GOG's Rambourg: DRM Is Terrible, Sales Are Problematic

[wulfy42]

The honest truth is Steam has flooded the market with extremely cheap games. Seriously....even if you thought pirating was ok.....I don't think many people will pirate a game when they can wait for a steam sale and get it for a few dollars. Worse then that is just the shear number of games. If you have 150+ games in your steam library...even if you are retired and do nothing but play games 24/7 your not gonna get through your library anytime soon.

But it's not just Steam (by itself). Humble bundles etc add even more games, for very low prices to the list (either on steam...or directly).

Then, as mentioned, you have Ipad etc games, which often sell for a fraction of the price as the PC version....while being mobile...which you would think should make it cost MORE. Why is a game 99 cents on the ipad, and 7.99 on the pc? People asked that question about 1 game (was an rpg where you controlled people...playing an RPG)....and the response was that steam or the company they worked with to get it released on steam, set the price....not them.

The end result though is that if you have an ipad, you can usually get any games that will run on it much cheaper then on your PC....often even after factoring in the eventual 75% off you get for almost everything on steam.

I've gotten to the point where my games list is a bit overwhelming on steam. I can't even pick something to play because..there is just too many. I have mostly stopped buying games unless they are at least 50% off (with a few exceptions but far fewer then in the past). There is no reason too anymore. I have 80+ games I have never even installed, let alone played....that I have already payed for...and have not played. I'm married, have a real life etc, but seriously if I stopped everything and just played games for 5 years, I don't think I would get through them all...and thats without buying anything new.

And of course, I'll still buy new games that really interest me. I got rogue legacy at release for instance, and Dragons Crown on my ps3 and Van HElsing (which was just on sale already after having just been released right before the Summer Sale last time). I have only played 20 minutes of Van Helsing....so yeah...I should have waited. That happens so often..it just leads players to feel like they should wait for sales on everything.

 

[Falterfire]

I just don't like booting up Steam before I can shop.

Then don't? You don't have to start Steam to buy games, you just have to go to the website.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

...

It may be largely due to low frame rates combined with extremely narrow field of view, but try getting anyone new to games to play an FPS... in my exerience they universally get turned around, disoriented, or just strait up nauseous. I really miss being able to play 3rd person games, and even those that exist now are almost all shooters. I wish all those jokes were true about Naughty Dog revisiting Crash Bandicoot with the next gen Uncharted engine ^.^

Im completely the opposite. give me a FPS and ill be happy, give me same game in 3rd person (some games allow mukltiple camera angles btw) and ill be disoriented as fuck, will rage at controls and camera and everything. i think 3rd person shouldnt even be around except for driving. so yeah, there are people on both ends of the spectrum.
...

Quite a post there Strazdas! As for 3rd Person, I was referring specifically to games that are NOT shooters. I personally greatly enjoy shooters, but i think that 1) there are too many that are all the same so my brain has simply turned off from overload, and 2) they are a terrible choice to introduce new gamers with.

I agree with you that most shooters have clearer aiming mechanics when they're first person. The problem is that in my experience newer gamers hate having to worry about moving their character AND camera, it's just a lot to keep track of. 3rd Person action games (at least the good ones) typically have mechanics that let the camera take care of itself, letting the player focus all their efforts and hacking, slashing, jumping, etc... even incredibly difficult games like Ninja Gaiden are really easy for newer gamers to get into because the entire game is essentially a combination of three buttons: attack, heavy attack, and movement. They will die a thousand times and still love it because it is always abundantly clear what happened, why it happened, and how to fix it next time. As you said, there are people on all ends of the spectrum, so rather than simply changing mechanics to a different but equally complex scheme, devs should be focusing more on cleaning and clarifying [or removing, gasp!] mechanics instead of adding/changing complexity simply in an attempt to distinguish themselves.

Just as a small addition, one thing that almost all 3rd person games have that 1st NEVER do is the ability to auto-center the camera at the touch of a button. FPS can't even afford to have it because every single button has to always be reserved for weapons and items that most people never use. The most common button for this is clicking in the camera stick, but in shooters that's always either zoom or melee, which are 'essential.' This will never change because someone, either customers or investors, will complain in outrage that it's not enough like Call of Duty. Which I guess is more or less my point. Less games should be like Call of Duty.

 

[mindfaQ]

I don't know about you guys, but I tend to give money to the people/companies that deserve it in my opinion. I only have a certain budget, ofc the money will end up mostly at the products I really like, which atm is only very few games (Dota 2, TWD, Portal 2). So I personally would not spend more money if games were sold at higher prices - I just would try out fewer of them.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/74/744c4ea5185154a4968efe9c14e5c2a4a07b5271fab26a573a04935834dc62d2.jpg

Hmmm... trolling your own website as an in-joke with your own customers...

Yup. I could see them actually doing this

 

[SecondPrize]

If I wait for a game to fall below $10 before buying it, it's only because that's what I figure it'd be worth. Sometimes I'm wrong and regretted not paying full price when it released, but that's not a common event. He thinks we're undervaluing games, that's fine. I don't think there have been many games at all recently whose quality justifies their release msrp, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Little Gray]

This, thinks Rambourg, is proof that GOG's customers aren't scamming the system. If they were, GOG would see multiple downloads per account, and have been overwhelmed by money back demands from chiselers looking to score a free game.

Why would they need to download the game more then once? All you need is one copy to toss it up on the pirate bay.

 

[Reaper195]

I think the dirty secret behind the need for sales is the fact that 90% of the games are practically the same game with different skins or are just not that good. There's only so many times someone can play action RPGs before they start feeling like they are playing a previous action RPG with a mod on top

To be honest, a lot of the action RPG's on GoG are old as dicks, when games used to blatently copy what worked from another game, and a bunch of 'new' games that were 'inspired' by the 90's action RPGs. So all you end up with is a massive series of pixel-looking games from the 90's. There are a few exceptions, namely The Witcher which comes to mind (Although....is an action RPG). Unfortunately, because of their anti-DRM stance, a lot of publishers don't want their games to go on GoG...because then they won't have their first party and then third party and then second party DRM systems in place all at once. And then all those programs just hog up resources so GTA 4 runs like a wet dog....looking at you, GTA 4.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Are you really in favor of DRM? Are you a gamer or a publisher? In any case what does it matter that GOG copies of games end up on torrent sites? Copies of games with DRM end up on torrent sites too, and I have read that the ripped copies show up first and are the most downloaded.

I always wonder at people who seem to be against their own self interest. I don't trust such people.

That's not a Binary question. I'm an avid gamer and in the process of game development. But regardless. it goes back to what I say: People hate the idea of copyright until they actually produce IP. When things wind up on torrent sites it hurts the distributor, the publisher and most importantly, the developers. Come on, let's be reasonable, most fledgling devs have the hope their game will allow them to eat something other than instant ramen cups for a few weeks.

I have bought a lot of games, I am all about supporting the developer. I have almost 500 games in my Steam library, I have purchased over 60 games on GOG.com, and before that lots of games for PS2, PS1, SNES, NES, Gameboy, etc.
I think intellectual property laws are good and should not be abolished. Copyright law should be scaled back to something closed to what it was when this country was founded, but the inducement to share and publish content and inventions brought about by these legal protections are overall a good thing, in my opinion at least.

That being said onerous DRM does not stop pirating and does not increase game sales. Maybe for large developers with AAA games and large marketing budgets piracy has a negative affect on their sales. For smaller publishers and developers piracy can be a good thing for their bottom lines. There have been at least two small independent developers who have said that sales of their games skyrocketed after they showed up on torrent sites. In fact I dug up one of the stories:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107233-iPhone-Game-Dev-Credits-Piracy-for-Doubling-His-Sales

Now I bring that point up not to make the argument that piracy is good or to condone it. Just to point out that the piracy situation is complicated and blind assumptions not based on data will likely lead you astray. I have purchased games on GOG.com that I already own SOLELY because they have no DRM and I don't have to worry that one day Steam will go out of business and I will never be able to play those games again. The fact that someone would pay for a game a second time just to avoid DRM shows that a lack of DRM does add value to a game, at least for some, and conversely inclusion of DRM does reduce the value of a game, at for some.

I am not opposed to something like a CD key, but once you require an internet connection you've lost me. The internet is here to stay but not every publisher or developer is. I have seen too many games get their plugs pulled to put up full retail on a game that I cannot install without it talking to a server somewhere. Most independent studies, i.e. non lobby group funded, show piracy rates in America at around 8%. If you take a look at the most successful digital distributor, Steam, they have some of the least onerous DRM, it allows to play offline if you lose your connection unexpectedly for up to 90 days or indefinitely if you put into offline mode while connected. GOG.com's success and growth show that there is a pent up demand for games without DRM and even Ubisoft, the poster child for terrible, overreaching DRM has stepped back and promised to avoid the very worst kinds of always online DRM.

 

[Strazdas]

That's not a Binary question. I'm an avid gamer and in the process of game development. But regardless. it goes back to what I say: People hate the idea of copyright until they actually produce IP. When things wind up on torrent sites it hurts the distributor, the publisher and most importantly, the developers. Come on, let's be reasonable, most fledgling devs have the hope their game will allow them to eat something other than instant ramen cups for a few weeks.

No and no. DRM is a very simple question. Does it help more than harm. If the answer is yes, keep it, if the answer is no, dont. Since DRM helps exactly 0, however harms legal costumers, the answer is quite clearly no.
When things wind up on torrent sites for small developer it is massive free advertisement and we saw this turned around into tons of profit for the developers with them endorcing that. DRM will not help you earn more profit, it will only harm your ability to earn profit because there will be people who wil lrefuse to buy it on that reason alone. It wont stop the torrent sites though.

Most devs don't dev as a hobby, they dev as a means of earning a living i.e. to make the money needed to pay for food, light and etc.

If they are good at developing games - there will be enough sales to pay for food. If they are not good, maybe they shouldnt be developing bad games to begin with?

Pirates are not thieves? uhm... that's exactly what they. They acquisitioned a good or service without payment, without consent of the original owner or in a manner that violates a preexisting contract. just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it can't be stolen,. It's why if you're actually caught pirating music, movies or software you will face substantial fines and/or jail time. This is legal fact son, no matter how much you delude yourself otherwise reality remains. a pirate is a pirate and a pirate is a thief. thusly pirating is stealing.

Pirates are not thieves neither legally nor morally. They may be thieves to you due to your lack of knowledge on the subject but thats about where it ends.
Thief is defined by taking somones property away when it comes to law. Pirates do not do that. They are not thieves, they are copyright infringers. If you want to discuss piracy, start with knowing what it is. Acuisition of goods without payment is not thievery. For example: charity. Also: borrowing a game from your friend. Watching a movie with a friend, ect.
If you are caught pirating music you will face civil charges for copyright infringement, which does not include jail time. you will not be charged for theft. you will be charged for copyright infringement, which is not theft as far as law is concerned. it is quite clear that you know aboslutely nothing about how laws regard pirates, so i repeat, if you do not know - do not speak as if you do.

Quite a post there Strazdas! As for 3rd Person, I was referring specifically to games that are NOT shooters. I personally greatly enjoy shooters, but i think that 1) there are too many that are all the same so my brain has simply turned off from overload, and 2) they are a terrible choice to introduce new gamers with.

I agree with you that most shooters have clearer aiming mechanics when they're first person. The problem is that in my experience newer gamers hate having to worry about moving their character AND camera, it's just a lot to keep track of. 3rd Person action games (at least the good ones) typically have mechanics that let the camera take care of itself, letting the player focus all their efforts and hacking, slashing, jumping, etc... even incredibly difficult games like Ninja Gaiden are really easy for newer gamers to get into because the entire game is essentially a combination of three buttons: attack, heavy attack, and movement. They will die a thousand times and still love it because it is always abundantly clear what happened, why it happened, and how to fix it next time. As you said, there are people on all ends of the spectrum, so rather than simply changing mechanics to a different but equally complex scheme, devs should be focusing more on cleaning and clarifying [or removing, gasp!] mechanics instead of adding/changing complexity simply in an attempt to distinguish themselves.

Just as a small addition, one thing that almost all 3rd person games have that 1st NEVER do is the ability to auto-center the camera at the touch of a button. FPS can't even afford to have it because every single button has to always be reserved for weapons and items that most people never use. The most common button for this is clicking in the camera stick, but in shooters that's always either zoom or melee, which are 'essential.' This will never change because someone, either customers or investors, will complain in outrage that it's not enough like Call of Duty. Which I guess is more or less my point. Less games should be like Call of Duty.

No, your post is quote a post there, 3 long paragraphs!
Well, i cant really argue about new gamer introduction, i was introduced to the market with RTS games and people i introduced were actually starting with card games. however i disagree that it is much to ask to handle aim(camera) and movement. especially considering that in most games you dont have to move that much and can stnad still while aiming (unless you play competetive multiplayer, but thats not where you introduce new players now is it). I hate the automated camera mechanics and do all i can to manually override it. they ALWAYS place it at the wrong position and not where i wnat to look at. this is part of why i hate 3rd person, as it usually comes with camera programmed by crazy monkeys.
Platformers are sort of not a problem as long as calera can eep up with you (and in some games it doesnt and your running in blind), but thats not what i was refering to as 3rd person anyway (even though technically everything outside o FPS is 3rd person).

There is no need to remove complexity, only to make it work in a way that player can control it instead of it controls the player. That is a very hard thing to balance (honestly, i wouldnt know where to start) and thus most developers prefer jut to dumb down the game instead.
FPS ALWAYS are autocentered with their camera. unless you mean the oens where you can "look around". in which case yes, you can have that button. there are PLENTY of buttons on the keyboard.

 

[Genocidicles]

Pirates are not thieves? uhm... that's exactly what they.

It's also exactly what the law says.

Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. A judge even ruled that the two crimes shouldn't be compared: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml

 

[alj]

If you were but you aren't and I wager you're also not eating cup rammen 18 meals a week. Now granted free advertising is a good thing but only when it generates sales. Free advertising does not pay your electricity bill, it doesn't buy food and it doesn't buy medicine.

Most devs don't dev as a hobby, they dev as a means of earning a living i.e. to make the money needed to pay for food, light and etc.

I have no idea what rammen are i am guessing they are something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_Noodle. Anyway.

No i am not a dev, however i do understand people. People will always want something for free there is nothing you can do about that, so why should you abuse your customer who gave you good money for a product by making them sign up for the 100th publisher account or with intrusive DRM? Dont forget that almost all of the DRM technologies are none free software they have to play a licence free why waste the money?