Why piracy and sales are both dead ...
by Jeremy Alessi · 02/25/2008 (10:33 am) · 25 comments
In a recent forum discussion I mentioned that piracy was dead. Someone else mentioned Steam as a solution. To a degree Steam is a solution. More to the point though is that content is going free. As some may have noticed my latest game Full Contact Debate is free. I did this honestly for a few reasons. First of all it's not a game just for a game's sake it's a game to promote voting in a free election so charging for it would be a bit of an oxymoron. After conceiving the idea I realized though that I could still monetize this game without selling it.
Most cinema isn't sold directly to the consumer and neither is most music. TV and radio push through more programming than any other source within their respective mediums. All of that content is paid for by advertising physical products. Since games are in their infancy compared to TV and radio we just hadn't hit the point where we needed this segment of the market to open up.
Now the cool part. Games are a better source for advertising than TV or radio. Many people flick the channel or turn the station when advertising comes on in those other mediums. Unless it's cinema with product placement (which is usually only for a split second) people can ignore it. In games however (especially mutiplayer) people play over and over and over viewing the same scenes hundreds or thousands of times. If you advertise in those scenes you've got the best source of advertising yet seen.
The best part about this is that the games still need to be great. If you make a crappy game no one is going to play those levels countless times. So a developer must still make the best damn game they can muster. In fact you'd actually have to go a step further in making sure the gameplay doesn't get old because you'll no longer be able to rely on your marketing, licensing, etc... to push your game along for you. With Ad supported games it's all about how good the gameplay is. If it's not long lasting you won't make any money.
How does this all relate back to piracy? You want to give this game away and just have as many people play it as possible. Gone are the worries about someone copying this and passing it around for free ... instead you want this to happen. Alternative revenue stream supported games turn piracy into a benefit!
Will there still be hackers who do stuff to your game? Sure but with no barrier to entry it'd be more work for other people to use a hack that disables advertising or whatever than it would to just install the regular game and have fun. As I said above the bottomline is actually better games that are longer lasting and less focused on hype (though without some hype or good hook people won't play it in the first place). I have a feeling too that this new model will weed out a lot of clones. If it's all free gamers won't be afraid to take a dive into something different and if that different game is also really fun and long lasting it'll make money.
The gaming landscape is changing rapidly... unless you're making one of the top 15 games of the year selling your game to individuals won't be an option much longer. Someone somewhere will be making something for free that rivals or kicks the snot out of whatever you're trying to sell. Of course on the bright side you won't have to bang your head against the keyboard worrying about piracy anymore.
Most cinema isn't sold directly to the consumer and neither is most music. TV and radio push through more programming than any other source within their respective mediums. All of that content is paid for by advertising physical products. Since games are in their infancy compared to TV and radio we just hadn't hit the point where we needed this segment of the market to open up.
Now the cool part. Games are a better source for advertising than TV or radio. Many people flick the channel or turn the station when advertising comes on in those other mediums. Unless it's cinema with product placement (which is usually only for a split second) people can ignore it. In games however (especially mutiplayer) people play over and over and over viewing the same scenes hundreds or thousands of times. If you advertise in those scenes you've got the best source of advertising yet seen.
The best part about this is that the games still need to be great. If you make a crappy game no one is going to play those levels countless times. So a developer must still make the best damn game they can muster. In fact you'd actually have to go a step further in making sure the gameplay doesn't get old because you'll no longer be able to rely on your marketing, licensing, etc... to push your game along for you. With Ad supported games it's all about how good the gameplay is. If it's not long lasting you won't make any money.
How does this all relate back to piracy? You want to give this game away and just have as many people play it as possible. Gone are the worries about someone copying this and passing it around for free ... instead you want this to happen. Alternative revenue stream supported games turn piracy into a benefit!
Will there still be hackers who do stuff to your game? Sure but with no barrier to entry it'd be more work for other people to use a hack that disables advertising or whatever than it would to just install the regular game and have fun. As I said above the bottomline is actually better games that are longer lasting and less focused on hype (though without some hype or good hook people won't play it in the first place). I have a feeling too that this new model will weed out a lot of clones. If it's all free gamers won't be afraid to take a dive into something different and if that different game is also really fun and long lasting it'll make money.
The gaming landscape is changing rapidly... unless you're making one of the top 15 games of the year selling your game to individuals won't be an option much longer. Someone somewhere will be making something for free that rivals or kicks the snot out of whatever you're trying to sell. Of course on the bright side you won't have to bang your head against the keyboard worrying about piracy anymore.
About the author
#2
02/25/2008 (11:10 am)
It is tough as I've been through the motions myself. However, in the future it will be easier. In game advertising is still very early and most of those folks aren't taking any chances just yet. Just the same you wouldn't be making money without the player base anyway.
#3
1) Ding, dong, game sales are dead!
No, they aren't. They are up. PC game revenue has consistently gained on console game revenue for the last ten years. More people have broadband in the USA than ever, and that number is skyrocketing right now as millions of new users switch to cable TV and buy into cable internet as a package. WOW and Sims have brought PC gaming into the mainstream in a way never before seen - around one in thirty Americans has played World of Warcraft.
2) Ads will save the world!
No, they won't. People thought that a few years ago... Then we had an internet bubble burst, and millions of virtual dollars vanished overnight. Ads are ephemeral income. They are helpful. They should not be counted on as a trend, however - sooner or later, companies will realize that their ads are not netting them as much sales as they'd like. How big a crash that will cause depends on how much games rely on ads by then.
My educated guess is something like this:
Most people hate ads. If they can avoid ads, they generally do.
People with money can afford to buy games that are ad free. Because they hate ads, they tend to do this.
The people remaining to play the ad-ridden games tend to largely (not universally) be young, poor, or both. Either kids whose parents won't buy them the ad-free versions, or people without a lot of spare cash to buy games.
Neither group is an ideal advertising demographic.
Therefore, most game ads are reaching individuals who have little or no purchasing power, and are essentially wasted advertising dollars.
Now, I might be proven wrong... But in a lot of ways, I am seeing parallels between the gaming ad boom today and the internet ad boom of a decade ago. Now, lots of people made tons of money on that boom. But lots of people LOST lots of money on the bust, and it happened for reasons that are very valid in the game ad market as well. Don't put all your eggs in this basket.
02/25/2008 (11:26 am)
Frankly? I think that's a pile of fewmets. :)1) Ding, dong, game sales are dead!
No, they aren't. They are up. PC game revenue has consistently gained on console game revenue for the last ten years. More people have broadband in the USA than ever, and that number is skyrocketing right now as millions of new users switch to cable TV and buy into cable internet as a package. WOW and Sims have brought PC gaming into the mainstream in a way never before seen - around one in thirty Americans has played World of Warcraft.
2) Ads will save the world!
No, they won't. People thought that a few years ago... Then we had an internet bubble burst, and millions of virtual dollars vanished overnight. Ads are ephemeral income. They are helpful. They should not be counted on as a trend, however - sooner or later, companies will realize that their ads are not netting them as much sales as they'd like. How big a crash that will cause depends on how much games rely on ads by then.
My educated guess is something like this:
Most people hate ads. If they can avoid ads, they generally do.
People with money can afford to buy games that are ad free. Because they hate ads, they tend to do this.
The people remaining to play the ad-ridden games tend to largely (not universally) be young, poor, or both. Either kids whose parents won't buy them the ad-free versions, or people without a lot of spare cash to buy games.
Neither group is an ideal advertising demographic.
Therefore, most game ads are reaching individuals who have little or no purchasing power, and are essentially wasted advertising dollars.
Now, I might be proven wrong... But in a lot of ways, I am seeing parallels between the gaming ad boom today and the internet ad boom of a decade ago. Now, lots of people made tons of money on that boom. But lots of people LOST lots of money on the bust, and it happened for reasons that are very valid in the game ad market as well. Don't put all your eggs in this basket.
#4
I'd like to point out that the stars of Friends were getting $1 million per episode toward the end of that show's run. That was for free content albeit based on a much more mature industry. The money will be there for games.
02/25/2008 (11:32 am)
Sure people will pay for the top 15 games as I stated above. However, like most TV Ad revenue on real products will support it. Game advertising is in it's infancy and Internet advertising is actually younger so comparing game ads to the original Internet boom is somewhat illogical.I'd like to point out that the stars of Friends were getting $1 million per episode toward the end of that show's run. That was for free content albeit based on a much more mature industry. The money will be there for games.
#5
When I buy a game, I want that: a game. No strings attached. I don't want any percentage of my screen or processing power being geared towards ads. This is why the good games cost money, and the ok ones have advertisements/ free based.
I have no problem with separate versions, where there is a free version with ads, and a paid version without. However, I would not play a game that forced me to view ads.
02/25/2008 (1:35 pm)
I can't stand advertisements on the television, and certainly not in a game. I rarely watch television, mainly because of my disgust of commercials every 10 minutes. With innovations such as Tivo and HDR, people are learning how to circumvent these advertisements, and thus avoid them altogether. Why listen to a radio station with ads, when you have XM, or a CD with much better quality.When I buy a game, I want that: a game. No strings attached. I don't want any percentage of my screen or processing power being geared towards ads. This is why the good games cost money, and the ok ones have advertisements/ free based.
I have no problem with separate versions, where there is a free version with ads, and a paid version without. However, I would not play a game that forced me to view ads.
#6
This portion is coming from my own opinion but take Minions of Mirth cool free concept that would pause the live action and put a commercial in your face for 20 seconds or so (I don't remember exactly) but I thought it ruined the game. My other option was to buy it which I did... actually bought two copies which killed the ads for me. My main motivation was to kill the ads.
Now lets look at a good example. Burn Out paradise is littered with BestBuy adds and other stores. But they are not intrusive they are bill boards. You can bet they are getting money for that and it doesnt interupt game play.
If you look at non-game software such as AIM or ICQ people would simply hack them remove the ad portion and keep using the product. If the game you are making doesnt connect to the net and do some kind of check its a good bet that some 15 year old with to much time on his hands will remove your ad and pass it around.
Again the only way I can see this really working is by sending the ad to the user in a 'real world' method. If your game involves TVs or radios then play the ad that way. Make it feel like this game is really immersive.
02/25/2008 (1:45 pm)
Jeremy I think thats a very dangerous area to play in. It will work for some games (very few) and down right kill others. I don't think over all its the way to go.This portion is coming from my own opinion but take Minions of Mirth cool free concept that would pause the live action and put a commercial in your face for 20 seconds or so (I don't remember exactly) but I thought it ruined the game. My other option was to buy it which I did... actually bought two copies which killed the ads for me. My main motivation was to kill the ads.
Now lets look at a good example. Burn Out paradise is littered with BestBuy adds and other stores. But they are not intrusive they are bill boards. You can bet they are getting money for that and it doesnt interupt game play.
If you look at non-game software such as AIM or ICQ people would simply hack them remove the ad portion and keep using the product. If the game you are making doesnt connect to the net and do some kind of check its a good bet that some 15 year old with to much time on his hands will remove your ad and pass it around.
Again the only way I can see this really working is by sending the ad to the user in a 'real world' method. If your game involves TVs or radios then play the ad that way. Make it feel like this game is really immersive.
#7
I see forums and community areas doing the same thing. Ads sprinkled around in the forums and on the site can be removed for a monthly "membership" fee.
The main thing is that Jeremy hits on a point that no one can argue with - if there's a way to advertise, companies will target their audience and use it. If that weren't true, Google would still be a background search engine. There was one thing that brought Google its success, and that was it's ability to capitalize on targeted advertising. When you pop in a rented DVD what's the first thing you see? Ads for other DVDs of a similar genre. Look at the back of your new car.....an ad for the company that sold it to you (whether it's a tag, a sticker, or a plate frame).
People have argued the point for ad content in games for a few years now, but it will get more prevalent as time goes on. Real time ads pulling content off the net as you play, so it can be changed periodically. And it's not a new strategy. Printers used to cost a fortune and ribbons were $2-$3 apiece, then they figured out they could sell the printers for $40 (or give them away) and make a fortune on consumables (ink cartridges at $40+ a crack). The idea of giving something away in order to pull in revenue isn't new, and it seems to be a growing philosophy. Check out the use of America's Army as a recruitment tool.
Right now it's hard to get companies to place ads in your game without some guarantee that the game will be popular, but I think over time it will get easier. Still, it has to be one crackin' good game. None of us like ads, or the intrusion of ads into our entertainment experience, but it's going to happen to games just like it happened to TV. You all remember off-air TV, where they give you FREE shows to watch. Another venue where advertisers decide if a product will have enough audience to place their ads on it.
We don't want ads in games, but they're coming...
02/25/2008 (2:18 pm)
Actually, I would tend to agree with Jeremy to some extent. You not only see a move in the game industry to capitalize on ads, but in the software industry in general. There a already quite a few applications that have two versions, a free one that contains ads, and a paid version that doesn't. I see a larger number of people opting for the free versions and accepting the ads, but the problem I see there is that if the person using the free software didn't want to spend money on that product they may feel the same about the advertised product.I see forums and community areas doing the same thing. Ads sprinkled around in the forums and on the site can be removed for a monthly "membership" fee.
The main thing is that Jeremy hits on a point that no one can argue with - if there's a way to advertise, companies will target their audience and use it. If that weren't true, Google would still be a background search engine. There was one thing that brought Google its success, and that was it's ability to capitalize on targeted advertising. When you pop in a rented DVD what's the first thing you see? Ads for other DVDs of a similar genre. Look at the back of your new car.....an ad for the company that sold it to you (whether it's a tag, a sticker, or a plate frame).
People have argued the point for ad content in games for a few years now, but it will get more prevalent as time goes on. Real time ads pulling content off the net as you play, so it can be changed periodically. And it's not a new strategy. Printers used to cost a fortune and ribbons were $2-$3 apiece, then they figured out they could sell the printers for $40 (or give them away) and make a fortune on consumables (ink cartridges at $40+ a crack). The idea of giving something away in order to pull in revenue isn't new, and it seems to be a growing philosophy. Check out the use of America's Army as a recruitment tool.
Right now it's hard to get companies to place ads in your game without some guarantee that the game will be popular, but I think over time it will get easier. Still, it has to be one crackin' good game. None of us like ads, or the intrusion of ads into our entertainment experience, but it's going to happen to games just like it happened to TV. You all remember off-air TV, where they give you FREE shows to watch. Another venue where advertisers decide if a product will have enough audience to place their ads on it.
We don't want ads in games, but they're coming...
#8
02/25/2008 (3:01 pm)
Screw ads... stop pushing products/brands/w/e down my throat. I wouldn't play great games like WC3, Wasteland, Doom, etc with ads, why would I play a content-lacking indie with them? The beauty of the indie scene is the lack of attachment to/influence from large companies, why change that? 
#9
I think it can work for a few games. But as a sole source of revenue, it's a fickle beast and is unlikely to support major game development. I mean, the top ad-supported games I know of were making 8,000 dollars a month during their heyday. I don't know how long that rate of income went on. Sure - if you are a solo game developer and can crank out one of the top flash games on the Net every six months or so, you could do very well by that. Maybe some games do even better. But won't keep a team of five indies alive full-time working on larger games... unless they live in Siberia or something.
As a supplemental source of income, that's another story.
Remember - radio revenue paid for the radio stations. It was still the record sales that kept the music industry thriving for four decades or so.
Television - remember that for many years advertising-based revenue was only able to support three TV networks. Is that okay for you, Mr. Indie, if you aren't one of the three?
The one thing you are right about, IMO, is that one person's obstacle is another man's opportunity. But going ad-based isn't thinking outside the box... it's just exchanging boxes.
02/25/2008 (3:07 pm)
I think ad-based revenue is a single lifeboat for a sinking Titanic. I think it can work for a few games. But as a sole source of revenue, it's a fickle beast and is unlikely to support major game development. I mean, the top ad-supported games I know of were making 8,000 dollars a month during their heyday. I don't know how long that rate of income went on. Sure - if you are a solo game developer and can crank out one of the top flash games on the Net every six months or so, you could do very well by that. Maybe some games do even better. But won't keep a team of five indies alive full-time working on larger games... unless they live in Siberia or something.
As a supplemental source of income, that's another story.
Remember - radio revenue paid for the radio stations. It was still the record sales that kept the music industry thriving for four decades or so.
Television - remember that for many years advertising-based revenue was only able to support three TV networks. Is that okay for you, Mr. Indie, if you aren't one of the three?
The one thing you are right about, IMO, is that one person's obstacle is another man's opportunity. But going ad-based isn't thinking outside the box... it's just exchanging boxes.
#10
02/25/2008 (3:08 pm)
Thumps for Brian on that one.
#11
But as Jay said, most people that look at game dev as a source of income are always going to be looking at the options available. Even as a supplemental source. I personally won't (at this time) play and Steam based games because I just don't like Steam. Bad experience with HL2 back when.
That being said, if you couldn't get a game except through Steam I guess I'd have to rethink. And if you can't get a good game without ads, you rethink or don't play. As someone said earlier, well placed ads in the right environment (TV sets, etc.) aren't too bad, but nothing that "intrudes" on the game.
I just don't see that we're going to have an option, and anyone who depends on - at least supplemental - income from game dev, and fights it to the end, will simply lose out. Again, we don't want it, period, but that won't stop it from coming...
02/25/2008 (3:31 pm)
Brain and Jay, you both have valid points. Indie games will be the last holdout for not having ads in games, and there will always be a segment of the Indie industry that will hold to that no matter what, even if they have to give away their games. You see that train of thought a lot in the Linux (or Unix based) software environment.But as Jay said, most people that look at game dev as a source of income are always going to be looking at the options available. Even as a supplemental source. I personally won't (at this time) play and Steam based games because I just don't like Steam. Bad experience with HL2 back when.
That being said, if you couldn't get a game except through Steam I guess I'd have to rethink. And if you can't get a good game without ads, you rethink or don't play. As someone said earlier, well placed ads in the right environment (TV sets, etc.) aren't too bad, but nothing that "intrudes" on the game.
I just don't see that we're going to have an option, and anyone who depends on - at least supplemental - income from game dev, and fights it to the end, will simply lose out. Again, we don't want it, period, but that won't stop it from coming...
#12
02/25/2008 (4:29 pm)
Good implementation is key. However, with 3D games this should be the easiest thing in the world. Stream the textures in over the net, make them targeted, and fit them into the 3D world and you've got a really solid start.
#13
And yet, both Shadowbane and Anarchy Online have managed to not only support that, but support a live team as well, for years. On just ad revenue, for SB, and on ad revenue for most players in AO's case. That speaks to likely ad revenue in the realm of at least 4-6 times your best case.
That said, it is interesting that TV ads were brought up, since TV advertising is in a decline, and the entire TV industry is in serious jeopardy right now. With DVR and Tivo becoming more and more common, people are SKIPPING ads now. A rather large chunk of the viewerbase is using these features now, and that number is increasing annually - probably quite rapidly now, with the cheap DVR bundles cable offers and the massive move to cable with TV digitalization becoming mandatory.
Ad-placing companies are noticing these trends. The likely result is that TV stations will not be able to charge as much for ads, which will result in a potentially dramatic reduction in advertising revenue. It's not a crisis yet, but the potential is definitely there. I'm sure you're noticing an increase in product placements INSIDE shows these days, right? Any Stargate fans notice how Dell laptops were appearing in every show for a long time, for instance? ;)
That route has continuity for TV, and I expect to see more examples in the future as this ad format begins to take over for interruption advertising. Likewise, I see a strong future in games for product placement ads, but not for interruption ads, which tend to breed resentment instead of building loyalty.
02/25/2008 (4:33 pm)
Jay, best case ad revenue is actually quite a bit higher than that. I know the MMO industry better than the free flash game field (as per your example). Drawing from there, a typical player costs something in the realm of $1 a month for bandwidth (give or take a bit, varies wildly from game to game) alone. Now, assuming you have zero support costs and no live content team, that still means that a game with say 20k players is costing you roughly $20k a month - just in bandwidth.And yet, both Shadowbane and Anarchy Online have managed to not only support that, but support a live team as well, for years. On just ad revenue, for SB, and on ad revenue for most players in AO's case. That speaks to likely ad revenue in the realm of at least 4-6 times your best case.
That said, it is interesting that TV ads were brought up, since TV advertising is in a decline, and the entire TV industry is in serious jeopardy right now. With DVR and Tivo becoming more and more common, people are SKIPPING ads now. A rather large chunk of the viewerbase is using these features now, and that number is increasing annually - probably quite rapidly now, with the cheap DVR bundles cable offers and the massive move to cable with TV digitalization becoming mandatory.
Ad-placing companies are noticing these trends. The likely result is that TV stations will not be able to charge as much for ads, which will result in a potentially dramatic reduction in advertising revenue. It's not a crisis yet, but the potential is definitely there. I'm sure you're noticing an increase in product placements INSIDE shows these days, right? Any Stargate fans notice how Dell laptops were appearing in every show for a long time, for instance? ;)
That route has continuity for TV, and I expect to see more examples in the future as this ad format begins to take over for interruption advertising. Likewise, I see a strong future in games for product placement ads, but not for interruption ads, which tend to breed resentment instead of building loyalty.
#14
02/25/2008 (4:56 pm)
Ads that interrupt the entertainment will go the way of the dinosaur in every medium. Games are in a better position to take advantage of in-experience advertising. 
#15
Personally, I think it works best in the situation of games that simulate the real world (burnout, splinter cell etc), because essentially your enhancing the realism and it doesn't annoy the user.
The problem for the traditional method of 'try and buy' is 3 fold.
1. Player must find and download your game
2. Player must trust and decide to (or remember to) install your game
3. Player must trust and like your game enough to purchase it (assuming they have your payment method or are old enough to buy or get mum to) as well as decide not to look for a nice crack/torrent for a enjoyable game!
That's a lot of processes and variables for the standard windows/mac game 'try and buy' method.
This is where something like ad-revenue and the Flash platform wins. With an ad-enabled trial, all the user has to do is steps 1 and 2 (and click an ad if it's ppc). On the flash side of life it gets even better, you practically only need step 1, no "is it safe to install", no uninstall hassles or purchase worries and no "I get it from torrent*****.com, I need to try the full version first!".
I'm not really saying anythings dead or that flash is the be-all-and-end-all, the fact is regardless of your strategy(ies), if your products crap, it will fail (unless you can generate immense hype and hustle). All I'm saying is that the easier you can make things to getting to that generating income step (without compromising your game) the more options you can give yourself in this crowded digital space!
02/25/2008 (7:48 pm)
Interesting this subject and always a hot one among the dev forums! I'm about to give the ad-revenue path a try myself.Personally, I think it works best in the situation of games that simulate the real world (burnout, splinter cell etc), because essentially your enhancing the realism and it doesn't annoy the user.
The problem for the traditional method of 'try and buy' is 3 fold.
1. Player must find and download your game
2. Player must trust and decide to (or remember to) install your game
3. Player must trust and like your game enough to purchase it (assuming they have your payment method or are old enough to buy or get mum to) as well as decide not to look for a nice crack/torrent for a enjoyable game!
That's a lot of processes and variables for the standard windows/mac game 'try and buy' method.
This is where something like ad-revenue and the Flash platform wins. With an ad-enabled trial, all the user has to do is steps 1 and 2 (and click an ad if it's ppc). On the flash side of life it gets even better, you practically only need step 1, no "is it safe to install", no uninstall hassles or purchase worries and no "I get it from torrent*****.com, I need to try the full version first!".
I'm not really saying anythings dead or that flash is the be-all-and-end-all, the fact is regardless of your strategy(ies), if your products crap, it will fail (unless you can generate immense hype and hustle). All I'm saying is that the easier you can make things to getting to that generating income step (without compromising your game) the more options you can give yourself in this crowded digital space!
#16
@terry
I am an avid linux fan and is my choice of development (I use the word development loosely). I think that ad revenue fits very nicely with that community. Can't tell you how many times I clicked a link when a linux blog had helpful information. Personally I don't think this comes down to specific community, or operating system, for that matter. But for peoples personal preference. As with all things in life you will see some try and do the right thing and others be greedy and ruin it.
02/25/2008 (9:11 pm)
Just wonder how many here use a free google, yahoo, etc, email account? Guess how they pay for that? Now they even offer higher storage, unlimited storage. My guess is because they are probably making a mint with the ad revenue. I believe that the way of business in general is changing. The people and companies that don't see it will be left behind.@terry
I am an avid linux fan and is my choice of development (I use the word development loosely). I think that ad revenue fits very nicely with that community. Can't tell you how many times I clicked a link when a linux blog had helpful information. Personally I don't think this comes down to specific community, or operating system, for that matter. But for peoples personal preference. As with all things in life you will see some try and do the right thing and others be greedy and ruin it.
#17
as an indie developer myself i know i cant fight piracy and if someone steals my work.. i can only say "oh well"
its better off to use piracy as a way to reach more people out there. maybe make a "product" and actually send it out as a fake pirate good, fake a crack a keygen or whatever and that way to make lots of people know about you and maybe support you in your other products.
advertising in such a fake pirated software will be a killer :). its like that movie the blair witch project, everyone knew it was not a real documentry but they still thought it was...
02/26/2008 (1:54 am)
for many years now i have seen how companies try to fight piracy, they wont succeed. not even by putting people in jail. to take a hold of piracy group once the leader is prosecuted, or make up another group is so easy now days. and you can get an army of 16 year olds to help you.as an indie developer myself i know i cant fight piracy and if someone steals my work.. i can only say "oh well"
its better off to use piracy as a way to reach more people out there. maybe make a "product" and actually send it out as a fake pirate good, fake a crack a keygen or whatever and that way to make lots of people know about you and maybe support you in your other products.
advertising in such a fake pirated software will be a killer :). its like that movie the blair witch project, everyone knew it was not a real documentry but they still thought it was...
#18
Doesnt impact your game experience at all.
Sure it wont work in a fantasy game. But any game with modern setting can use them effectively without bothering the player I don't think.
I do however no know what/if Gatorade actually paid EA for that
02/26/2008 (10:19 am)
As long as its nonintrusive ads work fine. I mean:Doesnt impact your game experience at all.
Sure it wont work in a fantasy game. But any game with modern setting can use them effectively without bothering the player I don't think.
I do however no know what/if Gatorade actually paid EA for that
#19
I think the point I was making up there is that there will always be generous people making games to give away, and this won't affect them. Anyone considering generating any type of income from game dev, however, will eventually have to consider ads as a source of revenue whatever platform they use. At least that's my belief. Hope that cleared up the Linux thing.
@Thak: Good examples...
02/26/2008 (1:57 pm)
@NUTS!: I agree with you (I also use Linux) and probably said that in a way that could be misconstrued. I guess I was making more of a distinction between the two primary trains of thought in software production - commercial and open source. Should have said open source instead of Linux. Though I fully understand that even with open source there is money to be made. For example I use SMF for all my sites, and though I'm a "charter member" Simple Machines makes very little off these fees/donations. They do, though, make money in other ways giving away SMF.I think the point I was making up there is that there will always be generous people making games to give away, and this won't affect them. Anyone considering generating any type of income from game dev, however, will eventually have to consider ads as a source of revenue whatever platform they use. At least that's my belief. Hope that cleared up the Linux thing.
@Thak: Good examples...
#20
Just as more and more MMOs are looking at new ways to bring in revenue then flat out subscriptions, PC games are looking for more ways then just selling. Like many people said however it is very game specific, a modern day game in New York city, could have ads everywhere and that would only make it look more like New York city. But a game in the Dark Ages can't have Ye Olde Coke Classic.
But there are other possibilities as well, take Instant Action for example, if you have a game running in a browser you could just have an ad banner above or below the game so it's not actually interfering with that game.
And saying TV ads are on their way out isn't completly true either. Just last year major players like Comcast struck a new deal on working ads into the OnDemand programming so that the networks could still make money off of their programming.
On thing I wanted to add. I still to this day think the real way to make it as an indie isn't any new type of revenue such as ad based, but to do something off the beaten path. All the successfull indies from days past had games that played in a different or even daring way then mainstream games. But now most people who are trying to do an "indie" game are trying to almost completly recreate AAA games but as their own. How many posts do you see about "How to make a BF2 style game?" and etc.
02/26/2008 (6:15 pm)
The nature of how games make money is changing. Just like more and more free MMOs are coming out with different approaches to making money, despite WoW's ridiculous success no one else is able to come close, even with newer and newer mmos out there. Is that because WoW is still better then those? No. WoW had perfect timing and the right product for that timing.Just as more and more MMOs are looking at new ways to bring in revenue then flat out subscriptions, PC games are looking for more ways then just selling. Like many people said however it is very game specific, a modern day game in New York city, could have ads everywhere and that would only make it look more like New York city. But a game in the Dark Ages can't have Ye Olde Coke Classic.
But there are other possibilities as well, take Instant Action for example, if you have a game running in a browser you could just have an ad banner above or below the game so it's not actually interfering with that game.
And saying TV ads are on their way out isn't completly true either. Just last year major players like Comcast struck a new deal on working ads into the OnDemand programming so that the networks could still make money off of their programming.
On thing I wanted to add. I still to this day think the real way to make it as an indie isn't any new type of revenue such as ad based, but to do something off the beaten path. All the successfull indies from days past had games that played in a different or even daring way then mainstream games. But now most people who are trying to do an "indie" game are trying to almost completly recreate AAA games but as their own. How many posts do you see about "How to make a BF2 style game?" and etc.
Torque Owner John E. Nelson
Suspicious Activity
He planned on making money through advertising revenue. The only hitch is that the advertising groups and organizations that are willing to sign an agreement with him require a large amount of active gamer traffic to already exist.
So he has the choice of releasing the game for free, or selling it for a value price.
He could always wait till the number of players hits the high numbers that advertisers require before they will sign an agreement. Of course if the number of active players drop below that high number they have the option to remove their clients. All games have their peak, and then they hold at a much lower active player number for a period of time till there are almost none left.
So this in-game advertising market is a lot tougher than people realize, and it is probably why there is not as many people doing it.