20 to 1 Pirate to Sale Ratio?

Kannon wrote:

The numbers for my survey are thus:
603 people total surveyed
400 admitted pirates of some form
124 PC game pirates
140 music pirates
136 movie pirates
(There were several that overlapped, but that's what they primarily identified as)

Not a great sample size, but not bad for one guy doing it.

Could not have gotten much clearer than this. I used to download movies just to see if the story was even in the least bit interesting before i actually seen it in theatres. Besides when I downloaded a new in-theatre release, the quality was always garbage so I was forced too anyway.

I want to say I've read a journal/article on Ars Technica about a larger study that came to the same conclusions.

As for Crytek: They have to cry about somethings, otherwise their tech would go to waste. /horrible horrible pun

Stengah wrote:

I want to say I've read a journal/article on Ars Technica about a larger study that came to the same conclusions.

Want to link to the article? Remember who it was by? I can't find it :/ Or was that sentence supposed to go:

"I want to say i've read a journal/article on Ars Technica about a larger study that came to the same conclusions... but i can't."

SommerMatt wrote:

Stiffer DRM tactics and draconian laws to punish downloaders haven't worked in ANY medium... they need to look at what HAS worked and adapt. If there is money to be made in the PC market, then people will continue to develop for it. If If not, then they won't.

We already know what has worked, we can look at other countries where PC piracy got too high. The answer is to stop making games with a single-player focus like Crysis, Mass Effect, etc. available on the PC and make every PC game require a subscription and/or constant microtransactions. I can't help but feel disappointed about that.

Without saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before, if I'm a dev and have the choice of developing on a system that has build in consequences for pirating (XBL bannings) or for one that is very much the wild west, I'm going with the former. PC piracy seems to just be a neverending string of headaches for devs and now that consoles are a viable option who can really blame them?

Up until I graduated college I did most of my gaming on the pc since A) I was always on it writing code or papers for class and B) Games were stupidly easy to pirate and since I was usually broke, this worked out well.

DeeVoc wrote:

Without saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before, if I'm a dev and have the choice of developing on a system that has build in consequences for pirating (XBL bannings) or for one that is very much the wild west, I'm going with the former. PC piracy seems to just be a neverending string of headaches for devs and now that consoles are a viable option who can really blame them?

Up until I graduated college I did most of my gaming on the pc since A) I was always on it writing code or papers for class and B) Games were stupidly easy to pirate and since I was usually broke, this worked out well.

How many console games truly outsell PC games, though? Aside from the big releases, I don't see console sales being marginally better than PC sales. I wonder how many PC developers are looking at the torrents and seeing how much the game is being pirated and think, "Look at all those lost sales! If it weren't for piracy we'd be rolling in cash! Look what they're taking from us!" I'm sure the mentality that somehow pirated copies equal lost sales sits heavily with them a good bit, but we all know that's not the case. Sure, there are some in there who SHOULD buy the game, since they play the hell out of it. But, as has already been pointed out ad nauseum, there are many others who wouldn't have bought it in the first place. In the end, they abandon the PC market for the console market, and end up seeing about the same amount of sales. Except this time around, the piracy numbers are much lower, which somehow makes them think they're doing better in that market. A lot of it is counting unhatched chickens, I think. Or, I suppose, counting eggs that were never fertilized in the first place.

I believe there are solutions, and they are simple. As a developer you just have to keep in mind that there will always be piracy, no matter the precautions you take.

First, make a game for a wide audience that is able to run on a variety of systems. There will be at least parts of audience for which piracy would be too complicated. There is a reason why The Sims is bestselling franchise on the PC.

Second, support your game, make gamers your friends and listen to their (reasonable) demands. Show that you care about them and at least some of them will be mature enough to give you money for your good work. Just look at Sins of the Solar Empire, Europa Universalis III. Or for a smaller-scale example, Armageddon Empires. All of them games that have been selling mostly through word of mouth.

Third, make a GOOD GAME. If you are in a shooter business, look at Bioshock or Valve, for example. And learn.

If you make a mediocre game aimed at a bunch of people that are skilled enough to build their own rigs, don't whine that they are pirating your games, you should've realized before that exactly such people would do that. If you piss them off by saying that they are a bunch of pirates, well, they won't weep for you when you go under (even if you're right). Get them on your side just like Valve, Stardock or Paradox did and they will help you in return in many different ways.

wanderingtaoist wrote:

I believe there are solutions, and they are simple. As a developer you just have to keep in mind that there will always be piracy, no matter the precautions you take.

First, make a game for a wide audience that is able to run on a variety of systems. There will be at least parts of audience for which piracy would be too complicated. There is a reason why The Sims is bestselling franchise on the PC.

Second, support your game, make gamers your friends and listen to their (reasonable) demands. Show that you care about them and at least some of them will be mature enough to give you money for your good work. Just look at Sins of the Solar Empire, Europa Universalis III. Or for a smaller-scale example, Armageddon Empires. All of them games that have been selling mostly through word of mouth.

Third, make a GOOD GAME. If you are in a shooter business, look at Bioshock or Valve, for example. And learn.

If you make a mediocre game aimed at a bunch of people that are skilled enough to build their own rigs, don't whine that they are pirating your games, you should've realized before that exactly such people would do that. If you piss them off by saying that they are a bunch of pirates, well, they won't weep for you when you go under (even if you're right). Get them on your side just like Valve, Stardock or Paradox did and they will help you in return in many different ways.

DING DING DING! We have a winner folks! I hope warhead tanks, I know I'm not purchasing it! Not because it won't run on my system, not because I enjoy the chaos that is Crysis MP, but because the CEO is a lame craphead.

Valve, Stardock make great games. I will buy almost anything from them. Also as far as using patches to gauge pirated vs sold, I have multiple computers and have installed games on many of them. For instance track-mania on my main computer and my travel laptop. When I patch I do not download one and then patch all, I download multiple times and patch everything at once. It is not like I don't have the bandwidth do download a couple hundred megs worth of stuff at the same time. Which reminds me I really need to get off my ass and gig a gigabit switch

How many console games truly outsell PC games, though? Aside from the big releases, I don't see console sales being marginally better than PC sales.

To be fair, almost all of them. The average console games sells more than the average PC game by orders of magnitude. Truly standout PC games can be as dominant as any game on the market, but shovelware PC games are lucky to do a quarter of the business of their console brethren. It's obviously very hard to draw direct comparisons, partly because major studios are repsonsible for most of the console shovelware while it falls on indies to fill the holes on the PC side, but a quick look at the big sales lists at the end of any given year shows that being average on a handheld is better than being average on a console is better than being average on a PC.

First, make a game for a wide audience that is able to run on a variety of systems. There will be at least parts of audience for which piracy would be too complicated. There is a reason why The Sims is bestselling franchise on the PC.

Second, support your game, make gamers your friends and listen to their (reasonable) demands. Show that you care about them and at least some of them will be mature enough to give you money for your good work. Just look at Sins of the Solar Empire, Europa Universalis III. Or for a smaller-scale example, Armageddon Empires. All of them games that have been selling mostly through word of mouth.

Third, make a GOOD GAME. If you are in a shooter business, look at Bioshock or Valve, for example. And learn.

These are all great things to say in a game forum, but don't really translate to the business.

OK game developers, stop making sh*t! Now carry on.

Scrying the "reason" the Sims is the best selling franchise, particularly down to one item, is an exercise in empty windbaggery. While I agree that feature creep is one of the reasons that many PC games don't succeed, how many times have we seen developers crucified because their visuals look dated? Answer: plenty. It's a double edged sword, either your too advanced for human PCs or your visuals don't live up to Crysis. Not to mention that graphics are just one element of the many things that can go wrong in a PC game to slow things down.

On point 2, that's a nice pie-in-the-sky point that again completely discounts that these companies are businesses. How exactly would you tell your shareholders and investors that you're not going to make games for the market where the money is, and on top of that, regardless of how the game performs you're going to keep dumping man hours and resources into it? Welcome to the fast track for getting your butt fired. The fact that PC gamers feel entitled to continued support is just another reason why people like Crytek's blowhard of a CEO is giving us the finger. While I strongly feel that the PC is a viable platform, I also strongly believe it is one that needs to adapt to become profitable, and part of that is curbing the sense of entitlement some gamers have. If the game is successful, and it makes business sense to keep supporting the game, then do that, but it can't be a blanket statement.

And, gamers are notoriously unpleasant to try and make friends with. Treat them with respect, but you're not going to find developers getting in line to have gamers tell them how to make their game. Make gamers your customers, but friends? No.

3 - Writers: Write good books! Chefs: Cook good food!

Make good games! Aw, hell, why has no one thought of that yet?! Devs, take note, your problems are solved. Just. Make. Good. Games.

Also think about what you just said. You basically said to take what other people have done and do it like them. First of all, you say that like that's not exactly what the industry is doing anyway, and you're saying it as though all they have to do is just stop laying around all day playing table tennis when they should be making a good game. Seriously!

First of all, the great thing about Bioshock is it takes chances. A shooter based on Ayn Rand philosophies set in an underwater city during the cold war? Creative, but far from a sure thing. Maybe Levine would have been better off just learning from Half-Life 2 and redoing that. Fortunately at some point he pushed the "make a good game button" and *poof* the idea worked! Silly how many developers just forget to push that easy button.

Forgive my tone, but statements like "just make a good game" annoy me to no end, and I'm sure it makes developers want to put their head through the monitor. Not only does it stymie innovation and creativity, not only is it condescending to the nth degree, it also completely misses how much effort and creativity it takes to even make a middleware game.

Elysium wrote:
How many console games truly outsell PC games, though? Aside from the big releases, I don't see console sales being marginally better than PC sales.

To be fair, almost all of them. The average console games sells more than the average PC game by orders of magnitude. Truly standout PC games can be as dominant as any game on the market, but shovelware PC games are lucky to do a quarter of the business of their console brethren. It's obviously very hard to draw direct comparisons, partly because major studios are repsonsible for most of the console shovelware while it falls on indies to fill the holes on the PC side, but a quick look at the big sales lists at the end of any given year shows that being average on a handheld is better than being average on a console is better than being average on a PC.

To be a bit more fair, let's make an analogy. Consoles are like network television. To get a show up there, you have to have a good pilot that the network execs are ready to take a risk on, and let a real audience take a look. If you make it, you're usually either a great success with a long life, a marginal success with a few seasons, or canceled by the fourth episode. Consoles are similar in that, if you don't catch the attention of a major publisher, you're not going to be able to afford a dev kit, or the certification process, and get published to a wide enough audience in order to be consumed on any level.

PCs are the exact opposite. In short, they are the YouTube of gaming developers. You don't need any history or credentials as a great writer to put a video on YouTube. In fact, you need nothing at all but a camera, a mic, and a subject to go on. The same goes for game developers. You can shovel out your game (hell, if Limbo of the Lost can find a publisher, who can't?) and get to an audience, and like YouTube, the users can decide whether or not it's worth their time. Shovelware PC games are a much larger pool of software than console shovelware EVER will be. Especially since the vast majority of console shovelware isn't even in the same class as PC shovelware. Most shovelware we see on consoles are licensed properties (a.k.a. money grabs) from movies or television shows that only use the power of the brand to make their money backed up by shoddy games.

PCs are the exact opposite. In short, they are the YouTube of gaming developers. You don't need any history or credentials as a great writer to put a video on YouTube. In fact, you need nothing at all but a camera, a mic, and a subject to go on. The same goes for game developers.

I agree with that. I'm on record as saying the future of the PC is not in the big publishers but the guys in their basements. The PC is in many ways getting back to its roots, which has brought us some amazing titles including Defcon, Darwinia, Portal, Dwarf Fortress, Armaggedon Empires, Line Rider and plenty of others.

To be a bit more fair, let's make an analogy. Consoles are like network television.

I'm going to go along with you some here, and speaking now not from the indie dev angle, if consoles are network TV then the PC is basic cable. If you can get your show on NBC or A&E which are you going to pick? So, despite the fact that the big money tries to get on the networks, that's not to say you don't occasionally get some amazing tv outside of there, say a BSG or a Daily Show. But, most of the rest (Reno 911 or Eureka) is dramatically smaller in audience in its averageness than say (The Big Band Theory or CSI Miami)

Well I can say the #1 reason I no longer have any interest in developing PC games. The "teh grafx r gay" people. Its absolutely tiring to see your forum fill up with people comparing screenshots and complaining about why x graphical technique wasn't used on day 1 instead of them actually talking about playing the game.

The console fanbase on other hand hasn't hit that point yet, but I predict another year of PS3 vs 360 comparisons and "omg x game isn't 1080p I counted all the pixels!" and console gamers will be just as bad.

If you don't like the game, you can return it.

I'm with until there. Where can you return console games?

Elysium wrote:
If you don't like the game, you can return it.

I'm with until there. Where can you return console games?

To be honest, I don't know, but the few times that I have been in EBgames, I always saw people trying to return console games. Correct me if I am wrong please

Elysium wrote:

While I strongly feel that the PC is a viable platform, I also strongly believe it is one that needs to adapt to become profitable, and part of that is curbing the sense of entitlement some gamers have. If the game is successful, and it makes business sense to keep supporting the game, then do that, but it can't be a blanket statement.

The problem is, some games HAVE catered to this sense of entitlement and become successful. A lot of the classics have done it; they're not riding on nostalgia alone (having re-played some old games because of nostalgia, I now know that nostalgia does not a good game make). The sense of entitlement comes purely from experience. Many feel that if one game can do it, why not another? Obviously the cry of "make good games" is not a real solution. But gamers are rarely that vague. It does take talent on the developers' end to figure out some of these things (real game balance, strong story, compelling gameplay) but many things (user-friendly menu interfaces and inventories, eliminating graphical anomalies, making your environments make sense) take nothing more than common sense. I'd say Crysis was pretty darn strong on the common sense elements of the game, but otherwise failed to deliver on the things that are much harder to nail down. And outside of the game, they left their common sense behind on marketing. It was foolhardy to think that extremely high system requirements should make a selling point. "Look at our graphics! They're so good, you'll need a new computer to play the game!" It's pretty sad that nobody said "Er, wait... Not only is that not true, it's going to make the game a lot less attractive..."

fathamburger wrote:

Well I can say the #1 reason I no longer have any interest in developing PC games. The "teh grafx r gay" people. Its absolutely tiring to see your forum fill up with people comparing screenshots and complaining about why x graphical technique wasn't used on day 1 instead of them actually talking about playing the game.

The console fanbase on other hand hasn't hit that point yet, but I predict another year of PS3 vs 360 comparisons and "omg x game isn't 1080p I counted all the pixels!" and console gamers will be just as bad.

This should not discourage you, especially when most of those people have NO concept of what the development cycle entails. There are always going to be morons and critics out there that are clueless.

fathamburger wrote:

The console fanbase on other hand hasn't hit that point yet, but I predict another year of PS3 vs 360 comparisons and "omg x game isn't 1080p I counted all the pixels!" and console gamers will be just as bad.

Are you kidding? I think it's just as bad on the consoles. Ever seen the discussion around a game that doesn't quite look at good as the best looking games on that console? It ain't pretty...

Duoae wrote:
fathamburger wrote:

The console fanbase on other hand hasn't hit that point yet, but I predict another year of PS3 vs 360 comparisons and "omg x game isn't 1080p I counted all the pixels!" and console gamers will be just as bad.

Are you kidding? I think it's just as bad on the consoles. Ever seen the discussion around a game that doesn't quite look at good as the best looking games on that console? It ain't pretty...

Indeed, especially when they put up 360 vs. PS3 videos that look NEARLY IDENTICAL. They nitpick on the funniest things. It's amusing and annoying at the same time.

Elysium wrote:
How many console games truly outsell PC games, though? Aside from the big releases, I don't see console sales being marginally better than PC sales.

To be fair, almost all of them. The average console games sells more than the average PC game by orders of magnitude. Truly standout PC games can be as dominant as any game on the market, but shovelware PC games are lucky to do a quarter of the business of their console brethren. It's obviously very hard to draw direct comparisons, partly because major studios are repsonsible for most of the console shovelware while it falls on indies to fill the holes on the PC side, but a quick look at the big sales lists at the end of any given year shows that being average on a handheld is better than being average on a console is better than being average on a PC.

I am sure that console version sales number is better. However, I think there are several factors to consider:

1) Multi-platform games are guaranteed to sell better on consoles. Because
A) less DRM induced hassle
B) Chances of the PC version of the game being a crappy console port is HIGH
C) Less worrying about whether or not your system will be able to handle the game
D) If you don't like the game, you can return it (correct me if I am wrong here, I don't have any console games so I don't know for sure ).
E) Ability to Rent the game.
2) Console version of a game usually get more advertisement (More TV time)
3) Usually multi-platform games cost a lot more to make and advertise.

That said, I wonder if there are data around that tallied the cost vs. sales number of games released over the years. I am betting that PC only games tend to bring in profits at lower sales numbers.

There is a trend which has been remarked on before somewhere but I cannot remember: Most of the Piracy complaints have been from companies that have aligned themselves with EA. I cannot remember many others really going to town about the subject.

After all there are arguements to be had now on the console space, where many games can be had from the same sources as the PC games, and all it takes is a little surgery to the console and to make sure it's off the internet, and you are sorted.

The Crysis issue has been a bit silly as the majority of the issues of course as mentioned countless times here has been the high system requirements. Unless that was not a factor, you truly won't be able to know if the pirates were the reason why it didn't sell as many as they were after. Mind you 1.5 million units is not a small amount for the PC space, why is that really an issue?

Game companies are run by humans that make mistakes. So when they see countless copies being downloaded, and countless posts by people claiming they only pirate in order to demo the game, the companies still feel ripped off. Their efforts would pay off more in the console arena, while PC gamers just delete their game, and zero revenue was generated. Even if the pirate played for three hours, and then decided it was a turd.

Sometimes we pay for stuff that is not good. We have all bought games, music, books, and gone to movies that were not worth the price we were charged. This is a a bummer, and our word of mouth, along with an industry of reviewers will punish poor entertainment. But it is going to cost us something to participate. Otherwise, we can get our info from others that shelled out their money.

I don't blame any company for complaining about the way piracy ruins this market.

nsmike wrote:

PCs are the exact opposite. In short, they are the YouTube of gaming developers. You don't need any history or credentials as a great writer to put a video on YouTube. In fact, you need nothing at all but a camera, a mic, and a subject to go on. The same goes for game developers. You can shovel out your game (hell, if Limbo of the Lost can find a publisher, who can't?) and get to an audience, and like YouTube, the users can decide whether or not it's worth their time. Shovelware PC games are a much larger pool of software than console shovelware EVER will be. Especially since the vast majority of console shovelware isn't even in the same class as PC shovelware. Most shovelware we see on consoles are licensed properties (a.k.a. money grabs) from movies or television shows that only use the power of the brand to make their money backed up by shoddy games.

One thing that I always bring up in these arguments that no one seems to notice is that there can financial advantage to releasing a game on the PC. Namely, developers and publishers don't have to pay licensing fees to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. No Dev kit to buy, no approval process to go through. While this may result in less QA on a PC release, it is definately cheaper.

My question is how much cheaper? Without the licensing does the game make 5% more for the publisher and developer? 10%? How much more does the developer or publisher save on physical media if it was sold through Steam-like distribution? Another 5%? If a developer can get a bigger slice or completely cut out the publisher on digitial distribution, that can make it worth it as well.

I'm not sure what's wrong with Cevat. It seems like he doesn't want us to buy or even play his games.

* Officially will not buy Crysis Warhead. Hell maybe I'll pirate it, and not even play it.

PoderOmega wrote:

One thing that I always bring up in these arguments that no one seems to notice is that there can financial advantage to releasing a game on the PC. Namely, developers and publishers don't have to pay licensing fees to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. No Dev kit to buy, no approval process to go through. While this may result in less QA on a PC release, it is definately cheaper.

My question is how much cheaper? Without the licensing does the game make 5% more for the publisher and developer? 10%? How much more does the developer or publisher save on physical media if it was sold through Steam-like distribution? Another 5%? If a developer can get a bigger slice or completely cut out the publisher on digitial distribution, that can make it worth it as well.

Like you, I have no idea what the difference in cost would be. But I imagine it would be offset to some degree by the ease it is to write for a console versus the PC. Writing code for every video card, sound card, and chipset had to drive costs up to some degree. Writing to a (for the most part) static console has to be easier, and therefore cheaper.

Jayhawker wrote:

Game companies are run by humans that make mistakes. So when they see countless copies being downloaded, and countless posts by people claiming they only pirate in order to demo the game, the companies still feel ripped off. Their efforts would pay off more in the console arena, while PC gamers just delete their game, and zero revenue was generated. Even if the pirate played for three hours, and then decided it was a turd.

Sometimes we pay for stuff that is not good. We have all bought games, music, books, and gone to movies that were not worth the price we were charged. This is a a bummer, and our word of mouth, along with an industry of reviewers will punish poor entertainment. But it is going to cost us something to participate. Otherwise, we can get our info from others that shelled out their money.

I don't blame any company for complaining about the way piracy ruins this market.

Jay, don't get me wrong, I am all for supporting the developers. But what I am frustrated with these claims is that they paint a unfairly negative picture for talented people that want to develop for PC games.

I am sick of seeing developers accepting "standard practices" that they feel that they MUST follow because their sales number isn't as high as Halo 3.
So much more money and effort are wasted (IMO) on:

1) paying the DRM providers... Added cost of "protected" games.
2) Not being able to put enough effort to develop the core of a game, because everyone knows multi-platform sells more copies of the game.
3) More money wasted on CSR to handle the added complexity of installation and instability that DRM inccur.
4) More money and effort NEED to be devoted to marketing because that initial sales number is all that mattered, customer retention is secondary.
5) Less willing to be creative and take risks because of all of the above requires crap load more initial funding, so high risk ideas should be avoided.

I, for one, go out of my way to support PC games. I figure it is my way of showing respect to the developers that are willing to push the envelope, and for thanking them for bring hours of enjoyments to my life.
But I am tired of all the problems that I encountered with games lately due to the factors I listed above. And I am tired of seeing prominent developers, that Indy developers look up to, making overly negative claims about the target audience.

I accept the fact that games can't be all good, or worth that $50. But why can't some developer accept that too?

As an extension, I think that in our current society. It is too easy, and often preferable, to just blame someone else for problems. Some kid rubbed a store, BLAME THE GAMES AND MOVIES. Accidents happens and some guy spilled hot coffee on his leg, SUE THE COFFEE MAKER FOR NOT LETTING EVERYONE KNOW THAT THE COFFEE IS HOT, etc.

I am just so sick of all this.

Cool. Thanks for that! It's certainly interesting.

Duoae wrote:
Stengah wrote:

I want to say I've read a journal/article on Ars Technica about a larger study that came to the same conclusions.

Want to link to the article? Remember who it was by? I can't find it :/ Or was that sentence supposed to go:

"I want to say i've read a journal/article on Ars Technica about a larger study that came to the same conclusions... but i can't."

;)

More along the lines of:
"I want to say I've read a journal/article on Ars Technica about a larger study that came to the same conclusions... but I don't have time to find it right now."
Now that I have time, I've looked and I was semi-right. The study's goal was "to measure the extent to which music downloads over peer-to-peer file sharing networks ... affect music purchasing activity in Canada."

They found:

In the aggregate, we are unable to discover any direct relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchases in Canada. The analysis of the entire Canadian population does not uncover either a positive or negative relationship between the number of files downloaded from P2P networks and CDs purchased. That is, we find no direct evidence to suggest that the net effect of P2P file-sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole.
....
However, our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing. We estimate that the effect of one additional P2P download per month is to increase music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year

It's not the only study to find similar results either. This 2005 study found that:

Active P2P users spend almost 4.5 times as much on legal music downloads as other music fans, a survey of more than 600 computer-using music fans conducted by TLQ revealed.
Stengah wrote:

They found:

In the aggregate, we are unable to discover any direct relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchases in Canada. The analysis of the entire Canadian population does not uncover either a positive or negative relationship between the number of files downloaded from P2P networks and CDs purchased. That is, we find no direct evidence to suggest that the net effect of P2P file-sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole.
....
However, our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing. We estimate that the effect of one additional P2P download per month is to increase music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year

I don't know if I like their conclusions. You're looking at a specific group of people who obviously have an interest in music (those who download over P2P). Isn't it safe to assume that CD purchasing among a group of people highly interested in music is going to be higher than the average? I'd think a better comparison for the P2P crowd would be people who attend 1 or more concerts per year.

It's like comparing video game pirates to the whole of the population of Canada and saying that people who pirate video games are more likely to buy video games. Of course. If you're the kind of person who enjoys video games and is tech-savvy enough to pirate them, you're going to be MUCH more inclined to buy them than some 75 year old woman from the Arctic Circle.

I'll freely admit I download games.

Now that I've made that blanket statement I'll clarify

Being in Australia release dates can sometimes be a month or more behind the US, Europe, or where ever.

So for example we'll use Football Manager, I've played just about every version going back to the original championship manager from 1993, but in the last few years the new versions have been coming out very late and in limited number. The moment I've seen the game launch I'll download it wherever I can find it, and once it's available at my local store I'll buy it. Basically I can't delay the gratification when everyone else in the world has access.

When Football Manager 2005 came out my house mate and myself went to every video game retailer in a 50km radius to find who would be stocking it, the only place getting it was EB and they were only getting 2 copies. We put a deposit down and came back the day the shipment came in, they had to dig through the boxes to get the copies out. so for about a month (until the next delivery with FM05 came in) the only two legit copies of the game in town were in our house.