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."
This isn't purely a gaming industy trend, but an overall trend in the software industry as a whole. Everything sold as retail software now comes with at least a CD key, if not an activiation system. Software publishers have always hated piracy, and always hated the idea of selling used software.
I don't see much of a difference between a play-for-play model, and the rental model... both leave you with nothing after your allotted time has expired. The Blockbusters of the world are the ones who are really shaking over the death of physical media, because they're not needed if everybody gets their rental content delivered online.
The divorce of software from physical media is a result of a shift in business models, but I don't think there's any more reason to cry over the loss of the console gaming cart than there is to cry over the death of the RIAA-backed music CD. We're just getting deeper and deeper into the information age, and if we want our high-speed networks to be any good, we've gotta have data availalbe on it...
I'm certainly happy to have an actual CD of DOOM II so I can work on Ruby-DOOM on whichever computer I'm closest to.
The Army reading list
There will always be a p2p forum for trading games and piracy and quit harassing people and providing restrictive 'features' to control what users can do... The only way companies will end this is to offer better alternatives. Something I do not see happening in the foreseeable future.
With a name like 'Curmudgeon Gamer', would you expect an upbeat article?
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
... is XBox Live, hands down. $50 a year, unlimited play, fantastic selection of games.
For those of you considering a subscription, give these three games a try - Project Gotham 2, Crimson Skies, and MechAssault.
It's a blast, I promise.
"And I also predict that in the future Valve will employ teams of jackbooted thugs to come to your door and shoot you in the face if they catch you using a CD crack..."
Okay, never mind the unthinking, chicken-little attitude of this article. Never mind the technological "predictions" that are often nothing short of ludicrous (a game that deletes the older levels as you play? What game company would do such a thing, and why?) Never mind the article's total ignorance of market forces, i.e. assuming that players will just put up with one staggering inconvenience after another and never migrate to an easier-to-use entertainment medium (isn't this why we have been hearing about the "death of the PC" for so long anyway)? This guy just needs to plain old proofread:
"Quake players didn't need to with for a no-CD hack and Half-life players didn't need to connect to a master server to play single-player games, but DooM III and Half-life 2 owners just might have to."
Apparently he's so curmudgeonly he's started speaking his own language.
Maybe I am just a naive Pollyanna, but if I saw any video game on the shelf that required a monthly subscription fee, no physical media, and gigabytes of downloading to play, I'd leave it there without a second thought. I'd like to think there are others out there who would say the same. (Note: I know there are MMORPGs out there that are already somewhat like this, but I don't play them.)
If they try hard enough, maybe they can kill off the gaming market althogether.
Look, the games still take up, what, 1-5 Gigs? Unless people are downloading _consistently_ at some 500k, you'll still ahve to go to the store and get the game on CD. Given the state of the broadband market in the US this pay-to-play crap is like 20 years away, and by then, the games will take up a few terrabytes anyway.
it's the people who decide things like this. If sufficient people stop purchasing games that restrict their ability to play them, then it's a simple business decision for the company to make - stop over-restricting the user.
If companies adopt the attitude that consumers en-mass are stupid (usually justifiable, to be fair to the companies) they might just get burnt on this one - gamers particularly and (to be fair to the great unwashed, this time) people in general are getting more au fait with the technology. Removing the ability to share games or play with friends may just result in non-protected-in-this-way games being more popular instead.
The games market is very very cut-throat. It's similar to the post-production market (where I work) except that the games companies are far more in control than the advertising agencies (our paymasters). If one company goes down the "wrong" alley, I reckon another might just jump to go down the "right" one, especially if they're currently not the market leader...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Or they call the police to have you removed from their store. No refunds and no exchanges except for the same title has been the policy for software since the beginning of time.
true , it seems unlikely now ... but 20 years from now (when high speed internet is as common as having phone service) , it'll be the norm. the article really is off track in that no real solution is presented (or even wanted ?)
"taking over the world , one lego at a time"
This is so much chicken little we are all doomed nonsense. Do you really think that the game companies are truly stupid enough to piss off their lifeblood? Granted they make some dumb calls, but I honestly do not think they are suicidaly stupid. Games a pain in the ass to own or play? Then just don't play it! They will die, and a service that meets the needs of gamers will surface. It all depends on what the gamers are willing to accept, end of story.
If the game is good enough I'll go out and buy it, and even pay for a subscription fee to access the server or whatever. But don't think for a second I'd pony up dough monthly if the game sucks. Make sure it's worth the money. And if companies are all going to move towards charging more, don't think the customer is automatically going to pay more. I'll be even more price-aware and even more picky as to whether or not the game is worth the cost. In my opinion, out of all the games released this year, I could count the number of games I'd buy / subscribe to on one hand.
Remember Id? Came out of nowhere, provided something that the heavy hitters didn't. Now they are a heavy hitter. It's not rocket science. (Ok, mabye it is in Id's case).
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
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'
"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".
This is ridiculous - for people who actually pay for software, they do so because they get an equivalent in _having fun_ while using the software or hardware, as the case may be.
People who "borrow" (yeah, right) games aren't _customers_ anyway, why would anyone care about them?
I own two legal copies of CS and I'll pay for the new one when it comes out, no matter what the media is. And I'm sure I'll have fun.
This means fewer people will buy these restrictive games, and motivated entrepreneurs will release games we do want to buy.
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?
The videogame industry doesn't focus mainly on pc games, it encompasses console games as well. I can't remember any console game where I had to type in a cd key. I can't remember playing one that I didn't have the original media for. I don't remember need a no cd hack because consoles don't work the way our pc's do. Pay for Play online gaming has been tried as a business model before, and never has worked out. The closest we came in the states was Sega.Net, which tanked.
What do I know? It may change and videogame companies may start doing pay for play. But try and remember that these companies want as much of your money as possible. I know I'm willing to pay more for a box and a disc that for a download link on a subscription service.
My bet is, console games will continue to be the industry focus, and the pc ports will contain whatever hacked in protection is sexy at the time. The only places we're likely to see "innovation" in pc game protection is with games like Half life 2, where pc development is the central focus.
Mexicans eat chili.
"I, for one, welcome our new %INSERT ARTICLE SUBJECT HERE% overlords."
The anti-pirating schemes already in place have all but killed the gaming experience for me. Why is it I spent uncountable hours playing my older games online with friends, but anything I've bought in the last year needs to meet up on a server. You spend wasted time in a lobby watching people type in profanity and hate speech, then as your friends all try to start the game, something happens and it doesn't launch. Time's too short, I'll just won't play games with needless restrictions and I wish others wouldn't either.
But is hardly strong enough.
Yes games that allow you to play on OTHER people's servers are more restricted, because it is THEIR servers. Granted there are plenty of public Half-life servers, but they still are indexed by VALVes master server. In doing so they get people playing on their server, and VALVe is assured the people playing on these servers are using legitimate products.
If one has a problem with the 1984 style, then don't play on the servers, instead use other servers like one can use with open battle net. You can connect without any legit CD key, but you also are playing with less people; more then likely. As always a trade off.
As for Steam only downloading the parts you'll "Use in the near future" the author does NOT know what he is talking about. Steam downloads the levels as you play them, yes, aside from the core levels that come with the mod you are playing (or the original game). By core levels I mean, if you download half-life it downloads all the game content you need, but no added developer levels unless you go on a sever that has them, then it downloads them and you keep them on your hard drive.
It is for two reasons. To be gentle on VALVes bandwidth, and also if you never play any other levels/mods (like Counter strike, or Day of defeat) then there is less Hard drive space taken up on your computer.
As for the rest of the author's comments on making everything non-tangible, I doubt that will happen for a few reasons.
One of which is people like to have a product for convince they can grab and install if their system crashes.
Two people would want more for less, if they don't have that solid backup to go back to.
Example. Through steam, you either buy the game in the store or get an unlimited subscription to steam, or you pay 5 dollars a month for the same service.
I'd love to hear arguments against what I've said, so please...
(Offspring, I believe)
To do any significant game-related downloading, you need a fast internet connection. A LOT of users (self included) are still on dial-up, simply for cost reasons. If you add the cost of a required broadband link, plus a pay-per-play or subscription model for games, people will decide it's simply not worth their hard-earned money. I know people who pay $80/mo for their cable TV & internet, but they're double-income, middle class families. Students, young workers, and other lower-income people will not - often can not - pay through the ass just to play video games.
Freedom: "I won't!"
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.
is just as valuable as any other forum opinion. Why this guy was posted on /. is beyond me (slow weekend). He says that it is guarenteed we will have to pay for play, no rentals, no used games, and no physical media. That is his GUESS people.
After reading 1/2 of the article I realized it was as useful as reading someone's opinion on any message board. He drew up educated guesses and that was it.
Now of course every industry wants a subscription like service for their product. Yearly upgrades and that sort of thing can equal huge profits. But it doesn't work in a lot of industries. Everyone thought MMO games would be HUGE after EQ. I mean EQ is a cash cow. But besides SWG which survives on the star wars name alone, no other MMO game has come close to EQ in the US. For every success I see a dozen failed attempts.
So how this author thinks I will pay $10 a month for an average game is beyond me. Doom3 and HL2 could squeeze a few months out of me but the second I stop so do my payments. And 99% of games out there AREN'T Doom3 or HL2 quality. The subscription based model would actually hurt most companies because they would rather take the $50 and run. Besides Doom3 and Half-Life2 I can't think of one game I would pay for longer than 1 month. Planetside is a great example of a FPS game trying to charge per month and failing horribly (with a decent product). And they had a reason for the subscription, server costs, while other games will not.
This author doesn't have anything to back up his opinion so its just as valid as mine (do I get the front page if I buy a domain name and post this?). The most obvious conclusion in the next 5 years of gaming is 90%+ games still being bought, rented, etc and maybe 10% have a subscription for things like Xbox2 Live and MMO type games. I rent almost every console game instead of buying it because I know I won't play it longer than a week. So if they try to force a $50 + $10 a month tag down my throat it would fail horribly and they know it.
1) Keyword:
It was like the ID code that some games use today, but instead of ID that tied itself a single copy, this method relied on keywords in the game documentation that you had to enter at the start of every game. The thinking was that if you had documentation, you must actually own the game.
Some of them were like: "Enter the last word in the third paragraph on pg 14 of the manual". Others relied on a password/countersign. Some relied on decoder wheels. Of course, these were all easily defeated by a magical invention known as a photocopier. Some hackers who were probably very bored or cheap acutally wrote hacks against these protection schemes.
2) Copy protection build into the medium.
Back then we used 5 1/4" disks. To build copy protection into the disks, game makers broke standards on the disks. Game makers did things like add extra tracks onto a disk that only the game could access. Add code that changed the how the disk drives read and wrote. Some games actually required a part to be attached to a port on your computer.
These were harder to counteract, but there were utilities that could bypass most of these protections. Again hackers at work.
Much of the new protection is predicated on the fact that there is no medium to hack. There will be some software stored on your computer but the important parts are on the server. But that leaves the communication to hack.
Well, hackers are bright people, and these new protections only give hackers a challenge. There's nothing more that hackers like than a challenge.
Another potential problem with this type of protection is that it almost requires broadband due to the high bandwidth. Currently multiplayer games only communicate data about the user and the game environment. But if it has to send code as well as data, there's a lot more bandwidth to be needed. While broadband is gaining popularity, there will be dialup only users for a long time.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
A lot of these schemes (such as activation) described in the article are nothing more than good ole' fashioned copy-protection. I think in the early 80's, software makers saw copy-protection as the holy-grail, and would go to great lengths to make there wares hard to copy-- even for backup purposes. For a while, I think many folks thought it was against the law to copy a make a copy of your own VCR tape.
However, many of these copy-protection schemes. USB dongles, codes that had to be typed in with each boot-up (remember SimCity?), or extra discs that had to be kept in a 2nd drive. Most of these schemes failed because mostly what they did was make it difficult for the owners (or licensees, whatever) of the software to use it. So instead of selling 100,000 copies and having 20,000 pirated, they'd sell 80,000 and have zero pirated versions. Seems hardly worth the bother, eh? This is most recently evidenced by the TurboTax fiasco of 2003.
Right now, this push is most evident in the world of digital music sales, which are grossly restricted compared to regular CDs. I think at one point a major label will decide it's pointless to sell copy-protected (I hate the term DRM) tunes when the pirates will never pay for them anyway and can get them from other services.
Will video-game rentals and re-sales go the way of the Dodo bird? It will start to look that way for a while, then a really good game will come out with any restrictions and sales will be tremendous, despite (because of?) the casual piracy that is sure to ensue. Publishers will then remember this: organized piracy=bad, casual piracy=both good & bad, copy-protection does nothing to stop the first and may in fact encourage it, while doing a great deal to hinder the latter. They'll then ask "what's the point again?" and will use the business model that works the best for their particular game instead of trying to restrict everything to the nth degree.
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.
PC-based gaming is on a decline. My two teens asked for not a single game for their windows machines, only X-Box. That's probably a good thing, since they're running 450MHz machines with wimpy 3D cards, and they'd have demanded upgrades.
And yet, they play on those machines constantly: java/flash or small games from places like MSN, Weebl, Homestar Runner, etc., and "The Apprentice" to let them play MtG or other card games without owning the cards.
Occasionally they foray into their unfinished back stock too.
Meanwhile, the subscribe or die approach is hitting X-Box: X-Box Live is the only requirement listed for "Phantasy Star Online" until you open the package, at which point you find that a separate subscription is needed to play the online game!
Design for Use, not Construction!
I don't share such bleak predictions for the future, even though I know they are within the realm of possibility. Why? Because that isn't how I want to play games, and that's what matters to the market in the end.
Anyone remember Divx as something other than an avi format? Or does anyone remember when the future of television was supposed to be pay-per-view after its success in the 80s?
The opportunities aren't being afforded by new advances in technology, they've been there for a while.
If companies want to stake their future on consumers playing the DRM game along with them that's fine - it's their dollar to lose or win. Corporate efforts to institute it across-the-board are mind-boggling, but I always have the option to buy something else - and the march towards centralized control, whether it's a slow and concerted push or a quick overhaul, will always create a niche market as a result. If the niche products are absorbed or converted, the niche remains. Ah, capitalism!
So I'm not concerned with companies banding together to push DRM - because all they're doing is shooting their monopolies in the foot, and giving potential competitors a (healthy, unshot) foot in the door - I'm concerned with cartels pulling strings in DC to make standards law.
If the conglomerates are willing to throw away market share in the mad shift towards total information control, why should we stop them? I eagerly await the demise of Sony & Microsoft-qua-game companies.
This is going to make it really tough playing it at work in a DoD Tempest-shielded room. I may have to drill a hole to run a net cable ...
(Just kidding, guys: put away your ISP subpoenas)
It's far harder to accidentally corrupt a plastic disc than it is to have a transfer error screw up an application.
If you have a scratch on your plastic disc, you'd better hope that the disc specifications put enough error correction data on at manufacturing time to fix the problem. If you're transferring data over a network, during most of the transfer you only need enough data to reliably perform error detection, since over a noisy link the client can re-request corrupted blocks and the server can increase the percentage of ECC data dynamically.
The way he goes on about CD keys, you'd think that they were the root of all gaming evils.
I don't read the site normally, so I have no idea how old the guy is, but surely he can't be so young as to not remember some of the hoops we had to jump through back in the old, 8 bit, tape-based days?
Hands up who remembers spending an hour or more fiddling with their tape deck to get Jet Set Willy to load? And then have to type in a particular colour code once it had loaded? Or the LensLok system that Elite used, where you held a very breakable plastic lens up to the screen to make a code readable? Some games even came with little hardware dongles.
He seems to think that it all started with Q3, when in reality, the computer games industry has been doing that sort of thing for about 20 years. Ubiquitous, high-speed net connections may well take it to the next level, but I can't see it being anywhere near as bad as he paints it. If that were true, it should've already been intolerable for a decade or so.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
With the proliferation of the video game market and the recent (last year and a half) realization by people that video games make a lot of money...
Every argument that the marketplace is going to stink goes directly against every economic theory out there. Greater competition and demand is a great thing. I am tired of people saying that a LUXURY ITEM like video games is having some EA games conspiracy or something like that. This is pure drivel.
When I was a child I payed sometimes $35 for a game on the original NES system. Now, I pay $50 for Call of Duty. Which do you think was a better benefit? Which was the bigger bargain? Which is the best deal? I think that argument alone is enough to debunk what people have been saying about the video game industry going to hell in a handbasket... and that we should all put on our crash helmets and prepare to be screwed.
This whole argument is bunk. Go spin some of those tinfoil conspiracies elsewhere... and stop crying because you can't rip off games anymore. When someone rips off the GPL, everyone is up in arms, but a game that is cracked? TOTALLY COOL, RIGHT?
Get a grip, whiners. Go live in a mud hut for a month if you need to get away from the screwjob of the video games because you think you payed too much for a copy of MADDEN 2004 or whatever.
Even if you can only download a chapter at a time, you can _gather_ the entire book. Once you have the book, you can modify the phone-home code(tricky, but nothing compared to what has been done before). Another alternative would be to simply set up your host file to point to a different server to provide the pieces of the game on demand. The community of gamers usually responds pretty clearly to these types of restrictions.
"Hex, Bugs, and Rockn'Roll"
Rather than paying for "the software" what you are paying for is connection rights to the server. If a game was written to allow free-as-in-beer downloading and the servers required payment for connection time, then a competetive market would be there, which is, IMO, a good thing.
This works particually for MMOs and multiplayer FPSs. It might even be possible to open source the client software and have the server side code remain closed - although that would require rigourous security procedures it would allow for greater community enjoyment of community written features.
You just need to look at this from a different angle. Think of it like paying for petrol for your car.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
the lengthy article finally asserts: "And that's where were headed, like it or not. No physical media. No rentals. No used games. No sharing games among friends. Limited hardware upgrades. Pay-to-play. Unless something seriously changes the course of the industry, this is the future."
and even at the end of the painfully apocalyptic argument, he still hasn't managed to convince me this will be a bad thing at all.
games without physical media - wonderful! i lose the warm comfort of actually owning the shiny disc, but i gain the ability to install and play the game whenever and wherever, without worrying about lugging the media with my laptop, having to have the CD in the disc drive, losing it, etc.
no rentals? now that's absurd. of course there will be rentals. publishers aren't so dumb that they don't realize many gamers don't actually want to buy everything; that they're willing to pay a cheaper rate to try a game out for a short while. and an automatic delivery system like steam would make it easy to do just that.
indeed, steam would be much better for the independent developers than the current blockbuster-style rentals, of which the author is so fond. at a rental shop, when i rent a PS2 game the profit goes to the shop. over steam, however, the developer could arrange to rent their games, earning the profits themselves, and only paying valve for the use of their infrastructure.
then the author's attacks shift to DRM. "limited hardware upgrades" and "no sharing among friends" pop up in a frequent, if circumspect, manner. and here he's finally getting it. the new approach goes to great lengths to prevent piracy.
what bothers me, however, is that the author seems convinced that anti-piracy measures are bad. why? while i understand the motivations of the typical high-schoolers who want the ability to copy and trade as many games as they can, only the most ridiculous ones would argue that piracy is actually a positive social force for which our techologies should accommodate.
that's just patently absurd. people who make the games need to get paid. and our technologies need to prevent people from stealing the fruits of others' years of hard work.
but this the author doesn't seem to grasp.
My other car is a cons.
Games are moving furiously towards this end. With Steam moving full steam ahead for HL2, its only a matter of time before all games are delivered online. Also, for example, my copy of Star Wars Galaxies. I purchased it the day it came out and enjoyed for awhile but quickly grew bored. I tried to sell the physical media discs to my friend with the cd-key and SOE stated that once the key is activated it cant be transferred. I found this unacceptable and will never buy from SOE again. The right of first sale has been taken from me for no good reason.
For Frodo
"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."
I really have to disagree with the whole "pay-as-you-play" thing getting any momentum. Right now the whole MMORPG market is flooded with clones (there hasn't been a good release since UO prior 98), and it will only be a matter of time before people will get sick of playing the same game. Not only that but do you know anyone who would play(pay) for more than 3 of these? The fact that Midway is re-releasing its older machines should say something. They need to start making games gamers want, instead of worrying about how to take my money.
Don't worry. Any self-respecting gamer who has played with voice chat on Xbox knows pay-for-play is doomed.
The idea seems cool, until you strap on your headset and start listening to your teammates' squeaky prepubescent voices. No thanks. I'll stick to lan parties.
I think one of the most unique game designing companies has been skunk studios. Why they haven't been able to score a deal with the PSX or Xbox is beyond me.
They have two unique games: Spelvin & Sveerz
The concept is common word and tone/sound match up - but the gameplay is VERY original.
The new Mario Cart on the Gamecube is a really unique spin on racing as well.
Tetrisphere for the N64 was a unique spin on Tetris.
Call Of Duty is so realistic that it too is unique.
Pearls Game is a unique PDA and Internet Flash Game.
You also fail to see that repackaing old games is actually original : MAME or Intellivision Lives for instance.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I recently had a crisis of conscience in deciding whether or not to try FFXI or SW:Galaxies (after years of bashing Everquest players). However, a few of my friends and HL clan mates had picked up these games (mostly SW:G) and were going on about how great they were. So when I started looking into it I realized there really is NO way to try out an MMORPG short of physically going to a friends house and playing on THEIR account, without having to buy a 50 dollar game. Then amazingly Sony introduced a trial buddy system for SW:G that allowed someone to install of their friends disks and play for 7-days. So I embarked into the world of an MMORPG for the first time, and I enjoyed it... a lot, like I was afraid I would. So my trial ran out and I went out and picked up a subscription card, only to find out they still want me to go and buy the game itself (that I already have installed) for 50 bucks w/ a 30 day supscription attached (as opposed to 30 bucks for a 60 day card). I understand that part of these proceeds go to the game developers and studio and what not BUT I think this far in most of those costs are at least somewhat recouped and they're making a profit off of the subscriptions anyway, is it really too much to allow someone to just pay-to-play? I have a hard time bringing myself to spend 50 dollars and then another 30 just to play a game that's already installed on my computer, I see a future for streamed and pay-to-play games (however horrible that may be for gamers) but these companies really need to look into what they're asking of their customers.
Aside from the fact that consumers want a physical, tangible medium and don't want their games to stop working 5 years from now because John Madden wants more money, this articles writer is missing a major point, one completely beyond the control of the gaming industry.
ISP's.
I don't mean people on dialup either (although they are still the vast majority of American internet users.) I mean bandwidth caps. So I'm Bob Comcast user, and oh look, its January 17, since I play Half-real Tournament 2016 a few hours a day, I've used up tons of bandwidth, since the server caches most of the games information.
End of the month rolls around, and I get a letter from Comcast saying to stop using so much bandwidth, so I cancel my game subscription. Half-Real Tournament 2016 developers don't get paid. Developers attack marketing guy who claimed subscriptions was a great idea. Marketing guy gets a clue.
You just need to look at this from a different angle. Think of it like paying for petrol for your car.
The difference is that modes of transport which require fuel, such as cars, offer obvious and undeniable advantages over the forms of transport which don't, such as the bicycle - speed, lack of effort, the ability to carry much more baggage...
What advantage does the subscription model offer over current software, which I pay for once (for about the price of two months' subscription, going by current proposals) and can then use however I like, including online play at no extra cost?
Car analogies are a bit silly, but how about this one - if someone tried to sell you a new type of car which had to have the oil replaced every day ("to protect you against problems caused by old oil, the car won't start till you replace it"), would you buy one of those?
seems simple to me, if enough people reject it, companys that banked on it will fail and the people will win. In theory at least.
I want 2D games back.
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.
Everyone here probably remembers Internet Appliances, right? You know, those loss-leader crippled computers that would provide basic web access via dialup and required a higher-than-average-cost (for Internet access) monthly fee. Yea, those did real well, didn't they?
The author of this article is making the same mistakes as the people that thought Internet appliances would take off. The author is looking at a small segment of the gaming market, out of context, and assuming it is the direction the entire gaming market is going to take.
Yes, for some games, a monthly fee is appropriate. As others have said, if the game has a continuing operating cost to the company that is producing it (new levels/quests/etc., server upkeep, paying people to moderate/admin the game, etc.) and ALSO offers the consumers value for their monthly fee, a subscription model is well justified.
Maybe some companies will try a subscription model for games that should instead be sold - there's no reason they can't try. If the past is any indication though, competition and people voting with their wallet will quickly send such ideas the way of Divx (the original Circuit City DVD competitor, not the MPEG4 codec) and the Netpliance I-Opener.
What I do think we'll see in the future is the same thing we're seeing now... If you want to pirate a game, fine - but the second you try to connect that game to the outside world, don't expect it to work. With a modded Xbox, for example, you can "backup" games to your heart's content - but you cannot play them on Xbox Live. This isn't an indication of game companies planning on something more devious in the future, they're just simply using the tools they have available now to cut down on piracy. Whether or not you're still able to make backups to play on your own system in the future will not be determined by gaming companies interest in subscription models, but by whether or not people buy into "Trusted Computing" aka Palladium.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
This may be seen as good and bad, but like anything, will take time to evolve. Personally, I have refused to buy any game that requires a subscription on top of a $50 initial buying fee. So have over a dozen of my friends and family. It is a ridiculous concept to pay so much money for something that you do not own, and never have the option to own. So, while the gaming industry is making oodles of money off of this concept, they will also be driving away gamers. How many 12 year olds do you know that can pay monthly subscriptions fees, let alone even have a checking account or a credit card? If the trend goes as the author suggests, the gaming industry might lose their biggest audience (kids). Or, what might happen is that it will force more users to the other side, like XP's activation service did. Granted it is not a large number, but if such brutal restrictions, high costs, and lack of ownership are the only option, people will make a second option. Smaller gaming companies might emerge making games for any of the platforms, and in my best hope, will target Linux desktops as that picks up momentum. When not given a choice I think people will make one. So, if this trend continues as the author stated, I think it will only be a temporary low in gaming (well, for me and my friends, since we won't be purchasing them :) until a viable alternative arises from the lower depths to compete and reverse this incredibly insane notion of subscription fees, plus purchase fees, plus lack of ANY kind of ownership for well over $100 worth of hard earned money, with nothing to show for it! I think the same will happen with games as has been done with many overly priced software and OS' ... it will be community ware in some similar manner such as much of the GNU/GPL licensed software, currently. It is a type of a rebellion against capitalism...the people are speaking, and will be heard, despite how much their elected officials are bribed...err...lobbied with ;)
So, the bad is that it is too expensive and nothing to show for it, and I won't be playing any of these games that I otherwise would have played. The good is that it might make games open source, or free, and/or target other platforms besides Windows.
Also in the news, e-books from Amazon will obiliterate the printed book market, grocery delivery services will annihilate the brick and mortar grocery stores, DigiScent smelling PC devices are the next video cards, broadband video retails are the wave of the future, and PointCast rocks.
(I'd have thrown in more digitally oriented links, but the websites are all, well, gone)
No doubt this is a move to curb piracy, but as usual with these "clever" ways to fight it, there's always a way around it.
Those pirating console games are people who know how and where to get a mod chip installed and how/where to download/find the games. The people who copy console games aren't the average joe who will be fooled by this new system.
They are intelligent people who will look into the new ways of how to copy games. Look at GameCube.. Nintendo though it was fool proof, but if you know anything about the Phantasy Star Online exploit (although, a bit more advanced than modding/copying), then you'll know that the GC is just as exposed and vulerable as a modded PS2/XBox with game images constantly being uploaded to usenet.
I can't blame 'em for trying, I guess, but I really do wish they'd stop inconveniencing their customers to try and stop the inevitable.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
it could be tricky because they could shorten game life and you would not be able to play "old game"
want to play? get the new game that require the new hardware!
Sorry, it just seems that the article makes the assertion that this "will" happen without mentioning "why" or "how." The market trends he describes would only apply to the PC market anyway, and no one rents PC games.
Furthermore, he makes assertions that are out-and-out wrong: Both EBGames and Gamestop sell used copies of Warcraft III, Half-Life, etc in their physical stores. The only place they don't sell these titles is online, mainly because the condition of used PC games varies so much: Console games are accepted in trade only if they have their packaging and documentation (usually). PC games are often accepted in just a jewel case. So while a store may have 12 used copies of Used PC Game of the Moment, 5 will just have the disc, 3 will have the documentation, 3 will just be in the box with no documentation, and 1 will be complete.
His whole argument is based around the idea that it will take just one bestselling game "like Half-Life 2" to be sold this way to make it the future. Well, Half-Life 2 isn't out yet, so it's not bestselling. Furthermore, if it's only available in a format where I don't own it when I buy it, I won't have it. At least, not legally.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
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).
You know what would really be awful?
If videogames became such a hassle and so expensive that people stopped buying them and started spending time with their families and engaging in physical activity.
The horror.
This pointless sarcasm was brought to you by the Committee that Offers to be Flamed Over and Over (COGFOO).
But seriously, I'm an older man, now, and when I think back on my fondest memories, they don't really include any of the time I spent playing videogames. I remember my joy at learning how to make my own photographs from scratch in a real, actual smelly darkroom, and I fondly remember going to outdoor music festivals and playing the guitar and singing around a campfire in the middle of the night, but for some reason I don't well recall how I felt about getting to the end of MYST, or Marathon, or StarCraft, or finally defeating Shang Tsung on the first SNES version of Mortal Kombat.
Videogames are lots of fun, but believe an old man when he tells you that you are not building a lifetime of happy memories by playing them, even when you're doing it with your friends. I don't want to bore anyone with my theories as to why, but they would include the repetition of it, and the lack of physical engagement. I propose that for every hour spent playing videogames, one spends two hours doing something else. Sleeping and working don't count.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Some of you migh remember several years back when Ultima Online came out (which Roxored back then! I blew many hours on that game!) somne folks figured out how to create a open source server that you could connect to using the retail client. What was cool was folks could build out and set up their own world and let other folks connect to it. It was quite cool.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
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.
That is exactly why the doomsayer author of this article is wrong. People SUCH AS THE AUTHOR HIMSELF are willing to shell out $50-$60 for a boxed title with no subscription fee rather than have anything to do with monthly charges and so forth. If the major game companies banded together and all went with subscriptions, someone else could start a game company and market their products as being *SUBSCRIPTION FREE*. The major companies, however, are not likely stupid enough to abandon a large market segment for no reason at all. You don't get to be on top of a market by making poor decisions.
The ONLY way that regular games could ever stop being produced is if hardly anyone were interested in them anymore. It could happen, but if it did, very few people would be complaining about it, and they would sound like OLD CURMUDGEONS.
Firstly I have done my own analysis of TRSTS Data on the console market. It is very interesting to note that for the period I was examining (last year) 84% of the money was being made by 16% of the titles, which is a very high degree of polarisation for a market. For me this was indicitive that:
- there are a lot of bad games around
- that games are too highly priced for consumers to feel safe making 'impulse' purchases.
The other piece of research that is relevant, was looking at the gaming habits of gamers, and was written at the end of the 90's. There they showed that on average 80% of gamers make it to level 2, and that only 10% of gamers will complete a game.Online delivery has the opportunity to change all of that, as finally we can adopt a pricing scheme which is able to cater more fairly to ALL of the players, and no longer just to the hard-core. The effect of that should be that we are able to get more game players, as more people will be able to purchase at a value they think fair.
There are at least 2 models which can be applied to online delivery, subscription and micro-payment. These are not mutually exclusive, and cater to different sorts of player.
Subscription is very analogous to Pay TV channels. For the most part there would be a catalogue of titles available to play within your subscription each month. This caters to the person who has a given amount of time for video games each month, however allows this player to enjoy a wider variety of titles than traditional delivery. Like in the PayTV realm there is still the option of having special one-offs, which can charge what they want. That's just life.
With micro-payments, then you would only pay for what you actually play, and would be presented with an account at the end of a period. This model caters to the lighter gamer, who probably has other uses for their leisure time. However by offering this, then a distributer is able to significanlty lower the cost of entry, thereby making gaming finanically acceptable to a whole new set of people.
The original author seems to fear change - and automatically assumes that because the pricing model changes he will be worse off. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism protects us as consumers, because if one company starts building in unreasonably high profits, then another company will come along and take away all of their business! The costs of digital distribution are already significantly cheaper than opening up physical shopfronts, and this is only set to get cheaper.
Bringing new gamers in to play would be (and should be) where game's companys are able to increase their profits. Anything that gets more couch potatoes doing something stimulating, and away from the TV is a very good thing.
You just need to look at this from a different angle. Think of it like paying for petrol for your car.
Some things like hammers and screwdrivers, I like to purchase and keep them on the shelf, not rent them. Same thing with my car. I own it. It's paid for. However consumables that I might need I can purchase from any corner supplier, not just Texaco. Single vendor lock-in is a bad thing. A screwdriver that needs a subscription is a bad thing. Not all software needs to be online to be useful. Artificaily tying a subscription to screwdriver software is a bad thing.
Here is a great example of problems caused by a screwdrever needing to phone home. I put together a PC on my coffee table. I hadn't added a modem or lan card yet. To keep to drivers in check I don't stuff in all the hardware all at once. A keyboard and mouse are nice things to start with.
MS had just came out with the optical mouse. (quite a few years ago) I loaded it's driver. Not only did it insist of having a CD key for the driver, but it complained loudly about being unable to find my modem! This I don't need. I imediately gave away the mouse never to use a MS mouse again. Who knows what it would have reported silently to home if it found a lan net connection. There is no reason for a screwdriver (mouse driver) to phone home EVER!
My local LAN games shouldn't be any different. I buy them, I expect to play them with no hastles.
However if I stick in an AOL disk for use with an Online Service, I expect it to phone home and want an account for the online access. It's used to access someone else's provided content for a price.
A LAN game and Tax Preperation Software does not need this. Single vendor lock in is a bad thing. The software should be able to be purchased, not rented and I should be able to play a LAN game using a local server. There is no reason for a LAN game to phone home unless I choose to use the server provided by the manufacture to play someone in Guam. I should pay for service where service is supplied and I choose to use it. (subscription service) Lack of subscription should not break the local functioning of a program. EG a mouse driver or Word Processor that can't phone home shouldn't nag that I haven't registered or quit in 60 days.
Fighting piracy is one thing. Making the product less useful is also a bad business model. Competing is good. Trying to lock-in consumers is a bad business model. Consumers will find and buy the stuff that works with no hastles.
If MS didn't do product activation, do you think Open Office would havd gotten much serious attention?
The truth shall set you free!
First, computer gaming is on a trend AWAY from DRM. Long, long ago, diskette manufacturers screwed with the physical floppy to prevent copying. This caused more problems than the copy protection solved. Look-up solutions in game manuals ("Page 3, paragraph 2, word 4?") have also faded out as people became frustrated with keeping the manuals on hand. Recently, we're even seeing a move away from must-have-CD-in-drive copy protection.
Second, the computer game market is pretty elastic. If games become too expensive (as measured both in dollars and inconvenience), people will not buy them. They aren't like food (where you die of you don't have it), like MS Office (where you can't make money as effectively without it), or even like music (which we are culturally brainwashed to crave). If we don't have video games, we do something else.
Third, there are no central gaming companies secure enough in a monopoly to risk upsetting the market. If MS unilaterally started implementing fascist copy protection, people would turn to Nintendo or Sony. This is not a risk MS is willing to take.
In conclusion, I think it's baloney.
The true threat to games of today and tomorrow is the lack of quality in games on the market. As small game developers are swallowed up by the EAs and UBISofts at the same time the production cost of making a game rises vastly meaning fewer and fewer small companies can be successful without major backing from an EA, UBI or Microsoft. Competion won't be completely stifled but innovation will certainly be slowed.
My friend recently purchased an Xbox and went on a binge on aquiring games. I thought I'd jump in with him and help him get some good ones. I spent about 2 hours on the Xbox website purveying all released and announced games. Only one piqued my interest, and its been (wrongly) accused of racial insensativity. Every other game with some potential was part of a series and for the most part, not up to par with the original.
Even the games for PC are having the same issues. Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Counter-strike 2, Starcraft 2, GTA 5 are the only games I am looking forward to and I don't expect them to move the bar all that far. On the MMORPG front there is very little innovation even announced since Shadowbane's dismal showing. Sony's control of the MMORPG market certainly dims the future on this front.
I'm sure a few games will surprise me but I predict a dark ages period in true innovation for the next ten years or maybe even until a happy mix of movies and games can be made, which is a long way off.
What's next? Some kid's blog that says the sky is falling?
I mean please, this is really sad. How about reporting real news for once and not this crap.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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.
> Assuming that the valid-key-generating hash is not shipped as part of the product, why would hackers crack the hundred-gazillions hash of which some work rather than the tens-of-millions hash which the company used to generate actual valid keys?
Because the hash the company uses is the hundred-gazillions hash. See, it works on two levels. The company creates a key generator that can make a hundred gazillion keys. It runs it one hundred million times, and actually creates a hundred million keys out of the possible hundred gazillion. It then uses only those hundred million for valid keys. So, when the hacker breaks the hash, he gets a hundred gazillion key generator, and generates a key. However, if the hacker's one-in-hundred-gazillion key doesn't match one of the hundred million actual keys the comapny generated, then the company rejects it as a hacked key. That means that even if the hash is broken, someone has only a hundred-million per hundred-gazillion chance of generating a vaild key.
Virg