The wanted 4-5 million sales?
I don't think there are that many computers out there who can actually play this goddamn game.

"Code of Bethesda's highly-anticipated follow-up to Oblivion, Fallout 3, has already been leaked onto the internet and is available on various torrent sites.
The official game isn't due for release until October 28 in the US and October 31 in Europe, but the Xbox 360 version of the game has been hacked and at the time of writing had well over 2000 people downloading the 6.52GB file on one site alone. "
Source:[url=]http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/fallout-3-leaked-online-three-weeks-before-release[/url]
Goes to show that the PC isn't the only platform that suffers from piracy.
Maybe this is the end of console gaming too *sarcasm*
It's fairly obvious that piracy is damaging to the industry, but I don't believe the problem is as massive as the publishers would have us believe.
I think there will always be a market for good quality, reasonably priced, well supported games.

That's the key right there. Put out a product that works, is a quality piece of software, and gives the consumer incentive to buy it and you'll sell it. Publishers need to forget about the pirates. They're always going to be there, they're always going to pirate, you can't force them to buy games by implementing some cock-eyed DRM scheme, and (this is the most important point) they DON'T AFFECT YOUR BOTTOM LINE. They're NOT customers and aren't going to buy your games anyway. They're not even worthy of consideration.
KingofGnG summed it up quite handily.

Yup. Talking about pirates, especially when you say all pirates, as if their owning the game actually COSTS you money, is ridiculous. Your profit comes from the people who buy. It is not eliminated by pirates but by your own inability to create and market a good game.
Phantom profits are meaningless and simply conjecture anyway. Crying about them is just making excuses. Your market is what it is, so go win it, I say. You're there to make money, not wait for the tooth fairy to slip you magic money while you sleep.

Also, don't forget to take into the factor of DRM softwares. EA has been handling this part with notorious effect recently, with Spore having well over a million copies; the pirated version of the game has half the number of their retail sales.
Additionally, DRM can also make/break your game in the eyes of the PC public. A lot of people are clamoring for EA to stop their DRM (it's the worst: the dreaded SecuROM), and people have even made a petition for it (my signature being one of many on it).
Also, I agree with Blarg. If the game is being pirated, it's because of their inability to create a good market for their said game.

There are many problems w/ PC gaming. And no, DRM and piracy isn't the only problem with it. There's a lot of problems here on the PC.
Don't Let The Pirates Have Best Version Available PERIOD
The problem is game designers and publishers give the pirate NO reason to buy the game in the store. When a game goes GOLD and somehow Version 1.0 is leaked out weeks ahead of time of the official release and the pirate can download it for free without any sort of DRM, you think the pirate is going to wait for the game to official drop to buy it when it'll be the same Version 1.0 likely with some sort of DRM? Ha!
Why would a pirate spend $50 on an inferior version of the game that'll have nasty protection like Securom Internet Edition or StarForce, when he/she can get a superior copy of the game without it for a free download?
Patches as incentives are an answer. One answer is to force gamers to register an account with the company. And by doing this, now you can download patches directly from their website -- a la the Stardock way of doing things. Valve does this as well, but Valve is really smart in basically forcing you to back-up your entire copy of the game since it just updates everything on its own for you (instead of giving you a few files in a patch zip). No gamers wants an outdated version of the game -- especially when there's a better, newer one out.
Maybe I'm crazy, but here's another thought. How about releasing a Day One patch with even the tiniest bit of extra DLC content for buyers as a good start? Just b/c a game goes GOLD, doesn't mean the game production should go idle -- b/c this is often when the game gets an unfortunate leak. This time should be spent on patching the game for Day One release with bug fixes and maybe even a tiny DLC stuff. You got to do something so that upon Day One release, the pirate still doesn't have the best and newest version of the game.
Crap Vid Cards in PC's for Casual Joe
Go to your Best Buy and Circuit City -- look at the PC's they sell. Namely the cheaper ones, which many casual gamers buy. Sure, they meet most of the requirements. But, wait -- what about the video card? Ah, if that's a requirement that punches a casual PC users in the face who wants to try a certain game, that's often what prefab stores skimp on more than anything else. And we all know, especially these days, PC games are very GPU-driven.
Ridiculous system requirements for PC games
I knew many who were smiling for ACPC on the PC. But, who the hell was going to buy Assassin's Creed PC when it came out with its double-core processor requirements? You're already limiting your sales numbers, already. People will just buy the console version, if they have a console already (X-360 or PC).
This rings true more so for PORTS more so than anything else. Look at GTA4's upcoming requirement for a double-core processor. Sure, that's what is now flooding the market in store for NEW PC sales, but that's if you bought a PC in the last YEAR. If not, you're gonna have to upgrade your processor just to run ACPC or GTA4. UbiSoft has a VERY HIGH record of porting games from console to PC, dropping ridiculous system requirements for the PC version.
The Console Version First, PC version later ordeal
Like I said, UbiSoft has a VERY HIGH record of porting games from console to PC, dropping ridiculous system requirements for the PC version. See these games for their original PC version release -- SC: Double Agent, ACPC, the original GRAW PC, and the original Rainbow Six: Vegas PC. But, it's also worth noting -- all these games were released first for consoles, then LATER to the PC -- so of course, sales are already gonna be lower for the PC version. Oh yeah -- and if you ran those games on even new PC's (at that time those came out), those games still did not run technically very well; all were lazy ports. It took patches and optimizations to fix that, for the most part; usually does, since "release now, patch later" is the motto of the PC gaming world.
Who's gonna buy any of these on the PC when they likely already have them on the console already? Who wants to be double-dipped on, going another round of spending $40-50 admission on the PC version when they got it on the console?
If console gamers who own this game already do buy it again for the PC, to see the changes and additions for the PC version, they'll buy it when it hits the Bargain Bin or MUCH lower -- yes, I've known many that do so, just to actually have it on the PC.
Why do you think companies like BethSoft aim to release ALL versions of the game at the SAME time? Duh -- it's to maximum sales across ALL platforms, so none of the major platforms feels left out.

Very true.
Another big issues is PC games releasing Alpha-in-a-box or Beta-in-a-box. Gothic 3, anyone? Geez...
As much as I want to like that game b/c underneath that mess is probably a good game, ugh -- load times are still awful. Game still runs like junk, too. Still a buggy good with broken quests and other errors, too. Who wants to deal with that?

Now, I’ve always find this opinion really intriguing as its something that pops up alot. My view is the development of PC games through the 90s to the present day has made the computer market what it is today. Some may say that’s an obvious perspective, but what I’m trying to put across is the impact of the game devs pushing boundaries and constantly striving for better graphics, bigger environments, more effects etc. being one of the main reasons why hardware manufacturers keep designing smaller, faster more powerful components.
Thus, in my opinion, a least some developers should make games with the highest level of commercial technology they can.
Without this catalyst, we would be in a very different situation.
All advances through console generations have come as a direct result of the improved computer technology, and yes, the processing power of the current generation of consoles are comparably better than an average PC, but this is likely to wax and wane as it has before. I see this as no reason why a developer shouldn’t be trying to use the best tools they can. Everyone across the board has to upgrade from time to time, whether it be a whole system, for the console users, or more module based, for the PC users. So it seems reasonable to me that a ‘gamer’ should upgrade their system at regular intervals (personally, its currently about 3 years at an average for me at the moment, and I tend to find its only toward the end of the span that I can’t play new releases). People who use their PCs for work or consoles as PVRs are a slightly different story, but with a similar weighting.
I’m not suggesting that everyone should shell out on a brand new, top of the range set though, actually quite the opposite. The constant arrival of new technology and games using it drives down the price of its predecessors making them affordable to different people at different times. If however game devs chose only to work in the comfort zone of the middle technology range, prices would remain relatively constant, stopping alot of people being able to purchase anything, the market would stagnate due to those that can afford it not needing to upgrade and the industry as a whole would suffer.
Like I said, this argument returns almost annually and its not by any means the full range of games, usually just the choice few. This year it was crysis, last year it was supreme commander and so on and so forth. But its something (having worked in the industry) I feel is often overlooked.
Hope that gives a different perspective on it :)

There are two things I like to add to this discussion:
First: Back in the days, a game for the Amiga came out, from a very successfull company. This company was nearly bankrupt because of the oldskool floppy disk piracy. In a last attempt to keep going, they released the game and wrote in their manual(!) that if gamers want more games from them, they must not copy that game.
The game was released and loved by gamers. It was played a lot. Pirated as well. Some time after, the company shut down and never was able to release another game. Thanks piracy.
Second: Every console games developer knows exactly what system the game will be running on, he knows he will reach a broad audience of casual gamers and he knows that if he makes a PC version, he will get a kick in the butt for thanks. There was an interview with the Call of Duty 4 dev's, who said they were shocked when they saw how many online players played with pirated copies. And thus, a new trend emerges. Prime example: Gears of War. First an XBox exclusive, than released on PC. Check Epic's forum to see how happy gamers are with the PC versions .. apparently you can loose all your saves any time you start up the game. The learned lesson: buy the console version, and you'll get a working game, which will look great on your current system. OR: wait until you can barely run it on your PC and enjoy the extra faults of your version.
So .. PC gaming dying? I'm not sure, but I personally don't think so, since there are still a lot of PC gamers out there. But the two things that are really damaging is careless pirating and as a result, developers which only produce crappy PC ports of console games and thanks to pirating have *no* motivation whatsoever to encourage players to stick to their PCs.

The best way to inspire or convince PC gamers to buy their games is a simple golden rule that made many companies famous in the Amiga era: Originality.
Now a days, games, be it either PC or Console are just churn out copies and clones of one another, "Metal Gear 500, "Gore FPS 86", "Yet one more FPS 2", etc. Original games do sell well but perhaps Originality is a misused word since now a days it is hard to be original in anything so let us use innovation, and no I'm not talking graphics. I'm talking story, I'm talking game mechanics, types of games, etc.
Why did you think SINS sold well? Or the Witcher? Perhaps even hidden gems such as Pathologic could shine if the mentality of developers and reviews alike change.
Reviews also take a bite on this. To them if the game doesn't present top notch graphics and isn't a clone of anything, it gets low grades driving away possible consumer who would just rather download the game or not play it all.
Of all people, us, gog members should remember our cult games and classics that should thru innovation and still shine in our mind. Baldurs Gate, Torment, Fallout, MOO, MOM, Civ, Lemmings and so many many many others.
Those are the keyword to me, Innovation and Originality.

If anything it just goes to show how open-source gaming is the way forward for PCs. You can't meaningfully pirate a game that is available for free.
The companies can make money from support, bonus packs etc or (ick) subscription fees.

Or advertising.

Precisely. While I disagree with in-game ads in games which you have paid for and/or which don't fit in with the game style, I have no problem with free games supported by advertising, especially if they are well-integrated into the game on billboards or similar.
GRiD did this quite well (despite being a paid-for game), if I remember correctly, with buying cars through eBay and suchlike.
In terms of the subscription model, take World of Warcraft as an example (don't actually take it, it will eat your soul). As far as I know the client is free when you purchase an account, and no-one in their right mind will tell you that World of Warcraft isn't a financially successful game.
Selling the software as is just doesn't work in today's piracy-ridden climate.

Advertising doesn't necessarily have to be in-game. I downloaded Prince of Persia for free and the only advertising it had was when you started the game up and when switching between menus, if I recall correctly. It wasn't obtrusive at all and it saved me about a 100 danish kr (about $18). More companies should adopt this approach imo.