As you might have thought, the Jimquisition is back for another (ranty) round.
Why PC Gaming Gets Away With It [DRM](16 posts)
It's really mind-boggling that this needed to be explained in the first place.
PC gaming is a totally different animal. DRM was virtually essential because of the vast amount of software which was basically being stolen enmasse by pirates. Not only that but the PC market moves faster, and pays bugger for all for games in the first place. Some of the offers on Steam as just insane and that is just one provider.
He pretty much nailed it.
If MS and Sony announced that they were opening up the digital space the way Steam, Origin and Uplay have, i.e. you can buy a game key from anywhere, enter it into your console, add it to your library and download it as equally as any title bought directly from the Sony or MS stores, they could maybe have gotten away with the DRM bullshit that MS proposed.
The fact that you can buy digital games almost anywhere now really blew digital pricing way open on PC.
He also made a very good point about the $60 (or your currency equivalent) standard price for console games. If you look on Steam right now new full priced games can range from £29.99 to £39.99, many of those with small pre-order discounts (a lot of Steam games get 10% pre-order discounts), whereas MS and Sony have a pretty hard lock on £49.99 for newer games with only a few minor exceptions.
Pretty shocking looking on the PSN Store at games that cost £49.99 (Aliens: Colonial Marines for £50, are you shittin me?), a lot of these are £29.99 standard price on Steam, £20 is a big-ass difference.
It really is a big mystery to me why the console companies haven't helped themselves to the digital goldmine. They had the better part of a decade to do it.
Apparently getting fucked by Gamestop suited them just fine. I was shocked to get back on my 360 a year or so back and see how fucking terrible they still were at that stuff.
It's pretty hilarious to bitch that people don't "see the future" when you've been so reactionary in running your business that it hurts.
That guy is a hoot, but he is right.
Simple: PC gamers have become numb and are used to losing their rights.
Take used games for example: During the recent Xbox One used game debacle, there were PC gamers that were doing their very best to defend MS and saying we don't have "used games" and we are fine...
Those PC gamers have forgotten the days of swapping your floppies with a body, getting many shareware games and in general, enjoying the benefits of second hand.
Then there is always-online DRM which PC gamers easily and overwhelmingly put up with when either one of Diablo 3 or Sim City came out. The only cries were about service problems. If the D3 or SM servers had worked properly, they wouldn't even have had problems with that.
Finally, anyone remember the LAN multiplayer? Yeah, PC games had that and were awesome. Companies cut and PC gamers didn't do a damn thing.
I think digital stuff at least on PSN is fine.
Some prices are to high but thats the same on steam/origin etc.
This morning i just bought Darksiders 2 for 9 Euro and 2 more games for 12 Euro and 14 Euro on PSN.
Those are very cheap prices, even better than retail versions.
Also got The Last Of Us last week for 9,99Euro at gamestop (giving them 2 old games).
Metal Gear Rising was on sale for only 20Euro but i missed that...saw it to late.
Price for console games and digital sales is by far not as bad as some people say.
Always pay around 5-30Euro for new games and used games are even cheaper.
Bought both Batman games used on PS3 for 4 and 8 Euro.
It is quite ridiculous how cheap games are today.
Payed a lot more money for them 10-20 years ago.
So digital games at least on PSN are fine, fast download/lots of discount-cheap offers every month (even without ps+).
Also no drm trouble at all.
For PC games I often download a crack even so I have bought the game.
The pirates offer better service than the developers.
Crack removes all the annoying stuff (also no registration/log in- offline play possible etc), even gets you more frames per second in some games and less cpu usage etc.
In spite of the fact that it ain't possible for me to buy games, i'd rather use crack cuz as MFBB said it ain't mind-boggling n stuff , copy it n there u go !
PC gamers generally didn't give a damn when LAN connectivity was ditched. The whole online experience with PCs being so fluid and easy now that you defeat the object of a LAN party anyway. I have a LAN party 4 days a week - on steam. I can talk to however I want and play whatever I want on demand. Bonus is I don't have to haul my bloody great steel case around with me plus two monitors and all the peripherals and 60 feet of fecking ethernet cable.
PC gamers never pay top of the line prices like console players do. And on Steam and other services, big name releases are usually offered for sale cut price within months of release. Some of the offers are just ridiculous. Can a console gamer buy Deus Ex:HR for $5? Steam users were offered it for that some time ago. I couldn't believe it at the time because it hadn't been out 12 months.
As for pirating, well I have no need to break the law and download stuff illegally, I'd rather pay for it since I'm already saving myself a fortune against the console gamer, anyway, plus I'll have higher quality pre-sets so in essence I am getting more content for my money anyway. Piracy is just for scummers who can't afford to purchase software. Which makes you wonder why the hell they are PC owners anyway since it is not the cheapest way to game by any stretch of the imagination.
Exactly. It's often not the DRM that's an issue. Unless the DRM is actually affecting the user's quality of life, and then we fight it. PC users put StarForce six feet under, where it deserved to be, despite that being the "height of security for game publishers." We presented evidence that it could easily damage disc drives by forcing them into PIO mode. (Stupid programmers are stupid.) Then we proved that it was a rootkit that allowed for ring-0 access, which would be a field day for hackers.
Here's the thing: There are enough intelligent computer users and security experts out there to actually find and expose problems, and then there are enough serious, and equally intelligent computer users who'll push for any software that goes too far to be abolished.
So the only DRM that survives tends to be the most reasonable kind.
The problem with Microsoft is that not only was the DRM less reasonable than Steam, but it was also a complete monopoly. And on top of that, it was Universal. The DRM was hardware based, rather than on a per game basis.
Imagine a computer where only one storefront exists, where there are no sales, and no offline mode. That's effectively what the Xbox One was, and that's what people were reacting negatively to. That kind of monopoly could never exist on the PC. And if you don't like the DRM that one storefront has, then you go and use another. If you don't like the DRM one game is using, it's localised to the game, so you speak with your wallet and you don't buy the game.
So there you go.
It's p obvious to a PC owner, really. We're just used to the benefits of open platforms. Sadly, the XBox One is not an open platform.
The thing that irritates me the most about Steam is when you buy a game, download and install it, only to find that actually, you need some other third party steam-like device to open every time you want to play. Not being funny ubisoft, but if I wanted your shit own branded version of steam, I'd have downloaded already, don't force me to use you crap.
You're kidding yourself The_Red. Both Simcity and Diablo were disasters.
Diablos brand coupled with Blizzards reputation for being server wizards meant that people were willing to take that risk. They got 7 million sales out of it, but they won't get that the second time around.
Ubisoft were the first to try always-online DRM, and they lost more than half of their marketshare on the PC as a result. 60% of their customers disappeared, never to be seen again. That's a lot more than the 20% drop Microsoft were looking at on the Xbox One, so if you're gonna make retarded generalizations based on platform of choice, there's one.
People will ultimately accept shit that works. Nobody cares whether they can lend their digital games to friends, because digital games are dirt cheap. Do you really prize those 10 dollars you get for your 60 dollar purchase at Gamestop that highly?
I don't see the logic. How do you explain that so many people on consoles are willing to pay every month for online services that are absolutely free everywhere else?
If Microsoft or Valve tried to charge for that on the PC, they'd be out of business.
I think he is just one of those typical anti-PC sorts who is either ignorant of the facts or chooses to ignore them.
PC gamers don't lend games to friends, not least because I make friends on steam whilst playing the same game with them (so they must have a copy anyway) and they usually live in totally different regions or even continents. Posting a physical copy of a game these days just seems ridiculous anyway.
Games become so cheap on steam I am regularly gifting them to my regular friends who I am online a lot with.
The PC community is a lot more balanced in terms of playerbase and providers. I have never failed to get help or assistance with a game or mod or hints and tips from the PC community, every game for sale on steam is rated and I can see what comments people have written or what rating it has.
No such joy with XBL. Its a cash cow and MS and the developers know it. Make big name game, sell retail for some insane sticker price, get kids hooked on it, big TV adverts, every kiddy in the world wants and buys it, plays the ass out of it until the next time he sees his friend online playing something new and so the cycle begins again.
I was a consoler for a long time, PCs used to scare me and seem too much hassle for what they were. Then W7 came along.
Jimquisition, wise as always.
@nollie4545 Lending games should be the least of someone's problems, they can get the idea of how the game is through demos or livestreams/gameplays. But if that is an issue to anyone here, this someone should be reminded of the recent Steam Update code lines regarding game sharing.
@DSB to be fair I think possible sequels to both of those will get close sales number, they were "bad" received only due to DRM policies and, while I find that a trouble, that didn't stop me from playing over 100 hours on D3 in a week
I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who love Diablo 3, or that they shouldn't, but is it really a majority of those 7 million who do? I think a lot of people were turned off by the server issues and the fact that the game itself wasn't super impressive.
I mean there was no reason why the game had to be always online, and Blizzard swore that everything would be ready for launch. Instead it took almost a month to get the servers stable, just so they could run features that no one asked them for.
I think it's notable that Blizzard faced the worst backlash in the history of the company based on that game. Jay Wilson had to defend himself and his team, and basically went as far as he could without publicly apologizing for the game. Rob Pardo in turn had to defend Jay Wilson on their very own forums.
7 million sold is certainly a bonafide blockbuster, but personally I won't trust Blizzard to keep their servers up next time, and I definitely won't bet 60 dollars on it.
You must log in to post.