Gamers are Killing the Games Industry

[alinos]

Sounds more to me like you're saying pirates are killing the games industry... I'd say that they're just killing the pc game industry and frankly, good riddance anyway. Modding a system takes a bit more effort and is easier to stop (see M$ disabling your modded system if it signs on xbox live for example). I quit playing pc games years ago because I got tired of constantly having to upgrade my computer to play the latest game and because of drms, which are in my opinion what's really killing pc gaming anyway.

only a problem to those who actually are willing to pay MS to play on there crappy servers something i refuse to do so if i had a 360 hells yeah it would be chipped

 

[Tarrou]

Let's be clear here, there's a couple issues at stake.

#1 is piracy, which people keep justifying by saying the DRM is invasive, or the price is too high. That cuts no ice. Look, they made the product, they can put whatever they want in it and charge whatever they want, and it doesn't make stealing it ok. I might not BUY a game for $60, but I won't pirate it either. If I really want to play it, I'll wait a year, but most likely, I'll just skip the game.


#2 is the gaming business model. I've been waiting for AC2 for a couple years now, and was infuriated when they pushed the PC release date so far back from the console release. This is bullshit, especially if they intend to charge release price five months after the actual release. Now they're telling me I need to have completely stable internet, or the game will kick me out? Yeah, thanks guys, but you just lost a customer. I won't be pirating your game, but I can't support that sort of customer abuse.


Long story short, corporations aren't some sort of monster. They need to make money to keep making games, and they need to make games to make money. The best thing we, as consumers can do is use our leverage (tiny individually, but powerful in aggregate) to encourage better behavior. Don't pirate, and if a company is fucking with you, boycott their games. Think of it this way, those of you who claim that piracy is somehow justified by price. The companies have to factor in your theft to the price of future games. If 20% of a game is pirated, then the company could have lowered the price 20% for everyone if it wasn't pirated at all. It's a cycle.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

There are two ways to look at this argument;

1) The companies put DRM in their products to stop you getting for free what potentially hundreds of people spent months/years of their life slaving away to make a enjoyable game. They didn't do it for you guys, The mere fact that some games are good is a testament to how much these companies love money. Good games = good sale. Easy as that. Games companies don't OWE you (gamers) anything, they create something and if you wanna play, you gotta pay.

The argument that pirates offer an unfaltering product for free is all well and good, but look how many publishers have lost enough money to need to close down, especially in the last few years. And yeah, you might say the pirates wouldn't have bought the games anyway, but if they want to play it that's what they have to do, you don't just steal a car cause you didn't want to pay for it, if you want a shot try a test drive (demo) and if you want it to be yours, well sorry, but it'll cost you.

The simple truth is that if people NEVER pirated games, there would be no DRM, there would simply be no need for it.


2) Yeah OK, so you want to play "Shooty gun fight 4: now with more subtext", but the company has this new DRM stuff in the game. It runs in the background of your PC and slows it down enough that the game is basically unplayable. (I think i read somewhere that a game (maybe GTA4) has 3 layers of DRM) So to make the game playable, you wanna pirate it. Cool, can't say I've never done it.

Also with all the new games coming out you sometimes just really can't afford the latest and greatest, which is a shame, but hey, if it saves you money and gets rid of that pesky DRM then it's double bonus time eh?

Also what if a game simply isn't released in your country, or is so rare that the cost become prohibitive, I mean Panzer dragoon saga is $200 if you want it in English.

ON top of anything else, a lot of new games (at least some one's I've played) are short, maybe clocking 8-15 hours depending how you play. And being in the unfortunate financial situation listed above I can't justify such a large amount of money on such a small amount of distraction. (side note: games lately seem to have a lot less replay value, or is that just me?)

Anyway, it's the companies that forced DRM on the gamers, Just because we passed around a few disks at a LAN party or two so people wouldn't be left out they decided that they'll try to melt our computers with these crazy "Anti-Piracy" measures. Then it just snowballed and all of a sudden it's looking like the only legitimate option IS to pirate. I mean My internet connection is down as often as a hooker when the navy's in town and i don't really wanna be basically denied that chance to play a game because i can't afford it.

-----------------------------

Yeah, so basically which argument seems more reasoned to you?

 

[JEBWrench]

nope that doesnt count sims 3 was pirated because its a series game regardless of DRM or not it would have still been pirated, i mean simply look at the crowd for the sims normally female and some will not be techsavy or know about DRM at all but there boyfriends family members what not will pirate it for them because A)it will keep them quiet and B) hey sis remember how i saved you 100AUS on Sims 3 well i need a favour

also where are these numbers coming from the number of torrent transfers is not a statistic in anyway as there is crossover between downloaded copies and legitimate ones

So... when a DRM-free game gets heavily pirated, it doesn't count in the argument regarding DRM and piracy?

This is the kind of "argument" I can't stand in this debate. Any contradictory evidence, from either side, is brushed off. It doesn't count if it doesn't support popular belief.

Games without DRM get pirated more frequently.

The only real question is just how much more they'd be purchased otherwise. Not much, from what data I can mine so far.

 

[IankBailey]

But then after you buy a cheaper car you find out that this car only starts 4 times before it explodes. Meanwhile I'm sitting here in my Firrari Enzo that I got for free. It's human nature to want something you can't have. When someone offers it to you for free with little to no penalty most people with take it while they can.

You'll find a lot of cheaper cars are like that.

Everyone should have access to the comodity that is gaming and if developers can't be bothered to care about lowering prices then give me a good reason why I should care about not pirating?

I can't tell if you're actually serious about that.
There's absolutely no reason why someone who can't afford to game should be able to do so. Entertainment is optional. Not necessary.

\

I live in the city. A car isn't necessary for me.

 

[Altorin]

Let's be clear here, there's a couple issues at stake.

#1 is piracy, which people keep justifying by saying the DRM is invasive, or the price is too high. That cuts no ice. Look, they made the product, they can put whatever they want in it and charge whatever they want, and it doesn't make stealing it ok. I might not BUY a game for $60, but I won't pirate it either. If I really want to play it, I'll wait a year, but most likely, I'll just skip the game.


#2 is the gaming business model. I've been waiting for AC2 for a couple years now, and was infuriated when they pushed the PC release date so far back from the console release. This is bullshit, especially if they intend to charge release price five months after the actual release. Now they're telling me I need to have completely stable internet, or the game will kick me out? Yeah, thanks guys, but you just lost a customer. I won't be pirating your game, but I can't support that sort of customer abuse.


Long story short, corporations aren't some sort of monster. They need to make money to keep making games, and they need to make games to make money. The best thing we, as consumers can do is use our leverage (tiny individually, but powerful in aggregate) to encourage better behavior. Don't pirate, and if a company is fucking with you, boycott their games. Think of it this way, those of you who claim that piracy is somehow justified by price. The companies have to factor in your theft to the price of future games. If 20% of a game is pirated, then the company could have lowered the price 20% for everyone if it wasn't pirated at all. It's a cycle.

this guy is right.

I have pirated games on occasion, I'll admit it, but blaming it on DRM or price is just silly. If you're going to pirate something, you're not going to not pirate it just because they easier to use (Pirating is already easy), or cheaper (Pirating is already free)

You'll pirate it, in every possible incarnation, because you didn't want to pay for it. That's the only reason anyone pirates anything (except perhaps ease of finding a difficult to find, older game, but primarily, it's always cost, because the other option is paying a lot of money for that rare game).

However, that's not the topic of this thread really.. the idea is "Is DRM worth using", "Does it affect piracy numbers, negatively, or positively".

That's where the real debate is.

 

[Mr. GameBrain]

alinos I'm not going to quote your big ol' wall of text, but I also agree that I think the big players in the game industry are forgetting about gameplay.

You see when I bought the Wii, because I thought I'd get games that were truly innovative and fun!

....

I'm still waiting....

The only game that I truly felt came close to what I wanted for the Wii was Super Mario Galaxy.

But apart from that, motion control has been a wasted opportunity from what I've seen.
(I mean, it doesn't even work properly for a start, sure the motion plus was supposed to remedy, but devs don't really seem to want to work with it. And the nunchuck cable is ridiculously short, and on some games that doesn't matter too much, but on others it can be so immersion breaking!).


And also, I have noted trailers have are as still dishonest and surreal as they always have been, but fortunately, for us gamers we have youtube videos, and gaming websites, which show actual gameplay footage, so those cheap tactics don't work so well on us as they did before.

Maybe thats why some games haven't done so well commercially, because its harder for marketers to convince us the game is good.

 

[Gindil]

Let's be clear here, there's a couple issues at stake.

#1 is piracy, which people keep justifying by saying the DRM is invasive, or the price is too high. That cuts no ice. Look, they made the product, they can put whatever they want in it and charge whatever they want, and it doesn't make stealing it ok. I might not BUY a game for $60, but I won't pirate it either. If I really want to play it, I'll wait a year, but most likely, I'll just skip the game.

Regarding piracy, there's a 5 page article here on Escapist about how piracy has influenced gaming in Brazil. Regardless of whether we like it or not, games are substitute goods. If the price of games goes up, people will move their money elsewhere. It's similar to what I'm doing. Games went up to 60$ for PS3 games. I choose to play Steam games, go to the movies, or enjoy my $60 to my benefit. Piracy is more a slap in the face, but it's only prevalent because it hurts a company's bottom line. Supposedly. The correlation doesn't hold water that every last download is a lost sale.

Long story short, corporations aren't some sort of monster. They need to make money to keep making games, and they need to make games to make money. The best thing we, as consumers can do is use our leverage (tiny individually, but powerful in aggregate) to encourage better behavior. Don't pirate, and if a company is fucking with you, boycott their games. Think of it this way, those of you who claim that piracy is somehow justified by price. The companies have to factor in your theft to the price of future games. If 20% of a game is pirated, then the company could have lowered the price 20% for everyone if it wasn't pirated at all. It's a cycle.

This I want to get to. The correlation, as I've stated isn't there. The people that would buy the game, will buy. The ones that will pirate, will pirate. Whether that's a poor college student on a Uni connection or an engineer who wants to see the newest game for their son, we can't tell. But saying that a game is justified at having exorbitant price tags at Wal-Mart because someone got a game on their smulator OR they're trying out a game and suddenly they like what they see, doesn't really add up. I can't dictate what people will do if given the wrong incentive. DRM, for all intentions is exactly that. It's a signal from a game company that people aren't customers, they are nothing more than a number. That's something I won't pay for.

Also, a game makes the most money in the first quarter of its release. CDs cost nothing. Paying the programmers and such is another deal. Basically, if a game is a hit, and makes money in that critical time frame, it's a success. Anything afterwards is gravy. No where is a company going to lower a price until after its losses are either recouped or the game is shown as garbage.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Let's be clear here, there's a couple issues at stake.

#1 is piracy, which people keep justifying by saying the DRM is invasive, or the price is too high. That cuts no ice. Look, they made the product, they can put whatever they want in it and charge whatever they want, and it doesn't make stealing it ok. I might not BUY a game for $60, but I won't pirate it either. If I really want to play it, I'll wait a year, but most likely, I'll just skip the game.


#2 is the gaming business model. I've been waiting for AC2 for a couple years now, and was infuriated when they pushed the PC release date so far back from the console release. This is bullshit, especially if they intend to charge release price five months after the actual release. Now they're telling me I need to have completely stable internet, or the game will kick me out? Yeah, thanks guys, but you just lost a customer. I won't be pirating your game, but I can't support that sort of customer abuse.


Long story short, corporations aren't some sort of monster. They need to make money to keep making games, and they need to make games to make money. The best thing we, as consumers can do is use our leverage (tiny individually, but powerful in aggregate) to encourage better behavior. Don't pirate, and if a company is fucking with you, boycott their games. Think of it this way, those of you who claim that piracy is somehow justified by price. The companies have to factor in your theft to the price of future games. If 20% of a game is pirated, then the company could have lowered the price 20% for everyone if it wasn't pirated at all. It's a cycle.

this guy is right.

I have pirated games on occasion, I'll admit it, but blaming it on DRM or price is just silly. If you're going to pirate something, you're not going to not pirate it just because they easier to use (Pirating is already easy), or cheaper (Pirating is already free)

You'll pirate it, in every possible incarnation, because you didn't want to pay for it. That's the only reason anyone pirates anything (except perhaps ease of finding a difficult to find, older game, but primarily, it's always cost, because the other option is paying a lot of money for that rare game).

However, that's not the topic of this thread really.. the idea is "Is DRM worth using", "Does it affect piracy numbers, negatively, or positively".

That's where the real debate is.

And also, "Can piracy really be stopped at all? If not, why don't we all shut up with our ranting for a few minutes and spend some time thinking about what CAN be done that won't put off the actual customers."

I'm amazed by the number of folks who seemed to completely have missed the point of the debate. We're not talking about why piracy is or isn't wrong. We're already past that. Whatever it is, that's NOT RELEVANT. It's like, Rome has already been sacked, okay? Stop arguing about whether or not sacking it was wrong and float some ideas about what can be done now to either fix the problem or help both legit customers and game devs both get the games and profits they want, respectively.

Also, World of Goo was pirated a lot. Okay. But do you HONESTLY think that the developers of World of Goo didn't get all the profit they intended and more from that title? They were selling it for a "make your own price" deal a while back. Now you don't do that unless you've already more than made what you planned on the game, and you're just looking for a little extra green off one of your old titles.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Sometimes good artistic games are killed by other reasons than JUST "dumb Halo 3 college frat idiot didn't buy it." Stranger's Wrath got an 88/100 Metacritic score and the sales were so bad it effectively killed the franchise. At first glance you might do the standard "you didn't buy it, you dumb college morons!" reaction bit, but dig a bit deeper and you find that M$ had absolutely no confidence in the title and ran slim to no advertising or marketing at/prior to the release.

Again, it's easy to blame the consumer, but there if I may take a quote from The Wire here:

"I think you need a lot of background context to seriously examine anything."

I think it went something like that. Can't remember who said it. Anyway, point is, there's usually no one reason for why anything is the way it is. In history and especially in capitalism, it's a combination of factors.

Or, you know, a good indie game gets pirated by 90% of the people who play it because it's got no DRM. See: Goo, World of. - it got "killed" (relatively, I'm pretty sure the devs are swimming in a sea of money, just not as big of one as they deserve) by piracy.

Exhibit 1: Special sale where you could buy World of Goo for 1 penny.
Exhibit 2: People pirated the game.
Conclusion: Those who pirated but did not buy the game were never going to buy the game for any price.

I mean, if you don't buy a game for a penny, you're not going to buy it even if you can't pirate it. So all those pirated copies of the game? Those people either later went and bought the game during a Steam sale or the special publisher sale (and the company got their money from that), or they never, ever intended to buy the game. In which case, no lost sales. Take your pick, but either option says you are wrong.

 

[ChaosGenesis]

I'm, for the most part, strictly a console gamer. I know I could get my systems modded and have had it offered to me but I refuse. The only games I don't buy are ROMs of older generation games I can't find actual copies of anymore.

I understand your argument and agree for the most part but really I think that there are enough people that don't pirate games that will keep the industry alive and well (mostly console gamers probably). Here's hoping anyway.

 

[Weaver]

You can use bad sophistry to justify it all you want but a fact is a fact.

If you download and play a pirated game, you are a thief. (With the sole exception of some people I know who buy the game legitimately, then shelf it and play the non-DRM, non-disc version made by some pirate... I actually don't worry about that).

And the companies that stop you from playing a game because you re-installed it too many times? They are on a perfectly fine moral high road? Just stopping someone from using their product, this is fine and commendable? They are thieves too in my eyes, they promised the player a game and sold them damaged goods.

Morals has nothing to do with it. The company owns the game and it's entirely within their rights to slap on the most ridiculous and frustrating DRM you can think of. If gamers don't like it, they should show it by not buying these games on principle, but lets face it this won't happen and the minority that do not buy it on principle are a drop in the bucket.

So they could have a game with such a restrictive DRM no one could ever access it, and you're saying they wouldn't face a class action lawsuit? There IS a line where you're no longer giving the consumer the product they payed for and that you advertised which is against the law.

I understand your argument and agree for the most part but really I think that there are enough people that don't pirate games that will keep the industry alive and well (mostly console gamers probably). Here's hoping anyway.

Despite what EVERYONE seems to think, just because I play games on a PC does not mean I'm a pirate. I buy a staggaring amount of games. Last year I purchased 88 PC titles, the bulk of those were on steam sales and from packs, but that's probably a lot more than the average console user purchased. This is, of course, in addition to the 8 PS3 and 10 360 games I bought.

 

[Nomanslander]

It's taken me a while to realize, but we're the problem. In a way almost no other medium has to deal with.....

Have you seen the b.s. involved with the film/tv/music industry.

lol

Trust me, people are what they are and no industry doesn't suffer from them.

Now don't mind me as I go read up on what Michael Bay has in store for Transformers 3 since the last ones success, whether Britney Spears can still make another come back with her fat ass as she copies Lady Gaga style, and which of the 60,000 reality shows manages to stand out as interesting and new.

0o

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Oh yeah, and more demos while they are at it, it's quite nice to actually know what i'm buying rather than having to read a bunch of reviews.

More demos would be great.

Even the demos can mislead you though... take Brutal Legend for example.

At least I knew not to buy Wet or Lost Planet 2 after playing thier crappy demos.

And welcome to the site, may you enjoy your stay.

 

[alinos]

*snip*demo*snip*

I still lol when I remember Cliffy B referring to demos as "cheap sex"

gee thats all well and good for him but Gears of war is indeed one of my regretted purchases on the PC i absolutely hated it i didnt download it first because it got so many rants and raves on the 360(havent made that mistake again)

 

[kingmob]

This is the kind of "argument" I can't stand in this debate. Any contradictory evidence, from either side, is brushed off. It doesn't count if it doesn't support popular belief.

Games without DRM get pirated more frequently.

The only real question is just how much more they'd be purchased otherwise. Not much, from what data I can mine so far.

You can't seem to accept that your statement is false, or at least nothing more than an opinion. You keep stating it as fact, but there is no basis for the fact. You can call it 'brushing off', but that's exactly what you are accusing others from. I haven't seen you address the base of you magic numbers.

But I ask you again, name me 1 situation where DRM makes ANY difference AT ALL for the pirate. It has to have some consequence to have any influence over the download rates.
As it stands there is only one influence, and that is a negative one for the buyer. Even if you could somehow manage to prove a correlation, you would have a really hard time proving causation. But this endless trap of statistics will always remain I am afraid.

 

[kingmob]

this guy is right.

I have pirated games on occasion, I'll admit it, but blaming it on DRM or price is just silly. If you're going to pirate something, you're not going to not pirate it just because they easier to use (Pirating is already easy), or cheaper (Pirating is already free)

You'll pirate it, in every possible incarnation, because you didn't want to pay for it. That's the only reason anyone pirates anything (except perhaps ease of finding a difficult to find, older game, but primarily, it's always cost, because the other option is paying a lot of money for that rare game).

However, that's not the topic of this thread really.. the idea is "Is DRM worth using", "Does it affect piracy numbers, negatively, or positively".

That's where the real debate is.

The people who blame it on price or DRM are half right. I think they have talked it right in their minds and the real reason lies close to what they are stating. If the blame it on price, it simply means the games wasn't worth to them what people were asking. Pirating the game 'won' out, since apparently they still wanted to try the game out. When I didn't have money this was particularly true for me. Many of the games I played then, I have bought lately out of guilt
It doesn't mean they are 'right' to do so, but it is important to understand why people pirate. Besides the hardcore pirates it is too easy to dismiss the casuals as just cheap. I think many pirates are potential buyers, from a business standpoint it would make sense to understand the reasons and maybe appeal to these people. It will probably make you more money than DRM anyway. Dropping the price has a noticeable effect. Current prices have been like this for years, why, what is their basis?
I think gaming companies want huge margins, to compensate for failed products and long production times. A good company would not annoy their customer with DRM because they have these problems and need to reach their target, they would adress these problems. Less failed products (we see that effect as not so inspired sequels) and shorter production times (hardly happening yet, though VERY possible imo) are both not impossibilities. What we are seeing is a market going stale, like Hollywood has encountered already several times now. There they've had decades of uninspired crap and they were also surprised at first when the customer suddenly didn't come anymore. In the end the market cleaned itself out this way and the problem was gone.
Sadly, in the latest 'crisis', there also the 'pirate excuse' is now more popular, since it rids you of responsibility.

 

[Bad Cluster]

A) We are stupid for buying mediocre games millions of copies or more in less than a week.
B) Pirates are stupid for doing what they always did.
C) Developers who try to fight pirates using their paying customers as a "weapon" are stupid.
D) Trying to get rid of insulting DRM in something you already own and paid for is stupid.
E) Making another mediocre game just like the last one you made a year ago which sold millions of copies is stupid.

Only one statement above is true. Which one is it?

PS
All these gaming/piracy/quality/drm talks and attempts to relate them to each other will go much easier if you relate them to Movie/TV industry. Games are simply going in the same direction.
Consumerism is the same anywhere, same principles, more consumers you have, worse it gets.