I consider myself pro-piracy and anti-copyright. Yet, this article still hits a nerve.
First off, and perhaps most unforgivably, the author makes no distinction between content creators and content distributors. All of their arguments seem to be based around creators charging too much--that isn't so! It's the distributors that saddle us with DRM, shitty prices, and ads.
A great example of this is the line:
"The artists who wake up and realize they can sell me
their newest physical CD for $20."
That's usually not the artist, unless you buy the album at a show or something! That's Sony! That's BMG! It's those bastards, not the artist!
This misdirected anger does not help their case.
Second, there is far too much of an entitled tone. Statements like
"You can offer me a pdf file or simply link me to a
webpage, but stop ignoring this valuable info. And make
sure you have a website that details everything you've
released and what you're working on. There's nothing more
frustrating than finding a new obscure artist you like
who only has a dormant Myspace music page.There's nothing
more frustrating than finding a new obscure artist you
like who only has a dormant Myspace music page."
and
"At the very least, I should get a discount on your older
stuff for being a current customer."
These do not read well, to put it mildly. When the Man comes around to point out those damn freeloading kids it is exactly these sorts of quotes he points to. Wah wah wah I want a pdf and a web page and a pony--yes, these are all sound business and advertising moves, but asking for it this way is unpalatable.
There is a third issue with the stance taken by the author. Observe:
"I heard from a friend that Mafia was an enjoyable game.
I downloaded it, played it and enjoyed it. Did I
immediately go rush out and buy it? No, of course not.
But when I heard Mafia II was coming out and it was made
by the same company as the first one, I pre-ordered it."
In theory, in a world where developers can make multiple titles, this is a not-entirely-invalid approach. Let the devs prove themselves, then reward them with your future patronage.
The problem--and perhaps the author isn't familiar enough with the industry enough to know this--is that publishers, who are the ones hurt by piracy, are the ones who nowadays make-or-break most studios. When you don't buy the first game, the publisher doesn't see a sale, and so is likely to shutter the studio and give the IP to somebody else.
It's not merely enough to buy the next game--you must also fund the developer so that there can be a next game!
(As an aside, it would seem that maybe this is why piracy seems not to affect indies so much...a lot of them take donations or have pay-as-dev-happens models. It's when studios are held under the power of a publisher that these alternate funding mechanisms seem to fail, and thus studios can't survive to make a reputation when their first game is pirated.)
There's some other good stuff in there, but those are three things the author really needs to get straight in their argument.
First off, and perhaps most unforgivably, the author makes no distinction between content creators and content distributors. All of their arguments seem to be based around creators charging too much--that isn't so! It's the distributors that saddle us with DRM, shitty prices, and ads.
A great example of this is the line:
That's usually not the artist, unless you buy the album at a show or something! That's Sony! That's BMG! It's those bastards, not the artist!This misdirected anger does not help their case.
Second, there is far too much of an entitled tone. Statements like
and These do not read well, to put it mildly. When the Man comes around to point out those damn freeloading kids it is exactly these sorts of quotes he points to. Wah wah wah I want a pdf and a web page and a pony--yes, these are all sound business and advertising moves, but asking for it this way is unpalatable.There is a third issue with the stance taken by the author. Observe:
In theory, in a world where developers can make multiple titles, this is a not-entirely-invalid approach. Let the devs prove themselves, then reward them with your future patronage.The problem--and perhaps the author isn't familiar enough with the industry enough to know this--is that publishers, who are the ones hurt by piracy, are the ones who nowadays make-or-break most studios. When you don't buy the first game, the publisher doesn't see a sale, and so is likely to shutter the studio and give the IP to somebody else.
It's not merely enough to buy the next game--you must also fund the developer so that there can be a next game!
(As an aside, it would seem that maybe this is why piracy seems not to affect indies so much...a lot of them take donations or have pay-as-dev-happens models. It's when studios are held under the power of a publisher that these alternate funding mechanisms seem to fail, and thus studios can't survive to make a reputation when their first game is pirated.)
There's some other good stuff in there, but those are three things the author really needs to get straight in their argument.