The piracy numbers don't surprise me; as a long time game developer, I've come to expect that kind of piracy turnout.
What surprises me is that gamecenter allows cracked apps to appear on leaderboards. Maybe I'm missing something, but since gamecenter requires an iTunes account, and iTunes knows what apps you've purchased, why would gamecenter allow data from iTunes accounts it knows don't own the game?
It's really not a one-to-one. You are allowed to purchase an app and install it on multiple devices, say for your family members. There may be several AppleIDs that could legitimately play a game besides the one that purchased it.
Interesting. Well, be that as it may, I'm still surprised that Apple doesn't track the owning iTunes account, and validate it. I'm cool with shared games, I think that functionality is great, but I should, as a dev, still be able to expect GameCenter to refuse data from pirated apps.
Seems like it would be trivial to log both the owning itunes account and the user itunes account for those systems.
I don't think developers understand that pirates aren't customers, they are thieves. It is a crime of opportunity. If they can just take something for free they will, because they are probably 10-20 years old and they don't have enough disposable income to make buying a game easier than pirating one. So, they trade their extra time for their lack of money and go the pirated route even though it's a PITA.
Yes, there is a lot of piracy and there always will be. The only way around it is to ignore it and keep making software for your real customers - the people who paid for it in the first place.
The other thing you can do is try to use the thieves to promote your product. Hold contests, get them to post on message boards and other junk about your game. Have them post scores to FaceBook or Twitter. Turn them into your "street team" so to speak.
The point is, whining won't get you sales, so stop complaining about piracy and run your business.
It drives page views. I mean, I had never heard of this game until this HN post, and I never would have heard of it otherwise. There are many, many thousands of alternatives in the App Store, and I don't play a lot of games.
So why stop complaining, necessarily? It doesn't cost much, and it helps your paying customers feel righteous, which provides additional value for the dollar.
These complaints often have a certain Br'er-Rabbit-and-the-briar-patch quality, and this one is a particularly good example of the genre. "Oh, please, pirates, please don't think our game is so awesome that exactly 15,950 of you download it in the first few days, making it look like a runaway success and building an enormous community of fellow players who will vie with you on Game Center if you buy the game at the absolute bargain price of $0.99!
"And, whatever you do, don't make us write a blog post talking about our awesome new app and how people can't stop downloading it, even breaking the rules to do so, because it's so crazy and viral and addictive.
"And don't make us complain about how we took a risk and sold our valuable app for the low, low price of $0.99.
"And, whatever you do, don't generate controversy that will get our blog post upvoted to the top of news aggregators. And don't slag on us in the comments, forcing us to issue a poignant reply that will also get upvoted on news aggregators.
"My god, if the controversy gets big enough Apple might actually respond, which might drive this issue into the mainstream news, where millions of people with iPhones and money might accidentally read the name of our app and learn how many times it has been downloaded. What a catastrophe that would be. Please don't let that happen. Please stop, pirates, I'm begging you, stop talking about our game and forcing us to talk about our game."
You're talking like it was planned by the authors of the game. What you're describing might happen but doesn't have to necessarily. I'm sure the authors would be happier if there is 80% of paying customers not 7% and they wouldn't have to blog about that.
The number of freeloaders may not be planned, but the blogging is most definitely planned. Nobody is being forced to write a blog post.
The authors have the option to ignore the freeloaders. Most software publishers do, or there would be little room in industry publications for anything else. This genre of complaint goes all the way back to Bill Gates in 1976:
Perhaps it's better to focus on something else (as Bill Gates eventually did) rather than tilting at a thirty-five-year-old windmill. Unless, of course, windmill-tilting looks like a useful news hook.
While I agree, I think this boils down to a broken windows argument. Is it better to spend some money dealing with piracy, or not worry about it at all.
That one, I think, has a consensus: spend some money on anti-piracy features. Spend more than zero, but as little as you can get away with. Don't make an app that's trivial to pirate - but don't spend more than trivial amounts of time trying to deal with the people who do pirate your app. Work on the next actual project. As gratifying as it may sometimes be, punishing pirates is not building revenue, skills, or adoption. Focus on those three things, and spend as little time on anti-piracy measures as you can.
I might be naive about this, but I really don't believe that a large percentage of those 20000 pirates would have paid for the game if there was no cracked version available for free. I think the ugly truth is that most people either cannot afford to or are unwilling to pay for apps, even if they cost less than a cup of coffee.
Hence I suppose that the piracy factor p = (pirated_copies / legit_copies) is bigger than 1 for most apps - and in many cases a whole lot bigger than one, if the perceived value of the app is especially low.
If they can't afford a 99c game, how did they afford an iOS device?
I think it is more unwillingness- since some software is free, some people resent paying for any software. (They probably don't get HBO on their cable TV either...)
I think the majority of people in the 10-20 year old age group get their iOS devices "for free" from their parents, and don't want to negotiate with said parents every time they want to buy an app.
That's an interesting angle, and a market opportunity I guess :)
99 cents might not sound like much, but I guess they might want to try out hundreds of such games (well, I suppose there are free ones - I don't own an iPhone and they aren't even available by the main carrier in my country).
The OP is complaining about Game Center being usable for pirated games. The problem there is though: How would Apple be able to find out that your installation is pirated?
Checking the signature? That can be patched out. Make it so that only accounts who have bought a game can be used in Game Center?
That's the obvious solution, but it would really hur people sharing an itunes account in a household. My girlfriend also uses my apple account, saving us the money for buying apps twice.
And while this might feel like exploiting the terms of services a bit, think of children's iphones sharing their parents account which is probably even OK from a TOS point of view.
Should these children (which are a huge part of the Game Centers audience) be unable to use the game center features?
Because you can legitimately install apps from multiple AppleIDs on a single device, and thus, are able to play a game purchased from one account while logging into Game Center with another. Apple could obviously stop that, but it would probably anger more legitimate purchasers than it would convert pirates into customers.
that was my point: At the moment the Game Center account doesn't have to be the account used for purchase. The reason for that is account sharing within the same household.
After reading the article, your app got all of those users because it was featured on the cracked app web page - it's not clear to me that those same users would have found your app through the App Store. App discovery is probably the biggest problem for iOS games
You might consider those pirated copies as advertising for your app, not lost sales. I doubt that the people who pirated your app (as others mentioned, these are probably kids who can't buy apps for one reason or another) would have bought anything from you otherwise. You haven't exactly lost sales, you've gained a large group of testers who will probably tell other people about your application. Yeah, it would be nice if all of them bought a copy, but they wouldn't know to tell other people (people with money) about your product if they hadn't pirated it. So, there's two ways to look at it. You can certainly take the RIAA stance that piracy is bad for you as a developer. I'm just not convinced that that's true.
This amazes me. What I find more amazing is that there is 1) Not a way to detect and brick these installations and that 2) Apple allows users in the Game Center without associating with a purchased e-mail address (or an alias, for multi person households).
The motivation of pirates interests me. I can't see anybody with an iOS device and plan optimizing a 99c expense - surely the motivation would be deeper, and would make some interesting studies.
It's not marketing, 9 times out of 10 a pirate is a pirate. It will be a sad day when the quality of apps goes down, because it is no longer a fiscally responsible route.
The current iPod Touch can be had for under $200 refurbed, well within the means of a teenager, where a few dozen apps increases the total cost by a significant percentage. An iPhone with a data plan is 10x more expensive.
I don't get it. What's the real reason people hack a game that doesn't even cost a single dollar ?
I often read the lack of income as a motivation, here on HN as well, but come on... If you don't have even a dollar for entertainment, how did you manage to get an iPhone ? I don't think that's the real reason.
So, what's the thrill ? Is it just an habit to get as much free stuff as you can ? Or do people just not care ? Has any dev taken time to reach his 'stealers' and discuss that ?
In the end, pirates really don't care. They crack without guilt, appeal to "it's just one dollar" doesn't matter (1/0 = free version is infinitely cheaper, and in this way doesn't generate any attachment to purchasing decision), and even personal approach from developer is taken as a little joke.
3. The combination of the above two makes a perverse incentive in their heads. There's this idea that somethings should be "great" to pay for it. As they don't have any idea of the effort that goes into making a game, they don't value the time.
The perception of someone making less than 5,000 a year, regardless of whether the money is given to them or they earn it themselves, it's much different than someone making professional wages.
Honestly, I think the solution is to target those who have money, and those who know how hard it is to make a product.
I'm not sure about the numbers, but I think the 90% pirated and 10% sold applies to pretty much any form of media. I think the only solution against piracy in games might be online multiplayer games. If you could distribute serial numbers via the appstore and then verify them on your own servers, you might be able to reduce piracy.
To be honest, almost none of the people who pirated your App would've bought it in the first place, so it's not as if there's lost revenue, you wouldn't have got it in the first place.
Common pirate argument #1. Prove it. Surely this is a falsifiable claim; do you have sources to back it up?
The people who pirate your app, act as advertisers, others see them playing the game, and then some people go any buy the game legitimately.
Common pirate statement #2. Prove it. Surely this is a falsifiable claim; do you have sources to back it up?
Also, the fact that people are pirating your app in the first place means is obviously very good and you should be proud of that.
Bad software is pirated just as good software is. This isn't meaningfully indicative of anything. And if it is good software (I'm not in a position to judge, it doesn't appear to be a game I'd be interested in), then I can very much see it being difficult to "feel good about it" when the compensation that they're due is not being paid them.
.
These arguments are silly and demeaning to people who actually create things. They excuse bad behavior. Some people, I'm sure, pirate because they can't afford things (though how did they get an iOS device?). Others--and intuitively I think this is a large portion, but I'm at least honest enough to admit that I can't prove it--just want things for free.
>Some people, I'm sure, pirate because they can't afford things (though how did they get an iOS device?).
I bought a new smartphone last week. I can afford to, but it does not obligate me to piss away money on apps (I don't pirate them either). I can not emphasize how significantly higher the cost:value ratio of my phone and service is compared to that of some bullshit apps. How does that saying go, "linux is only free if your time is worthless"?, well, dicking around with apps on your phone is only cheap if your time is worthless.
If someone can manage to afford an iphone, it can simultaneously be a good decision and worth it for them and to still have a long way to go before their next most intelligent purchase is pricy glitter for their phone.
This is, incidentally, kind of a silly question. It's like assuming that owning a car means you can afford to eat a $20 restaurant meal every night. Sure, cars cost way more than food, but that's not the point.
> It's like assuming that owning a Ferrari means you can afford to eat at a $20 restaurant meal every night.
Fixed that for you. iPhones are a luxury item. Cellphones are arguably necessary, but nobody's forcing you to drop $400 on a smartphone when there are perfectly free (subsidized) feature phones on every single carrier.
So yeah, I agree with the assumption that iPhone users have a little extra cash to burn.
Edit: Ok, maybe Ferrari wasn't quite a fair comparison, but certainly a car that's a little more than just getting from point A to point B.
...did you just equate an iPhone with a Ferrari, or am I missing some fundamental point of comparison here?
iPhones and other Apple products are not very expensive. They're not the cheapest products on the market, but that isn't really the point; Homo economicus ( http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2095 ) might consider it a luxury item, but that just doesn't describe the purchasing decisions and ethos of the vast majority of today's consumers.
Consequently, it's kind of a ridiculous assumption.
People spend money in different ways when you're looking at a once-every-few-years purchase as opposed to an everyday purchase. Someone's perception of whether they can afford an application vs a phone is not evaluated solely on price.
This isn't about morals, it's about economics. I'm not saying you should pirate things you can't afford, I'm saying that buying an iPhone is not a guarantee of being well-off, even absent the 'gift' factor.
But an app isn't an everyday purchase either. An iPhone, with the required data plan, is an everyday purchase. The hardware is more expensive once, and the plan is more expensive every month. Apps are purchased once.
Not for you, not for me; can you say that for everyone?
Data plans are irrelevant. I could well point out car insurance in the ancestor analogy.
EDIT: Allow me to clarify. A phone is a decision made once. The data plan, the price of the phone, these are all taken into account at the time the purchasing decision is made. Applications are a long chain of decisions which are each approached individually.
I said what I meant. When you buy an iPhone, not only are you paying for the hardware, you're committing to a monthly fee. A $0.99 app is not even a day of cell service, let alone a 2 year phone contract.
An every day purchase is a purchase that someone could (be reasonably expected to) make most days. Noone purchases an iPhone for themselves several times a week. Hence an iPhone is not an every day purchase.
You are getting confused because you believe that paying for a service every day make it an every day purchase. You only purchase an iPhone once (although you will possibly buy another iPhone a year or two later.)
Paying off a home loan over a few decades doesn't make a house an everyday purchase. And paying for an iPhone over a couple of years (or signing any two-year contract) doesn't make that an everyday purchase either.
An LG VX8300 or whatever is also "a car". An iPhone is a midrange Acura or something--not the most expensive car out there, but if you can buy one, you can afford the seat covers (which is a tortured analogy to apps, but work with me here).
Unfortunately, the reality is that we’ve collected less than $800 in sales for FingerKicks, and Apple’s policies (or lack thereof) are the primary reason for the huge losses.
Wow, I really have to disagree -- piracy is the primary reason for the losses. Even if the Game Center app worked the way the author wished, I don't see how that leads to more sales of their game.
It would have given the developer a more realistic idea of how many people bought the game, and that's certainly useful. But does that really put more money in their pocket?
What surprises me is that gamecenter allows cracked apps to appear on leaderboards. Maybe I'm missing something, but since gamecenter requires an iTunes account, and iTunes knows what apps you've purchased, why would gamecenter allow data from iTunes accounts it knows don't own the game?