Piracy not reason consoles won

[Dave Glue]

I think Microsoft's decision to enter console market is what really started the decline of PC gaming as a whole. I don't know if it was inevitable or not, but if MS never entered console business, we might be looking at a different picture.

Agreed to an extent, albeit I don't know how many ports from say the PS3 we would have if the 360 didn't exist.

MS could definitely be doing a hell of a lot more to make the PC a more attractive gaming platform, but it's obvious they want a return on their 360 investment.

I too have hope that Ubisoft's implementation actually prevents piracy, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't cracked days after release.

 

[Neb]

I too have hope that Ubisoft's implementation actually prevents piracy, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't cracked days after release.

Even if so hopefully the procedure is complex so that only a limited amount of pirates get it to work. But preferably none of course as the thieves need to learn to pay for what they want and respect others IP.

 

[zed]

How does this disprove what Ive written if anything it makes what I said stronger

"Yes, PC is the smallest percentage in terms of how much sold on each platform but that hardly means anything other than the PC is just the smallest market,"

Also IIRC first MW has sold well over 1 million on PC.

so youre saying the console versions of MW2 in a single day greatly outsold what MW1 on the PC has managed in a couple of years? well Im not too surprised at that

As we all know PC's glory days are long gone

 

[Neb]

I said:

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.

Then...

Theres a lot of evidence around If u look at the 2 biggest titles in the UK last year. MW2,fifa10 (though its a similar story with most games) from memory the sales figures were ~98% consoles, ~2%pc. yet the actual ppl playing on online servers were no way near a 50:1 ratio

Then I said..

You mean the sales number for only UK that also exclude digital sales? Hoo-kay maybe that is the world for some.. whatever rocks your boat to skew reality!


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/infinity-ward-defends-uk-mw2-pc-sales

Infinity Ward has denied that sales of Modern Warfare 2 on PC have been lacklustre, arguing that all the signs actually point to success.

"Yes, PC is the smallest percentage in terms of how much sold on each platform but that hardly means anything other than the PC is just the smallest market," Infinity Ward man Robert Bowling patiently informed fans on the official forum.

...The PC version of Modern Warfare 2 has actually outsold the PC version of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in its first week. Making it the most successful PC version.

Thanks for letting me showcase another type of FUD. Also IIRC first MW has sold well over 1 million on PC.

Way to go trying to avoid the point, bravo!

Makes it even more pathetic locking onto MW past sales when MW2 PC sales gone past it in a week. But whatever rocks your boat!

And it doesn't mather if they sold less than console version (I dont say versions unless Sony and Ms are "sleeping in the same bed"!*** ) if they go on plus. No royalty fees to chime up and proably far less development costs for PC version making them go on plus with less sold games.

*** Again another type of FUD, stacking two platforms that shares no economy against a single other platform.

 

[specwarGP2]

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.

CD sales started going downhill when napster hit it's peak. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[Neb]

It's rather ironic too, as i built a monster rig in 2008 for £800 just to play crysis. Ended up spending all that money, not even being able to max the game out, and then after seeing my GPU's retail price slashed in two as NV released they're newer chip almost about a month later, i was rather peaved. Add to it the constant updates, dodgy driver/compatability issues i was having, also learning that to even make crysis look good i had to start fiddling with config files... after all that I went out and bought a PS3 and never looked back.

But maxing out is subjective. For most it is having highest settings in menu for graphical options not related to AA/res. In this case very high. For others it is having max res your monitor/GPU can dispaly and highest AA your GPU can do. In that case since CE2/Crysis CE3/Crysis 2 also allows for custom SSAA on any GPU means you will never be able to max out CE2/CE3 games, see?

You say 800£ monster rig from 2008 which is the era of GTX280/4870 but I assume you bought your PC around April going for a 8800GTX/HD3870 since you said prices where slashed in 2 when new GPU came out?

That is unfortunate decision time but anyway back to...

...also learning that to even make crysis look good i had to start fiddling with config files...

Your system would be able to do very high at console res or high at higher res. Neither one would require fiddling with settings to look good. If anything that comment makes it sound like the settings where medium which I would find extremly hard to believe as my Opteron 165 and 7900GT handled medium fine in HD.

About constant updates and dodgy driver/compatability issues I cant say much except it is not the norm at all. Constant updates as in OS or game patches should be considered something good and is in almost all cases pain free installation unless you are running pirated software, in such case you would most likely run into a lot of problems.

For me it barely ever has been problems with games nor drivers/updates and not becouse I know quite some about the software and hardware but becouse the problem never surfaced at all in any form even with old graphics drivers/system drivers. I also buy all my software. :smile:

EDIT: Also sperately this was intereting.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/..._campaign=Feed:+GamasutraNews+(Gamasutra+News

Internally-developed PC games can have a profit margin of up to 90 percent, while internally-developed console games can return margins of 60 to 70 percent, EA explained, while externally-developed titles necessarily generate lower margins for the publisher.

 

[zed]

from your link

However, it was later revealed that the PC version accounted for just three per cent of that figure, leading some commentators to suggest it was a big old failure. And by "commentators" we mean "people who probably signed that petition".

"Essentially, all this percentage proves is that the console versions sold great, not that the PC version sold poorly, because that's actually not the case," Bowling explained. "The PC version has done tremendous in its first week, better than our previous game."

FACT - the console versions have greatly outsold the PC version
DEBATABLE - "The PC version has done tremendous in its first week, better than our previous game."
A - It sold more in its first week than MW1 sold in its first week
B - It sold more in its first week than MW1 sold in its lifetime
you're thinking he means #B but if u read the line it could also mean #A

http://torrentfreak.com/the-most-pirated-games-of-2009-091227/

With 4.1 million unauthorized downloads of the PC version alone, the game more than doubles the achievement of last year’s ‘winner‘ Spore. Modern Warfare 2 leads both the PC and Xbox 360 lists, by a landslide.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (4,100,000) PC
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (970,000) xbox360

Honestly this is not open to debate, the console versions of MW2 sold far better than the PC version, the most likely chief reason is piracy. You can deny this all you want Nebula

 

[RobertR1]

Before this gen, for online gaming, you really were limited to the PC. With the focus for online gaming for this gen and the games designed around it, PC gaming has lost a lot of that audience to the consoles.

Having consoles being lead development platform and the PC versions really not having a great benefit, outside of graphics (which depends on your hardware) certainly doesn't help the PC version either.

Piracy is ofcourse always an issue but other factors certainly come into play.

 

[assen]

The only number I've seen for MW2 on PC is the number of people with public Steam profiles who unlocked Steam achievements for it, which were a bit above 1 mln a week or two ago - which surprised me (I expected far less).

I find the thread premise a bit stupid, frankly. I don't think consoles have "won" in any significant way. There are huge vectors of growth for the industry that are outside consoles:
- the huge number of developed and sold iPhone games (even though the financials there are shaky)
- the proliferation of traditional MMOs
- the biggest game in the world, Farmville (70 mln users, 25 mln active users), and its ilk on Facebook

None of these huge vectors of growth of non-console gaming have anything to do with the main focus of this forum - the obsession over pixels, polygons and lighting methods, however; maybe this is how "consoles have won"?

People trying to downplay piracy choose to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and find it easier to construct mentally a vast conspiracy of publishers scheming against their own interest to make life of PC gamers miserable, than to admit that yes, really, a vast segment of the "market" takes games being "free" for granted, and reach for the nearest torrent site anytime they fancy a game.

Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to disclose our own numbers, which are telling; but do you think that:
- the revamped battle.net and the lack of LAN multiplayer in Starcraft
- the lack of dedicated server, aka disconnected multiplayer in MW2
- the EA statement that all of their PC games in 2011 will have an online component
- the Ubisoft decision to require Internet connection even for games such as Settlers
...are all born out of the sheer stupidity of the industry and some imaginary "greed" that is not rooted in actual heavy pirating?

 

[Neb]

from your link


FACT - the console versions have greatly outsold the PC version
DEBATABLE - "The PC version has done tremendous in its first week, better than our previous game."
A - It sold more in its first week than MW1 sold in its first week
B - It sold more in its first week than MW1 sold in its lifetime
you're thinking he means #B but if u read the line it could also mean #A

Seems pretty clear to me.

The PC version of Modern Warfare 2 has actually outsold the PC version of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in its first week. Making it the most successful PC version.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-most-pirated-games-of-2009-091227/

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (4,100,000) PC
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (970,000) xbox360

Honestly this is not open to debate, the console versions of MW2 sold far better than the PC version, the most likely chief reason is piracy. You can deny this all you want Nebula

I have not disputed that console sold more in this discussion at all. however what I have done is question the stuborness of some people that fully judge PC and instantly drops the 'judge hammer' based on sales from a single country and from numbers that dont even include digital distribution. Same with NPD numbers skipping digital sales and even online store numbers like Amazon and more.
I am questioning the reason and agenda some have to do whatever it means to make it look like PC sold a lot less than it actually has. People that skew reality by using numbers from single countries/non complete numbers and present it like global sales numbers.

Numbers to pretty much be used to point out how supposedly little amount of people buy games for PC etc, to spin the 'utterly catastrophic', 'doom and gloom', 'no revenue' onliners.

And as said before PC has lots of piracy but those numbers in the link should be viewed with very critical eyes conisdering no collection method nor stats or 'how is' is presented in a chart or similar. how is it counted, unique IPs, unique completed downloads from unique IPs. Does it account for fake/broken/non functional uploads, fake torrents etc. Are all lost sales. Anyway I would believe it is a very large number of downloaded game copies but unlike some I dont grab first 'agenda positive' material to skew things to fit my agenda without critically observing it. I actually dont have much of an agenda though I am a [strike]bit[/strike] bit+ pro PC or so.. well.

But suppose those numbers are correct then I would be utterly blown away how 4m+ users knows how to use hacked Steam + game for a game that integrates into Steam with no other option. And a game most play for the multiplayer part. Yes MW2 integrates into Steam, it is not standalone so 'good luck playing online'.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/infinity-ward-defends-uk-mw2-pc-sales

Infinity Ward has denied that sales of Modern Warfare 2 on PC have been lacklustre, arguing that all the signs actually point to success.

"Yes, PC is the smallest percentage in terms of how much sold on each platform but that hardly means anything other than the PC is just the smallest market," Infinity Ward man Robert Bowling patiently informed fans on the official forum.

...The PC version of Modern Warfare 2 has actually outsold the PC version of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in its first week. Making it the most successful PC version.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/..._campaign=Feed:+GamasutraNews+(Gamasutra+News

Internally-developed PC games can have a profit margin of up to 90 percent, while internally-developed console games can return margins of 60 to 70 percent, EA explained, while externally-developed titles necessarily generate lower margins for the publisher.

 

[edepot]

Slow OS part of the problem

Well, it seems after an initial roundabout, most of the posts now seem to agree to a certain extent the main reason why consoles won. But there are hold-backs especially those that do not have much knowledge about virtualisation and interpretation, so I'll insert some more sources and info to back up statements made....



One of the lessons not learned by many people dealing with operating systems is that native code is important.

It is so important that it can make or break acceptance of the device for software developers, and sometimes eventual success of the product. If anything, the old way of adding more features over layers and layers of code via interpretation or virtualization is out. Thin layers that allows developers full access to the hardware is the way to go. When mobile devices are becoming more popular, it is important that direct access to the hardware is not hampered because battery life will be reduced through wasted cpu cycles on the interpretation or virtualization. Wasted CPU cycles means reduced speed, and reduced speed means certain applications will not work on the device (notably power hungry games). It is not a secret that games drives sales of many devices. In fact, it is this reason that game consoles became so successful. Interpreted code also prevents cycle counting for very high performance applications (games notwithstanding), and this leads to unpredictable behavior unsuitable for real time OS and high framerate dependent games. For example, certain interpreted languages have garbage collectors and "hotspot" compiling that can kick in or be working in uncertain time periods, which will affect the timing and cpu cycle counting. It can also affect smoothness of user interfaces and quick feedback.

Ok, some seem to not agree that interpreted stuff (whether JIT or not) are terrible performers, so I'll provide a good place to get background info for those who don't seem to understand why:
http://www.edepot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3146#p5820


If you look at mobile technology (especially cell phones), the games were nothing to talk about. There are two factors, speed (the slow java), and the screen (small size and low resolution). Apple got lucky with the iphone (took some hackers to let them realize the profit potential for native apps on the device) and they ended up creating a new segment of low cost games and applications. Piggybacking on this concept will solve the other missing piece of the equation for a popular device... big size and high resolution in a touch tablet.

There is mention of hackers there that provided iPhone with an outlet for profit. So yes console security (or lack of it) is sometimes a good thing to propagate a device (especially potential games-centric ones). For those that are not up to date, the PS3 is the last holdout:
http://www.edepot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3234


Google's entry into the mobile phone segment will probably be hampered by too many different cpu's that are tied together by an interpreted language (java). Java is an interpreted language and will have the same disadvantage as all interpreted languages (like C# and its .NET libraries). Interpreted languages are good for short programs that run short bursts (like perl programs, which lead to PHP web languages). They may be good for short quick web stuff, but try doing stuff in games with them and they will start to show their disadvantages. Even allowing "hacks" to allow direct access to the cpu via Java is kind of a bad idea. The hack won't work on different CPU's, thus segmenting the market. I think google should just stick with one type of CPU architecture and allow native access to it (like what apple is doing with their iphone and iPod touch).

I am hesitant to post this, but since it followed up the previous post i can't hide it, might as well reveal this one too. Yes it is damaging, but someone has to do it for the common good:
http://www.edepot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3146#p5822

On consoles, native code is a must. Even adding .NET XNA for developers showed that there is little market for slow unpredictable programs (because of interpretation), which is why on the XBox360, the game sellers are those that don't use it, but access the hardware directly in C or assembly. If the PlayStation brand of consoles started adding layers of interpretation, the console won't last that long (10+ years). Each layer of interpretation or virtualization slows the hardware down, and a hardware device must get as much power as possible throughout its lifetime, which is why newer and newer games go lower and lower to access the hardware in order to get more power (which means going down to assembly level programming). It is this reason that software libraries that add too much indirection or virtualization will end up hurting the device in the long run. Interpreted languages (.NET and it's incarnations) and virtual drivers on the Vista and later operating systems ended up killing most of the productive programs and games on the platform because with each revision of the OS, the hardware needs to be upgraded to basically do the same thing. Upgrading hardware to make up for slowed down operating system (because of the thick layers of interpretation and virtualization) may be good for hardware sales in the short run, but bad for everyone (including developers, hardware manufacturers, and consumers) in the long run when the number of apps and games perform poorly on the majority except for those who upgraded their hardware to the max specs. When this happens there is no market for apps and games, and that is why the consoles and iphones (with their thin layers of OS) started taking over the market previously held by desktop operating systems.


Here is the part where people blame it on piracy. But the truth is that the return of investment through hardware upgrading (mainly blamed on slow OS) is extremely low. Nobody wants to shell out $1000 in upgrades every three years just for a game or because it was forced on them through an OS upgrade:
http://www.edepot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1552

Google will probably find out this eventually when they finally realize chrome is popular because it is fast and accesses the hardware directly, while their mobile phones don't sell that much because of the lack of good games, and UI that is not smooth like native code. Games may have something to do with it, because games just don't work right on interpreted languages, and the mobile phone provided by google require that they be made in Java (an interpreted language) with garbage collection and inability to count cpu-cycles, and lack of direct access to the hardware. Like .NET (yes lack of games using it too), the platform will probably fizz out when the number of exciting games and powerful programs become lacking because developers can't get access to the hardware directly, without going though "hacks" that don't work on all devices. The google phone may save itself if they just emulate the iPhone of keeping to one type of CPU and get rid of virtualization and interpretations and keep the layers as thin as possible to allow programs to shine.

Some people will find the above hard to swallow at first, but looking through the history of successful apps on mobile devices (like PSP and iPhone), people eventually will come around to this thinking. It just takes time for some companies to realize what the real problems are. I think many of the Nexus One "main apps" uses no Dalvik java because it needs to be fast (like the browser portion). I think even internally Google realizes this. Perhaps they need to offer the java as an option, not manditory, for developers, and let people code in C (before the market leaves them behind).

What many don't realize is that powerful software that can do many amazing things is great, but if you stick a middle layer (the operating system and the libraries) that hampers access to the hardware, and enforce a type of language (interpretation), you limit what can be achieved on the hardware. The application decides if it wants to use interpretation. The application decides how much CPU cycles to waste. The OS needs to get out of the way and be as thin as possible. Enforcing too much constraints on the applications (games) will kill the platform. Some vendors go out and even limit who can provide software on a platform, and while this has some benefits, it also reduces the number of channels the platform can succeed. Windows didn't become a monopoly because people can use it to move windows around, it was because of the cheap hardware and games and apps made by the developers that all ran on the same platform. Consoles took over because the hardware was cheap for consumers and you didn't need to keep upgrading hardware to keep up with the slow operating system revisions released each 3-5 years. It got to the point on the desktop where slow operating systems destroyed enough good developers that the limited number of developers on consoles overcame the negative aspects of expensive hardware upgrading, and the consoles took over the gaming market. If this keeps up, apple will also take over the application market because it seems for Microsoft adding features by absorbing more layers (and competitors) is their profit strategy. Soon, Microsoft will have to deal with the situation that developers will find alternative platforms that provides them with access to the hardware directly (which means good for games and powerful apps), and not worry about being swallowed up because the OS just got more bloated because it absorbed another similar feature offering by the developer. Destroy a developer on the platform, destroy future markets on the platform offered by the developer.

Now, after posting the above, many people have come out and agreed on the expensive hardware aspect forced by purposely slowed down OS. Yes virtualization of the hardware and layers and layers code and interpretation has something to do with it. But there are others (like marketers on payroll) who may still be held back by need to maintain profit and monopoly. I searched around on this forum for some examples from other posters so that I don't take too much heat from this...

Marketing will sometimes skew things the wrong way:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1242645&postcount=40

Look at the 2.5x part:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1271685&postcount=104

I post the above because I experienced something similar talking about why PSP has better graphics than iPhone. Even when providing benchmarks to show them the truth. Now in actuality it is even worse (5x slower than reported numbers), but can you imagine if nVidia (who has rights to TBDR) starts overstating figures 2.5x? They could say, well, the hardware only does X triangles per second, but if you code it using deferred rendering, you can save some triangles during Z processing, so we will inflate the figures 2.5x because even though the hardware can't do it, we assume through coding you "save" some triangles in the long run. So even if there is no TDBR in the hardware, nVidia can start telling their marketing department to start inflating the figures 2.5x if the developers code via deferred rendering as default via software. Something is not right about that. And I hope there is more truth in people who respond to posts like this one.


So what does this mean? The future device needs to be open to a lot of developers and the OS needs to get out of the way and not enforce a language, type of access to the hardware, and be very powerful and cheap. The PlayStation just happened to fit this description with the exception of the "open to a lot of developers" and that is why the iPhone came to market and absorbed what was left.


Lastly, and for the record. I having nothing against .NET or Java, unless forced on people. Nor TBDR, unless forced on people for the wrong reasons. I find it odd that people seem to accept more and more constraints when many inherent founding principles are based on freedom.

 

[xexuxjy]

Good spoof. Have you considered a career in politics/comedy?

 

[flynn]

Like you did in the PSP vs iPhone thread when you started comparing the PS2 and the PSP, you are comparing apples and oranges again.

Performance on cell phones has nothing to do with performance on consoles and PCs. It's hard to figure out if you're trolling or you simply mix up things.

You didn't really add anything to support your claims and pointed to a bunch of your own posts. I'm going to comment on one particular item:

Google will probably find out this eventually when they finally realize chrome is popular because it is fast and accesses the hardware directly, while their mobile phones don't sell that much because of the lack of good games, and UI that is not smooth like native code.

Chrome is built on top of hardware abstraction layers like every other userland application. It's fast because it has a JIT JS engine, not because it bypasses any layer. It is constrained by the same OS bloat that, in your opinion, makes games slow.

Use a Nexus One and tell me that the UI is not smooth. All the core libraries that Android uses are already optimized.

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions but please do not try to pass them as fact.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It is interesting to note how well 8800 still runs most games out there (even newest ones) with high resolutions and all the bells and whistles turned on, considering the fact that it is more than 3 years old. Last generation, running HL2, Doom 3, and Far Cry on a Geforce 3 with high resolutions, close to max settings, and high AA and AF would seem out of question. This could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it.

The interesting part of that is that it's a consequence of developement moving more towards designing for what will work on console than pushing the graphics envelope. Especially after all the public backlash to Crysis, the last game to attempt to push the graphics envelope.

Interestingly Farcry did the exact same thing with the exact same results at launch (no system able to run at max settings). Yet Farcry received generally favorable comments for pushing the envelope while Crysis received lots of backlash for pushing the envelope.

I'll be first in line to say the 8800 was a good piece of hardware, I didn't recommend a single ATI card to anyone until the Rv670 came out and those only to people with a budget. 8800 remained king of performance recommendations by me for quite a while.

However, that said, its relevance through the years owes more towards to the move to console first than anything else. There just really isn't anyone truly attempting to push what PC is capable of anymore. Other than Crysis, the only other games I can think of would be Arma II (more CPU dependant than GPU) and maybe Stalker. Haven't had a chance to check out the new one yet.

The other graphically demanding games with features on PC that aren't on console are still designed with console first and then additional features tacked on. Dirt 2 and the new AvP for example.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

From what I read all Ubisoft games will be Steam based as in it ties itself to Steam like MW2, DOWII etc. That + live key check should do good to protect the IP.

Not so much Steam based, as Steam like. Except with one key difference. There is no way to toggle offline mode. You will have to validate ownership online every single time you start up the game. Steam still has an option to toggle offline mode so you can still play without an internet connection.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I wonder how are they going to implement that in a way that it will not be cracked in a short time. Unless they use a really elaborate technique like Starforce's VM + communications encryption I don't see a way to prevent cracked versions for single player use from showing up soon after release.

I also do hope it succeeds, people who make videogames deserve both to be paid and respected, as hard as that is to understand for some people.

Yes the biggest problem with single player is that there is no way to force online connections.

With any game that requires an internet connection for online play it's easy to validate the integrity of files in addition to ownership validation prior to enabling the game to play. Thus, why there will be increasingly fewer and fewer games released on PC that support LAN gaming, as LAN gaming is the main way to bypass and circumvent this.

With single player if they can find a way to hack the executable or spoof a validation server, then there wouldn't be a need to connect online. I'm not a programmer/hacker so have no idea how difficult it would be to counter this? Program executable encryption? I dunno.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Perhaps this just means we'll see a slow death of significant single player content and storylines on PC as games increasing migrated to focus on multiplayer which requires validation.

Regards,
SB

 

[flynn]

With single player if they can find a way to hack the executable or spoof a validation server, then there wouldn't be a need to connect online. I'm not a programmer/hacker so have no idea how difficult it would be to counter this? Program executable encryption? I dunno.

It is assumed that every software protection will eventually be defeated. However if it lasts long enough (a month, a few months) that IMHO would be good enough for the single player part.

I have an idea on how to enforce online authentication for single player: Make the save function an online feature. Whenever you want to save your player profile/campaign status the program encrypts it a public key and sends it to the server. When loading a challenge is sent from the server to the client and then the game retrieves the info. Have that run on a VM so a straight IDA dump cannot find it and you might get lucky for a while.

All of this can, of course, be reverse engineered and you could modify the client to use a non-encrypted communication to talk to a fake server. Then no one else could see your stats or progress. And of course MW2 was cracked and people downloaded it even knowing they would never be able to play online, so who knows how effective these measures will be.

 

[zed]

I have not disputed that console sold more in this discussion at all. however what I have done is question the stuborness of some people that fully judge PC and instantly drops the 'judge hammer' based on sales from a single country and from numbers that dont even include digital distribution. Same with NPD numbers skipping digital sales and even online store numbers like Amazon and more.

well if that doesnt convince you then look at the revenue numbers from the companies (eg EA/activiosn/ubisoft etc) themselves they often breakdown how each platform has done, now these numbers would include DD etc. yet here the PC sales is usually in the single digit percentage

 

[Neb]

well if that doesnt convince you then look at the revenue numbers from the companies (eg EA/activiosn/ubisoft etc) themselves they often breakdown how each platform has done, now these numbers would include DD etc. yet here the PC sales is usually in the single digit percentage

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=422982

Spoiler

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/..._campaign=Feed:+GamasutraNews+(Gamasutra+News

Internally-developed PC games can have a profit margin of up to 90 percent, while internally-developed console games can return margins of 60 to 70 percent, EA explained, while externally-developed titles necessarily generate lower margins for the publisher.

Not so much Steam based, as Steam like. Except with one key difference. There is no way to toggle offline mode. You will have to validate ownership online every single time you start up the game. Steam still has an option to toggle offline mode so you can still play without an internet connection.

Regards,
SB

Wasn't HL2 like that initially requiring check each time you would launch the play?

 

[ERP]

There is no perfect antipiracy mechanism.
All your really looking for as a developer/publisher is to defeat "casual pirates" if it's harder than download and run pirated copy, you eliminate the majority of that piracy.
Games sell the bulk of their units in the first month, so if you can make it difficult for people to get a working pirated copy in that window, most people who are going to buy will buy.

It's just too easy to get games for free on PC.

I still think longer term we're looking at radically different models that are more "service" oriented than product oriented. If you don't have a complete copy of the product on your HD it's far harder to "copy" it.

The reason I like models like pay to play are it's far easier to identify and reward quality over hype, and closing the loop on that makes financing the right games for the right reasons easier.