Software Developer Realizes That Pirates Are Giving Him Market Feedback
from the about-time dept
One of the more important points made in Matt Mason’s book, The Pirate’s Dilemma is that piracy almost always is a leading indicator for what the market wants, but isn’t being delivered. This is a point that’s extremely difficult for those whose content is being pirated to grasp — because their natural reaction is to feel like a victim, rather than the recipient of useful market data. So, it’s great to see that’s not always the case. A couple people have sent in a story about a pair of small time iPhone developers who recently discovered that their iPhone game had been cracked and a ton of people were downloading it for free. Rather than freak out about it, the guy had an open conversation with the cracker who explained why he did it. Basically, he said he was disappointed with the fact that many games did not live up to the quality level promised, and a cracked version let them try before they bought. The developer actually felt that was a good point, and is now looking into alternative business models for his app, including a try-before-you-buy option, or an ad supported version. It’s also worth pointing out, by the way, that the day that the app was getting pirated a ton, it also brought in more sales than usual…
Filed Under: feedback, piracy, video games
Comments on “Software Developer Realizes That Pirates Are Giving Him Market Feedback”
Hopefully we’ll hear more stories like this.
I’d say about 75% of the people I know that have pirated games do so for the aforementioned reason. (the other 25% being DRM-based).
Re: Re:
BS
“I’d say about 75% of the people I know that have pirated games do so for the aforementioned reason. (the other 25% being DRM-based”
Then again, those who just want lots of stuff for free aren’t likely to admit it, and will come up with a reason that doesn’t make them look so cheap.
Re: Re:
Except for most of those people go and buy the game if it’s actually any good. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:
Like me! (now that I’m older and have more $$$)
Thanks for making that point.
Re: Re:
I want stuff for free. I’m sure that everyone does. It doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to pay for something that I think has a lot of value. I’m not going to take a risk if I don’t know something is valuable though.
Most people that won’t ever pay for something though….it’s not like they would buy it if they weren’t able to download it. They would just go without.
The developer actually felt that was a good point, and is now looking into alternative business models for his app, including a try-before-you-buy option, or an ad supported version.
Until that gets pirated.
I’m with you on the piracy Mike but, c’mon, you aren’t as naive as that dev. The crackers do it for the reputation/ego boost, you know it, I know it and the cracker who fed him that line of shit knows it.
Re: Re:
I’m with you on the piracy Mike but, c’mon, you aren’t as naive as that dev. The crackers do it for the reputation/ego boost, you know it, I know it and the cracker who fed him that line of shit knows it.
I’m sure there are some out there that do it just for reputation, but all of the crackers and hackers I know do it more to make something useful than for reputation. In reality, there are probably more people that do it for shits and giggles than for reputation.
Re: Re:
You sir buy into the media’s version of hackers/crackers far to easily. This means you are gullible and your arguments practically void.
Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a hacker ethos and it goes beyond just breaking into systems with bad security. Not everyone is an egotistical sadist who just wants to destroy society. To think otherwise is naive.
Re: Re: Re:
my opinion wasn’t formed by kicking back and watching a 20/20 episode on “hackers” . It was formed by being a huge fan of, and a writer for, the game press. I’ve hung out in countless IRC rooms and talked to enough crackers/hackers to know where most are coming from. Much of it is an ego thing. Let me guess, you actually beleive the cracking groups when their .nfo contains a phrase like “if you like this software, buy it…..we did!”? You are naive for believing the majority are working off of some kind of Robin Hood-style altruism. There is no doubt a smaller percentage who do indeed want to open things up for others but even those tend to make absolutely sure their name is quite visible in order to take credit for the crack that was developed.
again, I agree (mostly) with Mikes take on piracy/copyright/etc but at the same time, I’m not going to delude myself into thinking the whole “scene” is some kind of open arms love-fest for mankind.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sir have obviously never bought a game only to discover it had a copy protection system that prevented you from using it the way you wanted, like bringing it over to play on a friend’s computer without having to call a telephone number and enter 1024 digits to get your “play key”.
I’ve cracked lots of software for this reason alone. I’ve also made adjustments to commercial software that made them lots more usable than the original release.
I mean seriously, have you ever bought software only to discover a huge bug and when you email the developer he replies that it’ll be fixed in the next release but he’s not in a hurry to fix it because he’s already got your money, or the next release isn’t a free one and he expects you to pay for it to get the bug fix?
He’s already got your money so there’s no pressure to do right but if there’s a cracked version, they realize that not only can they get a bad review over the bug, but that people don’t have to pay to be hassled by it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shhh.. Shut up dude! Leave focus on the torrents
Money
Mike, I can follow you on a lot of your theories (we don’t even have to call them theories really — a lot of it is just plain common sense). But this kind of story is where I have a problem seeing the financial upside.
I often wonder if this cracker would have bought the game if it had a “try before you buy” scheme in it. And if it had advertisements for revenue, would he have just hacked it to get those done away with?
In a lot of situations, I agree with you that a support contract is an alternate way of making money (as with Linux distributions). But for something like this (a mobile phone game), there is absolutely no need for support. And we could argue back and forth as to whether advertisements in a game would actually produce any real income…I have my doubts (#1, I wouldn’t play a game with ads in it; #2, I never (neva neva eva) click on ads).
So how is a software developer suppose to make money off of something like this? I know one of your theories (which makes sense) is to offer it free to build up your online reputation –> thus driving people to look for your next product which might be a money maker. But what if this game is this guy’s only *great* idea?
The other theories of “Selling the finite goods that go along with it” doesn’t really hold up in this instance. I’ve never played a game on my phone and said “I wonder if this guy is making T-Shirts or something.” In fact, I hardly ever even know who makes the games I play on my phone.
I’m a software developer. Of course I have the dream of making my own product some day and making money off of it. I’m also a big fan of free stuff, but in theory, a great software product (that isn’t as big as an operating system) can’t make money via support contracts because the program should be self explanatory (and not break).
I’m a fan of try-before-you-buy as well. I confess that in the past I downloaded MS Money from a torrent site to try it out — and now I have repurchased it 3 times because I absolutely love that program (I rebuy it every two years to upgrade to the newest version, or when I get a new computer — I think it is so great that I don’t mind spending money on a new copy rather than just installing my original copy). But I have to wonder if other people are like that? Would I be like that if I weren’t a software programmer? I know that when I was a broke college student I didn’t pay for anything — but now I try to buy everything I use, including music.
So I’m wondering what you would do in this situation. How do you make money off of your limited resources (brain power, time) that were used to produce an infinite good (software) in a situation like this mobile phone game?
Re: Money
I’m sorry but this is completely hypocritical. “I know that when I was a broke college student I didn’t pay for anything — but now I try to buy everything I use, including music.”
So what you’re actually saying is that it’s OK to download if you can’t afford it, but not once you’re making money? I hate to point out one facet of a well written post, but that kind of nonsense just muddies the waters. It’s either wrong or it’s not. How much do you have to be making before we are now expected to buy instead of downloading.
The simple fact of the matter, in the massive majority of cases is that if a product is solid, there will be more than enough people buying it. The spin put on this by IP owners is that they’re not making ANY money off their product when in fact they’re making lots, just not the mega-lots they want. It’s absolute pure greed. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: Re: Money
Thanks Mike and Blaise for the responses.
@KB — I’m sorry that my post was unclear. I did not intend for it to be a statement on the morality of piracy. My point was much more geared towards realistic ways of making money in a world where piracy exists. By admitting to my past piracy, I was merely pointing out that there are many different reasons why people pirate software, and illustrating that even I did it in the past (thus, how can I expect others not too). If it helps to understand, read the statement as “I know that when I was a college student I didn’t pay for anything — but now I try to buy everything I use.”
By making that statement, I in no way intended to support the idea that “it is ok to download/pirate if you cannot afford it.” I did not mean to imply that my actions were justified because of my financial situation.
Re: Money
So I’m wondering what you would do in this situation. How do you make money off of your limited resources (brain power, time) that were used to produce an infinite good (software) in a situation like this mobile phone game?
There are a variety of ways, though it could depend on the scenarios. You could, for example, find a corporate sponsor for the game. So, if the game is a wack-a-mole type of game, why not get a pest removal company to pay you to develop it and then they get to give it away free and build up their own brand? There’s always someone who can benefit from that infinite good. The trick is figuring out who benefits the most, and getting them to pay for the development (a scarce good).
Re: Money
One important scarcity is content creation. Personally, I don’t think I’ve heard of (m)any software examples yet, but I think there’s got to be a way. We’ve seen some examples in the music business. Some bands have been getting fans to pay them to create a new album. Pay $x towards the new album, and when we hit $y we’ll be able to pull it off, and everyone who contributed will get something-cool.
If a developer makes a really good game that lots of people like, there must be a way to capitalize on the demand for more content for that developer.
That’s admittedly a vague, high level answer, but I think there are business models that could put the idea into practice. I think it’ll take some experimenting to figure out what they are.
Risk??
@Travis
How much of risk are you taking for spending a dollar on an iPhone application?
Re: Risk??
My statement was a generality…not necessarily for an iPhone application that costs $1
Rep/Ego???
Um, Lucretious, what rep/ego do you think someone is gonna get for cracking a iPhone App. The rep comes from not the little stuff that few people actually care about. No one cares that Joe Blow hacker managed to crack iShit on the iPhone by changing a value in an ini file.
Rates
“It’s also worth pointing out, by the way, that the day that the app was getting pirated a ton, it also brought in more sales than usual…”
Yeah, at about 40 to 1. And nowhere in the article does it say that the sales they received were “more than usual”.
“… that piracy almost always is a leading indicator for what the market wants, but isn’t being delivered.”
By that logic, shoplifting is a a leading indicator for what the market wants (free goods), but isn’t being delivered. Simply wanting something, material or otherwise, doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it.
Re: Rates
And nowhere in the article does it say that the sales they received were “more than usual”
Yes, it does.
Normal purchases were less than 10/day. The day this happened, they got 12. Not a huge amount, but more than usual, certainly.
By that logic, shoplifting is a a leading indicator for what the market wants (free goods), but isn’t being delivered. Simply wanting something, material or otherwise, doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it.
Not at all. Because piracy isn’t *stealing*. Once you understand that simple fact (and we’ve discussed this plenty of times before), you realize that piracy has been a leading indicator of HOW YOU CAN MAKE MONEY by delivering what people want.
You know this. Or at least, you should by now.
Re: Re: Rates
Normal purchases were less than 10/day. The day this happened, they got 12. Not a huge amount, but more than usual, certainly.
===
its actually a 20% increase id say that’s a pretty good boost.
Re: Re: Re: Rates
50% if “less that 10/day” is in-actuality 8/day. It’s a 100% increase if they sold 6/day.
Re: Re: Rates
> Normal purchases were less than 10/day. The day this happened, they got 12.
You can read can’t you?
“The game had ***around ten downloads a day*** from iTunes, which inexplicably transformed into ***more than 400 users in a single day***”.
Re: Re: Rates
“You know this. Or at least, you should by now.”
Continually repeating the same opinion doesn’t make it a fact. It’s your opinion, no more, no less.
Re: Rates
Shoplifting a jacket takes that jacket off the market so no one else can have it, and no one can make money off of it. Downloading an app for free does nothing of the sort.
Let’s stick to comparing apples to apples and leave the oranges out of it.
You know what
Does anyone know what the number one selling app that has grossed the most money for the iphone is.
ifart
It makes fart sounds and cost a dollar.
Here are some simple truths on piracy
the Vast Majority of people who go through the trouble to pirate something wouldn’t buy it anyway. If you really need/want something, and you want it to work, and to get support for it you’d go buy it. If your talking about an iphone app, noones going to spend 30mins finding a crack, or hours making a crack for something they can buy for a dollar. If your talking about a pc or xbox game, If you want to play a working copy of a quality game with a fare price you’ll buy it. Even those people who pirate as a means to steal generally only do it when its something they wouldn’t buy anyway for what ever reason.
My point is that many developers aren’t willing to admit that there crappy software isn’t worth as much as there charging. And I have yet to see electronic piracy drive a producer broke. It hurts distributors, but that’s because there greedy money grubbing assholes how are stealing money from the producers. And a 500million dollar bottom line isn’t acceptable when your used to a 2billion one!!
software vs piracy
with last weeks “leak” of windows 7, and this article im getting the feeling that the software industry is starting to understand the game.
Don’t be silly. the article makes no link between the number of purchases and the fact that the game was pirated.
From the Article:
…has steadily been achieving around 10 sales a day.
That is not less than 10 per day. It is not more than 10 per day. It’s an average.
Also from the article:
Only 12 people had actually purchased the game.
12. Out of 400 downloads. I’m willing to concede that a couple people may have purchased the game after trying it, but let’s not pretend that the article says something it clearly doesn’t.
If the article had said, “Only 8 people had actually purchased the game,” would you then argue that piracy had hurt the game’s sales?
Max Payne. Downloaded a cracked version that was missing cut scenes. Great game. Bought it, and the second one. GTA IV, bought it, DRM is hateful. I WILL download a cracked version. The whole GTA series I first played from downloaded cracked versions. Bought them all.
I have over 50 PC games, that I bought. Some of those were lousy(Red faction 2, 29bucks finished in 2 days. I should have downloaded a cracked version.)
Write quality software that people enjoy, and they will buy it. All the other junk, well, dont blame pirates for your lousy software.
Crysis Warhead, I spent 4 hours to get it to install correctly. I spent 2 days getting it activated.
With the increasing hassle of DRM on games it will encourage ppl like myself who normally dont mind paying 50 bucks for games to just say “F it” and download cracked versions.
I can read just fine, but how good are your reading comprehension skills?
Downloads do not equal purchases. I never said the article dind’t link the piracy to the number of downloads. I said it didn’t link the piracy to the number of purchaes.
Purchases and downloads are two very distinct things.
Related
This story made me think of an unusual situation in my own company.
We have a piece of accounting software that we use to generate various management reports. Some third party comes in and creates another product that attaches to our database, and then generates another report, which we weren’t supplying.
Now, if we add that report to our own software, does that violate their rights? Have they violated our patents by tapping into our software data without our permission? None of us are lawyers, so we are kind of scratching our heads on this.
Re: Related
I would use it as an opportunity to see what this software is doing that yours isn’t…and then try to integrate it into your product. Taking their code and integrating it directly into your product without their permission would violate their rights…but coming up with your own solution would just be competition.
Micropayments
I’ll say it again, we need micropayments, or even minipayments. If the game was 50 cents I wouldn’t care if it had inconvenient controls, or poor replayability, or if the DRM server went out of business, or if it didn’t work on my new platform. I spend five bucks at Arby’s for crying out loud, and don’t complain. A game that gave me that much enjoyment (I get 45 minutes where my boss can’t find me and my stomach doesn’t growl for a couple of hours) at the same price would be an acceptable transaction.
I’m only going to get uptight if it’s $50.
Re: Micropayments
I’ll say it again, we need micropayments, or even minipayments.
Heh. Uh, no. Micropayments have never worked and never will work. They make no sense economically, and worst of all they add mental transaction costs. They don’t work.
Re: Re: Micropayments
Heh. Uh, no. Your unsupported assertion makes no sense. Right before you is a case for a system that would allow small payments with small transactions costs and limited risk. I’m not going to give them my credit card (entering all those numbers, risking tens of thousands of dollars in potential fraud) for a dollar payment. I’m sure not going to give my kids a credit card under the same circumstances, or pay PayPal whatever outrageous price they charge per transaction these days, but a simpler system with limited losses, I could do that.
Which is a worse “mental transaction cost”, getting a game for a buck on line or having to drive to a store and get a shrink wrapped disk for $50?
Let’s look at the bigger picture. Why is it that we have no problem laying out fifty bucks a month for cable TV that leaves no residue (and we might not enjoy the programming) or a similar price to go to a movie (that we might not enjoy) or for a tank of gas (that will just turn into air pollution and might take us places we don’t enjoy), or for a restaurant meal (that we might not enjoy and will just be solid waste polluting nearby waterways inside of 48 hours) but we balk at paying a similar price for software that could give us hours or days entertainment or perhaps profitable usability? Strange.
Obviously, people find it cheaper as a total package, combining cash expenditure, effort, and moral comfort, to get the illegal version than the legal one. That moral comfort part of the expense gets driven down by a culture of getting software for free, which is driven by the perception that the legal price is immorally high. Whether it is or not, if the price can be lowered, it can have a multiplier by making illegal copies less socially acceptable. Hence there’s a multiplier effect. Not only would there be more copies of the individual title paid for, it would drive more sales of all software. It’s pretty much impossible to lower that sale price without lowering the transaction cost.
I want software developers to get paid, and it’s best if it’s done directly, so their interests are focused on making the buyers happy rather than catering to advertisers or T-shirt buyers. Pointing out the counterproductive behavior of copyright holders is useful, but somewhere, somebody’s cash has to leave their wallet and end up in the wallet of the person sitting down at the keyboard writing code. Otherwise the Mountain Dew runs out and so does the code. Just complaining that big copyright is doing it all wrong and asserting that they should rely on the kindness of strangers doesn’t get software developed or music recorded.
Re: Re: Re: Micropayments
Personally, I think macropayments make more sense.
Re: Re: Re: Micropayments
“Why is it that we have no problem laying out fifty bucks a month for cable TV … but we balk at paying a similar price for software …”
Simple. Because we can’t easily steal cable access, break into the theater, or fail to pay for the gas or meal without running the risk of getting caught and charged for the crime.
Re: Re: Micropayments
“Micropayments have never worked and never will work.”
Since there’s never been an ubiquitous micropayment system for the web, I’d have to say that the first part of your sentence is correct. The later has yet to be seen.
“…worst of all they add mental transaction costs.”
Yeah, heaven forbid that I have to make the enormous mental effort of deciding from a mere summary and past experience if the current article sounds like it’s worth a penny to read…
the premise is wrong
I disagree with the premise that they are getting any marketing feedback from this. What is the feedback? What is this incident telling them to improve in their software or their marketing? It is more of a case that having something freely available is marketing it which causes the increase in sales. Free availability increases awareness of a product and exposes it to more people, some of which are still inclined to pay. On the other hand, free availability lowers the subjective worth of a product. Some of those that would normally be inclined to pay, had they been made aware of the product, will not do so because it is freely available. It is a trade-off that is not clearly beneficial in either direction. For this particular product a fast widening of awareness caused an immediate increase in sales. But there is no way to know if, over a longer period of time, awareness would not have built up anyway and the product would have netted more sales because of the increased worth of not having it freely available. It should be up to the copyright holder of the product to decide which of these 2 paths to take. To me that is what “copyright” means. They could be making a mistake (ie. less profit) by not making it freely available, but it is their mistake to make.
Re: the premise is wrong
I disagree with the premise that they are getting any marketing feedback from this. What is the feedback?
Weird. I thought I said it in the post: that people were upset at games not living up to their hype, and they wanted to try before they bought.
Free availability increases awareness of a product and exposes it to more people, some of which are still inclined to pay
Indeed. Not sure why you think we said otherwise.
On the other hand, free availability lowers the subjective worth of a product.
Not at all. You are confusing value and price. And, actually, this totally contradicts your previous statement. If free availability increases the number of people willing to pay, then OBJECTIVELY, you have increased how much the game is “worth.”
They could be making a mistake (ie. less profit) by not making it freely available, but it is their mistake to make.
Indeed. If you want to be ignorant and not pay attention to what your market is telling you, that is, in fact, your choice. But if you are at least willing to think about what your market is telling you, why not listen?
Re: Re: the premise is wrong
I thought I said it in the post: that people were upset at games not living up to their hype, and they wanted to try before they bought.
What you said is that “Software Developer Realizes That Pirates Are Giving Him Market Feedback”. You then go on to say the developer asks a pirate why he did it and the pirate says he wants to try before he buys. What the pirate says could only follow from a premise of “Software Developer gets Marketing Feedback from a Pirate”. It is of no relevance to your premise. There is no “realization” or “pirates” involved. Your premise implies that the developer is discovering something from the piracy act in itself. But your article doesn’t go on to support that.
Indeed. Not sure why you think we said otherwise.
You imply that the 20% increase in sales was because of this “try before you buy” marketing. I am pointing out that it is probably because of more awareness the product exists at all. More bait catches a few more fish. But I never said you wouldn’t agree with that.
You are confusing value and price. And, actually, this totally contradicts your previous statement.
I am not confused nor contradictory in the slightest. You simply take what I said out of context. This is what I said “On the other hand, free availability lowers the subjective worth of a product. Some of those that would normally be inclined to pay, had they been made aware of the product, will not do so because it is freely available.” If you disagree with what I say there, then prove I am wrong about it.
If free availability increases the number of people willing to pay, then OBJECTIVELY, you have increased how much the game is “worth.”
All you have increased is the profit. You haven’t increased what the thing is worth. Say previously 100 people knew about the thing and 10 bought it. Now that it is free, 1000 people know about it and 12 bought it. Your profit went up 20%, but previously 1 in 10 people thought your thing was worth paying for and now only about 1 in 100 do.
All that we can say from this particular instance is that the free exposure has increased the sales in the short term. It does not prove that the long term overall sales would not be higher if it were not freely available.
Pirates
I know that by “pirates” you meant those who take your game ideas-writing-software and run with it — and they should be keelhauled. Pirates have been around for centuries, and if you have something they want, they will find a way to take it from you. By no means does that mean turn tail and run, letting them hagve what they want. But when I was researching my book about a real Chesapeake Bay pirate I learned that conventional methods don’t work in making pirates quit pirating.
All the best of luck.
Re: Pirates
“I know that by “pirates” you meant those who take your game ideas-writing-software and run with it — and they should be keelhauled.”
Ouch. I am hoping that’s hyperbole. And I thought losing your hand for stealing was pretty extreme…
This cracker is full of shit.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I’m calling it as I see it.
In today’s easily obtained information, there is no reason for any cracker to open software “just because it doesn’t offer a trial version”. This just makes me want to find this cracker and beat the crap out of them.
Reviews, rentals, and even finding someone else with the software are all viable options to which anyone can easily get the information they need before they buy the software.
No, this cracker did it only because he could, and my guess is his agenda far exceeds any with “demo” software as much as it is against the enterprise hosting the app.
Software is expensive to develop, but damn near free to distribute. Having software companies find an alternative business model without selling the software is damn near impossible. Of course, software companies could always sell t-shirts, but let’s be reasonable here.
If these cracker jerks were to realize this, maybe they could offer better answers than “because I just wanted to try it first as I’m too damn stupid to find other ways to see if I want to buy it.”
This is my overview on the situation between the pirates hostage situation.
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/61223_unsafe-waters
Something needs to be done as soon as possible to stop this once and for all.
Another fact is web master use pirate software to attract traffic to their web sites. Web master pay hackers for pirate software.
Best Offshore Programmer rates & Quality software development
http://www.ibosstechsolutions.com
Best Offshore Programmer rates & Quality software development
email at ibosstech@ibosstechsolutions.com for more information
I think the piracy is affecting more on software products like Operating Systems, Anti Virus, etc. But companies which provides Software as a Service that did not much affected with piracy.