 sold about 2.75 million copies in 6 months. WarcraftIII, even higher. I don't even want to think about how many copies games like Half-life and Starcraft have sold. Good games sell well, and they deserve to make money. Shitty games do not deserve to make money.

$55 -%40 (standard retail markup)
$33 - distribution costs
$28 - packaging, =$5 per unit (including paying artists, printing and such)
$23

Now let's just say they get to keep that $23 buck (and don't forget 1/4 will go to the government in taxes) that's 2.3 mil. less then the development cost if a game only sells 100k coppies.

Now of those 5 titles

1 will be awesome and sell 400,000
2 will be good and sell 150,000
2 will be OK and sell 100,000
and 1 will suck ass and sell 25,000

While this model makes the bussiness still profitable the margins a razor thin (look at what happened to Black Isle if you don't believe me because they made a games that were primarily single player they took a bath because of piracy and are now out of bussiness)

Why do you think soooo freaking many people are making MMO's now it forces people to buy the Software and at least offset the development costs. The monthly barely covers the costs of servers and support while still trying to maintain a (GASP) profit margain! Those greedy bastards.

Well, if the company had any sliver of a brain, they would not waste money on the 5 shitty games, and will only spend time developing the 1 awsome game. Which, if you use Diablo2's sales numbers, will make it to the black in less than a month from release at $55.

BTW, 1+2+2+1 = 6...not 5

In base.

People who do Warez are mindless fucktards that are stealing from me and every other honest consumer. A person works their ass off on a product they deserve to profit from it.

/rant off

In base.

Mindless fucktards who buy shitty games are promoting the making of shitty games, instead of the making of good quality games. They are helping to polute the gamming world with junk like "FDNY firefighter" and the "Maddog McCree" series. That's right, series. It wasn't enough to make ONE of the worst games of all time. They felt the need to make another, because the first one actually made some money. (See PCgamer.com for more info on those games).

BTW, I don't care how much effort you put into a product. If it sux ass, you don't deserve a dime for it.

@ Gunslinger

You do not pay for the effort that went in to developing the software, therefore you do not deserve to use it! That is simple logic. It's the Moronic mindset of "I'm entitled to everything in the world I want!" You're not. You are entitled to anything in the world you can afford!

Still not seeing how me having a copy of something that I could never pay for hurts or detracts from anyone. A company can't lose money when there's no way they could ever have had it. It's not like I use photoshop or any of that stuff to make money for myself. I use it to learn how to use it, and for no other reason. There would be a lot of people with a lot fewer skills in this world if people only learned about stuff they could afford to buy.

And photoshop wouldn't be so freaking expensive if people hadn't stolen it in the first place. So you're logic sucks

PhotoShop has cost $600 from the day it was first released. It's not like they lose a lot of sales, nobody who pirates photoshop can afford to buy it anyway.

Dharkbayne · 2004-03-12, 01:34 PM

Yeah, and last time I checked, isn't 3DS MAX like, 3500? I have it, and the only reason I have it, is to say "I have it" I never use it, I used it once, it scared me, never opened it up again, but I DO have it. So

.

Happy lil Elf · 2004-03-12, 02:02 PM

Until you have some idea of how the game development and publishing world works, I'd really suggest shutting the hell up so you don't look like a compete and utter idiot. That's just some friendly advice though.

_-Gunslinger-_ · 2004-03-12, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Madcow

Oh, the logic is simple. It's not even remotely sound. It's half-assed validation, just like I already mentioned. If you "don't have" the money for the program then your choices are to use a cheap free version of the same program or to save up the money to actually buy the program. Are you telling me that taking the program for free isn't a crutch that allows you to not have to worry about scrounging up the necessary scratch? The company is being cheated, and you are pitching in to cheat them. On some level you're obviously aware of what you're doing because you are attempting to validate it.

Ok since we are using photoshop whitch currently costs $549 on Newegg now lets assume that there is a %20 markup because of pirating. That drops the price to $440. Now I use photoshop to make avatars, backgrounds, sprays, sigs, and other random picure adjustments/crops. I do those things probably 15 times a YEAR. I have now esablished how rarly I use photoshop, less than twice a month. Given the choice of having $440 and limited ability to edit images I would take 440 dollars. What I am saying is that I wouldnt spend almost two weeks pay on one program that I use that infrequenly.

Allow me to illistrate my argument even further. I am attempting to draw a parallel between our arguments.

Your argument applied to my scenario(correct me if im wrong):
Looks at photoshop price, compares to the cost of having to upgrade, doesnt purchase photoshop.

My argument applied to my scenario:
Downloades photoshop, uses it 15 times over one year, has edited images.

In both scenario's adobe NEVER gets my money, therein lies the argument. (And it is sound, in this case I condone theft.)

Everyone must admit that downloading software/music is theft, technically.

Dharkbayne · 2004-03-12, 02:06 PM

Who, me? I admit I don't know much about it, I just know that 50 dollars a game is a little overpriced, the thing that REALLY pisses me off is music CD's though, they get on our asses for downloading it, yet they play the songs for free on the radio. 15 dollars for some sounds is waaaaay too much.

Happy lil Elf · 2004-03-12, 02:46 PM

CDs you have a logical argument for, of course you also don't have a team of 30 people working 60 hours a week on that CD for two years.

CDs and their production process are not compareable to the creation of a quality game. Apples and oranges.

Madcow · 2004-03-12, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by _-Gunslinger-_

Ok since we are using photoshop whitch currently costs $549 on Newegg now lets assume that there is a %20 markup because of pirating. That drops the price to $440. Now I use photoshop to make avatars, backgrounds, sprays, sigs, and other random picure adjustments/crops. I do those things probably 15 times a YEAR. I have now esablished how rarly I use photoshop, less than twice a month. Given the choice of having $440 and limited ability to edit images I would take 440 dollars. What I am saying is that I wouldnt spend almost two weeks pay on one program that I use that infrequenly.

Allow me to illistrate my argument even further. I am attempting to draw a parallel between our arguments.

Your argument applied to my scenario(correct me if im wrong):
Looks at photoshop price, compares to the cost of having to upgrade, doesnt purchase photoshop.

My argument applied to my scenario:
Downloades photoshop, uses it 15 times over one year, has edited images.

In both scenario's adobe NEVER gets my money, therein lies the argument. (And it is sound, in this case I condone theft.)

Everyone must admit that downloading software/music is theft, technically.

Again, half-assed validation. You completely disregard my suggestion to find a worse program which would be available for free. You could still use it for the things you are discussing, it would most likely be harder to use and the end result would most likely not be as nice as you would like. That being said, this is exactly what you should be doing, this is the exact reason such programs are out there and available. If you can't afford Photoshop, if it's just beyond your means, there are plenty of viable alternatives. By just downloading an illegal copy you are completely copping out. So 15 times a year isn't excessive use of a pirated program? Is 30? Is 50? What constitutes using a program enough to validate purchasing it? Who gets to make that decision? You? What qualifies you to make that decision? Are you honestly going to pretend that if you begin using the program more you'd think harder about making the purchase? Because if you're saying that I'm saying you're lying.

Happy lil Elf · 2004-03-12, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by _-Gunslinger-_

Ok since we are using photoshop whitch currently costs $549 on Newegg now lets assume that there is a %20 markup because of pirating. That drops the price to $440. Now I use photoshop to make avatars, backgrounds, sprays, sigs, and other random picure adjustments/crops. I do those things probably 15 times a YEAR. I have now esablished how rarly I use photoshop, less than twice a month. Given the choice of having $440 and limited ability to edit images I would take 440 dollars. What I am saying is that I wouldnt spend almost two weeks pay on one program that I use that infrequenly.

Allow me to illistrate my argument even further. I am attempting to draw a parallel between our arguments.

Your argument applied to my scenario(correct me if im wrong):
Looks at photoshop price, compares to the cost of having to upgrade, doesnt purchase photoshop.

My argument applied to my scenario:
Downloades photoshop, uses it 15 times over one year, has edited images.

In both scenario's adobe NEVER gets my money, therein lies the argument. (And it is sound, in this case I condone theft.)

Everyone must admit that downloading software/music is theft, technically.

By that same logic:

I would love to have a 42 in flatscreen HDTV. I am not, however, willing to pay the price for one of them. Now Bob, my imaginary next door nwighbor, has one so if I happen to go next door while he's out of town and take it then I can have what I want. Sure, Bob is out some money, but lets be honest, Bob next door makes over 500k a year he can easily afford to go buy another one so it's not like I'm really stealing it, right?

Wrong. Theft is theft, you moron. You are not entitled to Photoshop, or any other product. If you want to steal it go for it. But don't try to make lame excuses or justify it. In the end after all the wriggling and playing around with semantics and imaginary situations, you're still a theif. Skip the bullshit and just say "Yeah I'm a thief, so?".

EarlyDawn · 2004-03-12, 03:27 PM

A few things to consider-

A- The respective industries forget to take into account that a good majority of those who hear the song or play the game once Warezing it won't buy it anyway. You can't consider these a "lost sales" because they wouldn't become sales for an overwhelming majority of the rips.

B- If you totally get rid of warez (impossible, but stay with me), you lose the "hit maker" machine. This applies more to music then to games. Lots of songs are popularized by how easily they're found, and spread by word of mouth. Programs like Kazaa, Limewire, ect, have become a HUGE part of building a popularity base for smash hit songs.

C- This is survival of the fittest, and the record labels don't like it. By selectively screening every disc if the need hits us, we decide what we like and what we don't. The music industry can't plan what songs (more then likely) will become hits and that's whats hitting them hard. No more paying for a whole CD for two songs. It also eliminates huge revenue from otherwise crap music that you don't know if you'll like.

Happy lil Elf · 2004-03-12, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by EarlyDawn

A few things to consider-

A- The respective industries forget to take into account that a good majority of those who hear the song or play the game once Warezing it won't buy it anyway. You can't consider these a "lost sales" because they wouldn't become sales for an overwhelming majority of the rips.

This is pure conjecture on both sides. I seriously doubt "that a good majority of those who hear the song or play the game once Warezing it won't buy it anyway". I also seriously doubt that everyone who downloads a game/CD would go out and buy it if they couldn't download it. Neither side has any hard numbers or evidence, so statistics are made up to support the argument of whoever happens to talking.

B- If you totally get rid of warez (impossible, but stay with me), you lose the "hit maker" machine. This applies more to music then to games. Lots of songs are popularized by how easily they're found, and spread by word of mouth. Programs like Kazaa, Limewire, ect, have become a HUGE part of building a popularity base for smash hit songs.

Not true. There were huge hits before warez and there would be huge hits without warez. The role that file sharing plays in creating a best selling record or #1 song is peripheral at best.

C- This is survival of the fittest, and the record labels don't like it. By selectively screening every disc if the need hits us, we decide what we like and what we don't. The music industry can't plan what songs (more then likely) will become hits and that's whats hitting them hard. No more paying for a whole CD for two songs. It also eliminates huge revenue from otherwise crap music that you don't know if you'll like.

This is sort of true. The is indeed survival of the fittest and the way things are going, the record companies are going to lose. It isn't about the record companies controlling what becomes a hit and what doesn't though, believe me if they could manage it every record would be a hit. It's them being concerned that people will stop buying music from them if they can get it for free, and it's a legitimate concern. Now whether people actually should buy music from them is another issue entirely.

Phaelon · 2004-03-12, 04:51 PM

"Not true. There were huge hits before warez and there would be huge hits without warez. The role that file sharing plays in creating a best selling record or #1 song is peripheral at best."

Warez has been around since when TCP/IP was invented by the defense department. I used to use newsgroups on a 2400 Baud modem. Music hits have existed long before file sharing on the internet yes, but back then we were using Tapes we recorded songs from, and other sources. Technology is progressing, Stealing is stealing and unless record company's and production company's change thier policies, they are all going to lose.

EarlyDawn · 2004-03-12, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Happy lil' Elf

Not true. There were huge hits before warez and there would be huge hits without warez. The role that file sharing plays in creating a best selling record or #1 song is peripheral at best.

I never said anything to the contrary. However, removing the method of hearing the song almost instantly would be a huge hit to the teenage music market.

Happy lil Elf · 2004-03-12, 05:08 PM

Warez has been around since when TCP/IP was invented by the defense department. I used to use newsgroups on a 2400 Baud modem. Music hits have existed long before file sharing on the internet yes, but back then we were using Tapes we recorded songs from, and other sources.

Neither of which come anywhere near to the volume that has taken place in recent years. You're comparing a 1/8" hole in a dam to a hole you could drive a Mac truck through.