Slashdot Mirror
Bleak Future for Videogame Customers
jvm writes "A recent commentary on Curmudgeon Gamer speculates on the future of the videogame market. Among the predictions: no more rentals from video stores, no used games market, no lending games to friends, less upgradeable computers, pay-as-you-play software subscriptions, and other consumer-unfriendly changes. In all, less gaming value for your hard-earned dollar."
Yes but that's not looking far enough into the future. When everyone has extremely high speed connections to their house, or impressive local ISP based content servers, the game will be entirely executed over the network. Nothing will reside locally, and be available to P2P swap. Cable companies are already looking into doing centralized DVRs this way so that the content is never sitting in your house, taking more control away from the user to do illicit things with it.
I suspect that the longer this trend takes to implement, the harder it will be for the game makers to pull it off. Why? An ever increasing back catalogue of existing games that don't have such restrictions
Take a look at all the consoles over the years, that's a huge library of games. Ok, sure, the graphics and features decrease dramatically as you travel further back... but does the entertainment value?
A current Xbox, modded, can happily run MAME. Making one console able to play litterally thousands of titles.
If the software makers push thing to the point where it's no longer worth it to buy, I suspect many people won't. Oh, some will, because they'll always want the latest and greatest. But many may well be content revisiting some of the existing titles.
I used to contantly upgrade my PC hardware to the newest stuff released because I actually benefited from it. These days I rarely do. My existing gear performs well enough that I see only a marginal benifit. Maybe gaming will be similar.
Blockwars: multiplayer and free.. and I'll get around to updating it some more soon. :)
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Only one problem with this scenario: I'm not buying, and neither will a lot of other gamers. No doubt video game companies could come out with a really great sounding version of Half Life or whatever, costing $12 a month to play. But if they try to foist subscription fees on me, my money's staying in my pocket. Dollar for dollar, video games represent probably the cheapest form of entertainment ever developed. A few years back, I spent $20 on a copy of Unreal Tournament, and that is some of the best entertainment money I've ever spent. I've doubtless played that game more than a hundred hours. Same thing with NHL '94 Hockey on the Sega Genesis; I got it used for $10 or so, and I'm still playing that game today in emulation.
No doubt, the video game industry would love for all games to switch over to subscription on-demand models. The only trouble is cheapskates like me won't ever let this happen. When I buy a game, I expect it to be a one-shot expense, and I further expect to be able to play that game ten years from now. If, for the sake of argument, the next Half-Life comes out as subscription, I'll just buy UT 2004. And if UT 2004 comes out as subscription, then I'd keep playing my original UT until Quake 4 or somebody responsive to my needs comes out with a non-subscription game.
No doubt that subscriptions will capture a growing portion of the gaming market, but it's silly to think companies will forsake the model of one-time sales. There's too much demand from gamers who wouldn't have it any other way, and nobody's going to leave that much money on the table.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
As soon as games are unrealisticly restricted, more people will feel the need to write GPL ones.
We are seeing the groundwork already, in good GPL game engines, and the free content community already has proved their worth on proprietary engines (NWN modules and Quake 3 mods etc). All it needs now is someone to tie it all together.
DRM is the ultimate free software motivator.
(Anyone remember Total Anihilation that had a multiplayer spawn install and let you play 3 computers with each valid set of disks over the LAN/Internet?)
Beep beep.
Retail sales will continue because people like to make impulse buys. If people wanted all their games delivered via the internet, meatspace gaming stores would have gone under already. Most gaming stores have noticed that people want to buy used stuff too, so they have new and used games. An excellent example is Software Etc., which purchased Funcoland, basically the USA's leader in used games/game equipment sales, and the Software Etc.s started selling used stuff. As a consequence, I go to Software Etc. again. We even bought the Myst trilogy DVD box set there, but mostly I buy the used stuff. As long as there are successful outlets which bring in gamers, however, video games will be sold in stores. That means, stores which sell used games, stores which sell game consoles, stores which sell gaming peripherals.
Next, let's talk about registration keys. The only thing these keys can really be used for is preventing people without them from playing on official online servers, or these days, from using the official master browser server. People will patch their way to playing, otherwise. But so-called piracy prevention methods have never been about preventing people from pirating games. Game developers are not idiots. Well, some of them are, of course. But any of the good games necessarily could not have been created by total morons. These people know it is impossible to stop piracy. The point of these copyright protection methods is to make it inconvenient to pirate the games, thus ensuring that the majority of people will pay for them.
As for the death of game rental, this commentary is largely applicable to PC games, not so much console games. Console games will continue to be distributed in physical form for some time to come, and it will be a long while until every home in america has the broadband internet access necessary to download games, which are only getting larger. Playstation 2 games are typically on DVD these days, even on broadband it takes a while to download a full DVD. Not only that, but I got the "official" word from Comcast that I'm only allowed to download 80-90 GB/month. (Yes, I finally got a AUP violation letter.) Just a few games and movie trailers, and you're over your limit. So, it's going to be a while before the death of physical media.
The fact is that the widespread adoption of internet use necessitated the use of registration keys and activation in all types of software to make software copyright violation less convenient, because it became so easy to get copied software, and cracks/deprotects/serials for same. As usual, the users are to blame, not the companies. It will still be possible to copy these games well into the future; it is still a truism that anything a person can put together, a person can take apart.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Remember CD keys?
Did he forget the generations of copy protection before this?
The C64 copy protection battles, with the crazy disk access.
The code wheels and papers, and manuals
Companies keep trying, get some success, then it starts to fail, then they improve. This is just the copy protection arms race.
IMHO, I think that the worst trend that has been hitting the PC gaming industry in recent years is a near-total lack of serious innovation and originality. The kinds of trends described in the article are nothing compared to this. Compared to the 1980's and early 1990's, the games of today seem to me anyway, comparatively lackluster and boring. Every major gaming company seems to be suffering from a me-too syndrome that causes the market to flood with dozens of similar games on the coattails of the last major innovation (which comes more and more seldom thanks to this phenomenon). We have hundreds of first-person shooter games and their close variants, more and more games in a genre that was saturated long ago. Real-time strategy games seem to suffer from the same problem. IMHO, the worst thing that ever happened to the gaming industry in recent years was the 3D card, which has seen more than its share of abuse at the hands of the major game companies. They seem to think that making a game 3D with impressive graphics is enough to make up for all of its shortcomings; in fact it's usually more true that abuse of the 3D engine can very quickly become a game's biggest shortcoming. Good graphics does not make up for an RPG's lack of plot and coherent storyline (cough...Ultima IX...cough), nor is it even required for many genre of games (cough...Warcraft III...cough).
DRM-ish measures in games and the other inconveniences mentioned are relatively minor compared to the mess that is a mediocre or unoriginal game.
This article is a better, more insightful read into what's wrong with the gaming industry today.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Compare the number of people who play the STEAM version of Counter-Strike to the numbers who bought half-life or CS Retail.
It's like 35,000 retail to 3,000 STEAM, and STEAM is free for the taking.
Nobody I know plays the STEAM version very often because you are locked into a few maps.
Anyway, hardly anyone wants to contribute the costs of a server when the game company doesn't allow you to do anything except for an out-of-the-box configuration.
This is a trend, I agree, but it isn't the whole picture. The dark cloud is rather ominous looking, but I see (a hint of) a silver lining. Often overlooked in these discussions is the open-source/free software philosophy.
The large multinational conglomerates are creating the very niche OS/FS needs to flourish. We see it in the software market. For every increasingly restricted option, there is one or more viable, active OS/FS projects.
And while *content* is almost invariably locked up behind ClearChannel, RIAA/MPAA, EA, Hollywood, et. all, I think it is only a matter of time before independent content producers begin to gain a foothold. I would cite the rise of the so-called "blogospher" as evidence of this. As a reaction to the percieved bias (in the general sense of the word) in popular media, weblogs are beginning to establish themselves as legitimate news alternatives.
I think that is the power of the Internet. The physical medium is not very important any more. Because you have a broadcast tower or printing press does not guarentee you a news monopoly anymore. The instant dissemination of the Internet is breaking down (or at least challenging) the old barriers of entry. The same is true for the rest of the content industry. We all have CD burners. What need is there for a stamping plant? That's what makes the FS/OS model a viable alternative to the corporate machine. By severly lowering distribution costs, the players are forced to compete on product.
I feel it is only a matter of time before the creativity is so far encumbered by the restrictions of the corporate world that it will flow to other, more open channels. You might have to give up the polish, as we reinvent the latest shading technologies or explosion sequences, but we will always have the creativity.
If nothing else, this angle desevers consideration.
Even in the digital age, as consumers we still need an 'online store' to distribute the downloads available. Sure we could end up with a whole load of proprietary servers, one for each games publisher, or even one per developer - however as we have seen recently in the downloadable music market, iTunes is winning in the market because it has the largest catalogue available. People are busy, and will always want 'one stop shops'.
Blockbusters, as the world's largest rental brand, should be ruling this market. They should have the most experience, in getting people to part with their $$$ for the right to play for a period of time - and then securing repeat business again and again. Having a load of 'bricks and mortar' stores is not what makes their business tick - it IS letting people pay less than an outright purchase, for a reduced set of rights.
If they fail to see what it is that makes their business unique, and how to innovate and apply that to the new online age, they deserve the fate that they will surely get.
One reason why the companies DO want to do this is because game prices have been pretty stagnant over the last 2 decades.
I mean, Super Mario Brothers 3 sold millions of copies at $50 each in 1988, and today Grand Theft Auto 3 and VC sold millions of copies each at $50 each.
$50 x 1,000,000 in 1988>$50 x 1,000,000 in 2004
So, not that I support this (which I don't), but the game companies haven't upped the price of games in 15 years or so, so they're just trying to make more $ in other ways. (In fact, I remember in the early-mid 90's there was a temporary trend in which games were sold for $59.99 - I remember pre-ordering Rebel Assault II for that much).
What they can do is use an algorithm to generate a unique key (from a hash or whatever), then generate tens of millions (out of possible hundred-gazallions) of these keys.
The crackers can still crack the hash, as much as they would like; they'll come up with keys that should work... But the trick is this:
The publisher stores in it's database all of the keys that are shipped with products. While any number of keys may actually allow the product to install, when it phones home, your key has to match a key in the database.
This technique is MUCH harder to beat than a regular key system--partially because at any point you can be assured that a REAL customer is probably using his REAL key. And that's okay. Most of the services that use this technique are online games, and some of them have a single player element that can be explored whilst offline. From my perspective, it allows you a good look at what the game is like online, so you can decide if it's worth it to buy.
And, y'know? I'm fine with keys. If you wanna play, you gotta pay.
It seems to me that most people are missing the point. This is not about having physical media or whatever, this is about the value we attach to intellectual property and how we handle revenue that is to be procured from it. Consider: if I were to visit an art gallery and buy a painting I like, I pay the painter indirectly for his/her artistic vision and labour in making something for me to enjoy. The PRODUCT of the vision becomes mine, the vision is the painter's. If we assume software to be an intellectual construct comparable to a painting, the problem with subscription services becomes obvious - you rent a product but never get to own it and may not enjoy it as you please. This would be comparable to the painter coming to your home and removing or changing the painting without your consent. The question is - do we want it to be like that? I for one wouldn't. There seems to be something inherently wrong with having people pay for subscription to a final product without actually ever getting to OWN the product -to be able to do with it as you please- it subverts every notion of property that I have. If I were to do science in this way I would never publish my results; instead, my colleagues would have to subscribe to a results service and they would not be able to use the results unless I were to be paid handsomely. Obviously, that wouldn't work at all and halt all scientific progress. I agree with other posters in judging that making all games available as rentals will be the death of modifications. I think it would be the death of gaming as we know it. IMHO a good reason to go open source all the way. How do other /. readers feel about this?
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
actually, it's that the last 7 digits have to add up to a number that's evenly divisible by 7.
1111111 = 7 7/7 = 1 valid key
7777777 = 49 49/7 = 7 valid key
6667888 = 49 49/7 = 7 valid key
1234567 = 28 28/7 = 4 valid key
4432453 = 25 25/7 = 3.571... Not a valid key
This works for the older MS products that have the 3-7 digit keys, not sure about the 5-5-5-5-5 digit keys.
Zro . two
"I come from Canada...they say I'm slow....eh?"
Consider that id eventually opened the source of both Doom and Quake, and that originally these two games were their flagship moneymakers. In doing so, in my mind id proved three things:- (a) That they'd already made more money than they could need or know what to do with, (b) That once they had established their livelihoods, that they wished to contribute to the future of first-person gaming, and (c) That although earning a living was important to them, (we all need to eat and pay the bills) finding a means of expression for their phenomonal levels of intelligence and creativity, contributing a form of entertainment to the world, and enjoying themselves in the process was the primary motivation in persuing their enterprise.
We need to remember that perhaps unlike the RIAA or MPAA, the gaming industry is populated by some of the most intelligent, lucid, and conscious human beings alive today. Active copy protection is in place for the first 2-3 years of a game, because yes, games do take time and money to make, (if you know anything about the industry, you'll know it's typically large amounts of both) and the people involved want to get something back for their efforts. After that time however (typically after a game hits "platinum" status sales wise) and it is assumed that no more income can be reasonably expected from the title, then in most cases the copy protection is removed, and in some instances the source of the game itself is opened, as we have seen. The copy protection of both the original Unreal Tournament and Half-Life was removed in later patches.
It might be true that Microsoft are planning on making their own products more closed and crippled, but in looking at this, you need to look at the history of individual companies. Fascist behaviour is par for the course in Microsoft's case in particular, but just because that's the norm for their behaviour, that doesn't mean it's that way for everybody.
I can't emphasise enough that (at least in my opinion) id and Epic represent two of the most intellectually and creatively gifted groups of human beings that I've ever heard of. The RIAA might be unreasoning, jackbooted idiots, but these two companies aren't, and that being the case they know that binding up the mod scene and doing other such things would only be shooting themselves in the foot. After all, let us not forget that Steven Polge, Epic's own AI programmer, was initially recognised due to a modification he made for the first Quake game, the Reaper Bot. The gaming industry trying to kill modding would be a case of them biting the hand that feeds them, and I believe they would be highly conscious of that fact.