Slashdot Mirror
Game Devs On the Future of PC Gaming
Shacknews wraps up a developer panel at PAX East discussing the future of gaming on the PC. They cover topics including DRM, digital download platforms and cloud-based gaming services.
"Joe Kreiner of Terminal Reality: 'If you look at it from a giant publisher perspective, then the numbers on the PC just really don't make financial sense for you to bother with it. But if you start out with the mindset — you know, you're targeting that group, you make a niched product that's going [to] do well, if you look at a lot of the titles on Steam, Torchlight's a really good example — as long as you know that's your audience to begin with, and you make something inside of a budget that you know you're going to be selling those kinds of numbers, you can be very successful. I think it just takes a targeted developer. ... There is no [PC] platform, really. It's just a mish-mosh of hardware, an operating system that kind of supports games. The problem with that platform is, there's no standards and piracy is rampant, so why would we want to make a video game for that platform unless you had some sort of draconian DRM thing to keep it from being stolen?"
WoW gives Blizzard 11 million times ~$12 per month and an unknown amount of starting purchases.. that's not financial sense?
..stop shipping them as obvious console ports. Pretty much every major PC release in the last 2 years has had their control systems ported to the PC in a manner that can only be described as half-assed. Where it's most obvious is in menu systems (Dead Space), Vehicle controls (Red Faction, ME1), and Quick-Time events (Pick any game that had them). If you're going to put something on PC then you need to stop porting crappy control configurations and do the job right.
I think the solution to piracy is to make all games multiplayer. Multiplayer in a way that actually adds value to the game. It comes down to market forces, singleplayer is proven to be a rip-off fest so the publishers can whine all they want but it won't change things. A world like Second Life is something of what I see as a start for the future. But instead of just walking around looking at the latest hair pieces you instead raid the corporation down the street with your buddies. Doing multiplayer would refine it, massive worlds change the value from being on your computer to being on the network and the network is a lot easier to monetize (how I hate that word).
Shh.
...they could start with A. not making PC games that crash when you do anything (yes an exaggeration, but you get the point) and B. letting me play the game without insane drm hoops. When it's easier for me to play a downloaded copy than it is to play the copy you are selling, there is a serious problem.
And don't argue that Ubisoft's newest DRM scheme is the answer. Paying customers are having just as much trouble as the pirates.
Living With a Nerd
News to me. And it costs money and angers customers. I already know several people that will wait for the last UBI games to be cracked, instead of buying them as they had planned.
Don't forget that the current higher initial sales for some draconian DRM is due to a) people not knowing about the restrictions they are getting and b) crackers till having to adjust to the technology. I expect in the end it will result in huge losses. Personally, I will not play titles that phone home and my experience with one of those that do it optionally (Mass Effect 2) was that when trying the online thing (required for DLC), it failed to run. Had to reinstall it and play without online connection. Seeing how people have problems with the Settlers 7 and AC2, I expect they will wise up.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I think the problem with Ubisoft's idiocy is that it adds nothing of value to the player and takes away real enjoyment. As a legitimate player there is no value to having a constant internet connection for a single-player game and also as a legitimate player it is annoying when your single-player game is artificially restricted by network connectivity. Single-player games should not pause because of a flaky DSL modem: there is a literal disconnect between the purpose of playing the game and the hoops the publisher makes you jump through. Punishing legitimate players for the actions of non-legitimate players may in the end turn out to be lucrative but it is a shitty thing to do to a customer: hopefully enough people will see this and Ubisoft will die.
Shh.
It looks to only be a problem for highly expensive productions.
Smaller games that start giving benefits after some thousand sales will thrive on a market devoid of big fishes.
Which is fine by me.
There is no [PC] platform, really. It's just a mish-mosh of hardware, an operating system that kind of supports games. The problem with that platform is, there's no standards and piracy is rampant, so why would we want to make a video game for that platform unless you had some sort of draconian DRM thing to keep it from being stolen?
Every point of that has been true for the last 25 years. It hasn't kept PC game companies like Blizzard or EA from becoming multi-billion dollar ventures which rival the largest console companies -- without draconian DRM, without any hardware sales, without a monolithic platform. Why? PC games interfaces are not dumbed down for a living room interface, and thus can present more of a challenge to either creativity (Sim City, The Sims etc) or tactical/strategic skill (FPS, RTS etc). Mario, Wii Sports or Halo might be fun and can be a challenge for hand/eye, but aren't not exactly intellectually stimulating and engaging in the long term.
So by that logic, they shouldn't bother to make games for PS2, 360, PSP, DS... Or basically any system except the PS3. And you can soon mark the PS3 off that map since Sony has waived the red flag in front of hackers' eyes.
Those systems are pirated as much or more than PC games are pirated, and it's just as easy. (Easier, for some, like PSP and DS.)
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
removing DRM will increase your sales
An anecdotal statement (and indeed one which is likely false, people pirate games because they don't want to pay for them not because of the DRM system - with the exception of one or two titles) is not proof to the level that can be used in a commercial decision.
Also of note is that DRM is mostly to stop people just burning copies of disks for their friends rather then the hardcore torrent freaks, it is only in more recent titles where torrenting has become more accessible where the losses have justified much more rigorous DRM measures.
I currently use a subscription service for my gaming, I pay less then the cost of a single game per month and I get most of the recent titles (+1 month from initial release). I think the subscription cloud service is something that will dramatically change the DRM situation and make PC gaming both more attractive and more accessible, no more multi-thousand dollar rigs each year.
I play the occasional game here and there. I stole a few, sure.
But for instance I just bought the Orange Box two weeks ago and I'm not regretting it one bit. I bought Torchlight because it's some of the most fun you can have for $5 (steam sale). I'm going to buy SC2 because it's going to be an awesome game, etc.
I like buying good stuff, or "ok" stuff for a good price. I don't however like the idea of paying $50 for a shit game. (Looking at you, 90% of the market)
o hai
Steam has also shown if you put the price of your game at a level gamers think is a good deal - you sell like crazy.
... comments are laughable. PC games sell less simply because Microsoft pushed the Xbox so hard and a lot of PC gamers left for console land. Now PC's get ports mainly of console titles except titles that are extremely hard to do on consoles without taking away from the game itself.
But either way developers are the only one's to blame here. Does anyone think Starcraft 2 or diablo 3 is not going to sell well?
What about the battlefield games? I'm certain the did just fine on PC. These guys are talking about the PC without noticing that the games that sell on the PC are _good games_. PC players don't like putting up with unfinished buggy crap, how many unfinished or broken games have dev's been releasing lately? A hell of a lot.
The real issue is that developers painted themselves into a corner chasing hardware and graphics if you take development costs from 10-13 years ago and compare it to today there is a HUGE increase. Developers need therefore to focus on development processes that reduce their costs and not blaming piracy.
Piracy is an excuse bad developers use because bad developers are so used to getting money for shitty games on consoles where bad games tend to sell giving developers a false impression of the quality of their games.
We can all rattle off a whole list of unfinished games over the past 5 years released on PC. Another problem is DRM and game costs, if you're game is going to have DRM that means I'm not going to pay $50 for something that will be broken and unsupported 10 years from now.
Lots of old DRM less games can be run offline, the same can't be said about DRM'd games. The industry wants to moved to a forced obsolescence model where no one owns their games and they have total control and it's sickening.
Game servers for old games in console land were shut down, why exactly should we believe developers promises that they will un-drm their game? Quite frankly someone needs to sue the industry. If I want to play a game 10 years from now unconnected from the net and the data-mining anti-privacy mothership I have every right to.
John Abercrombie: "I think there's just too many options out there, honestly. Too many options for people to buy. With the consoles, there's just one. You just go to the store and buy the one."
So would that one be PS3, Xbox 360, or Wii? At least PC games are supposed to run on both NVIDIA graphics and ATI graphics.
John Abercrombie: "I think browser-based games are really cool...you don't need a PC, you just have something that has a browser. That way, people who were targeting PC or multiple configurations on PC before can just target a browser."
With or without the DOM event model? With or without SVG? With or without HTML5 Canvas? With or without HTML5 Audio? With or without Flash? With or without Java?
Joe Kreiner: "Most of the innovation right now, console-side, is designed around a living room environment. That's not typically where you have your PC."
So you ignore the entire home theater PC market, which has grown since HDTVs displaced SDTVs in stores.
Better give them back then before they find out they are missing.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
"Oh if you look at the numbers PC games just aren't worth it for big publishers!"
Really? Then why the fuck do they bother? Since about the beginning of 2010 we've seen the release of:
Dark Void
Mass Effect 2
Startrek Online (only for PC)
STALKER Call of Pripyat (only for PC)
Bioshock 2
Napoleon: Total War (only for PC)
Supreme Commander 2
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Assassin's Creed II
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II - Chaos Rising (only for PC)
Command and Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight (only for PC)
Metro 2033
Dragon Age Origins: Awakening
Settlers 7: Path to a Kingdom (only for PC/Mac)
Just Cause 2
This is just a list of titles from major publishers, doesn't count any indy games or the like. Now I notice a few things about this list. I notice it is quite a few games, I notice that it includes major titles also on the consoles, and I notice that it has major titles that are PC one. Also some of these titles (like Metro 2033) are enhanced for the PC, meaning you get better graphics or the like on the PC version. That tells me that the PC is NOT a minor platform that "Doesn't make sense" for big publishers. Tells me it is still a big platform.
In fact, as far as I have seen, PC game revenues are still the largest out there. They are bigger than any single console platform. They aren't bigger than all consoles combined, of course, but then you wouldn't expect that. Each console is a separate platform, and the PC is separate. Of those, the PC seems to have the highest revenues.
The fact that big, expensive, games keep coming out for the PC, in particular from studios that also publish console titles (like EA and SEGA) tells you that indeed the PC is very worth it to publish for. If it weren't, they wouldn't.
Remember it is real simple: You take all your costs to make something, all the development, support, staff and so on, call that X. You then take all the money you bring in selling that, call that Y. If Y is bigger than X by a non-trivial amount, say 10% or more, then it is worth doing. You are making a profit, and that's what matters.
These people who think that piracy is "killing" the platform need to tie a can on it. It is clearly not. To me it smacks of the same thing Hollywood loves to do when all movies "lose money" on paper and they cry and whine, yet keep releasing them apace. Tells me that there is no small amount of BS going on.
Agreed. All the major PC games I purchased last year were PC exclusives, with the exception of Dragon Age. (And even there I was rather disappointed with some of the consolized design decisions, though it did do better than most of the other PC ports out there.) Companies like Stardock, Valve, and Blizzard prove that profits can be made in the PC gaming sector. (I don't even like most Blizzard games, but I'm glad they still support PC gamers, so I may consider giving them my money in support.)
Indie games are starting to really come to their own on PC, since it is an unrivaled platform for developing and distributing, especially since the profit margins for selling in the PC marketplace are so much better than something like XBLA. Plus there are tons of free games that are amazing as well. This past year I've spent more money on indie games than on big budget games alone.
I think the main issue for big-name developers is that they force themselves into huge budgets, trying to make games with hyper-realistic graphics, famous voice actors, etc. They just end up being so expensive that the only way to make a good profit on the game is to have big sales, and at the moment, consoles do indeed sell more because they're more accessible on a mass market scale. However, to have big sales, the game not only has to look good, but to appeal to the general gamer population, which means watering it down to be generic enough that a large amount of people will buy it. The result is a bland and uninteresting game with overblown production values.
The perfect example of where PC developers should be going is Sins of a Solar Empire. During development, the budget was limited, resulting in a game with slightly lower production values, but something that still looked fantastic, and as an added plus it ran on a wide variety of machines. Plus the core concepts of the game were still there, and while this focus meant that the game wouldn't appeal to the entire gaming population, it did appeal to a significant group. Add to the mix a lack of DRM, and there you have a game that was a dream for many PC players. The results show in the profit margins, which are higher than many of the large budget games out there. Granted you have beasts like Modern Warfare 2, but how many other big-budget games sell anywhere near as well?
And then there is the lock-in that a gamer experiences with console games. If the company decides to stop supporting the game, you just can't play anymore. (See Halo 1 and 2 on the XBox, and the whole slew of EA titles that lost support.) Meanwhile, I recently reinstalled Descent 2, a 15 year old game, and found a fairly active online community that still plays. (To say nothing of the Quake community.)
In any case, I've always been a PC gamer, have never had a console, and plan on staying that way for a long time to come.
I used to be a big PC gamer, but broke down and bought an 360 a few years back because I could get that entire system for the cost of a new PC video card alone. I could live with console gaming if they'd give me the option of ditching the controller for a keyboard and mouse. For me, it's the only thing that makes PC gaming more attractive than console gaming. My 58" plasma and home theater really enhance my gaming experience, plus my couch is infinitely more comfortable than my computer chair (particularly for long stretches). Additionally, I like the idea that everyone is using the same hardware and the guys that are killing me every time I turn around aren't doing so because they're getting 10x my frame rate after building a new $5k system. Another benefit to ditching the PC for the console is that I haven't had to update my PC in years. (I'm long overdue for a new PC, but don't have a compelling reason to upgrade just yet)
Holy cow, some of this is simply pure garbage:
* "The problem with that platform is, there's no standards and piracy is rampant, so why would we want to make a video game for that platform unless you had some sort of draconian DRM thing to keep it from being stolen?"
In other words, DRM is what we need, and we need more of it! The current DRM cannot be a possible reason for low sales!
* "If you look at how many guys have high-end graphics cards--well, yeah, all of you do--but the more casual players, the more general audience might not. The percentage is probably pretty low."
Thus, you're forced to allow us options to set graphics options - ranging from very simple all the way up to dual-cards. Which is difficult because... ?
* "If everybody would stop pirating, if everybody would stop doing DRM, it would be a much happier world, wouldn't it? We'd have a lot more PC games sold and a lot more happier customers."
Piracy will never, ever stop. And as we've seen very clearly in the past ten years, DRM is quite worthless, succeeding merely in stopping people from buying the originals, as the pirate copies are so much better.
* "I think you're going to continue to see what we've seen in the past five years, which is just console games ported to the PC..."
Which usually don't sell all that well, as PCs are simply more capable than consoles. High-end PCs, that is - the others can have plenty of graphics options.
* "PC gaming isn't dead, it's just in a partially vegetative state."
Which is why the indies are doing so well - have a look at "Plants vs. Zombies", for example...
* "At some point, there's going to have to be a fundamental paradigm shift in how we interface with the PC. The screen's just not going to do it anymore."
I... see. So, let's not use the monitor. Sounds brilliant
I'm sorry, chaps, but that discussion seemed pretty useless, particularly as the DRM attitude of some of the are idiotic (especially Joe Kreiner, Engine Licensing VP - but what do you expect from a manager anyway?)
Ciao,
Klaus
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Publishers who think they have to DRM things to death or the PC market isn't "worth it" who also think that the console market is "piracy" free nirvana (it isn't) should simply leave the PC gaming industry.
Chances are, they are making crap games that are just half-assed console ports, or trying to shove radical schemes (Ubisoft's constant phone home system) down people's throats. Companies that do either should EXPECT TO FAIL, and "piracy" has nothing to do with it.
If these companies leave the market that just makes new room for the next Bioware or similar company to rise. I note that even EA, the 600 pound gorilla has been mostly abandoning DRM of late, first sign of intelligent thought from that company in over 10 years.
The PC gaming industry will never die. The platform is too large, and it is the only platform that is actually open to independent publishers, since you don't have to pay a "Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft tax" just to access the platform. That, coupled with faster and faster internet connections and the rise of digital distribution (I buy all my games this way now) there is more opportunity than ever for competition.
This, I suspect, is why certain publishers actually WISH the PC would die. On the PC anyone who wants to can compete with them. On the consoles, access is restricted in a RIAA/MPAA fashion. I would say that the console publishers are actually the ones clinging to a dying business model, not the PC...
Corporatism != Free Market
As a game developer myself, I must say that you've got it wrong.
These 'pirates' are NOT A LOSS.
There is -no- appreciable cost to them having a "pirated" version of the software, so spending the millions they do on DRM schemes is complete and utter lunacy. Instead they should reinvest those millions into making their games better, and enticing "those who didn't buy", or even -not- spending it at all, and requiring lower returns to still make a profit. There is NO logical business sense to DRM.
Is it just me, or are these developers just a bunch of whiny little bitches?
Of one billion PC users.
Sure, you can carve that up with whatever limitations and excuses you want, but throwing away a market with potential like that shows either an incredible ignorance of economics, or a willful strategy of shifting retail practices to closed mediums where users can be controlled and gouged on price.
"The problem with that platform is, there's no standards and piracy is rampant, so why would we want to make a video game for that platform unless you had some sort of draconian DRM thing to keep it from being stolen?"
The problem is that the draconian DRM isn't keeping it from being pirated. Pirates get to play free while us paying customers sometimes don't get to play what we payed for. The system is inherently broken, and it's starting to push toward a trend of 'rented game licenses'. By pushing DRM, you are only hurting your paying customers.
I know this might come across as flame bait... but please bear with me.
I firmly believe that Microsoft has had a big hand in killing off PC gaming, despite having a big hand in standardising 3D APIs; hands up here who remembers the first 3DFX and Rendition Verite cards... each had their own APIs. It was a mess until DirectX came along...
Then Microsoft goes and kills it all with shenanigans such as making Halo 2 DX10 (and Vista) only when there was no technical reason for to do so. One has to simply fire up Halo2 on XP via WoWLoader to see that Halo2 works fine under DX9 (and runs 30% faster when compared to Vista).
That one experience convinced me that this was the day PC gaming truly died.
Since then a couple of gems have come along (Torchlight.... Borderlands) but the majority have been Console ports or just rehashed iterations of the same FPS games.
Shame since console gaming (yes I have one) these days mostly concentrates on FPS titles... which is shocking considering how utterly SHIT console controllers are at FPS games (good luck with that head shot) when compared to PC mouse based controls. Titles such as Fable 2 and Sacred, which I can multiplay locally with my wife (we are both Diablo addicts) are very far and few between.
PC Gaming -> RIP
Generally, there have traditionally been five different groups of people who (want to) have a game.
1. The group that cannot afford it and thus copies it.
2. The group that simply collects copies, no matter if it's good or sucks or whatever, gotta have 'em all.
3. The group that kinda-sorta likes the game, or thinks they might, and copies it if possible. If not, so be it.
4. The group that WANTS a game, preferably free, but buys if it can't be gotten another way.
5. The group that simply buys a game and doesn't care about copying.
Depending on your genre and particular game, you may have different weighs in those groups, a sequel will probably have more weigh in group four than a casual game without a brand behind it, which will probably have more weigh in group four or five.
Now imagine you implement the absolute, perfect and unbreakable DRM. What will change.
You will not gain any sales from group one. They couldn't afford buying your game before, that won't change with any DRM you could tack onto it.
You will also not gain any sales from group two. They just collect because it's free.
You might gain a few sales from group three, IF your game price is below the threshold where people would rather abstain if they're unsure whether it's worth it.
You will certainly gain sales from group four, who will now be forced to buy your game. They will even accept any DRM you force down their throat because they want that game.
You will OTOH also certainly lose sales from group five, though, due to DRM and them not accepting it.
The question is now, do you expect your fanboys to be numerous enough to outweigh the losses from the (almost certainly financially potent) group five, who probably didn't care about the price but do possibly care about the paternalism?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are two large divisions in the marketing of PC games and some minor ones.
I think everyone could agree that cd-keys for online play could easily be a sufficient deterrent against piracy. The real problem is the single player portion and what is sufficient.
Online play with cd-key authentication systems quite simply work as a deterrent to piracy. Well it does, if there is a will by game companies to shutdown leaked cd-keys and to close out cracked servers as they appear, then piracy is negligible. There are no cd-key generator that work for online play unless the game company makes a mistake in how it seed the hashes. Monitoring stolen cd-keys is quite easy. It only takes the will on the company to shut them down. Sure there will be a few people complain because they were stupid enough to allow their cd-key to be stolen, but those people are idiots and have no one to blame but themselves. They lone their cd-keys out or load cd-key stealers onto their comp. I have no sympathy for either type of person. cd-key stealers are usually contained in game downloads over torrents or most commonly when they download cheats for online play. Simply to bad for them.
The issue of cracked servers. First thing is to exclude them from showing up in the game server list and in the common server browser programs. The rest of the remaining few servers are easy to find and kill with a simple take down notice. Then the extreme cracked server located on the net are reduced to hiding in some third world country where their use is very limited. Even then there are legal ways to make the server so unplayable as to be useless, but by then the crowd is what? A few hundred players and so full of idiots and cheaters not even pirates are attracted. Ooopps... ya it is usually the pirates that are idiots and cheats. Hardly worth further effort. Doing these simple things means that for the common average person a cracked copy is unattractive, useless and reduces piracy in this online segment to negligible.
So where does this leave the single player game. This is the problem area. Perhaps some choices must be made. People can argue about the causes all they want over semantics, but the reality is piracy is simply about convenience and has nothing todo with some personal philosophy once you start looking at the amount of piracy involved are hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions. This is where for a long time game companies wanted it stopped but it meant unusual harsh methods that would affect their actual customers. I don't blame traditional PC game companies from being pissed at this. However I don't have much sympathy for those same companies that deal in primarily online games with putting in DRM that affects it's online customers. Not when 90% or better buy the game to play online and have little interest in the single player portion. This is where game companies can make a choice about their product. They do have options in how they split single player and online play so that online isn't pirated as stated above.
So this comes down to only single player games or the single player portion of a game that have issues with piracy and heavy handed and intrusive DRM. What Ubisoft has done is hit this issue with a hammer. They took the easy way out with the least cost involved, so of course the solution is horrid.There are registration and monitoring methods for single player that are far less obtrusive but are more costly that can control piracy. Yes it does require a connection to the net, but not a live connection all the time. Ubisoft choose the cheap way, not the best way. At least not the best way for their customers that is. But for those that don't want more control. Well you are living in a dream world where there is free beer. I'm sorry but the days of free beer are over and large scale piracy is to blame.
Now there are game companies or their publishers that are greedy. There is no doubt about that. They have new models in mind that are strictly to increase profits. However this primarily has noth