PC game piracy examined

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: chizow
DRM does benefit the paying customer when it works by ensuring the continued viability of PC games. Its certainly protects our interests more than than piracy rates estimated anywhere from 50-90% heh. Just as someone pointed out earlier, the devs that can "hack it" will survive and continue to make games for the PC, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones that are making the best games. They may just be the ones with the most effective and invasive DRM (Steam, Blizzard, MMOs etc).

You sir are a idiot for the bold part alone.

I really..... REALLY want to try spore but the current DRM it uses will turn it into nothing more then a drink coaster within a year.

Online activation.
Unable to activate a game when using my laptop in locations (for months at a time) without internet access. I bring a copy of windows, all games I wish to play and drivers in case I need to reinstall windows. The HD is also small (200 gigs, I already had to uninstall several games to defrag the HD).

Install/system limit.
1 gaming laptop (it can play crysis at mostly medium), one desktop. I format both every few months. I upgrade from time to time, HD's on both being next. The result is that in a very short time I lose all installs from my legally purchased game.

Lack of information/Hiding information.
There is no documentation of what DRM software is included, what it does and how I might turn my game into a coaster. This should be illegal.

Lack of quality.
Pirated versions are usually superior. No CD check, no install/system limits, no online activation. Only thing that I might have to do is put in a provided serial number or use a keygen.

Bad customer support.
If I use up all the installs on my game, it is up to some random guys discretion whether or not to give me a extra install or to call me a pirate and go F. myself. Seriously, why would a pirate with his perfectly good copy of the game have to call tech support about his non existent install limit?



DRM software does not work, it will only get worse with the current approach BECAUSE it does not work. It is not my job to figure this out, but since you work at EA it IS yours.

-Edit- Also, I am just as bad a pirate to EA because you made me so. If you don't understand my previous statement or yell "PIRATE", you should be sweeping floors for a living.

This.

Give it up chizow. DRM is never noticeable by the pirates. It is only a concern for legit users. Your answer to that is to become much stricter and invasive with DRM, but the problem is that your solutions do not only negatively effect pirates. They negatively effect legit users too and a lot more so than it does now which is unacceptable. You do not care about that though. Your stance on this subject is basically, "Fuck the user. I don't care if they don't like it. I want to stop pirates. I am willing to do anything if I think it might help revitalize the PC gaming industry." You more or less want to screw us all to test your theory. I would rather the PC industry die and be forced to do everything on my console than let that happen. Your solution basically means we will be paying more for less and have it all come with a package containing more head aches in the process. If the industry goes that route then they will stop seeing my money and it will go to the console industry instead. It is that simple and there are too many people already willing to do that today with the current DRM. Your solution may stop the pirates, but it is so invasive that in the process you will kill the PC industry since too many people will choose to just go the way of the console instead of having to deal with all that crap.

Thankfully, the PC industry doesn't agree with you either. They know your solutions is far too drastic and is fiscal suicide.

Originally posted by: chizow
1. Online activation - clearly stated # of activations in a set time period
2. Online validation per instance - online key-uniqueness check.

Basically, in order to play games you need to be online period. Not everyone wants to do that and those that are ok with it cannot always do that when they want to (see traveling laptop users). I'm sorry you don't realize it and your dreams of wireless internet everywhere is currently non-existent and we have a while till that happens. Even when we start to see more it will only be in high populated areas which means all of the consumers who live in rural areas will be fucked and then you have the international factor to consider where you have large consumer bases in places where we will not see that kind of tech available for a lot longer. Then you need to consider that the amount of bandwidth needed to play games on this magical universal wireless internet will be high enough to the point that we will probably have to pay to use it.

Originally posted by: chizow
3. Episodal content - you pay for more content

Pay more for less basically....great. I realize that will not be the case with all games, but you know it will be with a lot of them.

Originally posted by: chizow
4. Monthly rental model - $10-15 per month

I have no problem with this, but I do not think it will be very popular. It works for genres like MMOs but I don't think that business model will work for all games.

Originally posted by: chizow
5. Pay-to-play - $25 flat fee, maybe .25 per playy session afterwards

This will be very unpopular and would never stick due to that fact. Remember, it is all about the money and if it doesn't make money then...

Originally posted by: chizow
6. Credit card, subscription or game card required

What happens in the cases where someone doesn't have a CC and loses their game card? Tough luck? Buy a new copy?

 

[bobross419]

I can see why you guys are all jumping down Chizow's throat, and even though I don't agree with everything he has said I do think that he has the best interests of the PC Gaming community in mind with his suggestions. It all comes down to wether or not PC Gaming will even be around a few years from now due to the lack of profits on the platform. I have to say that it sounds like a lot of you guys are jumping down Chizow's throat in an attempt to justify your own 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property because you don't have the integrity to go out and make the purchase. I haven't had any problems with DRM in the past or present, I steer clear of Activation Limited games and speak with my pocket book, but I don't go out and steal the game because I disagree with the protection scheme.

There are a lot of stupid users out there and the more difficult it can make the average user to play their games illegally the fewer acts of piracy there are. Sure they are never going to stop the hardcore pirates.

A lot of you guys keep pissing and moaning like 12 year olds, but you never actually come out with something like chizow's list. If you aren't having a constructive argument you are just in a penis waving contest. Make your arguments, but try and present a constructive solution (Yes I know some of you have made some constructive solutions) - I'm speaking more to folks and posts like Xavier's 1 or 2 above mine that bash all of the ideas presented, but don't even both trying to give a viable alternative.

The individual's interests are at stake here because the more PC game developers notice problems and lack of profits with the platform the less they are going to put in development of solid well rounded games. I know there is a big chicken and egg thing with this (I pirate because games don't have enough content, because designers aren't seeing the PC as profitable, because there is such a high level of piracy on the platform).

In regards to profits lost and piracy, I think it is safe to assume that at least 1 person that pirated the game would have bought it if the pirated copy wasn't readily available (In games with piracy counts of 100k+ I think we can safely assume that at least 1 person would have bought it). This shows a loss of profit, no matter how small. Any loss of profit on the part of the PC gaming industry is a bad thing for us at this point, but unfortunately we live in a society based on instant gratification - Instead of stopping to realize that 50 bucks now could mean PC gaming stays around for the next 10 years we skimp now, steal a game and demolish the gaming industry.


I'm at work typing between calls, so some incorrect spelling/grammar is to be expected.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bobross419
I have to say that it sounds like a lot of you guys are jumping down Chizow's throat in an attempt to justify your own 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property because you don't have the integrity to go out and make the purchase. I haven't had any problems with DRM in the past or present, I steer clear of Activation Limited games and speak with my pocket book, but I don't go out and steal the game because I disagree with the protection scheme.

That is quite the accusation. I think it only sounds like that to you because deep down you believe that most of those that argue against current DRM practices are those that pirate games. The reality is that there are very few if any posts here which suggest that any of us actually pirate. Personally, I do not download any games that I have not already purchased and the only time that I do is either when my original disks have gone missing or no longer work. That or I purchased the game, discovered that the DRM is preventing me from playing it properly, and used a downloaded copy instead as a result. If the DRM works as intended then it is no problem and no download takes place because there is no reason for me to do so. I don't think that is such a bad thing. All I want to do is use the product I purchased in the way that it was intended by the seller to work.

Originally posted by: bobross419
A lot of you guys keep pissing and moaning like 12 year olds, but you never actually come out with something like chizow's list. If you aren't having a constructive argument you are just in a penis waving contest. Make your arguments, but try and present a constructive solution (Yes I know some of you have made some constructive solutions) - I'm speaking more to folks and posts like Xavier's 1 or 2 above mine that bash all of the ideas presented, but don't even both trying to give a viable alternative.

All I want is for the product to work at regular cost without an overly intrusive hassle. As stated previously, I have no problem with DRM usage to try and stop pirating but the fact is that it has come to a point where it is negatively effecting me too much. Where is the line drawn?

Also, if you are going to call me out like that then all I ask is that you read the whole thread first. I know it is a long thread and time is scarce in most of our lives but don't do any sort of calling out unless you first take the time to look into your accusation. The truth is that I have already stated my feelings about the viable alternatives in previous posts. These alternatives are those which I have supported for a long time now. It just so happens that in this specific thread someone else spelled it out for me so I quoted it and expressed my support. The solution is to offer greater incentives to buy the games which would not be accessible to pirates. There are many ways to do that from online content downloads to creating a high quality MP experience in addition to the SP. These incentives make people want to buy the game so they can access whatever it is they want online.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
I think you genuinely believe that DRM is the answer, and there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of shareholders and CEO's of big corporations will probably agree with you. Thing is, they don't play video games, don't talk to gamers, and they're not the ones buying the product. They just think.. People are pirating are games!? On no!.. we must do something about that. So they invest in cd keys, disc checks, and online authentication. None of which have ever stopped piracy. Slowed it down.. maybe. But at what cost to their reputation and the reputation of the industry as a whole?

Like you said above, the chances of consumers accepting more invasive DRM when they already oppose the current form is very unlikely. So my question is why continue down that path?

And once again, you're making a distinction between effective forms of DRM and ineffective forms of DRM. If you don't understand there are effective forms of DRM that do actually prevent piracy then there is no point in continuing arguing with you if you're going to continually gravitate towards ineffective forms.

As for your generalization about CEOs of big corporations etc, I guess you don't realize that many of these people are in this industry because they love gaming. They grew up gaming and seize an opportunity to do something they love to do. Go look through some company bios, you'll see that many of these people dropped successful careers to take a chance on creating video games because that's what they enjoyed. BioWare as an example was founded by a bunch of Canadian doctors. These aren't a bunch of crusty old guys who are looking to steal your milk money, they're typically gamers first and business-minded second.

This is a very contradictory statement. If DRM ensures the continued viability of PC games, then why is the estimated piracy rate still 50-90%? Seems like it's not ensuring anything.

Name one form of DRM that "works" in actually stopping piracy, and I guarantee I can go out, find the game, download it, and be playing it illegally within a few hours. Doesn't matter if it's subscription based or not.

Again, it's greater incentive to buy games, not more DRM that is the answer. But like I said above, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, so respond it you'd like, but for me there is no use arguing about this any longer.

Its not a contradictory statement if those estimates are for games with no DRM (World of Goo) or games with ineffective DRM (Spore). Of course you don't see rampant piracy for games with effective DRM, like WoW and other MMOs, or titles that are tied to online activity/registration like battle.net or Steam.

Yes you can find pirated versions of all of the above, but the gameplay experience will be different and you will be segregated from the legitimate users. When I log on to an MMO for an example, I can say with nearly 100% assurance that everyone on that server is playing with a legitimate copy.

As for more incentive to buy games vs. more DRM, I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can put the incentive out there in games but without DRM it just becomes more incentive to pirate.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Canai
DRM does not benefit the paying customer in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it often prevents the customer from reselling their games or installing them on all of their computers (desktop, laptop, HTPC etc...). Many gamers boycott invasive DRM - just look at what happened with Spore - how is that ensuring continuing viability of PC games?

Again, you're only focusing on DRM that you find offensive. There's plenty of other forms of DRM that do exactly as defined, manage your digital rights, that also benefit the paying customer and are not offensive.

I'd hardly consider Steam or an MMO to contain invasive DRM. Steam doesn't blacklist legitimate and legal programs. Steam doesn't install hidden processes and leave bits of itself behind on the computer, even after uninstalling. Steam doesn't limit how many times you can install it.

But Steam does limit number of users to 1 user. It also prevents you from reselling your game. It also prevents you from physically or digitally sharing your game. It is successful DRM as it does just what it sets out to do, manage your digital rights.

This is semi-OT, but have you been following The Dark Knight's piracy numbers? Most pirated movie of all time, highest grossing box office movie, more than three million DVD sales on the first day, and 600,000 blu-ray sales on the first day. The previous record was held by Iron Man, which sold 250k. So why is it that the most pirated movie ever happened to sell more, and faster, than any other movie?

Maybe piracy isn't the evil demon you seem convinced it is.

Is this not common sense? Sales/Piracy are going to directly corrolate with popularity if effective controls are not in place. There's always going to be people who would rather steal than pay, but if theft is not an option, there's a portion of those people who would ultimately pay. This is no different than an example people love to quote, Spore. Yes it was the most pirated game of the year, but it also sold a tremendous number of copies with 1.7million which also falls in line with the sales to piracy ratio of other highly pirated games (including Sins of a Solar Empire). Compare that with something like Wrath of the Lich King, which will undoubtedly be the top PC seller of the year and you won't see anything close to that ratio of pirated copies. Why? Because it employs effective DRM.

 

[bobross419]

Originally posted by: Xavier434


Also, if you are going to call me out like that then all I ask is that you read the whole thread first. I know it is a long thread and time is scarce in most of our lives but don't do any sort of calling out unless you first take the time to look into your accusation. The truth is that I have already stated my feelings about the viable alternatives in previous posts. These alternatives are those which I have supported for a long time now. It just so happens that in this specific thread someone else spelled it out for me so I quoted it and expressed my support. The solution is to offer greater incentives to buy the games which would not be accessible to pirates. There are many ways to do that from online content downloads to creating a high quality MP experience in addition to the SP. These incentives make people want to buy the game so they can access whatever it is they want online.

I've read the whole thread, but over the course of the past few days. I didn't mean to single you out specifically, just the one post of yours as an example. No offense intended

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
You sir are a idiot for the bold part alone.
*snip*

If the rest of your post is based on this statement its not worth reading. But clearly you're a genius because you can selectively highlight a few words and ignore the next 3 while completely miss the point.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow
As for your generalization about CEOs of big corporations etc, I guess you don't realize that many of these people are in this industry because they love gaming. They grew up gaming and seize an opportunity to do something they love to do. Go look through some company bios, you'll see that many of these people dropped successful careers to take a chance on creating video games because that's what they enjoyed. BioWare as an example was founded by a bunch of Canadian doctors. These aren't a bunch of crusty old guys who are looking to steal your milk money, they're typically gamers first and business-minded second.

I'd say that is correct about many developers, but that is not the case when it comes to most publishers and the investors who currently hold a lot more of the power than they used to in the past. They only care about the $$$ and they are usually the ones calling these sort of shots. The devs are bound by contracts.

Originally posted by: chizow
Its not a contradictory statement if those estimates are for games with no DRM (World of Goo) or games with ineffective DRM (Spore). Of course you don't see rampant piracy for games with effective DRM, like WoW and other MMOs, or titles that are tied to online activity/registration like battle.net or Steam.

Yes you can find pirated versions of all of the above, but the gameplay experience will be different and you will be segregated from the legitimate users. When I log on to an MMO for an example, I can say with nearly 100% assurance that everyone on that server is playing with a legitimate copy.

As for more incentive to buy games vs. more DRM, I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can put the incentive out there in games but without DRM it just becomes more incentive to pirate.

MMOs also provide the kind of incentives that people like mindcycle and I want. However, one of the main reasons they are able to do that is because they are MMOs. I do not believe that other genres would be as successful because they simply cannot afford it and not enough people are willing to pay $15/mo to play COD for example, and that is what is needed to offer the kind of regular content that people expect in order to justify spending that money. You see how this quickly becomes a vicious cycle? Even if enough people are willing to pay that money for another game from another genre, they will not be willing to do it with all of the games that they would buy otherwise. So basically, if you try to envoke that kind of business plan across the industry you will see the sales of games go down a lot because people are not going to pay monthly fees for the number of games that they want to buy. Sales will go down a lot.

In addition (this has already been covered) you have the customer pool that is not interested in purchasing games for the PC unless they are able to play them without internet access on their laptops. These consumers figure that if they have to play it online then they will only be playing at home so they buy it for console. That was not always the case in our past when a large enough chunk of the consumer market preferred PC, but that chunk is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. The laptop folks I mentioned are a large chunk of sales right there and you are basically counting on the prevention of piracy to make up for that lack of sales. I think that might happen to some degree but I do not believe it will be enough and the majority of sales will shift to the console industry. So, in effect, you will stop the pirates but kill the PC industry in the process unless you additionally provide more really serious incentives to go the PC route. Stopping the pirating alone is not the full solution and the industry is not willing to spend the money to both provide a lot of extra incentives and to stop the pirating.

So ya...it's basically fucked with practically all genres except MMOs which have proven that money can be made. That is, unless they find an effective an non-intrusive way to deal with pirates that doesn't cost that much as well as increase quality of games and incentives to buy them instead of buying the console versions. I just don't see that happening though.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
You sir are a idiot for the bold part alone.
*snip*

If the rest of your post is based on this statement its not worth reading. But clearly you're a genius because you can selectively highlight a few words and ignore the next 3 while completely miss the point.

That sums up everything you have said in this entire thread, you completely miss the point.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This.

Give it up chizow. DRM is never noticeable by the pirates. It is only a concern for legit users. Your answer to that is to become much stricter and invasive with DRM, but the problem is that your solutions do not only negatively effect pirates. They negatively effect legit users too and a lot more so than it does now which is unacceptable. You do not care about that though.

You play WoW don't you? Is DRM never noticeable by the pirates there? DRM is actually less of a concern for legit users there because they don't have to worry about leechers and free riders diluting their game experience and driving up costs of service. Hell even the scum in WoW, gold sellers, actually pay their subscriptions and contribute to the continued welfare of WoW.

Your stance on this subject is basically, "Fuck the user. I don't care if they don't like it. I want to stop pirates. I am willing to do anything if I think it might help revitalize the PC gaming industry." You more or less want to screw us all to test your theory. I would rather the PC industry die and be forced to do everything on my console than let that happen. Your solution basically means we will be paying more for less and have it all come with a package containing more head aches in the process. If the industry goes that route then they will stop seeing my money and it will go to the console industry instead. It is that simple and there are too many people already willing to do that today with the current DRM. Your solution may stop the pirates, but it is so invasive that in the process you will kill the PC industry since too many people will choose to just go the way of the console instead of having to deal with all that crap.

Yes I'm willing to try different forms of DRM if current ones are not effective. Considering many of the solutions I've mentioned are already employed in some form or another in effective forms of DRM, the paying customer shouldn't be adverse to such changes. There will be the additional inconvenience of having more invasive DRM in all their games, but if that means developers continue to release games on the PC it will be worth it.

Thankfully, the PC industry doesn't agree with you either. They know your solutions is far too drastic and is fiscal suicide.

We'll see about that. The last few big publishers are setting up the infrastructure necessary for a perpetual online presence similar to Steam and Blizzard/B.net. EA for example has WAR and SWTOR as their infrastructure backbone. They've also begun linking CD-keys to usernames and registration. Windows Live is making steps towards making it similar to Xbox Live as both a form of DRM but a value-add service. Very late for something that could've helped the industry years ago, but better late than never.

1. Online activation - clearly stated # of activations in a set time period
2. Online validation per instance - online key-uniqueness check.

Basically, in order to play games you need to be online period. Not everyone wants to do that and those that are ok with it cannot always do that when they want to (see traveling laptop users). I'm sorry you don't realize it and your dreams of wireless internet everywhere is currently non-existent and we have a while till that happens. Even when we start to see more it will only be in high populated areas which means all of the consumers who live in rural areas will be fucked and then you have the international factor to consider where you have large consumer bases in places where we will not see that kind of tech available for a lot longer. Then you need to consider that the amount of bandwidth needed to play games on this magical universal wireless internet will be high enough to the point that we will probably have to pay to use it.

If a game states you need an internet connection required, then the user knows what to expect. Similarly, # of activations so they know exactly where they stand in terms of total activations and they're not blind-sided. While I don't necessarily agree with these forms of DRM, they should be fully disclosed, mainly to eliminate any excuses about not knowing what to expect.

3. Episodal content - you pay for more content

Pay more for less basically....great. I realize that will not be the case with all games, but you know it will be with a lot of them.

How is it less if its additional content? Also, initial retail price could be lower as well, more like an incremental content system where you pay say, $10 retail for the first portion of the game. Then each increment, based on content or playtime, might charge you $10 as you progress. Total cost could be limited to $40-50, standard MSRP but at least you'd eliminate the pathetic excuse that there are no demos or that people dont' want to pay for games that suck etc. If you finish the game or put in 80 hours, that kinda eliminates those excuses to pirate. Linking payment to a credit card would also help.

4. Monthly rental model - $10-15 per month

I have no problem with this, but I do not think it will be very popular. It works for genres like MMOs but I don't think that business model will work for all games.

If people complain about replay value or resellability, this would effectively eliminate those complaints as an excuse. For larger publishers, you could open this up to their entire catalog but you would only have access to 2-3 at a time.

5. Pay-to-play - $25 flat fee, maybe .25 per playy session afterwards

This will be very unpopular and would never stick due to that fact. Remember, it is all about the money and if it doesn't make money then...

Rofl what? It will be very unpopular for who? I guess you've never been to an arcade before. For the consumer there is less commitment up front. For the publisher/dev profit will be determined by the quality and replay value of the game. Compared to a $50 game, that's 100 pay-to-plays.

6. Credit card, subscription or game card required

What happens in the cases where someone doesn't have a CC and loses their game card? Tough luck? Buy a new copy?

If they can't pay for service than yes, tough luck heh. If they don't have a CC then they'll have to ask mommy or daddy, or take the piggy bank to Gamestop and buy a game card. There is no risk of losing their game card unless someone chooses to mug them for it instead of taking their laptop on the way home from Best Buy. Once you enter the number its tied to your account (hint: it works like a debit card).

So again, I've provided alternatives and defined more intrusive and more effective forms of DRM. All you've done is use ineffective/offensive forms of DRM as an excuse to eliminate it altogether. Simple question, do you think eliminating DRM will make the piracy situation any better? Its obvious to me that if current controls are not working then we need better controls.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: bobross419
I can see why you guys are all jumping down Chizow's throat, and even though I don't agree with everything he has said I do think that he has the best interests of the PC Gaming community in mind with his suggestions. It all comes down to wether or not PC Gaming will even be around a few years from now due to the lack of profits on the platform. I have to say that it sounds like a lot of you guys are jumping down Chizow's throat in an attempt to justify your own 'theft' of someone else's intellectual property because you don't have the integrity to go out and make the purchase. I haven't had any problems with DRM in the past or present, I steer clear of Activation Limited games and speak with my pocket book, but I don't go out and steal the game because I disagree with the protection scheme.

There are a lot of stupid users out there and the more difficult it can make the average user to play their games illegally the fewer acts of piracy there are. Sure they are never going to stop the hardcore pirates.

A lot of you guys keep pissing and moaning like 12 year olds, but you never actually come out with something like chizow's list. If you aren't having a constructive argument you are just in a penis waving contest. Make your arguments, but try and present a constructive solution (Yes I know some of you have made some constructive solutions) - I'm speaking more to folks and posts like Xavier's 1 or 2 above mine that bash all of the ideas presented, but don't even both trying to give a viable alternative.

The individual's interests are at stake here because the more PC game developers notice problems and lack of profits with the platform the less they are going to put in development of solid well rounded games. I know there is a big chicken and egg thing with this (I pirate because games don't have enough content, because designers aren't seeing the PC as profitable, because there is such a high level of piracy on the platform).

In regards to profits lost and piracy, I think it is safe to assume that at least 1 person that pirated the game would have bought it if the pirated copy wasn't readily available (In games with piracy counts of 100k+ I think we can safely assume that at least 1 person would have bought it). This shows a loss of profit, no matter how small. Any loss of profit on the part of the PC gaming industry is a bad thing for us at this point, but unfortunately we live in a society based on instant gratification - Instead of stopping to realize that 50 bucks now could mean PC gaming stays around for the next 10 years we skimp now, steal a game and demolish the gaming industry.


I'm at work typing between calls, so some incorrect spelling/grammar is to be expected.

Exactly. Its pretty clear there is a largely silent majority who does see piracy as a problem and would agree with your post. There's no need to apologize though, many of these posters actively protesting DRM have admitted to piracy whether they intended to or not.

 

[bobross419]

Originally posted by: chizow

5. Pay-to-play - $25 flat fee, maybe .25 per playy session afterwards

This will be very unpopular and would never stick due to that fact. Remember, it is all about the money and if it doesn't make money then...

Rofl what? It will be very unpopular for who? I guess you've never been to an arcade before. For the consumer there is less commitment up front. For the publisher/dev profit will be determined by the quality and replay value of the game. Compared to a $50 game, that's 100 pay-to-plays.

This would actually be a very unpopular (and kind of unfair) for people in my shoes. I will often only play a game for 10-15 minutes while waiting for my fiancee to put her makeup on. I usually don't have many chances to sit down and play for 6-8 hours straight. Compare this to 3-4 years ago where I would have a game running for 24+ hours at a time. I wouldn't be a big fan of a rental format either.

Maybe something like what happened with Doom back in the day. I buy the original game for 20-50 bucks, and it is a good full length game, then I can buy the 666 Level pack for an additional 10 bucks or something. That is something that I could really get on board with. Full length game then additional content in the form "somewhat" generic levels/campaigns that would allow me to continue on with the original game; unfortunately, with the large number of modders out there the market for something like this might be a little smaller, but by maybe giving the mod teams a part of the cut they could work out a deal with solid content without too much additional time invested by their own development teams.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow
You play WoW don't you? Is DRM never noticeable by the pirates there? DRM is actually less of a concern for legit users there because they don't have to worry about leechers and free riders diluting their game experience and driving up costs of service. Hell even the scum in WoW, gold sellers, actually pay their subscriptions and contribute to the continued welfare of WoW.

WoW and MMOs in general are a different beast with different rules. See my previous post.

Originally posted by: chizow
Yes I'm willing to try different forms of DRM if current ones are not effective. Considering many of the solutions I've mentioned are already employed in some form or another in effective forms of DRM, the paying customer shouldn't be adverse to such changes. There will be the additional inconvenience of having more invasive DRM in all their games, but if that means developers continue to release games on the PC it will be worth it.

If the additional inconveniences bring sales down to the point where the profit does not justify the cost then it will never happen. I covered the rest in my previous post about needing to offer more incentives and being able to compete with consoles.

Originally posted by: chizow
We'll see about that. The last few big publishers are setting up the infrastructure necessary for a perpetual online presence similar to Steam and Blizzard/B.net. EA for example has WAR and SWTOR as their infrastructure backbone. They've also begun linking CD-keys to usernames and registration. Windows Live is making steps towards making it similar to Xbox Live as both a form of DRM but a value-add service. Very late for something that could've helped the industry years ago, but better late than never.

I covered MMOs already. I covered people choosing consoles instead to avoid this mess of "solutions". Steam is good...again if you are online. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it happening. Not in a way that is profitable enough at least to bring PC gaming to a stronger state like it used to be. They need to offer something a lot more for the same price beyond trying to stop pirate. Too many of those pirates will stick to playing the games they would have bought otherwise anyways. That plus too many will just play the console version. The left over pool of pirates that will actually go out and buy the game that they would not have bought otherwise will be too small. Even if it does prove to me more profitable even after losing sales from legit users, I seriously doubt it will be profitable enough to maintain all that which is necessary when they could just ditch the PC realm entirely and dedicate those dollars to additional development for console platforms.

Originally posted by: chizow
If a game states you need an internet connection required, then the user knows what to expect. Similarly, # of activations so they know exactly where they stand in terms of total activations and they're not blind-sided. While I don't necessarily agree with these forms of DRM, they should be fully disclosed, mainly to eliminate any excuses about not knowing what to expect.

I am not arguing about not knowing what to expect because I know what to expect. Other consumers do not know, but they are learning and many just get fed up and are buying consoles and games that they would have normally purchased for PC this x-mas.

Originally posted by: chizow
How is it less if its additional content? Also, initial retail price could be lower as well, more like an incremental content system where you pay say, $10 retail for the first portion of the game. Then each increment, based on content or playtime, might charge you $10 as you progress. Total cost could be limited to $40-50, standard MSRP but at least you'd eliminate the pathetic excuse that there are no demos or that people dont' want to pay for games that suck etc. If you finish the game or put in 80 hours, that kinda eliminates those excuses to pirate. Linking payment to a credit card would also help.

Call me the day that they charge less for retail and the amount for the extra content only adds up to what is not considered an average retail price.

Originally posted by: chizow
If people complain about replay value or resellability, this would effectively eliminate those complaints as an excuse. For larger publishers, you could open this up to their entire catalog but you would only have access to 2-3 at a time.

Again, it is not a bad idea, but I just don't see it taking off. I could be wrong though and if I am then more power to them. To me, that is nothing more than an additional option as long as it doesn't not change the gaming experience and cost for those who do not wish to use the service.

Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl what? It will be very unpopular for who? I guess you've never been to an arcade before. For the consumer there is less commitment up front. For the publisher/dev profit will be determined by the quality and replay value of the game. Compared to a $50 game, that's 100 pay-to-plays.

See bobross419's post above. I am in the same boat.

Originally posted by: chizow
If they can't pay for service than yes, tough luck heh. If they don't have a CC then they'll have to ask mommy or daddy, or take the piggy bank to Gamestop and buy a game card. There is no risk of losing their game card unless someone chooses to mug them for it instead of taking their laptop on the way home from Best Buy. Once you enter the number its tied to your account (hint: it works like a debit card).

People forget passwords. People forget user names. People forget all kinds of numbers. People reformat computers. People upgrade computers. People's IP addresses change. You need to account for all of these things without forcing users to pay extra. In addition, not everyone will be satisfied with the online access thing. On top of that, what if these companies decide to stop supporting an older game or go out of business? What then? The game discontinues to work? Bullshit. My purchase better work regardless of whether or not these companies discontinue service or go out of business. My exception is MMOs, but no other types of games.

Originally posted by: chizow
So again, I've provided alternatives and defined more intrusive and more effective forms of DRM. All you've done is use ineffective/offensive forms of DRM as an excuse to eliminate it altogether. Simple question, do you think eliminating DRM will make the piracy situation any better? Its obvious to me that if current controls are not working then we need better controls.

Where did I ever state that I want to eliminate DRM all together? All I want is for it to be much more transparent to the legit user. Yes, we need more ways to help the PC industry survive, but what I am trying to convince you of is that stopping piracy with intrusive forms of DRM alone is not going to do that.

Originally posted by: chizow
Exactly. Its pretty clear there is a largely silent majority who does see piracy as a problem and would agree with your post. There's no need to apologize though, many of these posters actively protesting DRM have admitted to piracy whether they intended to or not.

No, it is not clear. You just want to believe that it is clear without proof because it makes you feel better. Using a workaround solution to play a game that I already paid for at no expense to anyone sure as hell beats not paying for it at all in the eyes of those companies. It shouldn't be illegal. If I buy a toaster and it breaks then I should be able to fix it any way that I wish as long as that way is at no cost or inconvenience to anyone else.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I'd say that is correct about many developers, but that is not the case when it comes to most publishers and the investors who currently hold a lot more of the power than they used to in the past. They only care about the $$$ and they are usually the ones calling these sort of shots. The devs are bound by contracts.

Again, more generalizations that are largely inaccurate. Look at some company bios and then come back to this. Many of the key execs at publishers are actually promoted from the dev houses and yes, they should be concerned about the bottom-line as that's probably why they were assimilated to begin with; because they couldn't survive on their own.

MMOs also provide the kind of incentives that people like mindcycle and I want.

Is this where you once again claim I only want EA's DRM and not effective forms employed by MMOs?

However, one of the main reasons they are able to do that is because they are MMOs. I do not believe that other genres would be as successful because they simply cannot afford it and not enough people are willing to pay $15/mo to play COD for example, and that is what is needed to offer the kind of regular content that people expect in order to justify spending that money. You see how this quickly becomes a vicious cycle? Even if enough people are willing to pay that money for another game from another genre, they will not be willing to do it with all of the games that they would buy otherwise. So basically, if you try to envoke that kind of business plan across the industry you will see the sales of games go down a lot because people are not going to pay monthly fees for the number of games that they want to buy. Sales will go down a lot.

You can't say sales will go down with any certainty. In your COD example for instance, if you charged $15 a month with a maximum of 3 charges for $45, how would that be unreasonable? If you play for a month and you've had your fill, great. If you play for 3 months and never pay another penny, you've paid about as much as you would in a retail store. If you're unwilling to pay a variable $15-45 over 3 months depending on how much you enjoy a game or how much time you've spent playing it then find another hobby or form of entertainment.

MMOs are different because they have the strictest and most invasive DRM available. Yes the online content is what keeps the subscriptions going, but the lack of piracy for MMOs is because of the DRM. Its really that simple. Without effective DRM the obvious answer for dynamic content would be more instances of piracy, however, all MMOs show this is not the case.

In addition (this has already been covered) you have the customer pool that is not interested in purchasing games for the PC unless they are able to play them without internet access on their laptops.

While laptop usage has grown, so has internet accessibility. In cases where only online activation/registration is required, this excuse holds even less water. And in the case of piracy, people who have access long enough to download a few GB can't really claim they're worried about having an internet connection.

These consumers figure that if they have to play it online then they will only be playing at home so they buy it for console. That was not always the case in our past when a large enough chunk of the consumer market preferred PC, but that chunk is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. The laptop folks I mentioned are a large chunk of sales right there and you are basically counting on the prevention of piracy to make up for that lack of sales. I think that might happen to some degree but I do not believe it will be enough and the majority of sales will shift to the console industry. So, in effect, you will stop the pirates but kill the PC industry in the process unless you additionally provide more really serious incentives to go the PC route. Stopping the pirating alone is not the full solution and the industry is not willing to spend the money to both provide a lot of extra incentives and to stop the pirating.

I think you're grasping at straws here without any solid evidence to support your generalizations. Even some of your anecdotal assertions are questionable. I doubt people are migrating towards gaming anywhere *but home* just because they have laptops.

So ya...it's basically fucked with practically all genres except MMOs which have proven that money can be made. That is, unless they find an effective an non-intrusive way to deal with pirates that doesn't cost that much as well as increase quality of games and incentives to buy them instead of buying the console versions. I just don't see that happening though.

MMOs aren't the only form of effective DRM, again, battle.net and Steam as well.

 

[Pacemaker]

I personally like steam (I know others don't and they have good reasons), and battle.net when talking about forms of DRM (although battle.net barely counts). The real problem is how do you have DRM for a game that has no multi player aspect? Steam's solution is for you to have to connect to the internet anyway and for that sacrifice they give you some benefits to compensate, the other solutions that involve putting unwanted and undocumented software on your machine are IMO borderline illegal and definitely immoral. I don't have any great ideas on how to fix it, but the answer isn't even more draconian DRM.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
WoW and MMOs in general are a different beast with different rules. See my previous post.

They're only a different beast because their DRM actually works.

If the additional inconveniences bring sales down to the point where the profit does not justify the cost then it will never happen. I covered the rest in my previous post about needing to offer more incentives and being able to compete with consoles.

Again, a chicken and egg scenario. We'll never know if it increases or decreases sales unless they're implemented. And if it gets to the point it doesn't seem to be worth it, then yes the devs will just choose the alternative and develop only for consoles. There is no competition with consoles because its been clearly shown that console sales dwarf PC sales for multi-platform releases. More incentives are great but they need to be tied to more DRM as well or they simply become more incentive to pirate. Use Xbox Live here again as an example. Its a great service for online games, but even for offline/single-player games it can be necessary and ultimately serves as DRM.

I covered MMOs already. I covered people choosing consoles instead to avoid this mess of "solutions". Steam is good...again if you are online. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it happening. Not in a way that is profitable enough at least to bring PC gaming to a stronger state like it used to be. They need to offer something a lot more for the same price beyond trying to stop pirate. Too many of those pirates will stick to playing the games they would have bought otherwise anyways. That plus too many will just play the console version. The left over pool of pirates that will actually go out and buy the game that they would not have bought otherwise will be too small. Even if it does prove to me more profitable even after losing sales from legit users, I seriously doubt it will be profitable enough to maintain all that which is necessary when they could just ditch the PC realm entirely and dedicate those dollars to additional development for console platforms.

Again you're basing your comments on the "bad DRM". I'd say 11 million WoW subscribers say you're wrong. I'd say 10 years of StarCraft being on the top 10 sales list say you're wrong. If gamers end up giving up the PC for the console, it will not be because of DRM on the PC, it will be because Devs simply choose to stop making games for the PC because of piracy. Here's the facts: DRM is more effective and more intrusive on consoles and piracy rates are exponentially lower as well.

I am not arguing about not knowing what to expect because I know what to expect. Other consumers do not know, but they are learning and many just get fed up and are buying consoles and games that they would have normally purchased for PC this x-mas.

Yes, that would be the point of full disclosure.

Call me the day that they charge less for retail and the amount for the extra content only adds up to what is not considered an average retail price.

Did you buy WoW? Did you buy Burning Crusade? Did you buy Wrath of the Lich King? Additional content will cost more, just like any expansion pack. If you don't think the total is worth the sum of the parts, then don't buy additional parts. This again gives the user control over their cost vs entertainment.

Again, it is not a bad idea, but I just don't see it taking off. I could be wrong though and if I am then more power to them. To me, that is nothing more than an additional option as long as it doesn't not change the gaming experience and cost for those who do not wish to use the service.

Yep, its just another option for those who don't like current options.

See bobross419's post above. I am in the same boat.

Then pay full retail up front or don't buy it. And if you're not willing to do any of that, don't pirate it as you have no right to play it.

People forget passwords. People forget user names. People forget all kinds of numbers. People reformat computers. People upgrade computers. People's IP addresses change. You need to account for all of these things without forcing users to pay extra. In addition, not everyone will be satisfied with the online access thing. On top of that, what if these companies decide to stop supporting an older game or go out of business? What then? The game discontinues to work? Bullshit. My purchase better work regardless of whether or not these companies discontinue service or go out of business. My exception is MMOs, but no other types of games.

And people lose keys. And people forget phone numbers. And people forget bank account numbers. And people forget PINS. And there's always some contingency that allows for it.

In the case of online transactions, e-mailed passwords are a common contingency. But ya your comments about online only confirm my suspicions that you see a distinct difference between paying because you have to vs. paying if you want to. Not saying you pirate, just saying you clearly make the distinction vs. MMO vs. single-player. Yes I want to eliminate that distinction because its clear that the various forms of online payment and validation are effective.

Where did I ever state that I want to eliminate DRM all together? All I want is for it to be much more transparent to the legit user. Yes, we need more ways to help the PC industry survive, but what I am trying to convince you of is that stopping piracy with intrusive forms of DRM alone is not going to do that.

Actually all you've done is argue against ineffective DRM as well as effective or potentially effective DRM. DRM is never transparent and the effective forms are always going to be more intrusive. Forcing me to enter my CC and personal information is just about as intrusive as it gets. But I'm willing to do that if I want to play certain games and its apparent that you are too.

No, it is not clear. You just want to believe that it is clear without proof because it makes you feel better. Using a workaround solution to play a game that I already paid for at no expense to anyone sure as hell beats not paying for it at all in the eyes of those companies. It shouldn't be illegal. If I buy a toaster and it breaks then I should be able to fix it any way that I wish as long as that way is at no cost or inconvenience to anyone else.

Actually the OP article provides pages of proof. To any reasonable individual or anyone who actually cares about PC gaming the writing is on the wall. Some of the points made by the author are just flat shocking (particularly the console vs. pc pirated copies vs sales section). Have you actually had any problems with the DRM you're arguing against or are you just talking "worst-case" scenario?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow
Again, more generalizations that are largely inaccurate. Look at some company bios and then come back to this. Many of the key execs at publishers are actually promoted from the dev houses and yes, they should be concerned about the bottom-line as that's probably why they were assimilated to begin with; because they couldn't survive on their own.

Neither of us can really draw a solid 100% conclusion about this one. Just because some of their bios show histories of playing games or coming from the dev departments does not mean that they place the priority of game quality over the profit. We just don't know. We only know what they deliver and in some cases that proves to side with DRM far more than quality.

Originally posted by: chizow
Is this where you once again claim I only want EA's DRM and not effective forms employed by MMOs?

Once again? Where did I ever say that? Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster? That or you are assuming too much. Regardless, I don't actually believe what you are accusing me of believing.

I understand your intentions and at the end of the day we both want the same thing in some sense. I just don't believe your solution is a complete solution and I theorize that we may not need your part of the solution in the form that you support. I think that focusing the dollars more so on added incentive rather than added security will produce greater profits. Although, if someone develops more cost effective and efficient security which is more transparent and they couple that solution with most of the money being dumped in the development of more incentives to buy the games then I think that could act as a whole and true solution to the overall problem which is nothing more than a lack of money to compete with consoles. Remember that last part well. The core problem isn't pirating. The core problem is a lack of profit to compete properly. Solving a core problem the most effective way does not always mean that every cause of that problem needs to be fully eliminated, but it usually means tackling all parts of the problem in some way.

Originally posted by: chizow
You can't say sales will go down with any certainty. In your COD example for instance, if you charged $15 a month with a maximum of 3 charges for $45, how would that be unreasonable? If you play for a month and you've had your fill, great. If you play for 3 months and never pay another penny, you've paid about as much as you would in a retail store. If you're unwilling to pay a variable $15-45 over 3 months depending on how much you enjoy a game or how much time you've spent playing it then find another hobby or form of entertainment.

You can't say they will go up or remain the same with any certainty either.

That solution makes it tough to buy the game as a gift for someone else. A lot of people would rather not do that if they are giving someone else a gift and will purchase a different game instead. I know I would. I know many of my relatives would do the same.

Originally posted by: chizow
MMOs are different because they have the strictest and most invasive DRM available. Yes the online content is what keeps the subscriptions going, but the lack of piracy for MMOs is because of the DRM. Its really that simple. Without effective DRM the obvious answer for dynamic content would be more instances of piracy, however, all MMOs show this is not the case.

Yes, which perfectly fits in with my argument that preventing piracy alone is not the answer.

Originally posted by: chizow
While laptop usage has grown, so has internet accessibility. In cases where only online activation/registration is required, this excuse holds even less water. And in the case of piracy, people who have access long enough to download a few GB can't really claim they're worried about having an internet connection.

That accessibility is very often not free and people don't like that so they will play something else on their PC without the DRM restrictions or they will just play at home on their consoles. Until that changes...

Originally posted by: chizow
I think you're grasping at straws here without any solid evidence to support your generalizations. Even some of your anecdotal assertions are questionable. I doubt people are migrating towards gaming anywhere *but home* just because they have laptops.

You do not have any more evidence to support your theories than I do so drop it already.

Originally posted by: chizow
MMOs aren't the only form of effective DRM, again, battle.net and Steam as well.

This goes back to the playing online arguments again as well as competing with consoles. Too many gamers don't want to go through these hassles and that is especially true when it comes to the younger generations. The parents just want a set it and forget it solution all in one sitting. The answer to that is a console and purchasing games where you pop in the disk and that's it.



Look, we can go back and forth with this forever and it won't matter. PC gaming is hanging on by a thread with exception of MMOs for the most part. If stopping pirating alone were the true to solution that brings profit to the gaming industry then it would have been done a long time ago but it hasn't and there is a good reason for that. You think more DRM is coming and you may be correct in some sense, but it is not coming so much to the point where pirates do not find workarounds. Even if that does happen, there is no kind of proof that these people will simply just go the console route in order to avoid all of the additional hassles. These businesses are never going to go through all of this trouble when they can simply ditch PC for console and give the users no choice but to buy and play on that console. It is not like anyone or anything is stopping the industries from doing exactly what you want them to do...with exception of projected profit margins. That is the bottom line and you know it.

Anyways, we have gone in circles long enough. I will read your response, but I think I will stop here. Everything else from this point is nothing more than crystal ball theories with no real justification.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Neither of us can really draw a solid 100% conclusion about this one. Just because some of their bios show histories of playing games or coming from the dev departments does not mean that they place the priority of game quality over the profit. We just don't know. We only know what they deliver and in some cases that proves to side with DRM far more than quality.

Of course I can't say for 100% but then again I'm not making absurd generalizations about crusty old men in suits trying to steal my milk money.

Once again? Where did I ever say that? Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster? That or you are assuming too much. Regardless, I don't actually believe what you are accusing me of believing.

Perhaps, but you continually deflect attention to ineffective forms of DRM and make a distinction with MMO DRM schemes. I don't see a distinction and want to use similar effective methods to replace the ineffective DRM schemes if that will ultimately reduce piracy.

I understand your intentions and at the end of the day we both want the same thing in some sense. I just don't believe your solution is a complete solution and I theorize that we may not need your part of the solution in the form that you support. I think that focusing the dollars more so on added incentive rather than added security will produce greater profits. Although, if someone develops more cost effective and efficient security which is more transparent and they couple that solution with most of the money being dumped in the development of more incentives to buy the games then I think that could act as a whole and true solution to the overall problem which is nothing more than a lack of money to compete with consoles. Remember that last part well. The core problem isn't pirating. The core problem is a lack of profit to compete properly. Solving a core problem the most effective way does not always mean that every cause of that problem needs to be fully eliminated, but it usually means tackling all parts of the problem in some way.

Well again, I'm not claiming to have the complete solution, I'm offering alternatives to DRM schemes that do not work. I'd also disagree with you that more incentive is enough on its own; more incentive without more controls is just more incentive to pirate. We have already seen that a vast number of people would rather steal than pay and that you can't expect people to do the right thing, otherwise DRM would not be needed and piracy would be a non-issue.

I'd also disagree about the core problem here. If consoles weren't around you'd maybe have a point, however, the comparison numbers all indicate piracy is what's hurting the PC industry. Its not a money issue, since many of these devs and publishers are cross-platform and are willing to invest in intrusive forms of DRM for the consoles.

You can't say they will go up or remain the same with any certainty either.

That solution makes it tough to buy the game as a gift for someone else. A lot of people would rather not do that if they are giving someone else a gift and will purchase a different game instead. I know I would. I know many of my relatives would do the same.

If you want the value of the gift to be $50, then buy the full retail.

Yes, which perfectly fits in with my argument that preventing piracy alone is not the answer.

That accessibility is very often not free and people don't like that so they will play something else on their PC without the DRM restrictions or they will just play at home on their consoles. Until that changes...

You do not have any more evidence to support your theories than I do so drop it already.

This goes back to the playing online arguments again as well as competing with consoles. Too many gamers don't want to go through these hassles and that is especially true when it comes to the younger generations. The parents just want a set it and forget it solution all in one sitting. The answer to that is a console and purchasing games where you pop in the disk and that's it.

Without continuing to reply to each answer, it should be obvious by now I've presented alternatives that would correct or invalidate common concerns and justifications used to pirate. No one is ever going to be 100% satisfied with any form of DRM. If you have more choices then that's a start, but the goal still needs to be reducing piracy with more effective DRM.

Look, we can go back and forth with this forever and it won't matter. PC gaming is hanging on by a thread with exception of MMOs for the most part. If stopping pirating alone were the true to solution that brings profit to the gaming industry then it would have been done a long time ago but it hasn't and there is a good reason for that. You think more DRM is coming and you may be correct in some sense, but it is not coming so much to the point where pirates do not find workarounds. Even if that does happen, there is no kind of proof that these people will simply just go the console route in order to avoid all of the additional hassles. These businesses are never going to go through all of this trouble when they can simply ditch PC for console and give the users no choice but to buy and play on that console. It is not like anyone or anything is stopping the industries from doing exactly what you want them to do...with exception of projected profit margins. That is the bottom line and you know it.

Anyways, we have gone in circles long enough. I will read your response, but I think I will stop here. Everything else from this point is nothing more than crystal ball theories with no real justification.

And I agree with most of that and also agree that the culmination will result in the end of PC Gaming as we know it. I offer alternatives that could help slow the process but it all starts with ending piracy with more effective and invasive DRM.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

PC gaming will never die people. It's cheap to make games for and there are no royalties involved. There are so many companies that make components for gaming that would never let it happen. Where would the enthusiast CPU's go? Where would Nvidia, Ati, EVGA, SAPPHIRE, DIAMOND, BFG TECH, XFX, etc go? Where would the high-end PSU makers go? Where would Alienware, Voodooo, Dell XPS, etc go? Where would the pc case makers go? What about motherboard makers? What about the case fan comapnies. What about DirectX and all the other features Microsoft markets its OS to? Finally, where would the employees go? PC gaming drives a large portion of the economy and it isn't going anywhere.

 

[HumblePie]

What I find funny that no one has mentioned it a major and I mean capitol MAJOR difference in PC versus Console sales. That is rentals.

You can't rent a PC game. So there are no big companies like Blockbuster buying up hundreds of thousands of copies of a console game just to rent out to console gamers. The PC has zero equivalent.

Because of this sales views have to be taken with a grain of salt. If companies compared actual end user sales of PC games versus console games, it might surprise many how much lower console games sell in relation. I know many people that never buy console games at all. Why? Spend a few bucks on a rental, use the few days of time you get and beat the game. Then return it for the next game. When I didn't PC game, that is exactly what I did. I only RARELY purchased console games when I was a console gamer and only those I would like to replay such as roleplaying games. Everything else I just rented along with every single one of my friends.

The rental industry is what drives console sales period. End of story.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
PC gaming will never die people. It's cheap to make games for and there are no royalties involved. There are so many companies that make components for gaming that would never let it happen. Where would the enthusiast CPU's go? Where would Nvidia, Ati, EVGA, SAPPHIRE, DIAMOND, BFG TECH, XFX, etc go? Where would the high-end PSU makers go? Where would Alienware, Voodooo, Dell XPS, etc go? Where would the pc case makers go? What about motherboard makers? What about the case fan comapnies. What about DirectX and all the other features Microsoft markets its OS to? Finally, where would the employees go? PC gaming drives a large portion of the economy and it isn't going anywhere.

It won't completely die, there's still money to be made but the landscape will change. You can already see the shift towards finding the "next WoW" or games that only require low-end PCs and appeal to a larger general audience like Spore or Sims.

But the industry has already changed significantly. Fact is, many of the studios that produced some of the biggest hits in PC history simply do not exist anymore. These giants seemed untouchable at the time but they were really only 1 or 2 flops away from collapse. Origin, Interplay, Sierra, Westwood, Black Isle, FASA Interactive.....just to name a few. Many other devs that used to be PC exclusive have either shifted development to consoles only or gone with a multi-platform strategy.

Hardware makers would certainly feel the impact the most, but you can already see they've begun diversifying their products. Nvidia with its CUDA/GPGPU/HPC initiatives and ATI with its mirror version of Brook+. I wouldn't be completely shocked if Nvidia did try to develop some type of crossover hardware. Not quite a console, but something that runs in tandem with a PC to play games. They clearly have a lot invested in PC gaming so I'd expect them to go to significant ends to keep it alive.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: HumblePie
What I find funny that no one has mentioned it a major and I mean capitol MAJOR difference in PC versus Console sales. That is rentals.

You can't rent a PC game. So there are no big companies like Blockbuster buying up hundreds of thousands of copies of a console game just to rent out to console gamers. The PC has zero equivalent.

Because of this sales views have to be taken with a grain of salt. If companies compared actual end user sales of PC games versus console games, it might surprise many how much lower console games sell in relation. I know many people that never buy console games at all. Why? Spend a few bucks on a rental, use the few days of time you get and beat the game. Then return it for the next game. When I didn't PC game, that is exactly what I did. I only RARELY purchased console games when I was a console gamer and only those I would like to replay such as roleplaying games. Everything else I just rented along with every single one of my friends.

The rental industry is what drives console sales period. End of story.

While its true rentals are more of a factor on consoles, it doesn't change the fact that those are still retail sales and generate revenue for devs/publishers. I'm also going to assume you didn't read the article, particularly the console vs. pc piracy portion.

Fallout 3 PC: 271,563
Fallout 3 360: 19,988

Call of Duty 4 PC: 566,000
Call of Duty 4 360+PS3: 110,000

In both cases, the console versions sold far more copies than the PC version. COD4 sold about 1 million copies on the PC but nearly 7 million across all platforms as of the end of last year. So not only are piracy rates exponentially lower on consoles, they're lower even though they're selling significantly more copies. The percentage of pirated copies to sales is almost 50%, or 1:1 on the PC for many popular titles. On the consoles its 10-20% max.

If rentals were driving this difference, and not piracy, you'd actually expect total game sales to be lower than the PC, but that's clearly not the case. Especially since we know how many of each console are out there (~25m 360, ~18m PS3) with consoles typically quote 6-9 game attach rates. Also, retail sales figures don't track console game resales, which means each game sold is actually capable of generating more revenue than your average PC game.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
PC gaming will never die people. It's cheap to make games for and there are no royalties involved. There are so many companies that make components for gaming that would never let it happen. Where would the enthusiast CPU's go? Where would Nvidia, Ati, EVGA, SAPPHIRE, DIAMOND, BFG TECH, XFX, etc go? Where would the high-end PSU makers go? Where would Alienware, Voodooo, Dell XPS, etc go? Where would the pc case makers go? What about motherboard makers? What about the case fan comapnies. What about DirectX and all the other features Microsoft markets its OS to? Finally, where would the employees go? PC gaming drives a large portion of the economy and it isn't going anywhere.

It won't completely die, there's still money to be made but the landscape will change. You can already see the shift towards finding the "next WoW" or games that only require low-end PCs and appeal to a larger general audience like Spore or Sims.

But the industry has already changed significantly. Fact is, many of the studios that produced some of the biggest hits in PC history simply do not exist anymore. These giants seemed untouchable at the time but they were really only 1 or 2 flops away from collapse. Origin, Interplay, Sierra, Westwood, Black Isle, FASA Interactive.....just to name a few. Many other devs that used to be PC exclusive have either shifted development to consoles only or gone with a multi-platform strategy.

Hardware makers would certainly feel the impact the most, but you can already see they've begun diversifying their products. Nvidia with its CUDA/GPGPU/HPC initiatives and ATI with its mirror version of Brook+. I wouldn't be completely shocked if Nvidia did try to develop some type of crossover hardware. Not quite a console, but something that runs in tandem with a PC to play games. They clearly have a lot invested in PC gaming so I'd expect them to go to significant ends to keep it alive.

The Sims ahs been around a long time, it isn't new. There are casual games for every system, PC gaming isn't changing. Every new console release we get the same people that say the same things. When consoles first comes out developers are all over it for its graphics and new features, later PC's signifiantly outshine them and developers flock to PC's to make more immersive games because they're aren't limited to the consoles' abilities. Nvidia does those things to sell more graphics cards. They keep on trying to expand the market to other professional fields.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
The Sims ahs been around a long time, it isn't new. There are casual games for every system, PC gaming isn't changing. Every new console release we get the same people that say the same things. When consoles first comes out developers are all over it for its graphics and new features, later PC's signifiantly outshine them and developers flock to PC's to make more immersive games because they're aren't limited to the consoles' abilities. Nvidia does those things to sell more graphics cards. They keep on trying to expand the market to other professional fields.

Actually PCs used to always have the edge over consoles when it came to graphics. Things started to change with the PS2 and original Xbox and were fully realized with the 360 and PS3. 360 when it first released had better graphics than any PC game at the time and it still holds its own with current titles.

The article quotes the shift in the industry with Epic stating they designed UE3.0 with consoles in mind first and foremost. It goes on to quote Crytek's CEO as saying the next CryEngine 3 will be optimized for the next PlayStation. Devs that used to be PC exclusive gradually shifted to PC first, port to console. Then cross-platform simultaneous release. Now, console first, staggered PC release (with piracy often cited as the reason). What do you think is coming next? Many franchises have already abandoned porting to the PC long ago. Remember when you could get Final Fantasy PC ports?

PCs used to have quite a few more advantages over consoles, like internet/multiplayer capability, keyboard and mouse, faster load times, HDD storage etc etc but as you can see, all of these advantages are quickly being eroded away and with the Wii and Rock Band/Guitar Hero accessories, surpassed the innovation and flexbility once reserved for the PC.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
The Sims ahs been around a long time, it isn't new. There are casual games for every system, PC gaming isn't changing. Every new console release we get the same people that say the same things. When consoles first comes out developers are all over it for its graphics and new features, later PC's signifiantly outshine them and developers flock to PC's to make more immersive games because they're aren't limited to the consoles' abilities. Nvidia does those things to sell more graphics cards. They keep on trying to expand the market to other professional fields.

Actually PCs used to always have the edge over consoles when it came to graphics. Things started to change with the PS2 and original Xbox and were fully realized with the 360 and PS3. 360 when it first released had better graphics than any PC game at the time and it still holds its own with current titles.

The article quotes the shift in the industry with Epic stating they designed UE3.0 with consoles in mind first and foremost. It goes on to quote Crytek's CEO as saying the next CryEngine 3 will be optimized for the next PlayStation. Devs that used to be PC exclusive gradually shifted to PC first, port to console. Then cross-platform simultaneous release. Now, console first, staggered PC release (with piracy often cited as the reason). What do you think is coming next? Many franchises have already abandoned porting to the PC long ago. Remember when you could get Final Fantasy PC ports?

PCs used to have quite a few more advantages over consoles, like internet/multiplayer capability, keyboard and mouse, faster load times, HDD storage etc etc but as you can see, all of these advantages are quickly being eroded away and with the Wii and Rock Band/Guitar Hero accessories, surpassed the innovation and flexbility once reserved for the PC.

Back when Nintendo was king PC's couldn't match consoles. Although I never said consoles were better I meant they were comparable. Anyways if you're so convinced that console gaming is better than go for it, but i'll know you'll be coming back because you can't match the replayability of PC games. You're being over dramtic about this whole "PC gaming is dead". Japanese ports were never intended to be long term. Companies pay Square Enix and Konami a lot of money to develop for their consoles.