Jimquisition: Why PC Gaming Gets Away With It

[RhombusHatesYou]

YOU CAN PIRATE ON PC VERY EASILY.

Funny thing is once you make the investment in time to softmod a 360, it's much easier to pirate on the 360.

 

[nogoodreason]

Any chance of a list of all the games shown in that video? I recognised Witcher 2 and Portal 2 but none of the others. Particularly interested to know what that 'dude walking through frozen time mid-explosion' thing was as it looked really cool.

 

[sorsa]

Jim, you never fail to brighten up my day with your clever mix of journalism and sarcasm. Rock on forever!

 

[targren]

Console gamers are running out of excuses to not go PC.

You mean beisdes prohibitive cost?

You can build a middling gaming-PC, on par with console experience, for the same or less than the cost of an XBone.

Or the fact that some of us have an extensive console library already?

Irrelevant. Whether you build a gaming PC or buy the next gen of consoles, you won't be able to play those without the old console you already own.

Or the unspoken guarantee that a game put in a console will work, every time?

Unspoken, and not particularly true.


All that said, I have to disagree with Jim on this one. I know he's more forgiving of PC DRM, but the fact is that Steam is just as bad as Origin in that your only choices are to agree to whatever they might feel like jamming into the TOS, or your library is forfeit (Origin is more obnoxious about this so far, but Steam's done it too). But for some reason he glossed over one of the big arguments against the XBone: anyone with a bad/no internet connection is screwed. Now that you get titles like DX:HR and Borderlands 2 coming with steam even on the physical disc (there are many more examples, those are just the ones I can think of that I wanted but passed on) has those people just as screwed.

 

[kajinking]

Man, do I miss the days when I could just pick up and play on my consoles without all the bullshit.

Me to, I REALLY miss backwards compatability... I also have no experience with gaming PC's so I found this vid quit informative, thanks Jim.

That is one of the better parts of PC, I can install and play games from 10+ years ago on my system without having to do much.

I don't have my PS2 around the house but want to play GTA:SA? Download the PC version and get playing within 5 minutes!

Gaming PCs seem scary as hell when you first get them and get into them (I was terrified the first time I had to pop the case open to deal with something inside) but once you get the hang of it it's not all that badf.

Well, when you say it like that it doesn't sound badf at all.

I really gotta re-read my stuff before posting LOLf.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Why PC Gaming Gets Away With It

The Xbox One no longer enforces restrictions on used games, but the debate over console DRM is not over. One lingering question is this -- why are consoles criticized, but PC gets away with it?

I think it's more that nobody (who counts) cares about PC gaming.

 

[Dragonbums]

Here's a question for people who can't live without having physical copies of their games: Have you considered that digital is much less wasteful? And bad for the environment? There's everything that has to go into making the plastic and then the games have to be shipped in planes and then driven to the retailer. And then you have to drive to the shop to pick it up or have someone have it driven to you. Just think about that carbon footprint you could be avoiding.

Firstly, your argument is so flawed I can't even...
Everything, from your computer, to the things you use for comfort was delivered in some way.
You might as well quit right now and live in the forest.
Saying that we aren't environmentally conscious about ourselves because we want to OWN the thing we paid $60.00 for is stupid.
Saying that being that environmentally conscious is a good reason to go digital is even dumber.

Yes of course we have to get our PCs etc made and delivered. That does contribute to the carbon footprint. The thing is having games physically distributed and us going out to get them ADDS some more to that carbon footprint than we otherwise would have, if we had simply downloaded the game.

That is still a very poor reason to convince to someone to go digital. You are going to have to find a better argument then that.

 

[SoDaRa]

Not to mention that you can put together a gaming PC for the price of a console these days.


So consoles don't even have the lower price point to make them attractive.

The WiiU is actually cheaper than $400 at its most basic set and does have games that the PC will probably never have. So the WiiU does have that going for it.

 

[Reeve]

Here's a question for people who can't live without having physical copies of their games: Have you considered that digital is much less wasteful? And bad for the environment? There's everything that has to go into making the plastic and then the games have to be shipped in planes and then driven to the retailer. And then you have to drive to the shop to pick it up or have someone have it driven to you. Just think about that carbon footprint you could be avoiding.

Firstly, your argument is so flawed I can't even...
Everything, from your computer, to the things you use for comfort was delivered in some way.
You might as well quit right now and live in the forest.
Saying that we aren't environmentally conscious about ourselves because we want to OWN the thing we paid $60.00 for is stupid.
Saying that being that environmentally conscious is a good reason to go digital is even dumber.

Yes of course we have to get our PCs etc made and delivered. That does contribute to the carbon footprint. The thing is having games physically distributed and us going out to get them ADDS some more to that carbon footprint than we otherwise would have, if we had simply downloaded the game.

That is still a very poor reason to convince to someone to go digital. You are going to have to find a better argument then that.

I would argue that someone who isn't convinced when the stability of our planet's environment is in question has not got their priorities straight.

I'm sure you'd agree that the planet is more important than one's personal sense of ownership over a videogame?

 

[Kinitawowi]

Now I understand why Jim sounds so frustrated.

It's not that DRM and no used games are part of the things he listed. It's the fact the plusses allow them to add in some negatives and still have it a net overall gain for many users vs. other platforms. It may not be ok for you, and that is fine. Yet, obviously, there are many people who are willing to put up with the DRM and lack of used games in order to take advantage of what the PC can offer. Those same plusses are not available on consoles, so they cannot add in a negative like DRM and eliminate used game. They don't have that luxury.

I have stated this over and over again in this thread. I have no idea why you people cannot fathom that. If DRM destroys any experience for you, then sure, PC gaming not for you. Yet PC gaming offers other plusses that offset that minus for many people. Consoles do not have those added plusses and therefore have less leeway in adding restrictive measures. The consoles simply don't have the added plusses to offset any additional negative features. In order for the consoles to add a negative feature they needed to offset that feature with a positive even though neither is a requirement for the other. From what we saw, there simply were not enough added positives for the consumer to accept a negative addition.

But it's all still a smokescreen. Those advantages are great and all, but this was supposed to be a video about why we accept DRM on PCs and it managed to talk about everything about PC gaming but DRM. Doesn't matter how many sheets we throw over it, the elephant in the room is still there. "LOOK AT THE SHINY SHINY!" is not an argument for why DRM is okay.

I get the point, honestly I do; jingle enough keys at people and they'll eventually look away from the Dig'Em statue, and the XBone didn't offer enough keys; but I think we all know that there's probably no amount of keys you could attach to the 180 that would be enough for a hell of a lot of people. All the anti-DRM arguments that people put forward for the consoles, particularly the hallowed first-sale doctrine (disclaimer: I'm British, so that likely isn't an issue for me - there's probably some different shit going on over here), are still valid for the PC and still not being addressed. There are still questions about why you can't move on used software, for example, and "because Steam! And GoG!" is not an answer to any of those questions.

captcha: let it be. NO.

 

[Dragonbums]

Here's a question for people who can't live without having physical copies of their games: Have you considered that digital is much less wasteful? And bad for the environment? There's everything that has to go into making the plastic and then the games have to be shipped in planes and then driven to the retailer. And then you have to drive to the shop to pick it up or have someone have it driven to you. Just think about that carbon footprint you could be avoiding.

Firstly, your argument is so flawed I can't even...
Everything, from your computer, to the things you use for comfort was delivered in some way.
You might as well quit right now and live in the forest.
Saying that we aren't environmentally conscious about ourselves because we want to OWN the thing we paid $60.00 for is stupid.
Saying that being that environmentally conscious is a good reason to go digital is even dumber.

Yes of course we have to get our PCs etc made and delivered. That does contribute to the carbon footprint. The thing is having games physically distributed and us going out to get them ADDS some more to that carbon footprint than we otherwise would have, if we had simply downloaded the game.

That is still a very poor reason to convince to someone to go digital. You are going to have to find a better argument then that.

I would argue that someone who isn't convinced when the stability of our planet's environment is in question has not got their priorities straight.

I'm sure you'd agree that the planet is more important than one's personal sense of ownership over a videogame?

The planet is also more important than ones car, television, monitor, heating, cooling, cooking ware,utensils, etc.

You see where I'm getting at here?

 

[SoDaRa]

The WiiU is backward compatible with the Wii, so I don't know what he'd talking about when he says none of the systems are backward compatible anymore. Also, I bought Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath last December and I still can't play it nor can I find a patch for it. :\ Plus, I could probably think of several PC games that just won't work on modern systems due to them not being backward compatible. And as OSs change, more games will have this problem. Sure GOG is releasing old ones for modern systems, but they can't get to every game and there are sure to be some that just fall through the cracks of time.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that backward-compatibility, or rather the preservation of older games is still a really big issue facing the medium, just like how film had the same problem when the first films ever made weren't preserved and were lost in time. Although I must say I'm really glad with how Nintendo is at least trying to preserve their older titles, if only for the present. Sony has done very little in this regard and I constantly fear for the day my old PS2 discs just stop working.

 

[Dragonbums]

Now I understand why Jim sounds so frustrated.

It's not that DRM and no used games are part of the things he listed. It's the fact the plusses allow them to add in some negatives and still have it a net overall gain for many users vs. other platforms. It may not be ok for you, and that is fine. Yet, obviously, there are many people who are willing to put up with the DRM and lack of used games in order to take advantage of what the PC can offer. Those same plusses are not available on consoles, so they cannot add in a negative like DRM and eliminate used game. They don't have that luxury.

I have stated this over and over again in this thread. I have no idea why you people cannot fathom that. If DRM destroys any experience for you, then sure, PC gaming not for you. Yet PC gaming offers other plusses that offset that minus for many people. Consoles do not have those added plusses and therefore have less leeway in adding restrictive measures. The consoles simply don't have the added plusses to offset any additional negative features. In order for the consoles to add a negative feature they needed to offset that feature with a positive even though neither is a requirement for the other. From what we saw, there simply were not enough added positives for the consumer to accept a negative addition.

But it's all still a smokescreen. Those advantages are great and all, but this was supposed to be a video about why we accept DRM on PCs and it managed to talk about everything about PC gaming but DRM. Doesn't matter how many sheets we throw over it, the elephant in the room is still there. "LOOK AT THE SHINY SHINY!" is not an argument for why DRM is okay.


I get the point, honestly I do; jingle enough keys at people and they'll eventually look away from the Dig'Em statue, and the XBone didn't offer enough keys; but I think we all know that there's probably no amount of keys you could attach to the 180 that would be enough for a hell of a lot of people. All the anti-DRM arguments that people put forward for the consoles, particularly the hallowed first-sale doctrine (disclaimer: I'm British, so that likely isn't an issue for me - there's probably some different shit going on over here), are still valid for the PC and still not being addressed. There are still questions about why you can't move on used software, for example, and "because Steam! And GoG!" is not an answer to any of those questions.

captcha: let it be. NO.

I believe the title of the video is why "PC Gets Away with it" not "Why Do PC gamers Tolerate DRM"

 

[Reeve]

Here's a question for people who can't live without having physical copies of their games: Have you considered that digital is much less wasteful? And bad for the environment? There's everything that has to go into making the plastic and then the games have to be shipped in planes and then driven to the retailer. And then you have to drive to the shop to pick it up or have someone have it driven to you. Just think about that carbon footprint you could be avoiding.

Firstly, your argument is so flawed I can't even...
Everything, from your computer, to the things you use for comfort was delivered in some way.
You might as well quit right now and live in the forest.
Saying that we aren't environmentally conscious about ourselves because we want to OWN the thing we paid $60.00 for is stupid.
Saying that being that environmentally conscious is a good reason to go digital is even dumber.

Yes of course we have to get our PCs etc made and delivered. That does contribute to the carbon footprint. The thing is having games physically distributed and us going out to get them ADDS some more to that carbon footprint than we otherwise would have, if we had simply downloaded the game.

That is still a very poor reason to convince to someone to go digital. You are going to have to find a better argument then that.

You see where I'm getting at here?
I would argue that someone who isn't convinced when the stability of our planet's environment is in question has not got their priorities straight.

I'm sure you'd agree that the planet is more important than one's personal sense of ownership over a videogame?

The planet is also more important than ones car, television, monitor, heating, cooling, cooking ware,utensils, etc.

I know. However most people don't want to have to buy their games digitally because it apparently violates their petty sense of ownership of the game. Whereas people don't buy cars, TVs, monitors, heating, cooling etc for a reason as ridiculous as that.

 

[Dragonbums]

Here's a question for people who can't live without having physical copies of their games: Have you considered that digital is much less wasteful? And bad for the environment? There's everything that has to go into making the plastic and then the games have to be shipped in planes and then driven to the retailer. And then you have to drive to the shop to pick it up or have someone have it driven to you. Just think about that carbon footprint you could be avoiding.

Firstly, your argument is so flawed I can't even...
Everything, from your computer, to the things you use for comfort was delivered in some way.
You might as well quit right now and live in the forest.
Saying that we aren't environmentally conscious about ourselves because we want to OWN the thing we paid $60.00 for is stupid.
Saying that being that environmentally conscious is a good reason to go digital is even dumber.

Yes of course we have to get our PCs etc made and delivered. That does contribute to the carbon footprint. The thing is having games physically distributed and us going out to get them ADDS some more to that carbon footprint than we otherwise would have, if we had simply downloaded the game.

That is still a very poor reason to convince to someone to go digital. You are going to have to find a better argument then that.

You see where I'm getting at here?
I would argue that someone who isn't convinced when the stability of our planet's environment is in question has not got their priorities straight.

I'm sure you'd agree that the planet is more important than one's personal sense of ownership over a videogame?

The planet is also more important than ones car, television, monitor, heating, cooling, cooking ware,utensils, etc.

I know. However most people don't want to have to buy their games digitally because it apparently violates their petty sense of ownership of the game. Whereas people don't buy cars, TVs, monitors, heating, cooling etc for a reason as ridiculous as that.

What do you mean by that?
People BUY cars for transportation and OWNERSHIP. Nobody would purchase a car that would never really belong to them.
People BUY televisions because besides entertainment they want to OWN a television.

 

[Reeve]

Here's a question for people who can't live without having physical copies of their games: Have you considered that digital is much less wasteful? And bad for the environment? There's everything that has to go into making the plastic and then the games have to be shipped in planes and then driven to the retailer. And then you have to drive to the shop to pick it up or have someone have it driven to you. Just think about that carbon footprint you could be avoiding.

Firstly, your argument is so flawed I can't even...
Everything, from your computer, to the things you use for comfort was delivered in some way.
You might as well quit right now and live in the forest.
Saying that we aren't environmentally conscious about ourselves because we want to OWN the thing we paid $60.00 for is stupid.
Saying that being that environmentally conscious is a good reason to go digital is even dumber.

Yes of course we have to get our PCs etc made and delivered. That does contribute to the carbon footprint. The thing is having games physically distributed and us going out to get them ADDS some more to that carbon footprint than we otherwise would have, if we had simply downloaded the game.

That is still a very poor reason to convince to someone to go digital. You are going to have to find a better argument then that.

You see where I'm getting at here?
I would argue that someone who isn't convinced when the stability of our planet's environment is in question has not got their priorities straight.

I'm sure you'd agree that the planet is more important than one's personal sense of ownership over a videogame?

The planet is also more important than ones car, television, monitor, heating, cooling, cooking ware,utensils, etc.

I know. However most people don't want to have to buy their games digitally because it apparently violates their petty sense of ownership of the game. Whereas people don't buy cars, TVs, monitors, heating, cooling etc for a reason as ridiculous as that.

What do you mean by that?
People BUY cars for transportation and OWNERSHIP. Nobody would purchase a car that would never really belong to them.
People BUY televisions because besides entertainment they want to OWN a television.

It's not the primary reason though, is it? People buy cars for transport. People buy TVs to watch - First and foremost.
A lot of gamers, on the other hand, when given the choice between getting their games digitally or physically, will go for the physical copy ONLY for the arbitrary reason that they want it to feel like they "own" it. And every time the planet takes another hit.

 

[Deacon Cole]

The WiiU is actually cheaper than $400 at its most basic set and does have games that the PC will probably never have. So the WiiU does have that going for it.

Saying a Nintendo console has games that are not available on PC is like saying your brothers wife won't have sex with you.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

What do you mean by that?
People BUY cars for transportation and OWNERSHIP. Nobody would purchase a car that would never really belong to them.
People BUY televisions because besides entertainment they want to OWN a television.

People lease and rent cars and TVs all the time.

I would argue that nobody buys those things to own them, they buy them to get practical use out of them. Why would you buy a car just to own it? You buy a car for the function it provides - transportation. Only the most vain and superficial people would buy a car just to say that they own it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

EDIT: And System Shock 2 might not be the best example. Have you tried playing it on a modern OS? Good luck with that..

I bought and downloaded SS2 the first day it popped up on GoG.
It works perfectly fine; better than when it was new actually, since it hasn't crashed.

 

[EvilRoy]

Here's a question for people who can't live without having physical copies of their games: Have you considered that digital is much less wasteful? And bad for the environment? There's everything that has to go into making the plastic and then the games have to be shipped in planes and then driven to the retailer. And then you have to drive to the shop to pick it up or have someone have it driven to you. Just think about that carbon footprint you could be avoiding.

Firstly, your argument is so flawed I can't even...
Everything, from your computer, to the things you use for comfort was delivered in some way.
You might as well quit right now and live in the forest.
Saying that we aren't environmentally conscious about ourselves because we want to OWN the thing we paid $60.00 for is stupid.
Saying that being that environmentally conscious is a good reason to go digital is even dumber.

Yes of course we have to get our PCs etc made and delivered. That does contribute to the carbon footprint. The thing is having games physically distributed and us going out to get them ADDS some more to that carbon footprint than we otherwise would have, if we had simply downloaded the game.

That is still a very poor reason to convince to someone to go digital. You are going to have to find a better argument then that.

I would argue that someone who isn't convinced when the stability of our planet's environment is in question has not got their priorities straight.

I'm sure you'd agree that the planet is more important than one's personal sense of ownership over a videogame?

The planet is also more important than ones car, television, monitor, heating, cooling, cooking ware,utensils, etc.

You see where I'm getting at here?

You've got to watch out though, thats slipping into Nirvana Fallacy territory. Just because it won't solve the problem completely by itself does not make the choice to take a single more environmentally friendly option any less positive or helpful.

See also: "Why bother giving money to HoH? There will still be homeless people." and "Why quit drinking soda? It's not like that one change will help you lose any real weight."