Go back to previous topic
Forum nameHigh-Tech
Topic subjectI'm aware that the actual allocations of those companies' revenues are small...
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=281531&mesg_id=281634
281634, I'm aware that the actual allocations of those companies' revenues are small...
Posted by wallysmith, Tue Apr-09-13 03:36 PM
>because it's making lots of people lots of money.
>irl, it's not making anyone any money, and so they don't like

Spotify is currently trying to renegotiate their licensing fees with the publishers because they currently don't have a sustainable business model themselves.

What you're ignoring is the fact that it combats piracy in a LEGAL fashion. How those funds get distributed to the artists is a whole 'nother discussion and is more of an indictment on the record labels and the industry as a whole. But fact is that Pandora and Spotify still funnel money towards the content creators, despite the fact that the actual slice is miniscule.

on the other hand, netflix is making the video industry
>tons of money because they'll pay for old content, so they
>love it.

Not a proper analogy since it takes waaaaaay more to make a TV show or movie than it does to distribute music or make a game. The music industry is a closer approximation because all you need to distribute music is a computer and an internet connection... you can't make Netflix content with just that.

The growth of the indie game industry shows that it's far closer to the music model than it is the TV/movie models.

>Steam uses DRM too -- I don't want to hear about innovative
>business models unless the person saying it is offering a game
>for download entirely DRM free. then I'll listen to what
>they're saying, I may not agree, but I will listen.

Yeah, and people hated Steam when it first came around because of that DRM. I alluded to this with my comment earlier about how games are much more complex media so some form of DRM will likely always be a reality. What makes Steam different then? Distribution. All those Steam Sales. CONSTANT sales. I notice you didn't address the link I provided above with actual quotes from actual developers. People turned around on Steam because they gave gamers a cheap, legal way to access games that they already wanted. And developers LOVE this. If you had read the article (I don't think you did) you would have read a quote that stated that Steam's sales give life to games YEARS after they're released. And that full price sales of games still continue after those sales. And that getting cheap games in the hands of gamers that would never have bought them at full price means that their future games will have a much wider userbase.

THIS is the difference.

As for Microsoft? Everything they've been doing recently has been missteps. PS+ has been giving away free games now, while XBL has been giving, what, exactly to gamers? Only recently did they attempt sales on digitally distributed games. And there is NO reason... NONE, whatsoever, that free apps like Netflix and HBO Go should be behind a paywall on XBL Gold. Zero. Zip. Nada. If a shitty free Android phone can access Netflix for free, why does Microsoft insist on keeping it behind Gold? On top of that, it's been well documented how shitty they treat indie game developers. Here's yet another timely piece (with real quotes from real developers) on the difference between Microsoft and Sony:


A recent survey showed that 53 percent of developers self-identify as independent, and Sony is angling to get as many of them on PlayStation devices as possible. And to hear the developers tell it, the reason they’re flocking to PlayStation is due as much to what Sony does right as to what Xbox maker Microsoft is doing wrong.

“Microsoft treats independent developers very badly,” said Jonathon Blow, creator of the breakout indie success Braid. Blow appeared at Sony’s recent PlayStation 4 announcement event to show his new game The Witness. He said in an email that Microsoft’s stance on relations with independent developers is to “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever feel like this week.”

>"What makes that different for Xbox?"
>what makes something I know absolutely zero things about
>the only way I would try to discuss something like this is if
>I were whoring for clicks -- more about that later

You know zero things about always on DRM? Is this the position you're taking? "Always on" DRM has been around in many different forms for almost a DECADE. I refuse to believe that you know nothing about DRM so please name me one single time when it was received well.

Because you can't.

>Bioshock Infinite isn't about targeting any different type of
>gamer. It's a single player game, that's not new. I haven't
>thought about XCOM in 20 years so I don't know or care why
>that's relevant here.

Oh, so just because you don't know about it, it's not relevant? My point in bringing up those games is because those are two massively well received, single player focused games that released with great sales figures. XCOM was basically a standard pack-in with all digitally distributed Bioshock games. This is the distribution method of the future, giving gamers what they want.... GAMES. You haven't said a single word about this MAJOR point of mine. You're starting to dodge me again.

>As for the internet distribution, here's an opinion piece that
>just came out yesterday about things that no one knows for
>sure and speculates wildly then argues based on that
>speculation so people will click on it.
>I don't say that because of the source, I say that because I
>am philosophically opposed to having opinion based on things
>you don't know anything about.

Oh, so it's nothing I know about? Did you read the piece?

(Note: Every single passage I quote here has NOTHING to do with the Xbox itself, but solely on the inconsistency of broadband internet DISTRIBUTION)

"Looking strictly at North America, which I believe to be Microsoft's biggest market, there are serious, systemic problems with our broadband infrastructure. And that's ignoring monopolies belonging to companies like NBC/Comcast and AT&T."

"Just to make this clear, I'm not talking about the middle of nowhere here. There are large parts of New York City that don't have reliable internet connections, whether we're talking about uptime or dependable speeds. As you move further away from urban areas that should theoretically have well developed internet infrastructures that don't, you get to suburban and then exurban areas that don't even have that excuse. The lack of a competitive broadband environment in the United States has resulted in a woefully underdeveloped system that struggles to provide basic internet functionality, at prices that make broadband a monthly luxury item in most parts of the country."

"This lack of competition has also slowed even basic broadband penetration to "remote" locations in the United States — assuming you think an hour north of Fresno, California is remote, that is. In these areas, satellite internet coverage is presented as a valid alternative by people who have in all likelihood not been forced to rely on it. Coverage is spotty in good weather, problematic in poor weather, and quality of service varies wildly. Government definitions of broadband availability are skewed towards an appearance of access that doesn't pass the smell test — and while this does impact the poor more severely, it is as much a geographic consideration as an economic one."

"There is no meaningful, dedicated effort to aggressively develop that network infrastructure outside of limited pilot programs being undertaken by companies like Google, which will take years to build out. Put more simply, it will be years before the majority of the United States is ready for an always-online future. Even if the infrastructure was there for this scenario, the economic realities of broadband internet access are still deeply problematic."

"In the past, I've defended the right of publishers and developers to offer online-only platforms, and I still think that there's nothing inherently wrong with games that require permanent internet connections. But a game is not a console. "

"Moving beyond players in the continental U.S., both Sony and Microsoft have tens of thousands of fans on active duty in the military serving tours in areas without internet access. Just looking at Canada, another huge market for Microsoft, there are enormous parts of the country that have no reliable broadband internet solution. "