XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[-tkf-]

The article is some wrong:

In Steam you need to go to offline mode if you want to play without internet, but for going to offline you need an internet connection first (and update all games and software), if you lose the internet, you can't go to offline mode, it is not like "hey! my internet is gone but I can play my steam games"..

And so are you (wrong), at least from where i am sitting, disabled my Network card, booted steam, selected "offline mode" and played some Rage.

Afaik the only requirement is, that you need to have played the game (activated it on your machine), and it needs to be up to date (how that works since , well how should it check). But considering that Steam usually updates the games all the time it's hardly a problem.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

We're all insiders on B3D. Gaf gets their info from us.

Some of us actually are, more or less; but we know better than to post insider stuff on the internet, under some fake accounts, just to feel better about ourselves

 

[Cjail]

@Laa-Yosh

May I ask you what you think about MS polices for the Xbox One?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

It's a pretty logical next step and fair enough IMHO. We've seen more than enough game developers fall in recent years, the sales of used games cutting out devs from the income has played a big role so it has to stop.

Most people won't care about the issue and enjoy the extra functions, and Sony will definitely follow suit, it really is a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Billy Idol]

It's a pretty logical next step and fair enough IMHO. We've seen more than enough game developers fall in recent years, the sales of used games cutting out devs from the income has played a big role so it has to stop.

Most people won't care about the issue and enjoy the extra functions, and Sony will definitely follow suit, it really is a tempest in a teapot.

You could be right. But you could also be wrong. If people stop spending money on new games because they refunded part of it by selling their used games, studios in total will not earn more money.

No one knows at the moment. You have stated just one theoretical outcome of this policy and there is no positive evidence it is true (or wrong) at the moment.

Quantic Dream stated that 3 mio people played their game, but only 2 mio payed for it. They conclude that the used market cost them one third of paying customers and hence want measures against it. I am not sure if this calculation is that easy.

 

[fehu]

For one I buy only used software because I can't afford 60-70€ for a game that maybe last only a day and that can be a bad experience.
Gaming for me is only an occasional way of relax not a necessity.
At this point I will not buy fewer full price titles, simply will buy nothing.

I'm sure to not be alone, how will this benefit software houses?
At least when I buy a game from a gamer there's the chance that he will reinvest the moneys to buy another, and if I have a really good game I would buy at least download contents.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Would you guys rather pay $100 for a new game and have a used game cost $70? Because that's the only alternative and I'm quite sure it'd be the worse one.

 

[Cjail]

It's a pretty logical next step and fair enough IMHO. We've seen more than enough game developers fall in recent years, the sales of used games cutting out devs from the income has played a big role so it has to stop.

Most people won't care about the issue and enjoy the extra functions, and Sony will definitely follow suit, it really is a tempest in a teapot.

Tanks for the answer.
Anyway, for what is worth, I agree with you.

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

It's a pretty logical next step and fair enough IMHO. We've seen more than enough game developers fall in recent years, the sales of used games cutting out devs from the income has played a big role so it has to stop.

Most people won't care about the issue and enjoy the extra functions, and Sony will definitely follow suit, it really is a tempest in a teapot.

Sure. But also consider that now that people can't really resell their games, they'll be extra careful buying a new one. People have to think twice now in buying games and I think there will be much less impulse buys this time around. I'm not sure if publishers will benefit from killing the used games scene.

In my country (Holland) the only big game store I know that sells used games is Gamemania and I only found out about that recently. The first thing I see when I enter the store is a used games shelve. Seeing as the used games industry is pretty huge in US because there are a lot more stores that sell used games, I understand why publishers would want to kill that industry. Used games are prioritised over new copies. The solution as I would suggest it is pretty simple: Don't allow game stores to sell used games, but allow consumers to sell their games privately on ebay like sites. Publishers already know how to deal with the latter : Introduce online passes and sell them separately. Pretty effective. That way publishers still can earn money on used games.

 

[Grall]

Because that's the only alternative and I'm quite sure it'd be the worse one.

Devs could also blow less money during development. I think that's a more palpable option, really.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sure. But also consider that now that people can't really resell their games, they'll be extra careful buying a new one. People have to think twice now in buying games and I think there will be much less impulse buys this time around. I'm not sure if publishers will benefit from killing the used games scene.

This could ultimately also be beneficial. Investment will be more focussed with more risk. Gamers won't buy games without free trials, and trials will be designed to impress. Mediocre devs who can't compete will drop out of making ludicrously expensive games and instead make smaller download titles, and the AAA titles will get better revenues from more sales (less competition and recycled games).

There are lots of unknowns and no-one really knows how it's going to pan out. The general 'fear' seems to stem from a reluctance for change rather than a risk to the industry.

 

[Billy Idol]

Would you guys rather pay $100 for a new game and have a used game cost $70? Because that's the only alternative and I'm quite sure it'd be the worse one.

How do you come to this conclusion? Could you explain please?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You could be right. But you could also be wrong. If people stop spending money on new games because they refunded part of it by selling their used games, studios in total will not earn more money.

Very true. There may be an assumption on the part of publishers that if people can't buy used games they'll pay the full price. Some will, some wont.

I don't buy used games myself but I do trade in games I won't replay so I can part-fund new game purchases. This might mean I buy and play less games which means I will be less active in game ecosystems and less likely to drive side revenue from micro-transactions and advertising.

It's a very complicated issue and only time will tell if this is a good or a bad move for publishers. I do wonder how many times, on average, a game is re-sold.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

There's a limit to expand the audience, and thus to sale more copies. It seems to be reached by now, only a few blockbusters manage to sell 10+ million units. So the publishers have to increase revenue in some other way.

Either they try to somehow reach the part of gamers who didn't pay them before - through piracy or through buying used or by borrowing from their friends - or they make the gamers who are buying to pay more. The first one seems far more promising, for example because it won't punish those who were playing nice before.


Understand that playing a game without paying the full price has always been unfair to some extent (depending on how soon after release you did this). Unfair both to the developer who labored to create the game; and to the other gamers who bought the game at full price.
However, there was no way to stop it, so many people accepted this to be the standard. But you never expect to pay half price for a great deal of other things like a haircut or a meal, right? So it was unfair, even morally wrong, to ask game developers and publishers to just deal with it. This has been a wrong for decades and now they have the tool to fix it. At least that's how I look at it.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I also believe that publishers were doing extensive research and calculations about this issue and they have reasons to believe that fixing the problem will be the more rewarding option to them. Or do you guys really think that this huge change is based on just a hunch?

 

[Reiko]

Remove the 24hour check in and I think more gamers will likely jump back on the Xbox One bandwagon.

I'll even take this compromise, limit the 24hour check in to 1-3 months for a release to maximize sales and then disable it.

EDIT: I think that is the one sticking point to everyone I've talked to regarding XBXONE.

 

[Billy Idol]

I don't think that these are the only options. Especially increasing the price of a game will not automatically generate more profit.

Are we sure that the fallen dev studios are only due to used game sales? I don't believe so, but I know no statistics.

Is there a possibility to make game development cost less money while providing higher quality products at the same time?

What about physics based lighting. It seems to me that this makes content creation faster and simpler, at least according to the GG slides about KZ SF demo.

Also, there is the game daylight announced recently that used procedural based content

http://www.4players.de/4players.php...le/34585/106223/Daylight/E3_2013-Trailer.html

Could new tec enable cheaper game development while still simultaneously uping the quality?

 

[Cjail]

Understand that playing a game without paying the full price has always been unfair to some extent (depending on how soon after release you did this). Unfair both to the developer who labored to create the game; and to the other gamers who bought the game at full price.

As much as I love to support developers I have a limited budged for games so I can't always buy full price and thus I buy new copies but discounted.
I know it's not the same but still to me it's better to give develops/publisher something rather that nothing at all.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Your last paragraph is literally very relevant to your own argument. Sony are probably playing with fire if they don't follow suit somehow, I am sure they do.

I have an issue with this idea. What makes anybody think that MS announcing how exactly the One will work means that they are the ones pushing this idea and that Sony is going to "follow suit" or "fall in line" or have to conform, or whatever else?

Sony has been completely silent in regard to all of this. If Sony comes out with a similar DRM structure as MS it isn't because they were forced to do so and had to "follow suit" it's because they agreed, like MS did, with the publishers from the very beginning. The only difference is that MS is actually being up front about it while Sony is just not talking about it at all.

Of course, the reason that MS has to be up front about it is because it ties directly into the rest of their entertainment/media options which are the focal point of the One. That's the reason for the confusion, because MS's features clearly lead down that slippery slope into the effects on gaming. While Sony isn't providing those same entertainment/media options so they can just stay quiet on the DRM.

But if Sony comes out and confirms similar DRM, it isn't because they had to "fall in line or get left behind", it's because they agreed at the onset. Stop trying to make Sony out to be the good guy just because they haven't confirmed or denied. If there comes a point where Sony doesn't have a similar DRM mechanism in place to restrict rentals and used games, THEN we can all say WOW. Sony stood up to the publishers and we can all give them a salute.

Until then, it's all very premature.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Understand that playing a game without paying the full price has always been unfair to some extent (depending on how soon after release you did this). Unfair both to the developer who labored to create the game; and to the other gamers who bought the game at full price.

However, there was no way to stop it, so many people accepted this to be the standard. But you never expect to pay half price for a great deal of other things like a haircut or a meal, right? So it was unfair, even morally wrong, to ask game developers and publishers to just deal with it. This has been a wrong for decades and now they have the tool to fix it. At least that's how I look at it.

The dilemma publishers have is one of relative perception. That is, for as long as there has been creative works distributed on tangible media (VHS, vinyl, CD, DVD, Blu-ray and everything else), the publisher and artist having existed in a world where they only get paid once and people are very used to this.

Now I certainly understand the argument against this model, and I bet if you asked any gamer if they thought a shop or the developer should be rewarded from a re-sale, many would lean towards the developer but until these type of restrictions apply to all types of media, the issues of ownership of video games are going to look bad in comparison to.. well, everything else in the world.