Well, obviously each suggestion is only as good as much as you're willing to accept that piracy will always exist. Rather than an elimination of it, you need to focus on reducing it.
DRM does reduce it. That's why they have DRM. Game companies aren't deluding themselves into thinking they will eliminate piracy. Like I said earlier, most game companies actually consider their DRM a "success" if they manage to push back the 0-day pirate release of their game. Despite the line about how pirates aren't going to buy the game anyway, the sales figures tend to show that there is a massive addition of people who will buy the game on release day if there's not a pirated release available. Pirates are generally impatient and greedy by nature, most of them can't handle waiting an entire day for the game they want to steal. So much that, god forbid, they might actually pay for it.
How about providing a disk of the game you made and saying as long as you don't /resell it/ go ahead and play LAN etc all you want (see, demigod style)
But Demigod DID do that, and you STILL pirated it. So did 100,000 other people. So obviously that's not enough incentive to get people to pay for a game. And again, what about single player games?
This is an extreme example. I imagine sales are going well or at least decently and I imagine that they will do fairly decently, particularly if they manage to get their servers off the ground. I know myself (and my friends who I play with) will buy copies if we know the internet is stable. At the moment, that isn't so knowable, but give it a patch or two and we'll probably buy in.
The pirates are the entire reason that their servers aren't stable. They sold a fairly moderate amount of Demigod copies on launch day, and estimated that they'd be fine supporting 10,000 concurrent players based on those numbers. But then 100,000 extra people showed up, all of whom had stolen the game. That's why the servers went down. Do you think Stardock "owes" it to you and the other pirates to invest tons of money into buying new servers just to make the people who stole their game happy enough that a few of them might consider paying for it eventually?
A. World of Goo is Wiiware; as in 'not a real game' but more of a flash styled game. It was cheap and easy to obtain, More importantly, it is infinitely more easy to pirate. Any idiot with a wii and a SD chip can pirate it.
And yet, DRM is pointless, because everyone's going to pirate everything anyway? That seems like you're contradicting yourself. If people pirate non-DRM games more because it's easier, then publishers have a reason to use DRM, don't they?
Did it even come out for PC? If it did, then notice that it isn't even on the top ten.
It did, and it got a 91 rating on metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/worldofgoo?q=world%20of%20goo
It got a ton of good reviews. It's not a flash game; it's just 2D.
B. Secondly, World of Goo still did remarkably well for the type of game it was.
It managed to turn some profit, if you consider that "remarkably well". But the devs said it will be the last time they release anything on PC and that they will be using DRM next time, because of how badly it was pirated. So the pirates aren't really "helping" to stop DRM in this case.
To counterpoint your article, I present:
A list of gamespot reviews for PC games. These are their latest reviews, in order.
Please note that not a single game broke an 8.0 Not a single one. When you have this much garbage being released weekly/monthly, I think a consumer can be skeptical.
I disagree. If you look at the review, and the review says it's terrible, then DON'T PLAY IT. If instead you steal it, enjoy it, and play it constantly, you can't use a poor review score to justify that you think it's "bad". If you're playing it, it's worth something to you. And besides, most low-rated games don't get pirated. Pirates overwhelmingly steal the games that get high ratings. If anything, this is almost incentive for companies to make bad games on purpose. In reality, it's just leading most good companies to abandon the PC as a platform, because piracy is destroying it so badly.
Game quality is going down, game content is going down and they want me to shell out an extra 30 bucks for some random nifty toy or poster.
If you don't like the game, then don't buy it and don't play it. You don't have a "right" to take things for free just because they're not up to your high standards. You wouldn't walk into McDonalds and steal all their food, despite that it's bad. You wouldn't break into someone's house and steal all their furniture but justify it by saying the furniture sucked.
This suggests that (for music) Pirates tend to end up buying more than not.
I think this is questionable, because nearly EVERYONE pirates music. Someone who doesn't listen to music enough to have a large mp3 collection probably isn't going to buy much music anyway. Either way though, this doesn't mean piracy is sustainable. I know there are lots of pirates who buy music sometimes. But the amount of music that is paid for is vastly overshadowed by the music that's not. The record industry is on a downward spiral, and despite the fact that some pirates think this is a good thing, I have a feeling they'll be questioning their decisions if music becomes a worthless market.
I would argue it's similar to piracy for PC games. When I buy a game, I look at a few things for buying purposes. Is the MP something I will play with my friends? Is the MP something I will play with my friends online? Is the SP campaign something I will play once, or am I going to play it again? I bought Supreme Commander because I played the Campaign twice and really enjoyed the game. I haven't even played it for months sadly, but I did make the investment. Same with Sins of a Solar Empire; when I found myself coming back to it after a month or two and still really liking it, I bought it. On the other hand; Crysis - I played it once, and I didn't even beat the Campaign. I hated it. It wouldn't been a massive waste of my money despite high rankings.
I'd say playing Sins for even a week and enjoying it justifies giving the creator something. The fact that you had to keep playing it for an entire month before you felt like you owed the creators anything makes no sense economically. Games are relatively cheap compared to some hobbies. If I went to a concert and complained that the band "only" played for five hours straight and walked out without paying, most people would think I was insane. The idea that games have to stay fun for a year just to be worth 6 cups of coffee is pretty ridiculous.
But knowing that when I buy a box, there's a strong chance these days that what is in the box is what I am getting, bugs and all, is kind of heart wrenching.
Then boycott, don't steal. If you're sitting there playing the game constantly despite that it's allegedly terrible, you're not doing a good job of marketing your displeasure. To most people, you're going to look like a thief, not some sort of consumer activist. Game companies aren't going to listen to the whims of pirates because pirates steal the games they like even more than the ones they don't.
Which brings me back to Demigod. Fix it, and we'll play online.
The pirates are the ones who broke it! Stardock shares some of the blame, but I don't think it's fair to fault them entirely for greatly underestimating the "loyalty" of their fans.