Future of Console Gaming -- DRM?

[tigress666]

XBOne disc DRM removed...

Interesting article that says MS did it for the money, not the Gaming Community...

http://www.ign.com/blogs/falcon-x32/2013/06/19/microsft-and-their-lack-of-integrity

Of course they did. Why are people surprised by this? Any company does it for the money. Saying they do it for their customers is only good PR (better PR is to actually make an effort to act like you care, which MS really didn't even do that).

Secondly, MS was not even very good at hiding the fact that it was for the money. Remember just a week before they literally were saying that they weren't going to pay attention to the online ruckus, they felt people would buy it anyways (in other words, all they cared about is that it would sell). A week later they reverse policy after pre order sales have a chance to really show how many (or little) sales they will make? Gee, MS, can you be more transparent?

Anyone who really bought their very flimsy excuse that they listened to their gamers are 1. naive to think any company in the end isn't listening to their wallets. 2. Really oblivious to how MS was acting because even if you were naive enough to think a company doesn't in the end do things to get money it was very obvious MS just cared about the money, they came out and said it a week ago!

 

[gkarris]

Of course they did. Why are people surprised by this? Any company does it for the money. Saying they do it for their customers is only good PR (better PR is to actually make an effort to act like you care, which MS really didn't even do that).

There's also listening to customers, as what Sony and Nintendo, not to mention Apple do...

 

[musicpenguy]

There's also listening to customers, as what Sony and Nintendo, not to mention Apple...

Whether they are listening to customers or seeing that preorders weren't as good as they wanted them to be is another thing - or they are listening to Jimmy Fallon

Either way listening or acting with their preorder wallet - its a good thing for gamers

 

[tigress666]

There's also listening to customers, as what Sony and Nintendo, not to mention Apple do...

Oh, I agree, they're all the same, what they care about really is how well it sells (and there is a difference. If they cared what we thought, monopolies wouldn't be a bad thing cause all we would have to say is we don't like it and they would say, "Ok". But since it's the money they care about, in a monopoly they would say, "Well, you have nowhere else to go, we think you'll pay anyways"). My point is people who think that the company is doing this cause they care what we think are naive, the company really doesn't. If we hated it but we bought it, that's all they care about. MS outright even said so a week ago (seriously, there was an article about it where the guy pretty much said yeah people are complaining now but we are confident they will buy it).

My point is it is naive to think they care about what we think (they only care that we will buy it, that's the distinction. They're not listening to us unless they think we really won't buy it) and also even if people are that naive, they're oblivious if they thought MS cared about what people think cause MS outright said they didn't and that they just cared about the sales! MS wasn't even trying to hide the fact (which is bad PR. And the whole reason for PR is the company does want you to think they care cause it will make you more likely to buy).

 

[twietee]

...If we hated it but we bought it, that's all they care about. MS outright even said so a week ago (seriously, there was an article about it where the guy pretty much said yeah people are complaining now but we are confident they will buy it).

Yea, that was rich. Something like: ' Well, people don't like it now and I can't explain why it's a good thing, but they all gonna love it'

 

[0098386]

What I find interesting is how this is diverging. On one side you have Microsoft and EA, pushing more and more to remove ownership from users, and the indie wave (including big and small developers) that are pushing for DRM-free games.
That's all.

 

[blesscheese]

What I find interesting is how this is diverging. On one side you have Microsoft and EA, pushing more and more to remove ownership from users, and the indie wave (including big and small developers) that are pushing for DRM-free games.
That's all.

Yes, that definitely seemed to be a trend: Big-Time Corporations on one side (pushing DRM) and smaller studios/independent developers on the side of DRM-free games.

The history of gaming is that pre-DRM disk protection did nothing but annoy legitimate buyers, and did nothing to prevent piracy. Because of the outcry, disk protection basically disappeared & despite what piracy there was, gaming grew up over the 80's and 90's to become a multi-billion dollar industry, with more in sales and revenue than the movie industry.

However, this created mega-corporations like EA, which are far removed from the average gamer/enthusiast, and has increased their focus on their bottom line, rather than our gaming experience.

A big company like EA or M$ really has only one concern: maximizing profits for their shareholders. When that is in jeopardy, then they will shift gears. I am not surprised that the smaller studios and publishers, who have more in common with the gamer, are opposed to restrictive DRM.

 

[LethalWolfe]

A big company like EA or M$ really has only one concern: maximizing profits for their shareholders.

That applies to any publicly traded company from Apple to Zynga though. Some companies may spin it better, some companies may go after it less ruthlessly, but all publicly traded companies are in it for shareholder ROI. And these means making Wall Street happy which means perpetual growth. There is a growth conundrum though because they more a company grows the harder it becomes to grow. Apple is a successful, healthy company but their stock has dropped from 700ish to 400ish in the last 18 months because they aren't growing enough to make Wall Street happy. Current shareholders that bought at $300 are probably still happy but shareholders that bought at $550 are probably not.

To a degree it makes sense that small shops want to remove as many barriers between them and their customers as they can because a small shop is primarily concerned with building a fan base and growing their company. For larger publishers, whose games already have a huge fan base and whose company is already big, the concern is maintaining & growing what they've built (especially if they are a publicly traded company).

In articles I've read many people see the growth in console gaming and decline in PC gaming due in part to the lower piracy rate on consoles (though the rate is higher than it was when console games were cartridge based). I think it was in regards to CoD4 where Infinity Ward said number of PC players using illicit copies of the game were shockingly high. When companies invest 10's of millions per game (not to mention marketing) I'm not surprised they go ape ***** over people not playing for them.

 

[thehustleman]

That applies to any publicly traded company from Apple to Zynga though. Some companies may spin it better, some companies may go after it less ruthlessly, but all publicly traded companies are in it for shareholder ROI. And these means making Wall Street happy which means perpetual growth. There is a growth conundrum though because they more a company grows the harder it becomes to grow. Apple is a successful, healthy company but their stock has dropped from 700ish to 400ish in the last 18 months because they aren't growing enough to make Wall Street happy. Current shareholders that bought at $300 are probably still happy but shareholders that bought at $550 are probably not.

To a degree it makes sense that small shops want to remove as many barriers between them and their customers as they can because a small shop is primarily concerned with building a fan base and growing their company. For larger publishers, whose games already have a huge fan base and whose company is already big, the concern is maintaining & growing what they've built (especially if they are a publicly traded company).

In articles I've read many people see the growth in console gaming and decline in PC gaming due in part to the lower piracy rate on consoles (though the rate is higher than it was when console games were cartridge based). I think it was in regards to CoD4 where Infinity Ward said number of PC players using illicit copies of the game were shockingly high. When companies invest 10's of millions per game (not to mention marketing) I'm not surprised they go ape ***** over people not playing for them.

I'm sure they would if they didn't sell a decent number of games. Since they do it isn't a big reason to fret.

Anti piracy measures are merely a waste of time and money, if people are going to pirate there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Most people don't because it's easier not to

 

[APlotdevice]

I'm sure they would if they didn't sell a decent number of games. Since they do it isn't a big reason to fret.

Anti piracy measures are merely a waste of time and money, if people are going to pirate there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Most people don't because it's easier not to

I think there's more to it than that. From what I've seen the average pirate couldn't possibly afford all the media they "acquire". That is to say they don't do it because they're cheap, but because they're poor. So I question whether even a completely infallible DRM system could ever have a significant [positive] impact on sale? (enough to offset the cost of implementing it)

 

[gkarris]

I think the problem is that people are trying to apply the PC (Steam) Gaming model and Mobile (download only) Gaming model to the Console one.

People who buy console games mainly buy the physical copies for a sense of ownership and want the ability to lend to others and/or trade it in or sell it off.

MS tried to introduce a "new" Console Gaming model involving heavy DRM to everything including the physical game discs and console itself. People in the Console Gaming world didn't really go for this.

It is especially important for us Videogame Collectors, who expect to play the games and consoles well after they have been end-of-life'd from retail.

The XBOne would have only been good as a movie/audio disc player and the game discs not at all playable after MS turned the XBOne service off.

Nintendo is committed to the traditional console gaming model, and can since they make their own console and have extremely popular IP's. Imagine if instead Nintendo made games for a future XBox console and was forced into the DRM.

There will be a third class of gaming - mainly those around $100 download only Android devices, which IMHO, are really a different class of gaming themselves.

 

[blesscheese]

That applies to any publicly traded company from Apple to Zynga though. Some companies may spin it better, some companies may go after it less ruthlessly, but all publicly traded companies are in it for shareholder ROI.

Yes, obviously, but each company has a slightly different solution. Apple's solution, for example, has been to innovate it's way up, and not to try to squeeze every last penny out of the consumer. People complain about an "Apple Tax," but I have been usually happy paying extra, knowing that I am getting a product of higher quality (fyi, I'm writing this on a 4-year old MBA that I have no intention of replacing anytime soon).

Some examples: M$ charges a bundle for a new operating system (around $200-$250), while Apple charges you $19.99 now (of course, Apple now has a new OS every year, so it may be a wash if MS only releases a new system once every 5 or so years). EA charges you for a whole new game for Madden 97, 98, 99...09, 10, 11, 12,...etc. But just like the cereal adage (the grain in a box of cereal costs about $0.30, what you are really paying for is the marketing), your dollars aren't going to building a whole new game, you are likely paying for all their advertising.

(BTW, do people remember when the EA programmers complained about low pay and long hours, and became hourly wage employees?)

Arguably these are better games, but some are rather incremental.

So, for these companies, growth is where it is at, but how they get you to spend more money, and how happy you are forking it over, is a another subject entirely.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Yes, obviously, but each company has a slightly different solution. Apple's solution, for example, has been to innovate it's way up, and not to try to squeeze every last penny out of the consumer. People complain about an "Apple Tax," but I have been usually happy paying extra, knowing that I am getting a product of higher quality (fyi, I'm writing this on a 4-year old MBA that I have no intention of replacing anytime soon).

Some examples: M$ charges a bundle for a new operating system (around $200-$250), while Apple charges you $19.99 now (of course, Apple now has a new OS every year, so it may be a wash if MS only releases a new system once every 5 or so years). EA charges you for a whole new game for Madden 97, 98, 99...09, 10, 11, 12,...etc. But just like the cereal adage (the grain in a box of cereal costs about $0.30, what you are really paying for is the marketing), your dollars aren't going to building a whole new game, you are likely paying for all their advertising.

That's because when it comes to computers, Apple and MS don't monetize off the same market - one is mostly hardware, the other is software. Both companies maximize the profit margin of whatever market contributes most to their bottomline.

They're pretty much opposites.
Apple = expensive hardware with industry high margins, cheap software
MS = expensive software with industry high margins, cheap hardware

If OS X sales contributed as much to Apple's profitshare as a iPhone sales did (>50%), they'd be sticking the Apple tax on it as well

 

[0098386]

Video here explaining the difference between PC and console DRM. It's done in one of those annoyingly over-enthusiastic ways internet video people like, but it's got all the main points in there - http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisition-why-pc-gaming-gets-away-with-it-256888.phtml

In a nutshell PC gaming is cheap because of competition in distribution channels. Consoles only have 1, PC has countless and direct-from-developer options. DRM doesn't lower prices - competition does.

 

[blesscheese]

In a nutshell PC gaming is cheap because of competition in distribution channels. Consoles only have 1, PC has countless and direct-from-developer options. DRM doesn't lower prices - competition does.

Yes. That is why gamer's benefit from a healthy amount of competition (at least 3 consoles in the mix)...

...and which is why M$ would like to eliminate the competition, and charge the most to increase profits.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think there's more to it than that. From what I've seen the average pirate couldn't possibly afford all the media they "acquire". That is to say they don't do it because they're cheap, but because they're poor. So I question whether even a completely infallible DRM system could ever have a significant [positive] impact on sale? (enough to offset the cost of implementing it)

Judging by that metric we are all poor because we all can't afford to buy everything we want.

I think the problem is that people are trying to apply the PC (Steam) Gaming model and Mobile (download only) Gaming model to the Console one.

Agreed. MS tried to apply digital DRM to physical media. I mean, few (if any) people seem up in arms about how apps on their iOS or Android devices are handled but when MS did this (and Apple launched the Mac App store) people get irate because it's seen as an arbitrary reduction in freedom.

...and which is why M$ would like to eliminate the competition, and charge the most to increase profits.

Just like Sony or Apple or Nintendo or whomever. In case you missed the news Apple is on trial for allegedly conspiring to unfairly raise eBook prices and they are known to squeeze their venders to the point of unprofitability. Is Apple the only company that does this? No, but they certainly don't ride around the business world wearing a white hat.

 

[APlotdevice]

Judging by that metric we are all poor because we all can't afford to buy everything we want. .

Well for someone working on minimum wage and has to pay bills and/or college tuition, even a handful of games would break the bank.

Either way, I think the piracy issue is massively overstated. Only a small portion of all the pirated media could realistically translate into lost sales. Especially since, despite what the industry would have you believe, there are plenty of consumers with the integrity to buy our media even when we know we could just pirate it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Well for someone working on minimum wage and has to pay bills and/or college tuition, even a handful of games would break the bank.

So just don't buy what you can't afford. The "I can't afford it, but I want it so I'll just take it" logic doesn't fly with me. Back in the physical media only days when we worked minium wage jobs (or non-paying summer internships) and had bills to pay we borrowed games from friends, rented them from Blockbuster or asked for them as b-day/Xmas gifts.

 

[APlotdevice]

So just don't buy what you can't afford. The "I can't afford it, but I want it so I'll just take it" logic doesn't fly with me. Back in the physical media only days when we worked minium wage jobs (or non-paying summer internships) and had bills to pay we borrowed games from friends, rented them from Blockbuster or asked for them as b-day/Xmas gifts.

You're missing my point: Most of what the industries classify as "lost sales" are complete bunk; If any executives out there think that putting a stop to piracy will lead to a massive increase in sales then they are fooling themselves.

Now I don't think most media executives are stupid. Rather I believe that they are using piracy as an excuse to eliminate the consumer's ability to buy, sell, and lend media that was legitimately purchased.

 

[LethalWolfe]

You're missing my point: Most of what the industries classify as "lost sales" are complete bunk; If any executives out there think that putting a stop to piracy will lead to a massive increase in sales then they are fooling themselves.

I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it. Of course up until now the only point I commented on was the motivation/justification for pirating.


I agree that not every pirated piece of media is equivalent to 1 lost sale (or anywhere close to a 1:1 ratio) but I think it's certainly had a negative impact, especially in the gaming world. Pirating doesn't have to make a venture unprofitable to get a company's attention but just less profitable. I think PC game piracy is one of the reasons for the decline in PC games. Consoles games are tougher to pirate (and the consequences of hacked console could mean the permanent banning from online services) which means they are a less risky platform to develop for. The rise of freemium games and subscription games is also in part a reaction to piracy. The makers of the iOS game Battle Dungeon had to shut down the game because of piracy. So many illicit users were playing multiplayer that it pushed the team's server needs beyond what they could afford. They eventually relaunch the game as single player only.

Now I don't think most media executives are stupid. Rather I believe that they are using piracy as an excuse to eliminate the consumer's ability to buy, sell, and lend media that was legitimately purchased.

That is certainly part of it, but people are willing to give up their consumer rights if they think they are getting something out of it in return (usually convenience). Just look at the success of the iTMS, App Store or Steam. People are also condition w/certain expectations which is why I think the Xbox One DRM was met with such backlash. If you sell people a disc they expect to be able to use that disc like they always have, but if you sell them a download they don't seem to have the same negative reaction even if the DRM is more restrictive.

 

[thehustleman]

Piracy prevention measures are just a waste of money.

They will be circumvented and when that happens is wasted money and time.


A lot of people can't afford games so they either steal them or pirate them.


Most don't want the embarrassment of stealing so they pirate them instead.