Piracy not reason consoles won

[Silent_Buddha]

As has been said, computer game piracy has existence since forever. I don't think piracy was a very big factor in consoles becoming the primary target because game companies have always dealt with it. I think it's just that game companies want more money and there is more audience to be accessed on the consoles and there are other advantages, including relative safety from piracy, that appeal as well.

Piracy has existed forever yes, but you can't honestly compare pirating now to...

Pirating in the 80's. Having to go over to someone's house that has the game and make a physical copy. Oh and you had to track down a program to allow you to copy a game in the first case. There was copy protection even back then (Wizardry I had one of the better copy protections). Or being a geek enough to not only own an analog modem, but to then find a BBS that hosts pirated files, and then download at anywhere from 300-2400 baud. The vast majority of people with a computer didn't even know what an analog modem was or what to do with it if they had one.

Pirating in the 90's. Again copying from physical media or BBS download. Or being geek enough to find an FTP site to download from that didn't require some sort of contribution. Or being even geekier enough to figure out how to grab it off Usenet (without PAR files, being sometimes impossible to get all parts). Or even MORE geeky learning how to use IRC. Again just a tiny fraction of the average computer owner.

Pirating in the 2000's. Explosion of P2P and 1 click downloads of whatever pirated software you want. Install program (kazaa, edonkey, and later bittorrent). Search with Google. Even an idiot could do it. And now you don't even need to go to shady websites that might be pushing virus' and trojans to do it.

Added to that you don't need to modify any hardware to do it. And you don't even have to spend money on optical media to burn it to.

There just isn't much comparison and why pirating is so prevalent now, and why there are virtually no AAA PC only devs left. Only the smaller players making games on a small budget. I can only think of Blizzard off the top of my head as a remaining AAA dev. All others have moved to either console only, console first, or in some VERY rare cases PC first. And every single one of them cites piracy as one of the main reasons for the switch.

Piraters can live in denial all they want. But PC devs and especially publishers (mostly AAA but even some smaller studios) have moved to console due in large part to piracy.

Heck even Relic (/sigh) is moving to console. Another previous PC only RTS dev. Their upcoming game Warhammer 40k: Space Marine is going to be console only.

This despite the fact that Windows is generally easier to develope for and there is a "potentially" larger market. But it doesn't mean squat when the majority of that market would rather pirate than spend even 1...I'll say that again "ONE" USD to buy a game if there is an easily piratable version of the game available for download.

Regards,
SB

 

[fearsomepirate]

How do you pirate a game that has to phone home to even run?

Part of that is the developers' fault, and I don't meant that terrible "If you made a better game, I'd pay for it!" argument, because no, Mr Pirate, you wouldn't. I read a really interesting interview with the makers of Sins of a Solar Empire that a big reason behind their success is that they didn't try to make a game that appealed to pirates. Apparently, they'd done their homework and found that piracy is the worst among the guys that buy the $400 graphics cards, subscribe to PC gamer, and so on. There are still a lot of people who actually buy games in the store, and they looked at what those people like. So they simply ignored the PC Gamer crowd and designed their game for the Wal-Mart/Best Buy shopper.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How do you pirate a game that has to phone home to even run?

Part of that is the developers' fault, and I don't meant that terrible "If you made a better game, I'd pay for it!" argument, because no, Mr Pirate, you wouldn't. I read a really interesting interview with the makers of Sins of a Solar Empire that a big reason behind their success is that they didn't try to make a game that appealed to pirates. Apparently, they'd done their homework and found that piracy is the worst among the guys that buy the $400 graphics cards, subscribe to PC gamer, and so on. There are still a lot of people who actually buy games in the store, and they looked at what those people like. So they simply ignored the PC Gamer crowd and designed their game for the Wal-Mart/Best Buy shopper.

It also helps that they make basically multiplayer online games. So to get much value out of them you have to play online. And to play online you have to hit their servers for verification. IE - copy protection. I don't think they allow LAN play on any of their games anymore.

The lack of any meaningful singleplayer campaign/storyline is the major reason I don't buy their games.

Regards,
SB

 

[fearsomepirate]

IMO, not putting in a story was a good move. It saved development resources, and hardly anyone cares about the story in strategy games. Many major commercial hits like Sim City have no story to speak of.

I don't think they allow LAN play on any of their games anymore.

Hmm...I wonder why a developer uninterested in catering to software pirates would ignore LAN play?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

IMO, not putting in a story was a good move. It saved development resources, and hardly anyone cares about the story in strategy games. Many major commercial hits like Sim City have no story to speak of.

Hmm...I wonder why a developer uninterested in catering to software pirates would ignore LAN play?

LAN play is the major avenue of piracy for multiplayer games. It's why almost all devs are not incluing LAN play on future titles. You'll have to do online verification and play through the verification server in order to play any multiplayer. Starcraft 2 is one of the upcoming major titles doing that.

Regards,
SB

 

[specwarGP2]

As a former PC gamer, here's why I think PC gaming is doing so badly:
1. Treating customers like beta testers.
2. Treating customers like criminals.
3. Treating customers who don't want to tinker with their PCs' guts like 2nd-class citizens.

It's got nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the philosophy behind your product. There's a reason Blizzard has been so successful; they don't do those 3 things.

Cmon lets be real. The main reason PC gaming is doing badly is because of piracy. Reason number 2 is a direct result of action taken by developers to combat piracy. The reason why WOW is so successful is because you can't pirate it. simple as that.

 

[mikiex]

I think some people imagine that PC games have been doing fine for ages and it is only recently they have been over taken by consoles. Really console games have been a better market for ages and now as development costs go up its much harder to make a profit in PC games. Piracy doesnt help any platform, PC and DS must be the worst hit. It really has nothing to do with interpreted code or layers of OS etc.

 

[assen]

This ad and its display of the boxes tells volumes IMO.

Hey, that picture made me realize - the smaller Blu-ray box was a cunning plan by Sony to make sure they'll be at the front of any such ads

 

[zed]

What specwarGP2 is basically correct to argue otherwise is ludicrous, it reminds me of ppl arguing that declining CD music sales years after year was not due to piracy when everyone (with half a brain >) knew it was the prime reason for the decrease

 

[swaaye]

What specwarGP2 is basically correct to argue otherwise is ludicrous, it reminds me of ppl arguing that declining CD music sales years after year was not due to piracy when everyone (with half a brain >) knew it was the prime reason for the decrease

Everyone with half a brain would stop and wonder if all they had was anecdotal evidence because there's no way you have the true numbers just by considering your local gang of buddies or those on your favorite forums. It's just as likely that music sales have dramatically slowed because a lot of people are simply satisfied with what they already own and aren't interested in the new stuff.

My friends and I actually primarily play older games these days because the new ones are often either more of the same or disappointing compared to old favorites. Why drop the money on new games if oldies are working for ya? New pretty shininess only goes so far for us. Why let yourself also be forced into buying new hardware for such games? I've also discovered that it's not that hard to wait until a game isn't $50 anymore, so I'm not usually a part of the release sales. That's my anecdotal evidence. Just as damaging as the supposed piracy plague? Maybe.

Or how about the fact that there are a ton of PC gamers who only play MMOs now? They aren't buying other games anymore. I see this first hand all the time. Old PC gamers who used to play other stuff have now been playing WoW for 3+ years almost exclusively. Some of that is changing tastes, some of it is being satiated by MMOs and that's what they've been looking for all along. Either way they aren't buying lots of games each year anymore. I also know people who have never touched anything beyond MMOs. Their WoW playing buddies got them into WoW. This audience doesn't help other genres sell. Anecdotal but possible.

But really what I think it mostly comes down to is that the consoles are basically PCs now. There are no major limitations on any of the platforms barring perhaps RTS controls and MMORPG RAM/control/disk requirements. There are millions of players on the consoles that are now accessible easily, and this was not the case with previous generations of consoles and various PC genres that just couldn't work well on them without considerable reworking due to hardware constraints.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Consoles certainly are convenient...........

Also in regards to game development across the three platforms, this gen is particular has the advantage of having consoles + computers that have similar feature sets in terms of what developers can do with the hardware. It's not like the PS2 vs. Xbox vs. Gamecube where one system natively supported all sorts of fancy shader effects (Xbox), one could natively run some (GC) and one system kind of didn't run anything natively at all (PS2), and of course this isn't just limited to shaders, but varying amounts of RAM too. As games become more expensive to make, similar feature sets make multiplatforming a bit more simple and consumers can have more confidence in one version of a game being just as good as the other, but then it comes down to......what does this version have that the other does not?

I'm mainly a PC gamer, and while I do play many of the newer titles, I much prefer the older ones. They were better and more fresh of which only leaves many of us for nostalgia and a continued willingness to play what most console gamers would consider antiquated in the graphics department. Gaming will still continue on the PC, no matter what. Mainstream console games will still get ported over, and the casual market will still thrive on the PCs, because not everyone needs or wants a console. I have a PS3, yes there are good games for it, but it's like a breadmaker newlyweds might get on their big day. Sure it can make some delectable food, but you don't feel a real need to use it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Cmon lets be real. The main reason PC gaming is doing badly is because of piracy.

This game is easy to pirate. It was also quite successful:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/sins_of_a_solar_empire/
This wildly successful game is also pretty easy to pirate:
http://kotaku.com/5186987/no-drm-for-the-sims-3

But unlike Generic Spaceman Shooter XVI, those games were different. They also lacked high production values and a "compelling narrative." The second game also has a wide appeal among women and people who don't even know what DirectX 10 is.

The reason why WOW is so successful is because you can't pirate it. simple as that.

No, the reason why WoW is successful is that it's, fun, addictive, and keeps a stream of quality content coming at you. If it weren't those things, it would fail.

Really console games have been a better market for ages and now as development costs go up its much harder to make a profit in PC games.

If PC gamers do not want big-budget games with high production values that require screaming graphics cards, why do game companies insist on making them? I am guessing that it is because of ego. Every PC developer wants to make the next Doom. No one wants to make the next Sims.

 

[obonicus]

For how hard it is, making the next 'Doom' is still easier than making the new 'Sims'. We know Will Wright didn't quite succeed while Activision has a production line going.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Consoles won because a decent gaming rig will run you $500 alone for the GPU

 

[Mobius1aic]

Consoles won because a decent gaming rig will run you $500 alone for the GPU

The average console player or unknowing user thinks what you said to some extent, which is part of the problem. Maybe at the beginning of the console cycle due to multiplatform games it's partially true if you want to equal the consoles (it's more like $200-300). These days, so far into the console cycle, less than $100 will easily get you max settings, 1080p resolution or close, and in many cases, 2x/4x AA as well. The average PC user doesn't understand this, so even if they want to make the PC they got gaming capable on some nominal level or purchase a gaming grade computer, they don't realize that it doesn't require hundreds of dollars in upgrades or an Alienware computer.

 

[assen]

No, the reason why WoW is successful is that it's, fun, addictive, and keeps a stream of quality content coming at you. If it weren't those things, it would fail.

You're conflating two different types of success here, and so it seems you are in disagreement while you actually aren't.

WoW wouldn't succeed in capturing a huge audience, if it wasn't fun, addictive etc.
but
WoW wouldn't succeed in bringing massive amounts of cash from that huge audience back to Blizzard, if it was fun, addictive, kept a stream of quality content - and was easy to pirate.

 

[Neb]

Consoles won because a decent gaming rig will run you $500 alone for the GPU

Youre stuck in the past. In 2006 a 8800GTX cost about 500$ and that was btw the high-end. And sure it cost a lot but to this day it still runs circles around both consoles duct taped capabilities hence high AA, AF, details and resolution for games. Someone would perhaps argue who cares about higher res, AA, AF and I would say most becouse otherwise console fans/gamers wouldn't be making constant comparisions between console titles.

And sure you pay more but per dollar but you get far more so in the end it is cheaper aswell as games will over time save you several 100$'s giving you free uppgrades every 3-4 years which is all needed.

Also nowdays you get something similar or better in perfomance for around 100$ and 500$ will bring you dual GPU solutions. Even a year back you could build a whole PC bar input and monitor for about 5-600$ that would be far superior so to say. Elitistic? Well perhaps but there is a reason why people prefer hi-fi sound setups over Wallmart el cheapo stuff and why Blu-ray movie quality is better than DVD movies.... zing!

... So yeah umm welcome to the present and if you game on PC the future now!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You're conflating two different types of success here, and so it seems you are in disagreement while you actually aren't.

WoW wouldn't succeed in capturing a huge audience, if it wasn't fun, addictive etc.
but
WoW wouldn't succeed in bringing massive amounts of cash from that huge audience back to Blizzard, if it was fun, addictive, kept a stream of quality content - and was easy to pirate.

Aye, it's not surprise that the best selling PC game will also be the one that is impossible to pirate.

I also like how he points out Sins of a Solar Empire. Good game yes. Hugely pirated yes. Almost Zero value without multiplayer. Multiplayer requires purchase.

Stardock is smart with small budget games they could have focused on either single player or multiplayer. Single player = no way to prevent piracy. Multiplayer without LAN = easy way to force ownership verification everytime you want to play.

Blizzard and other companies are also trying to leverage this by removing all LAN play options from future multiplayer titles. Thus anyone wanting to do multiplayer will be required to validate their ownership of a game whenever they play.

It's no wonder that UBI Soft is going to one up everyone and be the first AAA publisher that is going to require online validation of their game everytime you want to play whether it be single player or multiplayer. And I fully expect other pubs to follow suit if it is successful in alleviating the problem of piracy.

I'm hoping they are successful even though I don't particularly want to validate everytime I play. However, if it curbs piracy and encourages devs to come back to PC, I'm all for it.

Regards,
SB

 

[Neb]

I also like how he points out Sins of a Solar Empire. Good game yes. Hugely pirated yes. Almost Zero value without multiplayer. Multiplayer requires purchase.

Pirating (or stealing becosue they are theft plain and simple) is a problem plaguing PC but enlighten me where these "huge" claims come from becouse I've not seen illegal download numbers for most games. And often those numbers process re-downloads/unique IP's/fake downloads same as a full code download. Only thing I've seen is skewed ratios spanning over some few days based on say 100k copies and high amount of supposed illegal copies. However the ratios changes dramatically as the days pass as 'illegal download explosion' gets lower and retail/online sales increase. Else no games would exists on PC since lastgen as no game would bring in revenue.

Btw that about Ubisoft where they not going to go all Steam soon?

 

[Prophecy2k]

Youre stuck in the past. In 2006 a 8800GTX cost about 500$ and that was btw the high-end. And sure it cost a lot but to this day it still runs circles around both consoles duct taped capabilities hence high AA, AF, details and resolution for games. Someone would perhaps argue who cares about higher res, AA, AF and I would say most becouse otherwise console fans/gamers wouldn't be making constant comparisions between console titles.

And sure you pay more but per dollar but you get far more so in the end it is cheaper aswell as games will over time save you several 100$'s giving you free uppgrades every 3-4 years which is all needed.

Also nowdays you get something similar or better in perfomance for around 100$ and 500$ will bring you dual GPU solutions. Even a year back you could build a whole PC bar input and monitor for about 5-600$ that would be far superior so to say. Elitistic? Well perhaps but there is a reason why people prefer hi-fi sound setups over Wallmart el cheapo stuff and why Blu-ray movie quality is better than DVD movies.... zing!

... So yeah umm welcome to the present and if you game on PC the future now!

In the end though he's likely still right for the average mainstream consumer who doesn't own a desktop that they would want to, or even know how to upgrade. Desktops in the consumer PC space are pretty dead as of now, and so for your average consumer, most who might already own a PC will own a laptop or better still... netbook *shudder*

For such a person, buying a gaming capable laptop for any reasonable price would come in at £500-£1k+ and while building their own desktop gaming rig would be cheaper, most wouldn't want to switch from a laptop (light, compact PC) to a hulking great space-filling desktop just for games.

Even if you wanted to play all the most recent modern games and you already owned a desktop, you'd likely need to replace the majority of your most expensive internals, i.e. CPU, GPU, motherboard and PSU which would end up costing far more than it would to simply run down to your nearest Argos and pick up a 360 arcade.

Console gaming (in terms of hardware cost) is generally cheaper*, and more importantly... much much more convenient.

*It certainly is here in the UK. Might be different across the pond.