DRM, Online Pass, Project Ten Dollar and the like

[Yantelope]

I always love how you're working out of the 8th edition of Calculus because, you know it's changed so much over the last 20 years.

[MasterDex]

It's always interesting when the author of a 'required text' is also a lecturer on your course.

 

What's even more interesting is when you've got the author of a textbook teaching you a course but not actually using their own textbook. I never understood why my business teacher did that. He's a very smart man though.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

The way I'd go about lowering used sales if I were a publisher is to lower the cost of new games. If they sold new games at £30 then gamers wouldn't need to trade in their games to afford new ones. retailers would have to buy used copies at such a low price it would mean a lot of people would wouldn't bother and since the retailer would make less profit on used sales it wouldn't be pushed so much harder than new sales. It would also mean they'd get more sales in the launch window instead of people waiting for the price to drop so would get more value out of their marketing spend.

 

If the publishers took this approach it would not eradicate used sales entirely but I think it would reduce it to a level that everyone could tolerate.

[Strangelove]

Thats the worst idea ive ever heard. The problem would still persist, even if new game prices went down.

Gamestop buys games for a dollar...that's right, people are stupid enough to sell a game for a dollar to Gamestop, who will sell it for 15 or 20. Thats bigass profit, even on a lower level.

Since games cost less, getting less money for used games wont bother a lot of people. Itll be the exact same thing.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I'd get new games for cheaper. fuck everyone else.

[Strangelove]

And youd end up getting shittier cheaper games.

[Johnny]

If your hypothesis is that budget = quality, I must direct you to a fine assortment of indie games.

[deanb]

We already have shitty expensive games. All that changes is we don't have to spend as much

 

Oh to be slightly more on topic THQ are currently experimenting with the whole "make cheaper games" thing.

 

And I don't at all buy that games should be a set price as they seem to be with consoles.

[Strangelove]

If your hypothesis is that budget = quality, I must direct you to a fine assortment of indie games.

I know about those, but I personally would get tired of cheap games. You can get shit tons of dollar games on your iPhone that are really good, but id rather prefer something more expensive. I like pretty graphics, voiceacting, fully orchestrated music, availability on most platforms, all that shit you dont tend to get with "indie" games. Theyre 10 bucks because thats exactly what theyre worth.

Games arent TOO expensive, were just cheap. 60 dollars for something that costs 200-300 million to make? I dont think thats unfair in any kind of way.

 

Plus, I like my PS3. It doesnt get as many indie games as the PC, but Im not going to get a PC just to have cheap games available to me. I might as well just pirate if thats my only motivation.

[Strangelove]

We already have shitty expensive games. All that changes is we don't have to spend as much

 

Oh to be slightly more on topic THQ are currently experimenting with the whole "make cheaper games" thing.

 

And I don't at all buy that games should be a set price as they seem to be with consoles.

 

Theyre NOT all a set price. Im sure weve been over this before.

Theyre a set price on PC too. Big name titles are ALWAYS 50-60 bucks on PC, everything else varies. Same thing on home consoles.

[deanb]

99% of console titles hit stores at £40 and it rarely wavers unless the store lowers it themselves. PC is much more varied on launch price of a game.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

That's simply not true. I've seen plenty of different price-schemes. It's only "AAA" games that hit at that value. I think the Wii is a great example of how much the pricing can vary.

[Yantelope]

We have a whole thread on the pricing thing.

 

As far as lowering the pricing affecting people trading back in I don't think they're related. The people I know who trade to Gamestop do it because they don't play games all that much and they know they will never play a game more than once. No matter what the price is they're going to trade that game in because even if it's only $5 off a new game that's still $5 in their pocket rather than a game sitting on a shelf.

[MasterDex]

We already have shitty expensive games. All that changes is we don't have to spend as much

 

Oh to be slightly more on topic THQ are currently experimenting with the whole "make cheaper games" thing.

 

And I don't at all buy that games should be a set price as they seem to be with consoles.

 

Theyre NOT all a set price. Im sure weve been over this before.

Theyre a set price on PC too. Big name titles are ALWAYS 50-60 bucks on PC, everything else varies. Same thing on home consoles.

 

The Witcher 2 and many other PC titles would counter that argument. The only titles I see at 60 bucks, even 50 bucks on PC are one that are either selling through Steam just after release or games from the biggest publishers where they've only recently began driving up the price for no good reason. I think the varying prices of games on PC, both big and small, shit and excellent shows that price has little to do with quality.

[Yantelope]

So....

 

"Gears of War 3 will have a "season pass" for its downloadable content -- a strategy we're seeing used by Noir-ly everyone with a long term, post-launch DLC plan. Microsoft claims the 2400 Microsoft point ($30) season pass will "guarantee a 33 percent discount on the game add-ons." It'll be available on September 20 and include an "exclusive" Liquid Metal Weapon Set."

 

So a little math tells us that there's going to be at least $45 worth of DLC for this game? Ugh.... Given that I got each of the first two games for $20 it's hard to stomach twice as much as that for a few map packs. Who needs subscription fees for shooters? We have to spend $60 for the newest game each year and then another $45 for the map packs. $105/year sounds like a subscription to me.

[RockyRan]

Today Ubisoft defended their horrible DRM:

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/02/driver-san-francisco-studio-head-defends-ubisoft-drm-system/

 

Their argument essentially boils down to "for absolutely no reason we believe we absolutely HAVE to do something about piracy, and our idea of doing that is by doing this DRM. Can't be helped that PC gamers are all filthy pirates"

 

I'm starting to seriously consider rounding up a mass of people and bombard them with e-mails. Could be a fun project, and Ubi definitely deserves it.

 

Hmmm...that may not be such a bad idea after all.

[Johnny]

I don't understand why Ubisoft insists on making the pirated version a superior product.

You're supposed to make the legitimate user get extra stuff, not put limitations on what he can do with the product!

[Mal]

Ubisoft's NA HQ is in San Francisco. I should mail them. Hopefully I get an angry return mail back.

[MasterDex]

While I won't defend Ubisoft's DRM in particular and I'd rather not deal with any DRM at all, big publicly traded companies do have a responsibility to their shareholders and they'd be shirking that responsibility if they left their games unprotected so we have to, sadly, put up with shitty DRM because no-one has a better idea. It's the million dollar question - How do we protect our product without hurting the end-user?

[RockyRan]

While I won't defend Ubisoft's DRM in particular and I'd rather not deal with any DRM at all, big publicly traded companies do have a responsibility to their shareholders and they'd be shirking that responsibility if they left their games unprotected so we have to, sadly, put up with shitty DRM because no-one has a better idea. It's the million dollar question - How do we protect our product without hurting the end-user?

 

Very simple answer: give incentives to new buyers. And no, not "let's take out multiplayer from the game and add that as the 'incentive' " incentive, I'm talking REAL incentives.

 

Steam is Valve's perfect DRM because it provides a very large amount of features that make it very convenient for users. It's about providing a seamless service between client and game and, especially in their games like L4D and TF2, Steam and the games have convenient features embedded right in the client.

 

That's the proper way to do DRM without hurting the end user. The fact that Ubi is at a complete loss as to how to "protect" their IPs other than by using really shitty authentication-requirement DRM isn't really the result of a "problem without a good answer" situation.

[Johnny]

While I won't defend Ubisoft's DRM in particular and I'd rather not deal with any DRM at all, big publicly traded companies do have a responsibility to their shareholders and they'd be shirking that responsibility if they left their games unprotected so we have to, sadly, put up with shitty DRM because no-one has a better idea. It's the million dollar question - How do we protect our product without hurting the end-user?

 

I'd like to reply with a question of my own:

If going to these lengths to "prevent" piracy was necessary, then why do you not see every other publisher doing the same thing?

[MasterDex]

I'd like to reply with a question of my own:

If going to these lengths to "prevent" piracy was necessary, then why do you not see every other publisher doing the same thing?

 

Because some publishers have more sense than Ubisoft do. Like I said, I'm not defending Ubisoft's DRM, simply the need for a publicly traded corporation to protect its interests. How to go about it is left up to them and while they may get it wrong more times than right, they still have that responsibility to their shareholders. I think the only way forward is for people to look for better ways to protect their software without harming the end-user. Railing against DRM as a whole, in the end, is as futile as piling on ever more stringent DRM.

 

Very simple answer: give incentives to new buyers. And no, not "let's take out multiplayer from the game and add that as the 'incentive' " incentive, I'm talking REAL incentives.

 

Steam is Valve's perfect DRM because it provides a very large amount of features that make it very convenient for users. It's about providing a seamless service between client and game and, especially in their games like L4D and TF2, Steam and the games have convenient features embedded right in the client.

 

That's the proper way to do DRM without hurting the end user. The fact that Ubi is at a complete loss as to how to "protect" their IPs other than by using really shitty authentication-requirement DRM isn't really the result of a "problem without a good answer" situation.

 

You still have to convince people that that's sufficient protection and that's not very easy for a large corporation like Ubisoft. Companies like Valve or CDProjekt have the advantage of being privately owned so they can take more risks, more easily. What you're suggesting would be great but we're going to get the short end of the stick with publicly traded companies more in the future as they bureaucratically go about making money for their shareholders. Eventually, Ubisoft will come out with something different, it may even be worse but that's just how it's going to be for the foreseeable future.

Edited September 3, 2011 by MasterDex

[RockyRan]

That's definitely true. It's going to be a bit of an uphill battle for public companies to convince stockholders that invasive, draconian DRM is counterproductive.

 

Still, there's something definitely strange about Ubisoft's approach. While companies Activision and EA still have to respond to stockholders, their DRM is nowhere near as invasive as Ubisoft. If EA and Activision have a back-and-forth occasionally with their stockholders regarding DRM, it seems like Ubi just says "OK SURE!" at anything they say.

[fuchikoma]

I am actually quite alright with online play being included in the (regular) new price, and being a paid ticket on used copies. I look at things like DRM from the perspective of long-term collection. This does not take anything out of the game in the long run because the servers that would track your license to play and the ones you'd play on are related, if not one in the same. When they shut down the servers for multiplayer, your pass to play it expires regardless, and no single player content is tied to this plan. Looking at the price of it: Do you know what the publisher and developers get for a used sale at Gamestop? $0.00. Even if the original buyer could have played forever, even if there will only be that one copy using their servers, even if it only costs them a thousandth of a cent over the lifetime of the company to support this used player, they have no obligation to support someone who has in no way supported them. Likelihood of buying sequels is not part of their model - there is a budget for advertising, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't include sales lost to used game shops.

 

Most other notable DRM and even DLC would usually bother me. When game content is withheld at the time of sale, that is content you'll never get to see if you're revisiting the game after the company is gone and you can't buy the DLC anymore. (As before, as a company they're not obligated to fix that, but it sucks in terms of preserving the original work.)

 

Also, requiring online authentication to play a single player game is inexcusable and Orwellian. A network service interruption, or even lack of networking should not stop a game that doesn't even use a network to play. It also ensures that if not changed, the game dies with the company, even if your money doesn't come back to you when they fold. (That said... I really want to make an exception for Diablo 3 because I have seen firsthand how badly cheating broke older games. I can completely understand why no character that may end up online should be let out of their sight. Even so, they should simply make an option to make an offline character that doesn't authenticate, and can never go online - but they'd have to work on finding a way to keep those character types from being swapped with online characters. Maybe an on-server running history of an onliner's levelling and item aquisitions to ensure nothing happened out of their sight?)

 

As for bigger budget games... I generally keep them off my PC because it's too risky. I don't want helper apps managing my game and monitoring my system processes to ensure I'm not cheating or pirating, or own the tools to do so. I don't want fake drivers installed between Windows' normal function and my DVD drive(!), and I definitely don't want to install a game and remove it, then way later, discover that the DRM from it is still installed on my system running as a service!

 

But paying $10 to activate multiplayer on a used copy that otherwise didn't help the makers of the game with my purchase? That makes sense to me. If I want them to serve me, I should contribute some money to them before they spend any resources on me. If they started charging for it AFTER selling a game at a traditional full price, then I'd be more upset.

[deanb]

I am actually quite alright with online play being included in the (regular) new price, and being a paid ticket on used copies. I look at things like DRM from the perspective of long-term collection. This does not take anything out of the game in the long run because the servers that would track your license to play and the ones you'd play on are related, if not one in the same. When they shut down the servers for multiplayer, your pass to play it expires regardless, and no single player content is tied to this plan.

Nope. EA is the only company that runs their own servers(on console). And even then the online-pass tracking servers will not be the ones running the multiplayer. And not all of these pass things are tied to multiplayer games, for example Cerberus Network on Mass Effect 2.

 

btw anyone know the bit where we discussed used sales not costing any extra for multiplayer?