Remedy: The Sooner We Go Digital the Better

[thepyrethatburns]

Anyone who uses steam (and i'm talking modern steam, no 'zomg it was crap [in 2005]' bollocks) will attest to how good digital is with steam. Once you're authenticated once you don't need be online to play games [argument #1 'wanna play offline but can't' - dead],

And, yet, everytime Steam goes offline, forums are flooded with "Offline mode isn't working despite having authenticated the game" topics. Further, this does nothing to address the fact that, once the authentication servers go down, your game is now worth nothing. Argument-not dead.

the credit card details and your account on steam are as secure as they'll ever be [Look up steam guard for account based security - valve use tech licensed from intel which is essentially unhackable for server side, argument #2 'not secure' - dead]. Steam =/= console networks, it is infinitely more secure, unsurprisingly.

Because Valve would never let someone make off with pre-launch code for Half-Life 2.

Further, this argument is based on the fallacy that Steam is unhackable. That if someone put enough time and energy into it, they could not find the weak point to let them in. While the argument can be made that Steam is obviously more secure than the PSN was, the unhackable network does not currently exist.

Plus you don't 'own' retail copies either, a game company can stop letting you authenticate a game whenever they want. You never 'own' a multi-million dollar game, you bought a license to play it, one that can be revoked at any time. It's a stupid argument brought up by people who need to pay attention to copyright laws

*Doorbell rings. I answer it.*

Hello, I'm with Nintendo. We've decided that your NES Metroid game is no longer yours. Could you please get it?

*Closes door. Releases the Rottweilers.*

It is a fairly modern argument actually. While the EULAs have increasingly said as much, the truth is that, until recently, the game companies had no real way of enforcing it. Nor were the courts in the late 80s-early 90s sympathetic to the idea that the customer does not own the product that they bought. With DD (and a court system that has become increasingly sympathetic to the corporations as shown in the ridiculous example of Kelos vs the city of New London), this is no longer the case. Already, there have been cases of people buying games/books/etc over DD then having the rug ripped out from under them when the seller decides to take it away from them.

This is neither a stupid argument nor is it one that is going to go away anytime soon. Increasingly, (in the U.S.) corporations and banks are working to strip the consumer of any ownership rights that customers have traditionally had for both DD and tangible product. (For example, faced with a growing number of people who tried the stalling tactic of demanding the original deed to avoid foreclosure, the banks have gotten laws passed which lower the burden of proof needed to start foreclosure proceedings.) Perhaps you are content with a world where you do not actually own anything but are merely leasing it at sale cost. However many are not content with that world and are increasingly waking up to the issue of who has actual ownership.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

I really can't agree at all with 100% digital because even in todays world where we still have physical content, we're still struggling with who owns what.

Truth is, we're not ready for it. When a mulitmillion dollar company has the power to stop you from playing your game because they didn't like the tone of your post on a forum, there's a serious serious issue.

And to boot, you buy content but if you can't sign in online, you're not allowed to play it. That's like saying you can't use your vacuum cleaner because you're not on the phone while using it.

None of those detracting elements are inherent to digital distribution itself though, simply the avenues certain companies employ - we're at a point where there's no standard model for digital content to follow. Companies like Gamersgate don't bundle any DRM or require you to run any sort of client to access your purchased games, you simply login to their website and download the installer (whether the game itself has its own DRM is another issue, but they never put any of their own into the mix). And then of course there's Good Old Games, those guys rock.

No, the problem isn't digital distribution, it's how DRM negatively impacts digital distribution - if an authentication server for an older game which requires online activation when you install it ever goes offline, that will disable your access to a game you've purchased every bit as much as tying in your ability to launch it to a forum account that's under probation would should you ever have to reinstall it, regardless of whether it came on a physical disc or not. The problem has always been DRM.

 

[Vkmies]

I love you, my fellow countryman, but please! WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE COLLECTORS!

ONe of my favourite hobbies will die if gaming goes all digital!

 

[eljawa]

more money for artists

He doesn't care about making gaming better for gamers he cares about making money for himself.

Exactly the attitude that's making gaming worse.

i disagree. This is more money to the artists, as opposed to more money to large corporations that only care about profits. As a developer he is more likely to want to make a good game, as opposed to the corporation, which doesnt give two shits about the gamer

I hope you don?t really believe that. Like many industries, the gaming industry is held up by a mass of artists that make money for the people at the top but don?t make very much themselves. The people who actually work on the games must do it for the love of games because they certainly don?t do it for the cash. Making sure the company makes more money will not necessarily mean the artists will make more. At least not with most of them; there?s got to be a couple that treat their workers right.
And I also don?t believe for a second that it would lead to cheaper games either, just lower values. I often lend out my games to my friends when I?m done with them and back when I didn?t have much money, I would sometimes sell them on ebay.
I think this has worked for something like Steam because they do have some really good sales (that are actually competitive with used prices sometimes) and PC gaming is more solitary. Console gaming is something you do on the couch with friends who bring games of their own and you can swap with them.
I totally see it happening because gamers are notoriously foolish consumers and will totally roll over for it but I don?t think it will lead to anything good for the gamers or the devs.

im not sure, but I think we might be on the same page. My bottom line was that I believe that it would be good for games because it would remove the middle man (distributors) and give more freedom (and cash) directly to the company that made the game, and thus the people who made it (in theory)

you are right though, this would seriously mess up console gaming mentality. they would have to implement some system of playing games you bought on other peoples accounts, as if you had a physical copy. Maybe if individual controllers were linked to accounts somehow, you could log on and retrieve games you owned and play them anywhere. Another thing is with fast internet connections you could stream full quality games online...

but yeah, i guess by saying the company would make more money, I was thinking of how in a world of digital distribution, there would be no activision or other massive companies to take profits. Thus, the 60 dollard you pay for Call of Duty would go more directly to the people who made it

 

[robert022614]

He is right! Imagine how much "we" the consumer would benefit from no used game sales, no physical game production costs, no pesky control issues or who owns what as long as the TOS says the distributor has all the rights to give and take. Sounds like paradise right? /sarcasm

I will never want to go totally digital. There should always be the option of having a physical copy of a game that I own and control without DRM. I would however buy a crap load and probably almost be completely digital if say the savings they make from all of the jokes above knocks game prices down to like 10 bucks, but we all know that's never going to happen.

 

[GonzoGamer]

more money for artists

He doesn't care about making gaming better for gamers he cares about making money for himself.

Exactly the attitude that's making gaming worse.

i disagree. This is more money to the artists, as opposed to more money to large corporations that only care about profits. As a developer he is more likely to want to make a good game, as opposed to the corporation, which doesnt give two shits about the gamer

I hope you don?t really believe that. Like many industries, the gaming industry is held up by a mass of artists that make money for the people at the top but don?t make very much themselves. The people who actually work on the games must do it for the love of games because they certainly don?t do it for the cash. Making sure the company makes more money will not necessarily mean the artists will make more. At least not with most of them; there?s got to be a couple that treat their workers right.
And I also don?t believe for a second that it would lead to cheaper games either, just lower values. I often lend out my games to my friends when I?m done with them and back when I didn?t have much money, I would sometimes sell them on ebay.
I think this has worked for something like Steam because they do have some really good sales (that are actually competitive with used prices sometimes) and PC gaming is more solitary. Console gaming is something you do on the couch with friends who bring games of their own and you can swap with them.
I totally see it happening because gamers are notoriously foolish consumers and will totally roll over for it but I don?t think it will lead to anything good for the gamers or the devs.

im not sure, but I think we might be on the same page. My bottom line was that I believe that it would be good for games because it would remove the middle man (distributors) and give more freedom (and cash) directly to the company that made the game, and thus the people who made it (in theory)

you are right though, this would seriously mess up console gaming mentality. they would have to implement some system of playing games you bought on other peoples accounts, as if you had a physical copy. Maybe if individual controllers were linked to accounts somehow, you could log on and retrieve games you owned and play them anywhere. Another thing is with fast internet connections you could stream full quality games online...

but yeah, i guess by saying the company would make more money, I was thinking of how in a world of digital distribution, there would be no activision or other massive companies to take profits. Thus, the 60 dollard you pay for Call of Duty would go more directly to the people who made it

I dig what you?re saying and in an ideal world that would be the case.
I just don?t think (given what we?ve seen so far) that any of the savings would go to the consumer or that any of the additional funds would go to reward the people who actually put in the long & hard (yea I know) hours to make the games we love.

 

[Mysnomer]

He admits there is one group it won't be all that great for, however - the brick-and-mortar retailers. "Maybe [it's] not so good for retail ... but then again if you're selling our games as used copies and incentivizing people to do that, then I don't really feel sorry for you."

Translation: I am petty and self-serving and would divest consumers of a valuable service and a check on many of the industry's anti-consumer practices for a marginal increase in profit to myself.

 

[Snotnarok]

I really can't agree at all with 100% digital because even in todays world where we still have physical content, we're still struggling with who owns what.

Truth is, we're not ready for it. When a mulitmillion dollar company has the power to stop you from playing your game because they didn't like the tone of your post on a forum, there's a serious serious issue.

And to boot, you buy content but if you can't sign in online, you're not allowed to play it. That's like saying you can't use your vacuum cleaner because you're not on the phone while using it.

None of those detracting elements are inherent to digital distribution itself though, simply the avenues certain companies employ - we're at a point where there's no standard model for digital content to follow. Companies like Gamersgate don't bundle any DRM or require you to run any sort of client to access your purchased games, you simply login to their website and download the installer (whether the game itself has its own DRM is another issue, but they never put any of their own into the mix). And then of course there's Good Old Games, those guys rock.

No, the problem isn't digital distribution, it's how DRM negatively impacts digital distribution - if an authentication server for an older game which requires online activation when you install it ever goes offline, that will disable your access to a game you've purchased every bit as much as tying in your ability to launch it to a forum account that's under probation would should you ever have to reinstall it, regardless of whether it came on a physical disc or not. The problem has always been DRM.

Yes the problem is mostly with DRM but when you have only digital sales it's really hard to argue who owns what. I'm worried going 100% digital will be the final loss to the paying customers where we're now having to install special programs that monitor who's playing it and if it's not the owner, you can lose your EA game license or whatever.

The game companies haven't exactly been attacking the pirates as they have paying customers and stores. I mean hell look at capcom digital games, you own them but when the internet goes down or, PSN/XBL CANNOT PLAY THEM!. Games you own, you can't play them because capcom can't tell if you're playing them so you don't get permission to. I have 1 game like that, Geometry wars, and I will never buy another game that has that kind of drm.

 

[Woodsey]

I've been almost exclusively digital for about a year and a half now (not so much on the consoles, but a few downloads).

It really is so much better. Still, I have a good connection, unlimited downloads and no expenses (beyond making myself look fabulous, of course) so I'm really in the optimal demographic for it. Other people? Not so much, unfortunately.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

I dont think any software developer would do that to its customers, they know perfectly well what would happen and ill leave it at that.

It has already happened. Google "AutoCAD Ebay case" for details but the short of it is:

Someone tried to sell their copy of AutoCAD on Ebay. AutoDesk said that their EULA prohibits that and used the argument that they had only sold the "license" but not the product. It went back and forth for 7 years until the seller won the case on appeal. (He won the initial case but AutoDesk won an appeal then he appealed and won the final appeal.) However, the judge admitted that the case did not set a legal precedent leaving the issue open for future cases.

 

[CrystalShadow]

And shelf space is cheaper to expand than hard drive space.

It is? ;p

Last time I had to get a shelving unit, it cost me about as much as a new hard drive would...

Also, sooner or later, I run out of actual physical space in my apartment, meaning I have to find a bigger place to live.

In an ideal case. (read: NO DRM OF ANY KIND), digital downloads can be stored & taken anywhere much more easily than physical discs. (Just copy 20 games onto an external storage device. - Rather than take 20 discs somewhere)
But, we don't have the ideal case, because digital distribution makes publishers so paranoid they ruin most of the advantages for the consumer of having digital copies instead of physical ones.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Digital content may be good for the PC, but Steam doesn't have everygame, and I don't trust credit card numbers in the hands of a lot of companies. Hell, I don't even with Xbox, You saw what happened to PSN. I like having disks, They are a lot more trustable in a way of saying "I have it." What if every DDL market is like Steam? You get banned because of a Hack, and you loose all of your games. No sir. Not me. I keep sort of a ballance in PC games- If I need the game NOW, I buy from steam, But I would take the disk over Steam any day (Besides Valve titles, because steam is forced on you anyway)

Disks end a lot of confusion, too. Just as long as you can find them.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Once the entire industry goes digital, we the consumer can kiss all those steep online discounts good-bye. Those bargain basement prices on those triple A titles you missed out on a year and a half ago? Gone. Short of taking the risk of outright theft their will be no legitimate market forces working to force the industry to offer steep discounts on their back-catalogue the way they are currently doing right now. This in turn will mean that the industry will be under less pressure to release games as frequently as they do now, as the value of their product will not depreciate as quickly as they do now.

A mixture of online retailers and brick & mortar stores offers the most competitive market conditions and that has always been best for consumers. Anyone who tells you differently is either a liar or doesn't have a basic grasp of economic theory.

 

[eljawa]

more money for artists

He doesn't care about making gaming better for gamers he cares about making money for himself.

Exactly the attitude that's making gaming worse.

i disagree. This is more money to the artists, as opposed to more money to large corporations that only care about profits. As a developer he is more likely to want to make a good game, as opposed to the corporation, which doesnt give two shits about the gamer

I hope you don?t really believe that. Like many industries, the gaming industry is held up by a mass of artists that make money for the people at the top but don?t make very much themselves. The people who actually work on the games must do it for the love of games because they certainly don?t do it for the cash. Making sure the company makes more money will not necessarily mean the artists will make more. At least not with most of them; there?s got to be a couple that treat their workers right.
And I also don?t believe for a second that it would lead to cheaper games either, just lower values. I often lend out my games to my friends when I?m done with them and back when I didn?t have much money, I would sometimes sell them on ebay.
I think this has worked for something like Steam because they do have some really good sales (that are actually competitive with used prices sometimes) and PC gaming is more solitary. Console gaming is something you do on the couch with friends who bring games of their own and you can swap with them.
I totally see it happening because gamers are notoriously foolish consumers and will totally roll over for it but I don?t think it will lead to anything good for the gamers or the devs.

im not sure, but I think we might be on the same page. My bottom line was that I believe that it would be good for games because it would remove the middle man (distributors) and give more freedom (and cash) directly to the company that made the game, and thus the people who made it (in theory)

you are right though, this would seriously mess up console gaming mentality. they would have to implement some system of playing games you bought on other peoples accounts, as if you had a physical copy. Maybe if individual controllers were linked to accounts somehow, you could log on and retrieve games you owned and play them anywhere. Another thing is with fast internet connections you could stream full quality games online...

but yeah, i guess by saying the company would make more money, I was thinking of how in a world of digital distribution, there would be no activision or other massive companies to take profits. Thus, the 60 dollard you pay for Call of Duty would go more directly to the people who made it

I dig what you?re saying and in an ideal world that would be the case.
I just don?t think (given what we?ve seen so far) that any of the savings would go to the consumer or that any of the additional funds would go to reward the people who actually put in the long & hard (yea I know) hours to make the games we love.

well...we are a long ways away from that goal. Just as netflix's instant streaming has allowed more people to watch indie and foreign films, digital distribution should open up the doors to more independent gaming. eventually developers will discover they can release a hit without the help of huge preexisting companies to distribute it...I mean...the other alternative of course is that all of the big corporations invest huge amounts of money into making sure they remain i the picture for digital distribution....which would suck

 

[BreakdownBoy]

Srew you Remedy!!! I live in a country where badnwidth is more expensive than bloody fuel!!! So what that means is that I will end up paying twice as much (if not more) to download 12gig game!!!!

So what I am saying CEO Mat is go sell stupid somewhere else!

 

[Jake Martinez]

Once the entire industry goes digital, we the consumer can kiss all those steep online discounts good-bye. Those bargain basement prices on those triple A titles you missed out on a year and a half ago? Gone. Short of taking the risk of outright theft their will be no legitimate market forces working to force the industry to offer steep discounts on their back-catalogue the way they are currently doing right now. This in turn will mean that the industry will be under less pressure to release games as frequently as they do now, as the value of their product will not depreciate as quickly as they do now.

A mixture of online retailers and brick & mortar stores offers the most competitive market conditions and that has always been best for consumers. Anyone who tells you differently is either a liar or doesn't have a basic grasp of economic theory.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Given the efficiency of digital distribution once initial ROI is met for the game (And I believe the industry standard is 22% to 30% for most publishers) the amount of discount that can be offered and still be profitable approaches near 100% in a straight curve relative the number of copies of the game purchased.

Inversely, retailers have to recover much more expensive costs on their physical location (wages, rent, operating costs, stocking costs). They'll never be able to offer as much of a discount as a digital retailer.

In any case, I think it's far more likely that you'll see subscription models arise that will give you unlimited access to back catalog games for a nominal monthly fee. That's a huge amount of money for publishers/distributors to tap into that far eclipses selling straight copies of these games and probably provides better value for money to consumers as well.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Well I must say, this is a marvelous idea! Why on earth would I want to stick with a physical system that allows me to keep as many games as I want on a bookshelf and use my HDD exclusively for DLC when I could change to a download system where both the game and the DLC are stored on my HDD, meaning that my game library is cut down to 10 or 15 titles due to my HDD's storage capacity?

A truly dazzlingly brilliant suggestion, Mr Myllyrinne, you have brought enlightenment to the industry.



Idiot.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I totally support the idea, but ideas and real life never go well together because you ignore the human factor (greed in this case).

Yes putting everything on Steam or something equivalent will make it very very handy, it will also hand our ball sacks over to the publishers (and every time they get hungry we will be hurting), they will completely and utterly dominate the terms of our use and if the games are only available online you got no choice but to obey.

 

[Timmibal]

OK, I'm all for user autonomy when it comes to purchased product, but come the fuck on people, these are GAMES we're talking about! The way some people are going on you'd think they were talking about installing secuROM on Grandma's fucking oxygen tank or something.

That being said, the "Retailers can take my shit whenever they want." argument has very little to stand on. We're talking about an entertainment medium. The publishers and DD providers have a vested interest in keeping your attitude towards them reminiscent of a pig in shit. Happy Customer=Repeat Customer=More Cash for the seller.

I am perfectly capable of kicking my friend in the balls and stealing his wallet whenever I see him. What, it's more money for me, right? Isn't that the same sort of mindset you're attributing to the developers here? Just because I CAN doesn't mean I WILL, or that I even have the remotest desire to do so. Primarily, the myriad other reasons aside, is because I want my friend to enjoy the time he spends with me. Game companies WANT you playing their games. They WANT you to associate them with a pleasurable experience.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Given the efficiency of digital distribution once initial ROI is met for the game (And I believe the industry standard is 22% to 30% for most publishers) the amount of discount that can be offered and still be profitable approaches near 100% in a straight curve relative the number of copies of the game purchased.

Inversely, retailers have to recover much more expensive costs on their physical location (wages, rent, operating costs, stocking costs). They'll never be able to offer as much of a discount as a digital retailer.

Quoted for Truth.

I honestly believe as DD becomes more mainstream you will start seeing more instances like the Potato Sack. Purchase x of the listed indie titles and receive *insert carrot here* for BigFlashNewAAAGame! Shit, the physical retailers are doing it now with trade-ins!

Not to mention, the little guy can start competing with the big names. He's got the potential to be listed right next to the million dollar titles, with reviews, ratings, screenshots, demos and gameplay videos all updated in real time. This means massive potential for new, innovative IP to be promoted on a fair playing field. Smaller, cheaper titles competing in the same market as the big guys? If that doesn't keep pricing competitive I don't know what will.

Now there are potential downsides to DD, nothing is perfect after all, but what we are experiencing now would be better viewed as teething pains rather than smoking guns. You really think there's going to be another incident like the recent PSN debacle after the damage it has done to Sony's brand? Like an earlier poster, I would put money on EVERY DD service double and triple checking their security procedures as a result. It's shitty that it happened, but if the result is a more reliable and secure system then it might just be worth it happening now, in the fledgling stages of transition, than later when so much more is at risk.

What I don't understand is how retro gamers and collectors are anything but stoked at this development. Look at what Steam and Good Old Games are doing for the medium. I am quite happily playing games I had long since given up hope of ever being able to experience again. Not to mention I don't have to bugger around with compatibility settings or VMware just to get the sodding things to work. Download, install, play, done. Also, talk about portability, I don't even have to bring the disk. My library is attached to my login details and can be played from any computer with the client loaded. (And GoG doesn't even need that!)

Bandwith issues

Definitely a hurdle, but not one which can be blamed on the gaming industry. My ISP here in Australia includes XBL on a list of bandwidth-intensive providers which allows unlimited, uncapped, and unthrottled access, regardless of subscription type. I will always have top available speed for downloads and online play, and more and more ISPs are jumping on the bandwagon, along with streaming TV and on-demand movie services. Why blame the game companies when it's your communications providers who aren't coming to the party?

I like the physical medium

That's fair, but online music sales say you're definitely in the decreasing minority, and album covers are starting to offer more content than the average game box these days, to be honest.

Yes putting everything on Steam or something equivalent will make it very very handy, it will also hand our ball sacks over to the publishers (and every time they get hungry we will be hurting), they will completely and utterly dominate the terms of our use and if the games are only available online you got no choice but to obey.

If you went into a physical retailer who treated you like shit and generally made your experience a negative one, would you continue to shop there? No? Then why do you feel like you will be forced to do so here?

DRM already has the potential to do this in the physical medium. Remember that kid who got banned from the DA server and couldn't play his game? Remember how well that was recieved? Oh well, the publishers got him by the balls and he still can't pla... Oh wait, they fixed it up.

Again, it's a game. Developers WANT you to play it. Publishers WANT you to come back for more. Distributors WANT you to use their service again. Explain to me how mass anal rape encourages the customer to do so?