What games are you currently playing?

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

I think personal accounts are what most people want. Not only does it allow an account to be portable, but it also goes so far as to differentiate save files so your family member or roommate can have their own set of saves and not screw with yours. So you have portability of the account and a more effective set of save files.

The risk Sony took is that they created that was something general and very open with both PSP and PS3 and they've begun to pick it apart more and more over time to something that makes them comfortable, but more or less tells their customers that sharing is bad.

Live started more rigid and eased up, PSN started more free and started taking those freedoms away. When MS, Valve, Nintendo and Apple are going the opposite way, its pretty obvious Sony's going the wrong way about it. When Sony was still doing PS2 and moving into PSP they really did have the right idea. PS3 started out pretty open, then Kutaragi stepped down and the system became more and more closed off over time.

Vita and 3DS kind of have hints of the next home consoles in them. Watching 3DS become way more progressive in the last three months than it did most of last year, I'm left with the impression Nintendo's ready to step up and provide a service people would like.

I might very well be able to come to terms with PS Vita and how its set up, but it paints a very, very grim picture on the next Playstation so far. I can see them moving to proprietary HDDs just like MS has, I could see them pulling a new format out of their asses, I can see them removing any USB slot and just resticting it to something that recognizes the Vita. I'm not lead to believe they'll move to single-user profiles like MS does and Nintendo plans to, particularly given the way accounts and memory cards are assigned.

Sony is really running the risk of becoming what Nintendo has been for the last two generations, but not because they're overly cautious about moving forward, but because they're afraid of how things have changed. I'm not saying its even the video game division or developers themselves responsible for this, but its in the rest of Sony's DNA to treat the consumer like absolute shit.

[Icemage]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

Well to be fair, Sony's grand experiment with the PS3 being very open ended up with people abusing the lax DRM scheme (gamesharing) and doing nothing particularly useful with OtherOS installation except try to cause Sony to lose money (i.e. piracy). The PSP is even more of a cautionary tale: a large number of units are purchased to run custom firmware, and - again - while there are certainly some legitimate uses for it, a large amount of those hacked PSPs are used to run pirated content. So let's not pretend that they didn't have a reason to move in a more protectionist direction, because it is the consumers that have pushed them in that direction. Not "all" consumers, but when these extra features aren't doing anything for your bottom line, and only a tiny fragment of your legitimate customers are even making use of a particular function, you're going to need a better reason for righteous indignation than "it would inconvenience me IF I was one of the people that used this feature".


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

So let's not pretend that they didn't have a reason to move in a more protectionist direction, because it is the consumers that have pushed them in that direction. Not "all" consumers, but when these extra features aren't doing anything for your bottom line, and only a tiny fragment of your legitimate customers are even making use of a particular function, you're going to need a better reason for righteous indignation than "it would inconvenience me IF I was one of the people that used this feature".

None of it has stopped piracy. Its only punished the legit consumers, taken away freedoms they could have had that enhanced their gaming experiences.

There are two kinds of pirates; The people that will always do it and the people that only do it because the expense of legitimate purchases is too great. The hardcore pirate is ALWAYS going to have a reason for pirating. It doesn't matter what concessions or progress is made - they live on a sense of entitlement and will argue their reasons to the bitter end, even if it defies logic and reality.

The other people who pirate - which I'd say is the majority left over - really just don't see a good deal and it honestly isn't there.

The next group - who are totally legit and Sony targets them anyway for all first party content now - are those that buy used games. They, too, are looking for a good deal. They might also possibly just be looking to get their feet wet with a developer's games before hopping into day one new purchases from the same developer. They're not too far removed from the reasons the second group of pirates have - they just want a good deal and a good experience.

Take away system features and throw online passes in their faces, however, and you're just sending them the message that even were they to buy new, they're not totally trusted. Its insulting and doesn't exactly encourage me to want to go out and buy your game, new or otherwise. In Sony's case, it also begs the question of if PSN is really free anymore or only kind of free. At least with an upfront subscription being a factor for Live, MS isn't pulling a bait-and-switch. They're not changing the deal. They've been very consistent about what Live is.

PSN started free, now there's Plus and now there's online passes on top of Plus. Plus users still have to pay the online pass if they buy used. From a first party standpoint, this is not how Live users are treated.

And now that the likes of EA take away single player content on online passes, can Sony really be that far away from doing the same? Are they only ever going to punish legit consumers and try to pass it off with Naughty Dog telling sob stories? David Jaffe doesn't tell the sob stories, he just knows its a thing that happens and there's not much he can do about it.

The PS3 experience has literally become like this:

Go to store, buy game.
Come home, open game.
Slide the disc in, oh my, firmware update - what's being taken away today?
OK, firmware update's done, time to install.
Waiting, waiting, waiting...
OK, install's done, time to download the patch!
More waiting.
OK patch is installed
Now to play the game.
Oh wait, I have to return to the XMB and log in to PSN to put in my redeem code.
Back to the XMB
Logging on to PSN
Inputting the code
Another download.
Background it and do something else? (variable, could be short, could be long).
(If backgrouding, don't do any online games, it'll pause the download )
Later: Download complete! :O
Back to XMB
Start the game
Finally have the honor of playing your legitimately purchased game!

I wish I was kidding. You're envious of the Wii's child-like simplicity at this point. When people just started playing Uncharted 3, other people were already like three hours into Zelda: Skyward Sword or online with the Live version of MW3 hours ago.

[Icemage]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

None of it has stopped piracy.

And you know this because you know what the sales numbers are? I hate management-types more than most, but usually when I see features that are a hindrance for consumers, there's almost always a monetary reason for it, and not just side effects from typical management idiocracy.

No one is under the impression that anything specific stops piracy, but it's obvious that some of these methods are helping to limit the amount of piracy, or none of these companies (be it Sony, Ubisoft, EA, Valve or anyone else) would ever bother with DRM in the first place.

That doesn't necessarily justify making things inconvenient for consumers, but there's a not-so-fine line between what happens in North America / Japan / Europe, and what happens in, say, China. In the former, people are still willing to pay for things instead of pirating them - in the latter, the opposite is true.

Right now, the cost to develop and publish a game is quite large. Someone has to pay for that content to be created. As someone who typically buys games new on day of release (specifically because I'd like my money to go to the people who made the thing I'm buying), I take issue when people piss and moan about features that do not affect me, especially when those people are deliberately choosing NOT to contribute money into the system, thereby increasing the amount I have to pay for the games that I want.


Icemage

[Malacite]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

Most AAA games actually far outstrip even Block Buster Hollywood movies (or if they haven't they will soon when the next generation of games comes along)

GTA 4, as far as I know, has had the most expensive budget in recent memory at a whopping $100 Million. Halo 3 was around 50~60.


Sadly I can't find anything for Tales of Vesperia, much as I'd love to but I imagine that game must have cost NB a crapload, particularly with all the famous voice talents they signed on.

I can't imagine what Naughty Dog must have spent on the Uncharted games, or what Bethesda spent for Skyrim. So yeah, someone's gotta pay, but there has to be smarter ways of handling DRM as well. One of the arguments I heard in favor of the anti-used game device is that XBL has about a 50% install base, and it's only growing as internet infrastructure improves in the U.S. and abroad so online passes/online only DRM may only get worse.

[Raydeus]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

And you know this because you know what the sales numbers are? I hate management-types more than most, but usually when I see features that are a hindrance for consumers, there's almost always a monetary reason for it, and not just side effects from typical management idiocracy.

No one is under the impression that anything specific stops piracy, but it's obvious that some of these methods are helping to limit the amount of piracy, or none of these companies (be it Sony, Ubisoft, EA, Valve or anyone else) would ever bother with DRM in the first place.

That doesn't necessarily justify making things inconvenient for consumers, but there's a not-so-fine line between what happens in North America / Japan / Europe, and what happens in, say, China. In the former, people are still willing to pay for things instead of pirating them - in the latter, the opposite is true.

Right now, the cost to develop and publish a game is quite large. Someone has to pay for that content to be created. As someone who typically buys games new on day of release (specifically because I'd like my money to go to the people who made the thing I'm buying), I take issue when people piss and moan about features that do not affect me, especially when those people are deliberately choosing NOT to contribute money into the system, thereby increasing the amount I have to pay for the games that I want.


Icemage

I'm sorry, but they are bothering with these DRM because they think the can control what consumers do. Obviously you need some type of control, not for the sake of combating piracy but simply because you have to keep track of the costumers who have bought your game. That is why Steam as a DRM is more than enough for the job. And they make a very good job at staying the heck out of gamers' way.

That's what consoles may need. But that needs to be accompanied by a lot of adjustments and better delivery systems if they want to get to that point.

Also, we may not have the hard numbers on how much piracy* is prevented (neither do they), but from where I'm standing we definitely have good evidence on how the more retarded DRMs and regional restrictions become the more piracy it encourages. High horsing saying you are the good guy for buying games on the first day and are helping to pay for all the thieves sounds pretty nice and all, but it's very disconnected from reality.



*Really, don't fool yourself ANYONE who really wants to pirate something can do it if they look for it. And the same way you want to pay for something and help the industry EVERYONE else does the same. People who buys or rents used games pays for them, and they feel like they are helping as much as you do buying on the 1st day. If they really wanted to steal they would've downloaded it and be done with it. It is publishers (notice studios rarely have anything to do with that part of the process) who fail to offer options directly for those costumers who can't or wont buy the game at "full" price on the first day.

Also realize how just as with the music industry console publishers inflate prices as much as they can, and studios don't get as much from it as they could by selling directly though services like Steam. Don't confuse publishers' push to deliver multiplatform with an inherent advantage of developing for a console over the PC. Well, except for HD asset creation costs that is. We all know developing for the lowest common denominator is cheaper. (example: DXHR)

[Icemage]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

High horsing saying you are the good guy for buying games on the first day and are helping to pay for all the thieves sounds pretty nice and all, but it's very disconnected from reality.

Who's more disconnected from reality, though? The guy who buys stuff and gets the full experience and is annoyed by people who are paying less than he is who whine about not getting as much content, or the people who contribute nothing toward the development of the game who somehow think that developers or publishers will listen to their complaints when they're not seeing any money coming from those people?

If someone wants to vote with their wallet and buy used, more power to them, but by that same token, if you're not sending any money to the developers or publishers, you should expect exactly as much service as you paid for from them: which is 0.

I hate the entire publishing industry for video games, and it's good to see them getting taken down a peg or three by piracy and almost-free social gaming, but that does not mean I agree with people who want to have their cake and eat it too with respect to used games.

Icemage

[Malacite]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

[Kailea]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

Vita has already been hacked...sooo..... ;p

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

There's the other negatives to the online pass.

You're no longer able to share games. Think back to your childhood - you didn't buy all the games you played. You swapped with your friends to enjoy what they had and you got to enjoy what they had on an equal basis. Nothing was taken away. Same with rentals.

Now that's gone and, interestingly, things like local multiplayer are often gone. I think Halo is still the only franchise left out there that bothers with console LAN parties. There are games that do local multplayer, but you're more likely to find them on the Wii than PS3 or 360.

Publishers have worked very hard to divide gamers for the sake of ensuring more retail sales and you'd have to be blind not to notice it. Now many single player games that EA and Sony put out have multiplayer whether they need it or not. Were Mass Effect and Uncharted really franchises that needed it? Did it need to become a multitard/co-tard party? Wasn't part of the appeal that these were single player games in a world where games were adding multiplayer as another box to check off the list?

If you believe there's an audience for Uncharted or Mass Effect multiplayer, couldn't you just make a whole separate game devoted to that instead? This way i don't have to hear developers cry about mean old consumers buying used or those horrible retailers being able to make money on used games.

Let's not bullshit. Developers probably don't see a cent of the money made on purchased online passes, not unless their games hit a certain goal in new sales, anyway, and probably not much if they did. They are hired, they do a job, make a game and then move on to the next game they're assigned to. They've already been paid. Its the parasites up top that are trying to secure more sales and get a cut from second hand sales, not developers.

And what do I owe parasites, exactly?

I don't mind paying them so long as they stay out of my way. But the second I sense the boardroom's hand in my game they can fuck off.

[Firewind]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

Looking at all the piracy talk makes me wonder if people realise exactly where piracy goes on. It's basically all going on in Asia, South America and basically places where the games aren't even sold anyway.

I'm not defending pirates here, if anything I'm against them more than anything because their actions cause stupid people to put people like me, who like to hack and jailbreak devices for legitimate uses, in the same group as them. Problem is is that stamping out piracy in the western world really does nothing to hit piracy in the big picture, it just punishes the legitimate consumer at the end of the day. Your average pirate is someone in a country like Malaysia who honestly doesn't care about where they get the game from as long as they can just play it. It's not some middle class white kid in suburban America who downloads a game or MP3 because mummy and daddy didn't want to pay for it.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

China makes up about 80% of all the piracy. They pirate entire businesses and fast food restaurants.

But this just goes back to what I've been saying all along. It doesn't affect anyone that engages in piracy, just the legitimate consumer.

DRM doesn't stop piracy, in fact, it just ecourages more piracy - so how will any other measure prevent it? Online pass just drives those that don't care about Uncharted's multiplayer to get it used - which is probably why the likes of EA and WB go after single player content now. Apparently they really feel they need to take these things away to modify my behavior.

Uh, my behavior as a consumer does not need guidance or changing. I am not "buying it wrong." If Publishers have a problem with me buying used, oh man, wait until I start buying from Steam. I might be spending less money there, actually.

And what if the legit consumer doesn't have an online connection? Even in America after a decade of broadband and wireless broadband growth we still don't have full saturation. Locking that content up is just as unfair as Live games making certain maps exclusive to multiplayer and not local multiplayer.

[Raydeus]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

Who's more disconnected from reality, though? The guy who buys stuff and gets the full experience and is annoyed by people who are paying less than he is who whine about not getting as much content, or the people who contribute nothing toward the development of the game who somehow think that developers or publishers will listen to their complaints when they're not seeing any money coming from those people?

If someone wants to vote with their wallet and buy used, more power to them, but by that same token, if you're not sending any money to the developers or publishers, you should expect exactly as much service as you paid for from them: which is 0.

I hate the entire publishing industry for video games, and it's good to see them getting taken down a peg or three by piracy and almost-free social gaming, but that does not mean I agree with people who want to have their cake and eat it too with respect to used games.

Icemage

That's easy to answer, with another question. Who is failing to obtain what they want out of the deal? Gamers will get the content one way or the other. Publishers on the other hand are failing to profit from those players' interest in their product. Which means they get no money out of it, which is what they are in this game for.

And at it's core this is between the publisher and the costumers who don't want or can't pay full price. You may be upset you are paying more while others are getting the same game for less. But as a 1st day buyer you get to experience the game much earlier and in it's new package...and that's about it. By the time someone else buys the game used (because someone who paid full price wanted some of their money back) it has already depreciated, just like it happens with cars and most other used products.

But, contrary to dealership behavior where they adapted and also profit from used cars publishers usually refuse to follow market tendencies about pricing and try to monopolize distribution so they can try to keep prices up artificially. And you know how that usually ends.


So, TL;DR The ones disconnected from reality are the Publishers and their DRM tantrums to (very clumsily) try to squeeze more money out of games their way. They have content that costs close to zero to reproduce once costs are covered (by the 1st day buyers) but want to keep selling at prime prices for some non-sensical reason. This when it's obvious simply following a more mature approach to the situation would be far more profitable in the long run. If you don't believe me just see how many discounted games you and your friends have bought off Steam because they were cheap. Games they probably wouldn't have sold otherwise and that cost very close to 0 to produce. Or 5 bucks multiplied by 20000+ sales is better than a game sitting there for 20 bucks which gamers seldom buy.

TL;DR of the TL;DR : Short-lived-content monopoly thinking is unsustainable unless you are in the OS business like Microsoft, and even then it takes a lot to keep yourself ahead of the competition. Because in the end pure good old (edit> and very, very basic) capitalism will teach you the error of your ways.


PS > Base price of anything is Production and distribution cost divided between the expected number of items sold. But the real price of things is completely based on supply, demand, and costumer perception of a fair price at any given time. When they decide to purchase the product. This varies from costumer to costumer, and in this case a publisher's job is to understand this process and make the right moves to maximize profits from the situation. That's what they are paid for.

Hint: Treating your costumers as the enemy and conditioning them to have the honor of buying your product is not a very good idea.

[Armando]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

I take issue when people piss and moan about features that do not affect me, especially when those people are deliberately choosing NOT to contribute money into the system, thereby increasing the amount I have to pay for the games that I want.

Pissing and moaning is always annoying, but I just don't buy that last part. Any supplier will take as much money as customers are willing to give. I sincerely doubt that if those people you're complaining about bought the game, you'd be spending less; you've already proven you're more than happy to shell out $X for a game, so they'll happily charge you that much even if the game's selling like hot cakes.

If someone wants to vote with their wallet and buy used, more power to them, but by that same token, if you're not sending any money to the developers or publishers, you should expect exactly as much service as you paid for from them: which is 0.

Wouldn't the rational thing for a developer/publisher to do be to give even more weight to the people that refuse to buy from you? Those are potential customers you're losing; listening to people that already love you and will buy on day 1 regardless isn't as lucrative.

You're no longer able to share games. Think back to your childhood - you didn't buy all the games you played. You swapped with your friends to enjoy what they had and you got to enjoy what they had on an equal basis. Nothing was taken away. Same with rentals.

Which sucks, because a game sharing system would be quite easy to implement. Just take the game off of the lender's list as long as his friend "has" it. It would dissuade people from sharing their account credentials to achieve the same effect, which I know for a fact some people do.

[Mezlo]

Re: What games are you currently playing?

TL;DR of the TL;DR

ty for this.