Gamescom 2011 : Sony conference discussion

[patsu]

That's why I like Blu-ray. The last resort is to fallback on AnyDVD. We always have that option, even after the price has fallen.

If everything is streaming, we will all be at the mercy of the contents industry who fear piracy so much. We will either need to pay recurring/subscription fees, or get nickel and dimed.


EDIT: Also, hurray for Google's support for free codecs like VP8.

 

[manux]

That's why I like Blu-ray. The last resort is to fallback on AnyDVD. We always have that option, even after the price has fallen.

If everything is streaming, we will all be at the mercy of the contents industry who fear piracy so much. We will either need to pay recurring/subscription fees, or get nickel and dimed.


EDIT: Also, hurray for Google's support for free codecs like VP8.

It's not just piracy... What about germany and their laws against violence. It might soon be we all see only teletubbies on streams and tv :=) Digital censorship is quite frightening concept. Or what about politics if everything was modified to fit the way of current powers to be...

edit. btw. tv in usa is censored in surprising ways. it took me long time to get used to beeping out words and blurring some shots... It's not like that everywhere. And don't even get me started on fox news

 

[-tkf-]

indirectly led to products like anydvdhd which I heavily rely on now..

The main reason for anydvd is to sell software that is required, the least of which is HDCP but just simple and plain freedom of choice for those that actually buy their stuff.

Of course the amount of piracy would be reduced if ripping wasn´t an option, oh well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sure it won't please everyone, but they need to take care of the contents industry's concerns first.

Except it doesn't work! Okay, maybe it's a case of just giving the industry a placebo to get them to invest in a new format, but you can't stop piracy. Every film protected via HDCP is available on torrents. And there's software to rip the movies onto HDD. So maybe the old ways of connecting two VCRs up and making pirate copies have been thwarted, but piracy doesn't work like that any more. The plus side to HDCP is none. It's done nobody any favours (except maybe the forementioned placebo effect), it certainly hasn't saved the contents industry from lost revenue, yet HDCP has caused some grief.

 

[mrcorbo]

The thing about copy protection is that it usually hinders legitimate users more than the pirates. That's bass-ackwards. The aim should be to reward legitimate users so that piracy becomes a less attractive option.

I think an approach of incentivizing purchasing media has a better chance of success than trying to discourage stealing it.

The complaints about Steam's DRM are relatively muted compared to other types. The reason for this is it that the Steam service is such a value-add that it makes up for the restrictions of the DRM. They made it worth it and the market has responded very positively. I think there's a lesson in that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Let's not go too OT. This isn't a DRM thread.

 

[patsu]

Except it doesn't work! Okay, maybe it's a case of just giving the industry a placebo to get them to invest in a new format, but you can't stop piracy. Every film protected via HDCP is available on torrents. And there's software to rip the movies onto HDD. So maybe the old ways of connecting two VCRs up and making pirate copies have been thwarted, but piracy doesn't work like that any more. The plus side to HDCP is none. It's done nobody any favours (except maybe the forementioned placebo effect), it certainly hasn't saved the contents industry from lost revenue, yet HDCP has caused some grief.

DRM is usually a best effort as a deterrent, not a total prevention (it would be too expensive to implement and too hard to use). It is usually accompanied by other carrot and stick mechanisms to change consumer behavior.

It is quite apparent that the landscape has multiple conflicting agendas. We will never please everyone but we can find a common ground. To say DRM is useless is too strong, it is a control tool at many levels (enforcement, policy and trade negotiation, etc). It helps to enable commerce. Once the commerce framework is up and running, perhaps people will settle down and think about how to make the world better... like tearing down the DRM that enabled commerce in the first place (ideally, consumers have been trained and infrastructure is self sustaining by that time -- again, see iTunes) ^_^

 

[bkilian]

He didnt mean "standard" as in "standard version" or "standard functionality".

He is referring to the fact that it was featured in devices for a long time

I believe about half or more of our users still use the yellow composite connection. While I may not have agreed with leaving out the HDMI connector at launch, I can see the reasoning behind it.

Valve: We need to reward Sony for opening PS3:
http://www.develop-online.net/news/38486/Valve-We-need-to-reward-Sony-for-opening-PS3

I find it highly amusing that a company embroiled in a fight with EA because they refuse to "open their network" is complimenting another company for doing it.

 

[RobertR1]

I find it highly amusing that a company embroiled in a fight with EA because they refuse to "open their network" is complimenting another company for doing it.

If they can do some lip service and have their platform start showing on a popular console, you can bet your ass they say all sorts of sweet things.

 

[rekator]

I find it highly amusing that a company embroiled in a fight with EA because they refuse to "open their network" is complimenting another company for doing it.

IMHO, the non openness of Steam is more a excuse for EA to quit Steam and promoted is own digital store. Now that Valve shown to EA that you can make money on PC gaming, EA want all the money.
And for Steam/Sony, Sony need to improve is network and coolness perception by gamers, for Steam simple they feel the concurrence on PC digital market arrived (EA, Acti in futur), so need other source.
And M$ is not a potential partner I'm suppose?

 

[-tkf-]

I find it highly amusing that a company embroiled in a fight with EA because they refuse to "open their network" is complimenting another company for doing it.

EA has to abide to the rules that Steams sets, and so far i have not seen one single example of these rules being bad for me as a user.

 

[AlphaWolf]

EA has to abide to the rules that Steams sets, and so far i have not seen one single example of these rules being bad for me as a user.

unless you want to play an ea or blizzard game (or whoever else decides to drop steam).

 

[-tkf-]

unless you want to play an ea or blizzard game (or whoever else decides to drop steam).

In the case of Steam i buy almost everything there that i want to play on my PC, except Blizzard games
And so far they have not disappointed me in anyway, it´s the rare case of being the best and the biggest player on the market.

Not to sure about BF3, if it´s worth having another client installed from a Company that only servers it´s stock holders and really couldn´t care less about me as a customer. Funny, i am having the same thoughts about Blizzard when it comes to server customers vs stock holders

 

[tuna]

Not to sure about BF3, if it´s worth having another client installed from a Company that only servers it´s stock holders and really couldn´t care less about me as a customer. Funny, i am having the same thoughts about Blizzard when it comes to server customers vs stock holders

Who do you think Valve serves?

 

[mrcorbo]

Who do you think Valve serves?

Itself, as any successful company should. However, the fact that Valve is a privately held company allows them to pursue operating strategies that public companies can't.

Being responsible to shareholders adds an additional set of imperatives to the universal "make money" imperative. The need to attract and hold on to outside investment causes corporations to focus more on maintaining consistent profits and a consistent level of growth than a company like Valve has to.

This allows Valve to perform according to their own expectations vs. those of a collection of people whose only contribution to the day-to-day operation of the company might be that they are partially financing it. This further allows Valve to be as big as their ownership feel they need to be or are capable of sustaining and to make as much money as they feel they need to make. Vale has the luxury to be able to operate their business in a way that very few others in the video games industry can.

Fortunately for consumers, Valve has historically operated their business in a way that has largely resulted on their focus being to make the best possible product and to reward their customers for using their product by continuing to support their products indefinitely and not just until their next product releases. So far this strategy has worked pretty well for them and I don't see any obvious indications that they intend to abandon it.

Think of all of the problems in game development that are created by the need to, with rigid regularity, hit specific release windows with products that will generate a specific number of sales during a specific period of time and how often it ends up hurting the games themselves. Too bad the large publishers can't operate without these pressures, they would undoubtedly end up producing better games.

 

[-tkf-]

Itself, as any successful company should. However, the fact that Valve is a privately held company allows them to pursue operating strategies that public companies can't.

Being responsible to shareholders adds an additional set of imperatives to the universal "make money" imperative. The need to attract and hold on to outside investment causes corporations to focus more on maintaining consistent profits and a consistent level of growth than a company like Valve has to.

This allows Valve to perform according to their own expectations vs. those of a collection of people whose only contribution to the day-to-day operation of the company might be that they are partially financing it. This further allows Valve to be as big as their ownership feel they need to be or are capable of sustaining and to make as much money as they feel they need to make. Vale has the luxury to be able to operate their business in a way that very few others in the video games industry can.

Fortunately for consumers, Valve has historically operated their business in a way that has largely resulted on their focus being to make the best possible product and to reward their customers for using their product by continuing to support their products indefinitely and not just until their next product releases. So far this strategy has worked pretty well for them and I don't see any obvious indications that they intend to abandon it.

Think of all of the problems in game development that are created by the need to, with rigid regularity, hit specific release windows with products that will generate a specific number of sales during a specific period of time and how often it ends up hurting the games themselves. Too bad the large publishers can't operate without these pressures, they would undoubtedly end up producing better games.

Thank you sir, i was waiting for the predictable question that Tuna posted.

Valve serves the customers because they are the only concern that valve has. EA servers it´s stockholders and absolutely nothing else. Normally one should think that serving the stockholders would equal serving the customers, but in EA´s case that has been proved not to be true. Instead it´s a question of maximizing profit by milking everything that possible can be milked.

 

[bkilian]

Thank you sir, i was waiting for the predictable question that Tuna posted.

Valve serves the customers because they are the only concern that valve has. EA servers it´s stockholders and absolutely nothing else. Normally one should think that serving the stockholders would equal serving the customers, but in EA´s case that has been proved not to be true. Instead it´s a question of maximizing profit by milking everything that possible can be milked.

Aah, the idealism of youth (Actually, I have no idea how old you are, I'm just being silly).
Valve serves one thing, and one thing only, the profit imperative. You can't seriously argue that the customers (people in my household are in this quandary) that bought Dragon Age 2, and now no longer can reinstall it, are being well served by Valve.
Valve is pulling an Apple in that they want a cut of any money that could possibly be related to anything they would be involved in. There's no difference between Valve's insistence that any in game purchases go through them (or that there are _no_ "in game" purchases, only steam purchases), and Apple's "No buy button in your app unless we get 30%" policy, yet Apple is seen as the big bad guy, and Valve is somehow in the right.

You can see by Gabe's amazing "reversal" from calling the PS3 a piece of crap to suddenly being best friends because Sony was willing to let him poison PSN with Steam that it has nothing to do with customers, and nothing to do with principles, and everything to do with profit. I applaud him for that, because that's what owning a business is all about, but I won't pretend that everything he does is "for the users".

 

[mrcorbo]

Valve serves one thing, and one thing only, the profit imperative. You can't seriously argue that the customers (people in my household are in this quandary) that bought Dragon Age 2, and now no longer can reinstall it, are being well served by Valve.
Valve is pulling an Apple in that they want a cut of any money that could possibly be related to anything they would be involved in. There's no difference between Valve's insistence that any in game purchases go through them (or that there are _no_ "in game" purchases, only steam purchases), and Apple's "No buy button in your app unless we get 30%" policy, yet Apple is seen as the big bad guy, and Valve is somehow in the right.

Neither is "the bad guy". They each built a platform and are well within their rights to set any TOS that they want as a prerequisite for engagement with that platform.

You can see by Gabe's amazing "reversal" from calling the PS3 a piece of crap to suddenly being best friends because Sony was willing to let him poison PSN with Steam that it has nothing to do with customers, and nothing to do with principles, and everything to do with profit. I applaud him for that, because that's what owning a business is all about, but I won't pretend that everything he does is "for the users".

Well, that's an oversimplification. Gabe hasn't actually contradicted himself, because the criticisms were of the PS3's hardware architecture and the difficulties it caused for multiplatform development and why, at the time, this meant that they weren't pursuing PS3 development . He is now praising the openness of the PSN online platform and how that is allowing them to include features and content that they can't on the more restrictive XBL platform. Criticizing XBL's restrictiveness may be hypocritical in the context of their dispute with EA, but it is consistent with the opinions he has been expressing all along.

I can understand and agree with the sentiment that consumers should never lose sight of the fact that a successful company's first loyalty is always to itself. This is proper. A consumer's first loyalty should similarly always be with themselves. This dynamic is essential for the a free market economy to function.

What throws me is the phrase, "poison PSN with Steam". Would you care to elaborate on that?

 

[-tkf-]

Aah, the idealism of youth (Actually, I have no idea how old you are, I'm just being silly).
Valve serves one thing, and one thing only, the profit imperative. You can't seriously argue that the customers (people in my household are in this quandary) that bought Dragon Age 2, and now no longer can reinstall it, are being well served by Valve.
Valve is pulling an Apple in that they want a cut of any money that could possibly be related to anything they would be involved in. There's no difference between Valve's insistence that any in game purchases go through them (or that there are _no_ "in game" purchases, only steam purchases), and Apple's "No buy button in your app unless we get 30%" policy, yet Apple is seen as the big bad guy, and Valve is somehow in the right.

You can see by Gabe's amazing "reversal" from calling the PS3 a piece of crap to suddenly being best friends because Sony was willing to let him poison PSN with Steam that it has nothing to do with customers, and nothing to do with principles, and everything to do with profit. I applaud him for that, because that's what owning a business is all about, but I won't pretend that everything he does is "for the users".

I am old, so thanks

Steam serves the customers because that is their main way to make profit. And Valve is making so much money that they can even risk being good instead of evil, even risk losing some money, or a lot of money on it since they don´t really need that money to begin with. And while Gabe is surely powerful i am certain that there is more to Steam than just him.

I can understand that EA, being so big and powerful is puking all over themselves because they have to pay someone else to distribute their games. They are big enough to build up their own digital distribution net, so of course they have chosen to do it that way. But it´s profit over user satisfaction when they cherry pick other DLC services because Steam might "cost them to much". If steam was smaller i bet it wasn´t an issue since the loss would be much less and might not matter enough for them to case.

EA is pure evil in my book i buy their games but i wouldn´t trust them to hold my coke while i go take a piss.



Money machine: http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/15/valve-makes-more-money-per-employee-than-google-or-apple/

 

[AlphaWolf]

Is there any reason that EA couldn't eventually have a better service than steam?

I expect most major publishers will have their own exclusive services in the next few years unless Valve or someone else decides to bend over a bit for them.