281632, RE: I don't see how it makes *business* sense...|
Posted by wallysmith, Tue Apr-09-13 02:46 PM
>developers are clamoring to get paid for their work and not
>get fired while millions of pirated copies of their games get
>they won't say it publicly b/c of backlash, but that's how
>people work. they like to get paid for what they do.
>everyone is this way.
I don't disagree with you, but if you had said that the used games industry is a problem then you would have had a stronger argument. Pirates are going to exist regardless; always on DRM is not that solution, despite the numerous attempts from publishers in the past. Hackers will always find a way around it, and I doubt this will be an exception.
What you're missing is that always on DRM is not a good business decision. Not a single time has a gamer thought "hey, always on DRM. This is a great idea and will compel me to buy this product".
So what's a good way to combat piracy and the used game market? Giving people more options with which to spend their money, not impose restrictions on their consumption. Sony is doing this through innovative sharing options and innovative game distribution. Allowing shared game states and video sharing options is something that gamers would enjoy. Distributing free games under the premium online membership tier is something gamers would enjoy. Digitally distributing heavily discounted older games is something gamers would enjoy. These are options that Sony is implementing to strategically position themselves for the future while simultaneously combating both piracy and the used game market.
For a example, look at the change in the music market that companies like Pandora, Spotify and Rdio are pushing. Giving consumers legal, easily distributable, cost effective options are the business plans of the future. These are options that both combat piracy and put money in the hands of the content creators. DRM failed with CD's and it's not the way to go with games (games are much more complex media than music so I don't think DRM will ever go away completely for video games, but handicapping an entire platform with it is not the way to go).
Here's a great (older) article with quotes from real developers on how innovative business solutions (not restrictive DRM) is the way to get paid for their work:
"But according to a number of developers that took part in this year's Steam Summer Sale, that doesn't seem to be the case. The teams who've discounted their games during this or previous Steam sales have found that the promotions not only attract more sales, but also generate more revenue and breathe new life into aging products."
"Runic Games CEO Max Schaefer, for instance, tells us that while it's been almost three years since his studio launched Torchlight, Valve's Steam promotions have helped the game maintain healthy sales to this very day.
"We find that we get several thousand percent increases in units and revenue on the days of the Steam sales, and unit sales are usually about double the normal for a few weeks after the sales are over," he says."
"A lot of times we judge the success of a game -- and predict its sales -- by looking at its launch day numbers. Steam sales have made that delightfully impossible. Our launch day , which we viewed as very strong, is only our fifth best day of sales ever on Steam due to the power of the promotions we've had the opportunity to participate in," Rao says. "
>this game/console distinction is uselsssince no one actually
>knowswhat we're talking about, and it's a result of supposed
I agree that implementation is still up in the air and that leaks are unreliable. But "always on" is "always on"... you haven't addressed my point to that yet. We've experienced almost a decade of DRM measures in several different formats with several different ways... not a single one has been well received and hackers have always found a way to circumvent it.
What makes that different for Xbox?
>>As for "customers who don't have internet access"... I
>>Bioshock Infinite and XCOM are worthy examples of developers
>>targeting all types of gamers, regardless of whether or not
>>they have internet access.
No, because.... ?
>....what? kinect and wii motion control had the most impact
>last generation. network connected gaming will likely not be
>the most important thing this gen. most people have the
I was speaking about the launch. I agree that motion controls changed the game, but outside of that Nintendo is, and (judging from the Wii U) will always be a distant third. The Kinect wasn't a launch feature but I do agree that it's potential will be massive.
With that said, everything always comes back to the games. Simplifying the argument to "everyone has the internet now" is undervaluing the importance of the **distribution**, which has always been my main point. (And you're mistaken in thinking that most people have the internet now, which is simply not true).
There are ways to put more games in the hands of more gamers, and that way is NOT by restricting their options. It's giving people more options with which to access and engage the games that they already want.
Edit: And as for the internet distribution, here's an opinion piece that just came out yesterday on why it doesn't make sense to do this at this point in time (if ever):