Slashdot Mirror
Console Makers Pushing For More Network Reliance
There's a story on Joystiq about the convergence of games consoles and network play, suggesting that the industry is slowly moving away from physical media, preferring the control and simplicity of online distribution. The article points out that Microsoft's Games for Windows Live, despite being relatively unpopular, has seen continued development with an eye toward interacting with Xbox Live. Quoting:
"While it's unlikely that the next generation of consoles will completely forgo disc-based media, downloads are quickly becoming a much bigger part of the experience. Some games, such as Rock Band 2 and Gears of War 2, are now shipping with codes for free downloads. This isn't because the publishers like you and want to give you free stuff. It's part of a larger strategy to increase the importance of the online presence, where content can be tightly controlled and decrease the importance of physical media, and thus, used-game sales and rentals."
Plus, any online connection forces you to have a legal purchased copy. But that's not part of it at all :)
the control and simplicity of online distribution.
control and simplicity of online distribution.
control and simplicity
control
Why waste money producing cd's, dvds or whatever when you can sell it online and make a bigger profit. I hardly ever buy physical games or software for my PC, why should it be any different on a console?
Let's have a look at the current broadband availability here and everywhere. Now let's compare that to the people who have these consoles. My guess is that there will be plenty of people that will be left out in all of this. This move obviously presumes nearly 100% broadband availability. That can't be smart.
I've bought a couple of games on the PSN recently and now that I'm done with them, what can I do? Here are my choices:
1. Leave it to fester on the HDD
2. Delete it
Great. What's worse is that a couple of the games I bought turned out to be shit so I can't even trade them for something different.
Make a subscription service instead if you're going to do this. Here's one way it could work:
You pay a certain amount each year and the amount you pay determines how many games you can have downloaded at a time and each game have a number of points allocated to it, so you could for example have Braid (1 point) and Bionic Commando (1 point) and Geometry Wars (1 point) or just BioShock (3 points).
When you're done with the games you can delete them to refund the points.
Good idea? Bad idea?
Summation 2
Just like the activation servers for PC games will disappear in the future, and thereby rendering your game useless, DLC will disappear in the future, and thereby render your console game crippled.
Requiring online activation/DLC actually means you rent the game, rather than buying it. If you want to replay an old game in the future you probably have to rent the remake of it.
Actually, people from some of the big companies have come out in the past and admitted that online activation and content is aimed at the reseller market, not piracy, as the pirates will still have their pirate servers / torrents with the downloadable content / way around the activation.
Not everything can go "to the cloud". The time when people will have nothing else but a large screen and a collection of virtual data sets instead of books, movies, games won't come. People like to own things, there's a materialist in every one of us more or less eagerly amassing personal treasures.
a) publishers and Co make sure that ther are less middlemen, but however the prices to the consumer are the same --> more margin for the publisher and hardware vendor
b) you won't be able to rent your games from BB, Netflix etc anymore. Just shut-up and pay full price, no more renting. "Demos should be enough for anybody to make up their mind on a game; if they like it, buy it"
c) forget about re-selling your games or trading them in for new ones. this is just like those nice little DRM tunes from iTunes. no transfer nada. How this works with the first sale doctrine I don't know. "Just shut-up and pay".
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Just wait, The day will come when a great game will be made that everyone will want to play, and the company will 'have no record' of you ever purchasing the game, and make you pay again. And what if someone goes to their summer house, or loses their network connection for a day/week, what will those people do if their machines can't 'verify' the game?? Games need to stay on physical media that can speak to the console for itself, so that everyone can play without worrying about losing their legitimate access. And, where would distribution companies keep information? Your credit card that you used to purchase the game? What if you changed cards? In your account? What if you forgot your account, or it was lost or deleted? What if your hardware to store game purchase info was destroyed/lost/failed, and the information that verified that you were you was there? What I'm saying, is that with a DVD, someone can lose it, but that's their fault. They don't have to worry about any of the scenarios above because they have the physical media and case to prove that they OWN the game. And I totally support trade/sales of used games. What if you had a friend who wanted to borrow a game? You can't just FTP your game to them and have that work...
Something I pre-emptively hated before they even existed. Additional unnecessary points of failure are bad.
With a PSX/PS2, I have a disk, I have a console, I have a working setup. And I can (and do) put my disk and console in a safe place when I no longer use them, so I can come back to them in years to come. I cannot keep someone else's activation server online.
When I buy a physical product, I know what I am getting, a game and the device which plays it. It is limited by the lifetime of the hardware and the media, but I can live with that. I will not accept paying for 1's and 0's which may one day be arbitrarily rendered useless, on consoles or otherwise.
Wouldn't be an issue on consoles if they hadn't gotten Internet access in the first place.
Apart from the obvious issue of crippling second-hand games, replaying games in the future is going to be seriously threatened if online activation/authentication becomes the norm. There's no way companies are going to keep servers running for old titles.
The only game I bought recently was Fable II on the 360, because I had to. Most of the games I buy for my PC are either via Steam, or other methods (I play LOTRO, the latest expansion was just me paying the upgrade fee and download). I don't see why consoles seem to see the need to lag behind. Sure I copy games for my console, mainly due to the price (AU$100+ for a new release) and also from the lack of ease of buying online.
I used to copy PC games, now I'm happy with a demo and digital delivery. I think the PC market has wised up to the way things ought to be. I bought Far Cry II days after it came out for 1/2 the price of the shops here in Australia. Even if price wasn't an issue, you have to pre-order, wait in line, all that kind of useless crap to say "I got a first copy". Why not give people the option of post-to with digital stop-gap a-la Warhammer Online (yes, I bought this from Amazon).
Even that seems smarter than this whole "you need to own the disc to own a license to our product" crap.
I say good on them, the more digital delivery, the more economical high volume high speed broadband (whatever the flavour) will become. The more music, movies & games delivered this way the better. It will force the hand that controls your packets.
Or at least a backup. If the download price is the same as the CD/DVD price then why not buy the latter because then you don't have to bother making a backup yourself? And thats assuming the console will allow you to make a backup in the first place and if it does whether than backup will run anyway. The way DRM is going I doubt it would.
TRANSLATION:
Blocking me from my two favorite activities: (1) Buying a game, playing it, and then selling to someone else to recoup my money. And (2) Buying a game, loving it, and keeping it for the next 10-20 years (classic gaming).
If things devolve to the point where I have to pay full price (versus my current average of only paying $2-3 per game), or where I have to keep buying/downloading Super Mario 64 every five years, instead of simply buying it once and keeping it forever... ...then I will simply stop gaming.
This is what the music industry is trying to do with perpetual renting of music rather than letting us OWN the record, cd, whatever. The game industry should not follow that same path.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
They want internet connected and online distribution for two main reasons.
1 - it instantly KILLS the secondhand game market. you can no longer buy used games, this drives the price of old games back up to retail levels. no more buying Gears of War for $12.99 used at the local EB or on ebay.
2 - it eliminates 60% of the cost of a game. Packaging and distribution.
Game prices will stay the same or go up, your Quality of gaming will go down, and you can no longer buy used games or rent games to try them out.
That is their goal, everything else is pure BS to make the consumer have buy-in to their plans to screw you over.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They'll have to pry Pong out of my cold dead hands!!!!
The article doesn't mention one of the biggest advantages (to publishers) of on-line game distribution, an advantage that PC game publishers discovered long ago. You can sell unfinished games and then release the actual working game later as hundreds of megabytes of downloadable 'patches'.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I can see a time in the not too distant future where the likes of the hated spore DRM make an appearance on consoles, stopping you from lending the products to friends and selling it secondhand when you're bored with it. This kind of distribution platform normally stops this activity and downloading / activating the games *you've paid for* on a new / replacement / wiped console without a lengthy email correspondence with someone who really couldn't give a shit.
I bought Gears of War 2, and frankly, it's the most amazing game I've played all year. But I have an issue, and it's specifically with the downloadable content.
Basically, people who buy the game new get to download a map pack that (seemingly) is more popular that the "shipped" ones. This means I can't lend it to a friend so he can try it out, and it means I can't sell it to a second hand store if I get bored with it and have the person who buys it have the "complete" product. They've got to buy a new one. It forces people to purchase a new copy, driving up revenue.
Thin end of the wedge.
*cough*Falcon 4*cough*
Thankfully, in that case, someone leaked the source code... development and expansion still continues 10 years after release.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Not to mention you can buy alot more music/albums with $50 from a 2nd hand shop.
The last time I seriously bought music, not counting direct from musician and Magnatune stuff, I picked up this way and ended up getting 2-3x the number of albums then they would have been new.
Overall, I don't resell music/games/whatever anyway.. I alittle more picky on the front side of the games I buy so I've only had a few lemons I didn't like. Lately, I get demos or wait for things to go on sale on Steam before I usually buy them as well.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
The problem with this is the space. I just bought an XBOX360 last week and of the 60GB I started with I'm down to ~35GB and I only own two games. They're f'ing huge. Granted that's because I've installed the DVD-based games to the HD (mostly to avoid wearing out the DVD drive) but even the demos are huge. Like why is the NHL09 (good game btw) demo 900MB?
Don't people realize that's 900 million bytes of information? WTF is in there? The demo only comes with two teams and one stadium, one 30 second track, and the standard voice commentators.
Similarly, Quake4 demo was 1GB, so was the Star Trek game demo (which was horrible btw)
The real problem with online distribution is storage. Unless you start selling consoles with TB drives [or allow the use of external storage] people are just gonna run out of room super quick. Alternatively, they could just make better use of space. These games don't need to be so f'ing huge.
It has long been the dream of the media studios to kill the secondary (used) market for media (music, movies, software, etc.). Now they've finally stumbled upon the perfect solution (ironic that they actually *fought* the idea tooth-and-nail back in the Napster days).
A sad thing for me, too. I buy most of my console games used at a huge discount online. All you have to do is wait a few months after release and you can get most used games for a fraction of their retail price.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Not to mention it presumes bandwidth caps won't be a problem.
You're wrong, as anyone who's pumped quarters into an arcade machine, read a serial novel can tell you a bit about Unit bias and the Sunk Cost Dilemma. So let's say you've already paid for 5 levels and want the full game (of an unrevealed length). The rational decision at that point is to buy the full game, as you don't know how many more increments are left to buy on a level basis. If there are many chapters left, you've probably saved money. If however there is only one more, you've probably spent more buying the game than was neccessary, since you paid for each step (likely at a higher rate) + the full game.
Unit bias also plays into this choice. There's a concept called 'story arc' in gameplay. So from our previous example, once you've bought chapters 1-X of a game that's constructed with cliffhangers at each transition and a knowledge that the arc will eventually end, you ask yourself 'What's going to happen? How's this turn out?' This tends to drive a game player to finish the game, even if enjoyment lags near the middle, or the end of the arc is not enjoyed.
If what you're buying is essentially an account on a remote server so you can experience interactive online play, that's much harder to pirate. Sure, you can share the client software and your login info with all your friends, but the server admin can address simultaneous logins by either freezing the account or arbitrarily locking out one of the clients.
The upshot of this sort of system is that publishers can completely do away with DRM on the client software, since it's the account on the remote server that "matters".
If they want to go download only then they should adjust their pricing strategy for games that don't require big server investment... ie 1 - 4 games. These should all go down in price to say $4.99 - $9.99
Even MM games should drop in price for the Client app (charge whatever you can for the monthly subscription or whatever makes sense considering the investment in content, admins, etc.) even make it free with a subscription for 3 months or more.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
... and I'm still buying the vast majority of my music on CDs. Internet music is nice for instant access, but having to manage by own backups is a pain.
For movies/games, it may well be faster for me to walk into town and buy it, than wait for it to download. They're not appreciably cheaper, plus I have to fork out for my own media if I want to do backups, assuming I even _can_ do backups. Oh, and they take a chunk out of my bandwidth allowance for the month.
Remind me why I'd want this?
Looses has a specific meaning in the Companese language that I didn't want to lose in the original text. We don't want to Loose (Allow to act in an uninhibited fashion) any money, we want that Consumer Surplus Captured!
On a lighter note, did you know you can be replaced with a shell script?
Can't wait for xmas morning.... Instead of opening a box and finding XYZ game which my kids can instantly play, they get to go to a menu and begin the 5hour process of downloading a game.
While we complain about the price of a PS3 ($500 USD), after a year your broadband costs have exceeded that. That is if you have broadband.
I agree on the topic of 'on-demand' viewing/rental of movies via the cable/satellite/netflix, as I've got a shelf of DVDs collected over the years that I probably haven't watched enough times to justify the $20 I paid for them. But a game, I'll play much more often and for a longer period of time, and if I don't like it, I'll sell it to recoup some of my money.
Lastly, how many games can you have "rented" out at a time? I would hope that if I'm forced to download everything, that if I delete a locally stored game, to free up space for a new game, that I can later redownload the old game if I want to play it again.
Tectoy is launching its Zeebo console which downloads games over a 3G network. The hardware looks a lot like a cell phone but you connect it to your TV.
This article includes a video of a demo (in Portuguese).
Games for Windows Live, despite being relatively unpopular...
Is that "relatively" as in
Because if it's option (2), I have a torch / pitchfork combo with your name on it, buddy.
...but it's worked pretty well for them, since they add enough value after the fact (see Team Fortress 2) to make things actually worth paying full price for.
This isn't because the publishers like you and want to give you free stuff.
Damnit, that leaves exactly nobody that likes me then. Thanks slashdot, I know you're just telling it like it is but ignorance can be bliss, even sometimes lifechanging. don'tchaknow?
Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
the control and simplicity of online distribution. Save $ control and simplicity of online distribution. Save $$ control and simplicity Make $ control Make $$$$$$ I think the other reason they are doing this is to get more people online and hoping they start paying the monthly fee, which is where the real money is at.
I am a 'retro' gamer and still play everything from NES to the PS2. All the games work. Maybe some of the older cartridges should have their batteries replaced, but games I purchased in 1985 still run fine today.
Games you download will die the instant the company goes out of business, or your console dies. You are paying for something which exists in a very temporary timeframe.
It is all about control, and it is definitely to the detriment of gamers.
My fear is that in one or two more console generations, they will be as miserable, inconvenient, and error-prone as pc gaming is.
My only concern in the whole matter would be: all my game now rest on a single hard drive. A single, fragile hard drive. The things that fail with an alarming frequency compared to optical discs. How do I go about getting all that replaced if the hard drive fails?
You send your Wii console to Nintendo for a repair. Nintendo recovers your console's unique ID from a special area of internal memory (it's OTP, not flash) and loads your Wii Shop Channel purchase history onto a new console, so that you can redownload the channels for 0 Wii Points.
I wonder how many scoffed at Bill Gates 10 years ago when he mentioned that Software as a Service was the way of the future. Now we have Games (Software) as a service rather then a product.
REMEMBER YOU DO NOT BUY GAMES, YOU LICENSE THEM! BIG DIFFERENCE! HUGE! I MEAN WE'RE TALKING MOTHER F#(*&$ DEATH STAR HUGE DIFFERENCE!
MMOs are the prefect example. It's not a product, it's a service. You license the software to use the service. The irony is that they'll back themselves into a corner sooner then later because the rules of law concerning SERVICES is greatly different then the rules of law concerning PRODUCT. (IANALBDOBBNIAMTAPLI, I am not a lawyer but I dated one briefly, but now I am married to a paralegal instead)
It won't matter, once consumers are comfortable with digital distribution then any up-and-coming studio can deliver games without having to worry about what Walmart thinks. Gaming as an art my flourish and we get some real story telling without some uninvolved fruit loop sales manager telling a software developer that they won't sell their game on their shelves because there aren't enough female roles in the game (which would more then likely be a chess game and there is only 1 queen in it.)
Don't think that ever happened? No Target and Walmart never had a problem with selling certain games that had swastikas on the boxes and asked that in order to sell the product they had to change the box art. And it never happened that product was pull because stores didn't like the box art with two burning towers on it right? Yeah... too many cooks. Digital distribution is a blessing in disguise because without brick and mortar the distribution costs will tank and all it will take is someone to step up and make an INDIE ONLY distribution network... Problem solved. Want "Super Baby Punting Bros 4" or "Smack The Crack Addict 2" or want "Bloody Blood Bath Bloodicide Butcher Blast Bomber Hooker Exploiter City 9" just $9.99 and a 320mb download. How about some real realism in games that censors would never allow but indies would dare take a risk at?! I like where this is going, I think the big content folks don't realize how self defeating this will be!
GO FOR IT!
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
isn't it the position off the game companies that their games are pirated so much that they are loosing most of their sales to pirates? wouldn't that mean the pirate community is larger than the legitimate community? wouldn't that mean you could conceivably have a larger network of people on the pirated version? this applies more to the pc versions of games atm i suppose.
You aren't taking into consideration the math that companies use.
For a game to happen there are tons of costs involved. So for your, oh wait, I mean for the paying customers $60 they are spending money on the following people:
* Developers
* QA (although always short changed)
* Artist
* Audio teams (voice actors, sound effects, music, etc)
* Other office employees that need a paycheck
* Company that burns the discs
* Company that packages them
* Warehouse that stores the boxed product
* Drivers that take the product to the store
* Any possible advertising spent
* Mark-up
So when you buy the game, all they count is the revenue from the mark-up. When someone steals^H^H^H^H^H^H pirates^H^H^H^H^H^H^H borrows to own, they count the total price as lost revenue.
That's why one "unpurchased" game counts for 50-60 purchased games.
So this is a little off-topic, but it has been mentioned a few times within all these posts.
One reason people don't like the concept of online distribution of games and DLC is that once the content servers go off-line, you lose "everything". Well, you only lose whatever you cannot download off the net. But given the longevity of the server versus how long you actually play the game, how many have been bitten by that as a real problem?
So, you've bought, GTA IV and five years from now Rockstar is sued out of existence from their latest sim game, "Pope Assassin". Are you really going to be lamenting that you can't play multiplayer or download a few side missions?
I'll admit, I've taken to downloading and archiving bug patches for software in case the company goes out of business, gets bought out, etc. But the list of programs that I keep that outlive the company is pretty short.
Didn't you know? Playing a game that you bought more than a year ago is PIRACY!!! Pulling that Atari 2600 and box of cartridges out of the attic and playing it is no better than robbing the local 7-11.
Don't think that ever happened? No Target and Walmart never had a problem with selling certain games that had swastikas on the boxes and asked that in order to sell the product they had to change the box art.
I know, there's people out there that just can't enough of the Fuhrer... you know, you watch the History Channel, all too many times, hoping that maybe, one time the Germans will take Moscow in December 1941, breakout of Stalingrad in Jan 1942 or break through at Kursk in 1943. But, they didn't and they lost and thank god for that.
But... for you, there's still the swastika, a symbol that has been awaiting rehabilitation in the home of symbols put out to pasture for misdeeds ... and, he's sadly trying to get out and redeem himself. Finally, the sad little swastika makes his escape, and its up to you to lead the swastika to his redemption, and become a new symbol for cheer of all mankind, not the dreaded old symbol of, well, the evilest people that ever lived except for maybe the mongols.
This is my sig.
I for one will not pay to download the first rate epic titles I like, even if I save money and space without having physical media around...why? Because I don't want to pay my ISP money for the bandwidth required so I can pay for a big ass download. A large part of game companies production cost goes into pressing discs, packaging and distributing the product to shelves...a download service reduces that cost for THEM significantly, yet do you think we'll see much of a discount? No, look to the cost ebook's as an example...an ebook costs almost as much as it would be to buy the hardcopy. Even worse you can't sell that game back used to reclaim some of the assets, and what if your place got burglarized...good luck reclaiming the cost of a downloaded product with your property insurance company...they'd likely laugh at you "uhhh how many Wii points do we reimburse you for?".
That consoles will only play downloaded content, I will officially stop buying consoles.
No sig for you!!
I don't see why consoles seem to see the need to lag behind. [...] here in Australia.
For one thing, consoles are supposed to work even if you have dial-up Internet or broadband with a low monthly transfer cap. How much does downloading the 25 GB that fits on a single-layer PS3 disc cost in Australia nowadays?
I say good on them, the more digital delivery, the more economical high volume high speed broadband (whatever the flavour) will become.
But what will ease the transition from discs to downloads?
I don't know why they want improvements. This doesn't follow their marketing department's desire to maximize value.
maximize value == Make sure nobody but the distributors, and that the distributors do, continue to make a profit by increasing the probability that something can happen that will produce a re-investment.
re-investment == Make the quality of the device shit so the customer must purchase a replacement.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
If this decision makes you more money from the rest 1/3, yes it is a very sound decision.
How about if they spend millions of dollars lobbying the Obama administration to make Rural Broadband a WPA program and that lobbying dollar represents 2% of revenues?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
About how long have we been listening to the ravings of content publishers claiming financial losses as a result after-market resale of console games by companies like GameStop? Is it any wonder that they would want to force console owners to give up physical media in favor of a download-only distribution system? As it is, we're already seeing this creeping in with game content and features accessible only through a one-time voucher system.
Before long, our games are going to start becoming more like Gran Turismo 5: Prologue, where you effectively buy the game engine alone and download the content needed to completely use it after purchase. At some point, this, like the current voucher system, will become a one time only deal.
Eventually, users are going to get pissed off over this set-up. At which point, the content publishers will graciously offer to let a user simply download an entire game without any disc an unlimited number of times on any pre-authenticated system. Hell, they may even offer discounts to owners of more than one console looking to have LAN parties without each player having to provide a disc.
The entire time, completely oblivious to the fact that they've just made a "deal with the devil" in which they can never sell any part of their ever-growing collection of games. Hard-earned money, that once spent, can never be recovered again, even in the tiniest amount.
When the day comes where everything is download only, the very concept of trade that has sustained humanity for thousands of years will grind to a screeching halt. We'll happily buy ourselves into poverty only to learn decades later just how wrong we really were.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Company makes a lot of interesting bits.
Company contracts with other, local to the buyer companies to distribute said bits.
Buyer either accepts a digital copy of the bits, direct or local, or buyer gets a physical copy of the bits on physical media.
There, lots of choice, right of first sale more intact, and let them compete.
My big worry about this is classic gaming 20 years from now. It's gonna be ugly. I think the current set of classic games will be expanded and exploited more than it would have otherwise, just because the next set of games will be unavailable!
Blogging because I can...
Ok, I believe that Nintendo is going in to the online thing kicking and screaming. They flat out own the kids market and now the casual market. Those people want no part of what Xbox Live is. Seeing that the Wii is selling so well, it will be a long time before Nintendo embraces the Internet.
Sony is playing both sides of the fence and has a confusing strategy. On one hand they want BlueRay to do well and on the other they have wireless internet and a hard drive in every PS3 made. They invest in Home (a virtual world) that is free and in my opinion offer the best online downloadable games (Many are over a GB in size). However, they basically made the system to push BlueRay and as such they won the format war over HD-DVD, and Warhawk taught them that the brick and mortar stores still carry a bunch of weight.
Microsoft... Well they bet against BlueRay and lost. Not all of their systems have hard drives, and it isn't a small amount that don't either. This puts the 360 in a weird spot, and they have to make BlueRay irrelevant, thus making the 360 and PS3 seem exactly the same. The problem is that to get a 1080P movie downloaded or a very large game isn't possible on every 360, and now Internet companies are putting in bandwidth caps, so again they are in a weird position. However, this won't stop Microsoft marketing. They will do everything in their power to promote a competitor to BlueRay and downloading is it for them. They will make sure that they don't mention 1080P EVER in their downloads, but just say they offer "HD". I can't say I blame them, as I would do the same. Nor could I blame Sony for saying they have it and their competitor doesn't.
So in short, Nintendo doesn't care about it and their sales are great. Sony somewhat cares about it, and their sales are poor. Microsoft cares a ton about it and they are bleeding money on their system just to sell 1/2 of the Wii. I guess the message is to get use to crappy party games and low budget games without Internet access. :-)
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
This will not work, as it is many peoples network services are handicapped by their ISP. Network relience with data limits will not work ever. Software is only getting bigger and going by most isp caps you will be paying twice, once for the games and again to be allowed to download them. In my opinion the isp's are holding EVERYTHING back and this is only going to get worse.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."