if you were an indie dev, would you rather someone...

as far as buying it and never playing it, just imagine it's steamworks and they're getting stupid hats for it.

I'd honestly rather someone torrent it, because as much as I love that paper, I'd rather them enjoy the game first and foremost, but it's definitely a hard question (for me) so I was wondering where y'all stand on this.

(I specified indie devs because they are more likely to be hurt by torrenters PROBABLY I don't know)

I'd rather have people torrent my game and really love it and maybe inspire their friends to buy it.

Kinda reflects my way of doing things so I'd definitely sympathize with those people!

I voted b, games are made to be experienced. If no one does, the game might as well not exist.

B without a doubt!

C. I'd rather get laid.

Torrent, if someone tries something and really likes it they will go on and buy it to support the developer....someone else....no one I would know

A.

Because chances are, most people who buy it will play it. If one person doesn't, then I've still got their money and can put that toward a newer, better game. I hate to say it, but someone enjoying the game you made doesn't put dinner on the table.

I think most people will say B, because it's a lot easier to answer that way in a hypothetical situation, but if they were actually in a situation where they were counting on those sales to pay their bills, I bet a lot of them would then lean a lot further towards A.

I guess it depends on why I made the game in the first place right? If I just screw around creating a small game as a hobby. Then I would probably just want people to play it, likely just release it for free to begin with.

But if I made a game for profit, then dammit I want some profit.

b.

it would fucking suck if i had to make substantial financial sacrifices to make the game, but i wouldn't make a game in the first place with the intent to just to get paid and have no one play it.

I feel like the "inspire their friends to buy it" part is affecting the outcome of this poll. I chose C, because I like to have my cake and eat it too.

@mcmax3000 said:

I think most people will say B, because it's a lot easier to answer that way in a hypothetical situation, but if they were actually in a situation where they were counting on those sales to pay their bills, I bet a lot of them would then lean a lot further towards A.

Yeah, the poll is kind of unfair that way. A implies you'll get some initial purchasers but none after that. While B implies the first batch of people will guarantee more will buy later.

I'd like to imagine that I'd try different options. First game would be free. Second game would be free basic or premium with more content (but the premium version was more of a donation w/here's some more stuff as a thanks). A third game would only cost $2-$5 with a demo to make sure it works on your system. Then if the games keep getting better, I'd charge more. I'd probably never take it past $25 and there'd always be a demo because I know some people really rely on that to see if their pc can run it.

A, I just want that green mhmm.

That would depend if being a game dev was my full time job. If it was then I'd prefer A, because you know, I like not being bankrupt, but if it wasn't I'd prefer B, because I'd rather my game actually reach people and have some effect than just earning me money on top of an existing salary.

Torrent, easily, but that's just me. I don't have any plans to dive into professional game development, but I dabble with it on the side. So B provides me far, far more benefits than A in a situation where I'd like to grab a fanbase but am already paying my bills with my day job.

It would depend on just how poor I was.

People are obviously saying B but it would be way different if your livelihood depended on this game and you weren't just trying to sound like a "good person" on the internet.

A.

@mcmax3000 said:

I think most people will say B, because it's a lot easier to answer that way in a hypothetical situation, but if they were actually in a situation where they were counting on those sales to pay their bills, I bet a lot of them would then lean a lot further towards A.

@Milkman said:

People are obviously saying B but it would be way different if your livelihood depended on this game and you weren't just trying to sound like a "good person" on the internet.

A.

why are you two so sure that people would abandon their ideals were they actually in this situation? i'd rather have to get another shit job if it meant people were actually playing and enjoying the game i made, whether that translated to monetary success down the road or not.

getting paid from putting out a product that is completely ignored after the purchase is such a hollow exchange.

@TheHT: It's not about abandoning your ideals. It's about being able to eat. Watch Indie Game: The Movie and then tell me that Team Meat would have been fine with people just torrenting and enjoying Super Meat Boy.

I think the past few years have basically proven that piracy isn't detrimental - rather, it's beneficial to the hype of the game, especially indie games.

I'm an indie dev! :D
 
Honestly I would pick B. My game would likely not sell that well anyway, so the fact that someone could appreciate my work more than makes up for that tiny wad of money.

As an indie developer I would rather people play and like my game enough to spread the word of its awesomeness.

Now, if I was a big corporate studio developer, I'd rather people just pony up the bucks and if it never makes it out of the shrink wrap, who gives a fig?

@Milkman said:

@TheHT: It's not about abandoning your ideals. It's about being able to eat. Watch Indie Game: The Movie and then tell me that Team Meat would have been fine with people just torrenting and enjoying Super Meat Boy.

if eating became an issue i'd get another job, like i said.

that would be preferable to the game i worked on being played by no one and ultimately only amounting to some more money in my pocket.

@Animasta: **** both of those people. :|

heh. Though, if I -had- to choose, of course I'd rather have people play the game than not. That's why you make games; for them to be played.

@Milkman said:

Watch Indie Game: The Movie and then tell me that Team Meat would have been fine with people just torrenting and enjoying Super Meat Boy.

I did, and um, they are. Edmund McMillen has said countless times that the main motivation for any game dev must be to just have people play what you make. He basically says, if you go into this expecting to make money... don't. He (along with many other programmers) spent years creating flash games that made little or no money, in the hopes of just creating great things and establishing trust from consumers in his ideas.

Meat Boy itself was and will always be totally free.

They specifically had such a shitty time of it largely due to pressures from Microsoft related to the horrifying way XBox Live bundles games, and from having to deal with all of the 'business' stuff themselves, not at all because people were stealing their game.

B all the way. Word of mouth from one pirate copy can sell 3 legit copies.

I chose A because I gots'ta get paid!

A, obviously.

@crusader8463 said:

B all the way. Word of mouth from one pirate copy can sell 3 legit copies.

Well, word of mouth of someone who bought the game and liked it does the same. Even if you trigger sales when you pirated the game yourself that doesnt make it ok to pirate a game.

As someone who is actually an Indie developer, I would say B. I would still pick B even if that person didn't inspire the person to convince their friends. If someone bought it and never plays it I feel like they wasted their money. I hope all the games I make are worth a damn to the people who think it is worth their cash.

@2HeadedNinja said:

@crusader8463 said:

B all the way. Word of mouth from one pirate copy can sell 3 legit copies.

Well, word of mouth of someone who bought the game and liked it does the same. Even if you trigger sales when you pirated the game yourself that doesnt make it ok to pirate a game.

Doesn't matter if it does the same if no one buys it. I would rather have 1000 people buy my game and 5000 pirate it and take my chance that those 5 thousands will generate more sales then have 2000 people buy it and no one else. I'm not one of these people that sits on their high horse and looks down on people who pirate so I don't see the other option as being this grand evil horrible thing like others do. I have been in situations in my life where I had to do nothing but pirate because that was the only way I could get games. But as soon as I got older or found a new job I bought all my games and even went back and bought many of the games I really enjoyed that I had to pirate when I had no other way. There are perfectly justifiable reasons people pirate, and I would rather more people get to play my game and spread the word of it then the other way around.

I would like to think that if someone liked my game enough to tell their friends to buy it, they would eventually buy a copy of it themselves considering most indie games tend to go for no more than fifteen dollars. I mean money obviously isn't an issue, and they obviously like it enough if they're willing to take the risk of stealing it and recommending it to other people, so they really have no excuse not to be a thief (not that lack of money or not liking it enough have ever been a good excuse).

@crusader8463 said:

There are perfectly justifiable reasons people pirate

Not really... I mean maybe when you legitimately cannot find a copy of the game anywhere (including places like eBay), but other than that there is no real justifiable reason to pirate something.

@TheHT said:

why are you two so sure that people would abandon their ideals were they actually in this situation? i'd rather have to get another shit job if it meant people were actually playing and enjoying the game i made, whether that translated to monetary success down the road or not.

getting paid from putting out a product that is completely ignored after the purchase is such a hollow exchange.

I never necessarily said that they would "abandon their ideals" (though I don't think that's necessarily a good way to phrase it). I just said that it's a lot easier to say that they're completely fine with people torrenting their game when it's a hypothetical internet poll, instead of actually having to worry about whether they can pay their bills, and feed their families.

Suddenly, the idea of people stealing the game that they're trying to earn a living might not seem so great.

@mcmax3000 said:

@TheHT said:

why are you two so sure that people would abandon their ideals were they actually in this situation? i'd rather have to get another shit job if it meant people were actually playing and enjoying the game i made, whether that translated to monetary success down the road or not.

getting paid from putting out a product that is completely ignored after the purchase is such a hollow exchange.

I never necessarily said that they would "abandon their ideals" (though I don't think that's necessarily a good way to phrase it). I just said that it's a lot easier to say that they're completely fine with people torrenting their game when it's a hypothetical internet poll, instead of actually having to worry about whether they can pay their bills, and feed their families.

Suddenly, the idea of people stealing the game that they're trying to earn a living might not seem so great.

why do you think that would be the case? saying that the situation would actually affect them doesn't explain why you believe it would change their mind.

if your position is akin to Milkman's, I imagine you would have a pragmatic line of reasoning. is it an acceptance of the notion that most people when faced with a potential threat to their livelihood and thus their survival (and as you point out, that of their family as well) would take the option that immediately alleviates that threat even if the cost is something of substance that may be placed beyond monetary value?

if that is the basis for your stance, then what is the basis for your belief in that notion such that you found it to be true (or at least most likely) for others? and if not, then what is?

if all you said had been for you alone i wouldn't have minded enough to inquire about all of this, but that you were confident enough to extend your scope to a majority of people peaked my curiousity.

B. Word of mouth is the best marketing.

That's a tricky question. I would want to say B. but if I was an indie game devolper, torenting doesn't get me a salary. I need money to live. But if they love my game, wouldnt they support the devolopers? Also they would be advertising for me by recommending my game to their friends.

B with a side of C.

Go ahead and torrent my stuff. If you don't like it, I'm glad you found that out before spending money. But if you like it, hey, how about you help support me while I'm producing things you'll like?

@TheHT said:

why do you think that would be the case? saying that the situation would actually affect them doesn't explain why you believe it would change their mind.

if your position is akin to Milkman's, I imagine you would have a pragmatic line of reasoning. is it an acceptance of the notion that most people when faced with a potential threat to their livelihood and thus their survival (and as you point out, that of their family as well) would take the option that immediately alleviates that threat even if the cost is something of substance that may be placed beyond monetary value?

if that is the basis for your stance, then what is the basis for your belief in that notion such that you found it to be true (or at least most likely) for others? and if not, then what is?

if all you said had been for you alone i wouldn't have minded enough to inquire about all of this, but that you were confident enough to extend your scope to a majority of people peaked my curiousity.

I think you're completely misinterpreting what I've said. I never said a majority would do anything. In fact, I never said anyone would do anything.

All I said (or at least what I was trying to say... Maybe I phrased it poorly) is that in a real situation, where they have bills to worry about, I don't think a lot of the people that are saying B in a hypothetical internet poll would have as easy a time saying B in real life. That doesn't mean they might not still make that choice in the end. Some people absolutely would. That's evidenced by the fact that some indie developers already make that choice now. I'm just saying, I think that they'd have a lot tougher time making that decision, and I do think that some of them would absolutely end up going the A route. What percentage of those people would do that? No idea. Could be a very small minority, but I think it's safe to say some would.

I also think that it would depend on someone's specific situation. I picked A, because at the time I was voting, I assumed that in this scenario, being an indie developer is my full time job. Maybe this was a side project, and I'm working full time doing something else? In that case, I'd probably be more concerned with people enjoying my game, than how much money I'm making. Hell, in that case, if I'm in a decent position financially from my full time job, I might've given the game away for free right up front. It's hard to say.

It would also depend on the game too. Maybe it's an online heavy game, where I have server costs associated with people playing... In that case, I'm more inclined to say fuck the pirate, no matter how much they're enjoying it, because they're probably costing me money in server costs, when they didn't give me anything for the game.

If you torrent my hard work and play it for a hundred hours, you're still a worse person than the guy who bought it for a buck in the Steam sale and never installed it. I'll take any amount of cash over ephemeral internet goodwill any day.