Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

> The widespread availability of those devices dramatically shrank the market for NDS games. Developers were dropping off the platform well before the 3DS came out, and Nintendo started to pay much more attention to DRM.

Do you have a source for this? All the data I've seen shows piracy really doesn't impact content creators in a meaningful way.

  ... the study concluded that there was no evidence that piracy affects copyrighted sales, and in the case of video games, might actually help them. [1]

Curious why you think this applies to the NDS but not in general.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-pira...

View on HN

Here's one studio's opinion

    “We definitely found that piracy was a significant factor in our Nintendo DS development efforts. When we approached publishers to propose potential game projects with them, most of them brought up their concerns about piracy at some point. Many publishers even cited the issue of piracy as a specific reason why they decided to back away from our game project, especially with it being an original intellectual property concept. The publishers’ fear was that, in a climate where piracy is commonplace, original games and new mechanics are far less likely to be successful than games based on previously successful mechanics, established licenses, sequels, and sports.”

https://nintendoeverything.com/dreamrift-on-how-ds-piracy-af...

That page seems to summarize as "publishers worry about piracy, so they reject original content and force sequels/sports/crap" (... that makes zero sense to me, but to continue) plus "an original-content game maker will stop developing for the DS when publishers force sequels/ports/crap".

And they're all fearing the ecosystem decline that occurs when the publishers start forcing crap.

I mean... I think I can point to the cause of the problem in that relationship. And I won't be pointing at the pirates.

>I think I can point to the cause of the problem in that relationship. And I won't be pointing at the pirates.

Either way, they are the gatekeepers to please, so the sentiment of:

>The widespread availability of those devices dramatically shrank the market for NDS games.

does hold true. I heard reports of this especially affecting the PSP as well.

>Either way, they are the gatekeepers to please

Some markets that have started to oust those gatekeepers seem to be doing fairly well, lending weight behind arguments that the gatekeepers are the real problem. Music is booming despite massive piracy for decades, as are video games in general (particularly on PC, where piracy has been even bigger for even longer).

I don't doubt that some things that are working with the current gatekeeping ecosystem will cease to exist if gatekeepers get less powerful. ... but I'm not sure those are things we should be keeping anyway. Sucks in the transition, to be sure, but in the long run?

I'm not sure PC is the greatest example of your thesis anymore given that a lot of major releases are protected by Denuvo.

> Music is booming despite massive piracy for decades

Music's "booming" is pretty closely correlated with the uptake of DRM streaming services versus non-DRMed files. Remarkably so, in fact.

Yeah, I'll definitely agree with that.

It is still part of a very, very large shift in power away from the historical gatekeepers though (i.e. from "all-powerful overlords" to "anyone can sign up with any of the big DRM streaming platforms today, and there are moderately-sized others too"). Gatekeepers as a whole can be beneficial in a lot of ways, but they tend to turn into power-amassing despots given time. A bit of churn helps reset that to some degree.

I guess the main difference here is that historically (going back decades here) you had to use the gatekeepers to do things at literally any scale beyond handing out records by hand. They effectively controlled all physical sales, and physical sales were the only option. Now there are many more viable options, including stuff like bandcamp where there are few restrictions or costs of any kind. Gatekeepers of portions of a market will always exist, the difference is in how much power they wield over the entire marketplace.

Eh, if I stab a guy every time you touch a tomato it is literally true that "touching tomatoes causes death", but the sentence does leave out a crucial part of the mechanism - that it's less the tomato, and more me and my stabby knife.

I wouldn't take any publisher's opinion seriously. It's been proven that music piracy is _positively_ correlated with sales, yet the RIAA is still trying to stop youtube-dl from existing. I have to assume these pencil pushers in the game industry are equally ignorant, until hard data proves otherwise.

doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, especially when you are asking for their money. It may be a business, but it's till run by flawed humans whose irrational decisions will affect creators. So this perspective is important for a developer to know before pitching a platform.

> It's been proven that music piracy is _positively_ correlated with sales

Which makes sense, things that sell well also are more likely to be pirated. Has it been shown that piracy causes sales to increase? I've looked around but I haven't found anything reliable.

This is the first thing I found on google https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11293-017-9567-1 but there are papers supporting both sides (eg sibling comment). I guess it's not as cut and dry as I made it sound.

Nope, the academic literature does not support your claim. Here's [1] but one paper, a summary of many others to give you a look at the evidence.

Have any peer reviewed papers supporting your claim in a broad market and timeframe? I find zero.

[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132153

This is unambiguously untrue.

Some people want it to be, but it isn't.

There was one (not replicated) study suggesting that people who consumed more music tended to pirate more, but that's a correlation not a causation, and it doesn't follow that they would not have purchased or subscribed to even more music if the piracy option had not been available.

I don't have any primary sources, but in a nutshell, the problem was ROM sites.

You could download every NDS game ever made, in every region, in a few days.

Small indie ROMs might be 2-16MiB, but the big Pokemon/etc games went up to 128MiB. With 8-64GiB microSD cards, you could fit a library of games into one cartridge.

Personally, I think that most of the people who pirated NDS games would never have paid for them, so there may not have been many lost sales. But I also can't deny that the small game developers got royally screwed, and IMO the 3DS may have suffered from a dearth of creative small devs.

All the people I knew that had a DS (3 friends) had bought an R4 (a cartridge that allows pirating games). One even never bought a single NDS game because of that! This is of course "anecdotal evidence".

What is not anecdotal evidence are all the game console manufacturers spending millions to prevent piracy. It means that they estimate that piracy must at least cost them millions. And whatever game console manufacturers are loosing due to piracy, it's costing gaming studios at least twice as much (due to the 30% - 70% revenue sharing model).

I had a similar experience as a child, it's really hard to oversell how easy it was to pirate games for the nds. The r4 was easily available for $20, and each game cost $35.

I know the internets favorite argument is "piracy doesn't hurt sales", but imagine a scenario where you go to McDonald's and they give you a choice at the registers, pay, or don't pay. Either way you get your meal. That's essentially how easy it was to pirate for the nds.

Does every download equal a sale? No. Do some people pirate instead of buy if they can? Of course.

> Does every download equal a sale? No. Do some people pirate instead of buy if they can? Of course.

It's actually even more nuanced than that. Someone might have a fixed budget that they're willing to spend each month on games. It doesn't matter what it is, just that it's relatively small. Also, they may not be buying games every month, but they will never spend more than that in a single month. If with that budget they can buy a very small number of games (maybe not even one!), more often than not they will not take the chance with any games and will simply try to pirate them. Is that a sale lost to piracy or not? It's hard to say, because they might or might not have purchased a game if it was impossible to pirate; it depends on whether it fits in their budget.

I really think the reason Steam pretty much solved piracy on the PC is because of the expectation of timed discounts. If right now a game is just outside your budget, you know that 6-12 months from now you'll be able to buy it at a significant discount, so if you're patient you don't need to bother with pirating it and you can just wait. Now, some people will still pirate just to be able to play immediately, but piracy is nowhere near as rampant as it used to be on PC. If Nintendo implemented similar policies on its stores (as opposed to trying to sell 30-year-old games for $5) it could solve piracy on its platforms in a day, without resorting to this cat and mouse game.

My anecdote is the opposite, all my friends with DSes had no idea these things existed. The friends who would pirate games used PC exclusively.

I got a DS with an R4. But if there hadn't been an R4, I don't think I would have bothered getting a DS to begin with.

A quick reminder that study wasn't "suppressed", it wasn't released because it's confidence rate was so poor that none of its conclusions would have passed peer review.

It admitted a 45% error margin in its own conclusions, which pretty much make them indistinguishable from statistical noise.

You should reconsider your trust in any news outlet that ran a story on this study without noting this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com