Bethesda Tired Of Spending Money Supporting Software Pirates

Oblivion was a great game and so will Fallout 3 be.JLF1

We dont want great game,we want great RPG

Piracy is a fact of life. You can only slow it down, but to stop it altogether would be impossible. Studios need to find ways to combat piracy in ways that don't hurt legal customers.

SpruceCaboose

The level of control that would be needed to make piracy a non-issue would either (a) cost so much that the game is no longer profitable or (b) be so irksome that people will turn down your game because of it.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]*cough* *pistol-whips Makari in the temple* *twiddle*Makari

Seriously, though, I don't remember SecuROM being used that much by Massive and Blizzard. I don't know about Relic, but WC3 and WiC only used CD keys. Unless that's what you mean by SecuROM.

See, I never considered CD keys to be a very invasive or aggressive form of DRM, even if it is by SecuROM.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

Piracy is a fact of life. You can only slow it down, but to stop it altogether would be impossible. Studios need to find ways to combat piracy in ways that don't hurt legal customers.

HuusAsking

The level of control that would be needed to make piracy a non-issue would either (a) cost so much that the game is no longer profitable or (b) be so irksome that people will turn down your game because of it.

Lowering the price of retail games could be a viable alternative. As is ad supported games.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I'm just jumping straight in here, haven't read the thread or most of the OP.

I just checked you know where, I could see the 360 version but not PC.

So let me get this straight, Bethesda has chosen to rant about PC piracy after the 360 version was leaked, even though there is no PC version up on you know where?

SpruceCaboose

The interview was a few days before the 360 version leaked.

Well that explains it then, I'll just turn down the rage-o-metre.

I'm just jumping straight in here, haven't read the thread or most of the OP.

I just checked you know where, I could see the 360 version but not PC.

So let me get this straight, Bethesda has chosen to rant about PC piracy after the 360 version was leaked, even though there is no PC version up on you know where?

AnnoyedDragon

When the PC version is released it will be pirated more than the 360 version within one hour.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

Oblivion was a great game and so will Fallout 3 be.Lidve

We dont want great game,we want great RPG

[QUOTE="Lidve"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

Oblivion was a great game and so will Fallout 3 be.JLF1

We dont want great game,we want great RPG

Or, Bethesda should have left it dead, and waited for another dev to pick it up.

When the PC version is released it will be pirated more than the 360 version within one hour.

Jamex1987

Put your fanboy goggles away for a moment and actually read the post, at the time of writing I thought Bethesda was complaining about PC piracy while only a console version was available for download. I wasn't saying anything on which platform has worse piracy.

I know consolites get off on the fact piracy is worse on PC, probably the only valid argument they can use when they have run out of exaggerations.

[QUOTE="Lidve"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

Oblivion was a great game and so will Fallout 3 be.JLF1

We dont want great game,we want great RPG

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="lespaul00"]

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.Hoobinator

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you stating the reason for pirating games is because they believe the quality is so low that is does not warrant a purchase? And that if the quality was better, they would somehow give up their pirating ways and start buying game instead?

The reason people pirate rather than buy is because they are unsure of the game's quality. They hear the marketing buzz, but for whatever reason, they don't have faith in the developer, so they don't want to risk money on a full-price purchase. The console equivalent to piracy is game rental or used game purchases.

I'm sure people only burgle car steroes because they wish to know of the sound quality of the specific stereo before they want to purchase it. Your reasoning is misleading because you're generalising to a level which you shouldn't be. No doubt there are people out there who pirate to see a games quality, no doubt there are people who pirate because they honestly believe in freedom of intellectual property etc. But most pirates will pirate because they don't or can't afford to pay for the retail game, or after purchasing expensive hardware feel vindicated of their purchase by recouping on cheap software.

Game rental and used purchases are NOT piracy. Legally they are not the same, whether you agree with the law or not. Economically games rentals from most companies use a system whereby they purchase the "right" to rent the game out. This is obtained from the publisher so they do get a certain amount of money from it.

Used sales are a tricky area, but one in which the PC also factors in, you can buy used PC games too. Legally speaking once you have purchased the original copy you own the actual piece of good, not necessarily the code within it. So in this respect you are entitled to re-sell the copy, since the games creators have received their fees for the game. In an open economy you are free to buy and sell such a product as many times as you like. So yes it may hinder a genuine purchase of a new copy of the game and thus reduce fees which the creators might receive, but it is not necessrily bad for the economy as whole, which is why it is allowed. A used copy purchase is a genuine transaction of payment which stays within the economy, either for the individual reseller to then use to purchase other goods, or for the shop as part of its profits. It is no coincidence that games shops see used games as one of their biggest earners.

The only economic argument you could put forward to genuinely counteract against piracy is the one that states that each individual has a different 'buying' price, differentbuyers attach different opportunity costs to the product. So a pirate downloading a pirated copy isn't necessarily hindering a sale, since they may never have wanted to or could be able to purchase a copy of the game at full retail price. In this respect piracy in absolute terms, that x number of individuals downloaded a game and thus x copies were lost from a genuine sale to piracy is misleading. In simple terms it would be overstating the issue.

The way I see it one pirated copy does not mean one lost sale. Most pirates would not buy the game anyway or end up buying it if they like it. This does not make it morally right in any way but its not hurting the gaming industries bottom line as much as some publishers would like you to think.

Or, Bethesda should have left it dead, and waited for another dev to pick it up.

organic_machine

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

Piracy is a fact of life. You can only slow it down, but to stop it altogether would be impossible. Studios need to find ways to combat piracy in ways that don't hurt legal customers.

SpruceCaboose

The level of control that would be needed to make piracy a non-issue would either (a) cost so much that the game is no longer profitable or (b) be so irksome that people will turn down your game because of it.

Lowering the price of retail games could be a viable alternative. As is ad supported games.

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

Or, Bethesda should have left it dead, and waited for another dev to pick it up.

JLF1

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

Or, Bethesda should have left it dead, and waited for another dev to pick it up.

JLF1

That is true to a certain extent. Some people will never be happy. But you know what? I am fine with change. I just want more complexity and more depth. Because I think complexity and depth are the things that define what an RPG really is. My problem is not the first person. My problem is not the action. It has less depth and that is why I wont buy the game. I am not going to make dozens of threads bashing the game. I just wont buy it.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

Piracy is a fact of life. You can only slow it down, but to stop it altogether would be impossible. Studios need to find ways to combat piracy in ways that don't hurt legal customers.

HuusAsking

The level of control that would be needed to make piracy a non-issue would either (a) cost so much that the game is no longer profitable or (b) be so irksome that people will turn down your game because of it.

Lowering the price of retail games could be a viable alternative. As is ad supported games.

Then maybe they should lower development costs to what they were last generation.

Support the Wii!

Seriously, though, the only solution to piracy is to focus all of your efforts on gameplay first, THEN work on graphics. Graphics are "good enough" to last us until experimental researchers manage to cross the Uncanny Valley. When that happens, THEN graphics can make the leap forward.

here is the funny part is fallout is way more popular than res5 that was made into a hollywood movie! but yea I don't think bethesda should have even made the game. blackdreamhunk

The one thing you will notice on torrents, just by simple google browsing, is that games that aren't that big or movies that aren't that big get pirated the most, music being the perfect example, it's very very convenient because it's quick and easy. This is why the PS3 has almost zero piracy, in fact, I can't remember ever seeing a PS3 game while researching this very issue.

I'm just thinking out loud but how about this. Why not have Game companies load their games full of Assets, and textures, etc...mix it into the game discs and integrate it into the games, making the size of games around 20-30gigs, making it nearly imposssible to seperate the large assets(used and unused) out from the game files itself. I think this would do a lot to stem piracy. Software companies would have to do this in such a way that the large integrated assets aren't expensive to reproduce from game to game, but are essential to use within a game. If on PC we need 2 or 3 DVD's to install, so be it. 500 gig HDD's are cheap. As for 360, make it on 2 discs, make it on 3 discs, if someone has to go through the trouble in downloading 30 gigs, many might just find it "inconvenient", even with broadband.

The bottom line with piracy is, the publishers/developers need to make it more convenient to sell the game then download it, and this also includes cheaper game prices to the customers as well. It's a challenge but it can be done, or at least cut back on the numbers. Lastly, and most important, there are a lot of people that are never going to buy games, ever. So, expectations need to be realistic and not expect to have a huge jump in sales, just becuase piracy numbers are low.

Also, if Bethesda wants to ensure people are actual customers, do what most companies do and offer customer support only if they register their game manually through their website, not online authentication, just tie the game CD-key to the customers information, and also allow the customer to disassociate the CD-Key so they can sell the game if they choose.

You can't stop pirating. Especially a single player game. Why would some low life kid NOT download a single player game? I mean it's so easy, fast, and cheap. I for one will buy FO3 for sure, they say 7-11's releasing tonight :)

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6972/custom1220563548184img0mo1.jpg

Seriously, though, the only solution to piracy is to focus all of your efforts on gameplay first, THEN work on graphics. Graphics are "good enough" to last us until experimental researchers manage to cross the Uncanny Valley. When that happens, THEN graphics can make the leap forward.

mjarantilla

One of the ways to deal with piracy is to genuinely connect to your audience, and profit in ways that don't necessarily mean software sales are the end-all. Games like SOASE do that, the pirates don't matter, because paying for the inexpensive game is the ticket to being part of the greater community, chatting with the devs, requesting features you want, getting updates on time, et cetera.

Not all games can do that though, Bethesda makes games with sales goals in the millions, and that makes them a big target. I'm not saying I'm glad the 360 version was the first leak, but it's important that developers realize - it's not just PC. Even if they stop releasing a PC version, or DRM the heck out of it - the pirates are taking the path of least resistance. As far as support goes - it's going to be a compromise. Of course, you can take the MS "give us a CD key or we won't help you" approach - which is always lovely when you have windows pre-installed, the cd-key on the outside of the case is unreadable, and therefore you can't get any help.

It's tough.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Seriously, though, the only solution to piracy is to focus all of your efforts on gameplay first, THEN work on graphics. Graphics are "good enough" to last us until experimental researchers manage to cross the Uncanny Valley. When that happens, THEN graphics can make the leap forward.

Teufelhuhn

Why not? That's what the entire home entertainment industry does every 15-20 years.

The consumer market should not have to be on the cutting edge all the bloody time. In fact, it's probably best for the market as a whole if its technology is held back by a couple of years.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Seriously, though, the only solution to piracy is to focus all of your efforts on gameplay first, THEN work on graphics. Graphics are "good enough" to last us until experimental researchers manage to cross the Uncanny Valley. When that happens, THEN graphics can make the leap forward.

Teufelhuhn

Not all games can do that though, Bethesda makes games with sales goals in the millions, and that makes them a big target. I'm not saying I'm glad the 360 version was the first leak, but it's important that developers realize - it's not just PC. Even if they stop releasing a PC version, or DRM the heck out of it - the pirates are taking the path of least resistance. As far as support goes - it's going to be a compromise. Of course, you can take the MS "give us a CD key or we won't help you" approach - which is always lovely when you have windows pre-installed, the cd-key on the outside of the case is unreadable, and therefore you can't get any help.

It's tough.

subrosian

idk bout the 360 version being the easiest to crack.

All game reviewers who got their hands on fallout 3 were given the 360 version. Look at all the videos of fallout 3, they use the 360 version.

Just so happens the 360 version "landed" in the wrong hands.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Not all games can do that though, Bethesda makes games with sales goals in the millions, and that makes them a big target. I'm not saying I'm glad the 360 version was the first leak, but it's important that developers realize - it's not just PC. Even if they stop releasing a PC version, or DRM the heck out of it - the pirates are taking the path of least resistance. As far as support goes - it's going to be a compromise. Of course, you can take the MS "give us a CD key or we won't help you" approach - which is always lovely when you have windows pre-installed, the cd-key on the outside of the case is unreadable, and therefore you can't get any help.

It's tough.

tomkish47

idk bout the 360 version being the easiest to crack.

All game reviewers who got their hands on fallout 3 were given the 360 version. Look at all the videos of fallout 3, they use the 360 version.

Just so happens the 360 version "landed" in the wrong hands.

Why not? That's what the entire home entertainment industry does every 15-20 years.

The consumer market should not have to be on the cutting edge all the bloody time. In fact, it's probably best for the market as a whole if its technology is held back by a couple of years.

mjarantilla

1. That practice is antiquated and comes along with ridiculous costs. Not only that, but the progress in the "general market" was only possible because enthusiast, gaming, and production groups were pushing the tech forward. If you ask the other groups to stop pushing technology, it won't exist, period.

On top of that, limiting the tech from a broad audience makes the transition *more* expensive, not less. When the "leap" happens it creates a wall that takes years to get over, and the standard product suffers as a result, as does the consumer.

2. There is absolutely zero evidence that gaming would be "improved" by holding back the technology. Gaming is more profitable and popular than ever as the technology rushes forward. So why limit the tech when the tech is succesful? Adjusted for inflation, gaming is not signficantly more expensive than it was 20 years ago, and yet the quality of the product is in a different galaxy. We hear a bunch of sour grapes whining from some people, but gaming is a rather inexpensive hobby compared to the "real world". A live 2-hour show with a D-grade celebrity is $60+, a 10-hour Hollywood-CGI quality game can be had for less than that.

[QUOTE="tomkish47"][QUOTE="subrosian"]Not all games can do that though, Bethesda makes games with sales goals in the millions, and that makes them a big target. I'm not saying I'm glad the 360 version was the first leak, but it's important that developers realize - it's not just PC. Even if they stop releasing a PC version, or DRM the heck out of it - the pirates are taking the path of least resistance. As far as support goes - it's going to be a compromise. Of course, you can take the MS "give us a CD key or we won't help you" approach - which is always lovely when you have windows pre-installed, the cd-key on the outside of the case is unreadable, and therefore you can't get any help.

It's tough.

blackdreamhunk

idk bout the 360 version being the easiest to crack.

All game reviewers who got their hands on fallout 3 were given the 360 version. Look at all the videos of fallout 3, they use the 360 version.

Just so happens the 360 version "landed" in the wrong hands.

Oh ya there's pirates. Hell you can pirate N64, PSX, PS2 games, etc. You have emulators and everything. You can pirate any game youre heart desires.

I was just arguing the path of least resistance part. Yah sure you can pirate console games, it's not always easy as lets say PC games.

Why don't they just include a code for customer support with each game ? They could put it in the manual, not on the disc itself, so it can't be hacked.Gamer4Iife

lol I thought of the same thing... such an easy solution and we wouldn't have to hear this dev whine.

Why not? That's what the entire home entertainment industry does every 15-20 years.

mjarantilla

Huh?

It's always been in a constant state of evolution. The thing is, paying for a $8,000 two channel speakers + amp is different from getting an $800 graphics card, but more importantly, home theatre relies on all other aspects surrounding it. To put it succinctly, 56k modems weren't going to cut it back then. The only reason we perceive to be a huge jump is because digital video has recently caught up with film, simply making anything and everything faster and more affordable. No need for analog-to-digital transfers anymore. Having digital from production all the way to the end makes it faster, cheaper, and easier for everybody.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/bethesda-deals-with-pirates/

"Piracy remains one of the biggest issues facing PC gaming these days.

Last week, "Fallout 3″product managerPete Hines told me that some development studios now calculate that up to half of their customer support calls involve dealing with people who have pirated copies of the game.

blackdreamhunk

Lol, somebody would download an illegal copy and call customer support if something goes wrong? that's smart thinking.

1. That practice is antiquated and comes along with ridiculous costs. Not only that, but the progress in the "general market" was only possible because enthusiast, gaming, and production groups were pushing the tech forward. If you ask the other groups to stop pushing technology, it won't exist, period.subrosian

The enthusiasts do not push the tech forward. They clamor for it, but they will take what they are given. Enthusiasts will continue to exist to provide the justification for future progress no matter how slow current progress actually is. Actual progress is driven by potential growth in the mainstream market, not by the retention of the enthusiast subset.

The role of a production group is production, not engineering or experimental science. Strict separation should be maintained between the different groups, perhaps even spinning them off into different entities rather than attempting to maintain the do-it-all entities that we call "game development companies." The gaming industry is the only industry I know of that does not have this separation of function.

On top of that, limiting the tech from a broad audience makes the transition *more* expensive, not less. When the "leap" happens it creates a wall that takes years to get over, and the standard product suffers as a result, as does the consumer.subrosian

It does take years to get over, but I don't see how the standard product suffers. Care to provide an example?

2. There is absolutely zero evidence that gaming would be "improved" by holding back the technology. Gaming is more profitable and popular than ever as the technology rushes forward.subrosian

On a purely monetary level, sure, but as "technology rushes forward," it also concentrates the wealth of the industry in the hands of the very conservative by raising the barrier for entry.

So why limit the tech when the tech is succesful? Adjusted for inflation, gaming is not signficantly more expensive than it was 20 years ago, and yet the quality of the product is in a different galaxy.subrosian

Is it? Perhaps the technical quality of the product, but very little headway is being made in game design. More effort is concentrated on tangential qualities of games: story, cinematic presentation, production values. Things that are static to the end user, things which a gamer cannot change. Does that sound right for an artistic medium whose main distinguishing quality is interactivity? It's akin to novelists trying to improve their books' cover art rather than their writing.

And if you're wondering what this has to do with holding back technology, it's this: cost is affected by technology, and higher costs are associated with a more conservative, less innovative industry for a particular medium. Only when cost no longer becomes an issue can an artistic medium produce works of quality.

We hear a bunch of sour grapes whining from some people, but gaming is a rather inexpensive hobby compared to the "real world". A live 2-hour show with a D-grade celebrity is $60+, a 10-hour Hollywood-CGI quality game can be had for less than that.subrosian

Gaming is not a hobby except for a small minority. Like television, it's primarily a convenient leisure activity and should thus be compared to other such activities.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Why not? That's what the entire home entertainment industry does every 15-20 years.

FrozenLiquid

Huh?

It's always been in a constant state of evolution. The thing is, paying for a $8,000 two channel speakers + amp is different from getting an $800 graphics card, but more importantly, home theatre relies on all other aspects surrounding it. To put it succinctly, 56k modems weren't going to cut it back then. The only reason we perceive to be a huge jump is because digital video has recently caught up with film, simply making anything and everything faster and more affordable. No need for analog-to-digital transfers anymore. Having digital from production all the way to the end makes it faster, cheaper, and easier for everybody.

.....

Are we talking about the same thing?

[QUOTE="blackdreamhunk"]

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/bethesda-deals-with-pirates/

"Piracy remains one of the biggest issues facing PC gaming these days.

Last week, "Fallout 3″product managerPete Hines told me that some development studios now calculate that up to half of their customer support calls involve dealing with people who have pirated copies of the game.

Snake_Plisken88

Lol, somebody would download an illegal copy and call customer support if something goes wrong? that's smart thinking.

See, I never considered CD keys to be a very invasive or aggressive form of DRM, even if it is by SecuROM.mjarantilla

If you'll read around, you'll see that it's incredibly common. I'm actually surprised people didn't know that around here, given how much piracy talk there's been. [QUOTE="mjarantilla"]See, I never considered CD keys to be a very invasive or aggressive form of DRM, even if it is by SecuROM.Makari

I don't think I'm complaining about the same thing everyone else is complaining about, then, because I never had a problem with quiet installs as long as they didn't affect the end user experience. Ten-day call-home auth cycles with automatic offline deactivation do just that, while simple CD-key auths don't.

I guess video game companies haven't quite fine-tuned the balance between DRM and the end user experience the way media companies are starting to.

[QUOTE="Cocacolacowboy"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="jeffwulf"]Wow, thats ironic, Bethseda is tired of spending money supporting software pirates, and I'm tired of spending money supporting terrible software developers like Bethseda.delta3074

hmmm,well i guess with this logic,you must enjoy listening to Britney Spears or some other crappy generic pop music,because ya know,they won tons of awards,and they sell *shed loads* of albums.

not bashing you for liking oblivion. (i dont mind the game,it's a decent for what it is,an open ended action adeventure with light rpg elements),i'm just saying maybe you should think for yourself as well as give a sincere reason (in your own words) why you feel it's an amazing game,and not pull the sales/popularity card.

i can respect that,as well as agree on most of those things...the game did have its fair share of flaws though.like lvl scaling,little or no choice and consequence,bad skill design,and the fact you can kill someone in a cave out in bum**** nowhere with no witnesses,yet as soon as you get to a town on the otherside of the map,a guard will sense the *criminal scum* on you,and arrest you.

other than that.it was a decent game,i liked it. its just not "teh greatest rpg eva" like some people say.

i wasnt trying to insult you originally..i just have a pet peeve with people bringing sales and popularity into discussions..when it comes to Games,Music,Movies, and Art in general...

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]I don't think I'm complaining about the same thing everyone else is complaining about, then, because I never had a problem with quiet installs as long as they didn't affect the end user experience. Ten-day call-home auth cycles with automatic offline deactivation do just that, while simple CD-key auths don't. I guess video game companies haven't quite fine-tuned the balance between DRM and the end user experience the way media companies are starting to.Makari

As I recall, all this brouhaha over SecuROM only really began when the more aggressive variants of SecuROM began causing computers to crash and affected system reliability.

For the record, I used to work for a DRM company, albeit for music/videos rather than games. :P We aren't demons nor are we dictators. Actually, the #1 thing we always told our clients was to give the end users as much freedom as possible, and what I discovered working for that company was that most companies (and we dealt with some of the bigwigs) mainly wanted the tracking functions of DRM. The word I heard most often during conference calls was "transparency." They didn't really care for the restrictive functions. I think they've resigned themselves to the fact that piracy is unavoidable, and I don't think video game companies have come to that realization yet.

BTW, Steam is forgiven probably because people KNOW it's an online service. People buy games online via Steam, and an unconscious part of them has probably accepted the fact that Steam games will always phone home. That's the only explanation I can think of why people b**** about a game they buy in a box, but sing its praises when they buy it online, despite the online version having, in some cases, more restrictive DRM. Plus, the phone-home is tied to Steam's many online benefits (e.g. data backup), which makes it much easier pill to swallow. The point is that Steam itself is a service, and games purchased via Steam are seen as integrated with that service, while games bought at a brick-and-mortar store are seen as stand-alone products that shouldn't need any add-ons and shouldn't have any caveats.

[QUOTE="lespaul00"]

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If they can't make good enough games that convince people to buy a copy based on pure quality, the way Stardock does, then they shouldn't be making games.Espada12

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you stating the reason for pirating games is because they believe the quality is so low that is does not warrant a purchase? And that if the quality was better, they would somehow give up their pirating ways and start buying game instead?

Believe it or not people actually do that. I know of people who pirated crysis just to see if it would run decently on thier PCs, I've known people who couldn't wait for games and pirated them then bought them on release. It's strange but it happens.

i dont personally consider that to be pirating tho...more like an extended demo. and with crysis its compeltely understandable. the requirments for that game were retarded.

developers need to stop being little goddamn babys wahhh we didnt get eve dollar wahhh we're not rich enough as it is.

LOL idsoftware actually used a sell a shareware copy of of quake 1996 and you could crack it and it would be the full version of quake.

people have been pirating games for over 10 years why the devs are complaing now i have no idea.

Anyone else notice IDSOFTWARE hasnt complained about piracy?

idsoftware's last game doom3 sold more than 3 million copies.

woobabooba

The enthusiasts do not push the tech forward. They clamor for it, but they will take what they are given. Enthusiasts will continue to exist to provide the justification for future progress no matter how slow current progress actually is. Actual progress is driven by potential growth in the mainstream market, not by the retention of the enthusiast subset.

The role of a production group is production, not engineering or experimental science. Strict separation should be maintained between the different groups, perhaps even spinning them off into different entities rather than attempting to maintain the do-it-all entities that we call "game development companies." The gaming industry is the only industry I know of that does not have this separation of function. mjarantilla

Wrong.

Enthusiasts MAKE progress. Without the enthusiast market, there is no progress, period. Without people who will buy that first $25,000 plasma screen, $1800 OLED set, or new-fangled Blu-Ray player, progress comes to a stand still. It is extremely expensive in the traditional media industries to set a format / tech revolution without early adopters to start the price curve. Without a demand for high-end GPUs, CPUs, displays, and media standards, progress would be dramatically slowed, perhaps even halted.

It seems to me you're uninformed of how videogames are made. Artists don't sit down at a compiler and say "okay, time to program MAYA, Zbrush, PhysiX, and Unreal Engine!". They sit down at workstations with that software already provided. When a game studio needs custom software to make its life easier, it hires software engineers, not artists, to create that software. Take a look at the credits for a game - individuals are divided into roles - and that has *only* happened because the production values for games increased.

You act pissy at the notion that the programmer would also be the artists - but the policies you advocate (stopping the advance of technology) would actually be a *return to that era*. It is because the technology advances that we need specialists. We need a specialized 3D texture artist because people want more detailed faces. We need a specialized cinematographer because people want the animation to look "human" and "fluid". We need people who are experts at their specific crafts because of demand.

Even the Wii creates this demand - we have motion control, suddenly we need people who are experts in interface design. We have a new audience, suddenly we need people who can appeal to that audience. As far as "designers" go - a designer isn't a person who writes a bunch of ideas down in a notebook. A designer is someone who can think of an idea and execute it into a final product. The people complaining about the "march of progress" aren't designers - they're people who are not the best of the best. They're people who have never tried to make a game, yet expect companies to give them a job because they went to game design school. They're people who are coming from a mentality of "entitlement" instead of one of sacrificing to achieve their dreams.

-

As far as the notion that the production group should "only produce", what a slap in the face. What an utter insult to artists and designers everywhere. Game designers and artist aren't your drones. You don't crack the whip and say "go on boy, make another Mario!". They do what they do *because* they have the opportunity to push the envelope, to try new ideas, to experiment. Why on earth should they be confined to the status-quo?

It does take years to get over, but I don't see how the standard product suffers. Care to provide an example?mjarantilla

Eighteen months ago a GPU on the quality of a Radeon HD 4830 would have cost $400+, now such graphics power can be had for under $150. In a year and a half, the price has fallen to nearly a third of what it was. Why? Rapid progress and stiff competition in the graphics market. On the other hand, HDTVs took many years to see that kind of price reduction, because of the slowness of the market.

The slow adoption has also resulted in a great deal of compromise. HDMI is *not* the best possible technology for consumers. The cable hardware is inferior in quality to component (material composition, not picture standard, where HDMI is superior) and yet companies were charging more for HDMI cables simply because the average consumer was unaware of how cheap they were to manufacture. We only have HDMI because of HDCP and the false belief in content protection. In the home entertainment field, big media companies want control of the hardware - the content producers take actions that increase the price of your hardware, and often give you an inferior product, because it benefits the existing corporate giants.

On a purely monetary level, sure, but as "technology rushes forward," it also concentrates the wealth of the industry in the hands of the very conservative by raising the barrier for entry. mjarantilla

Au contraire, it actually forces publishers to constantly seek the next "big series". People love to point at EA / Madden and say "see, see, this is what big publishing does!". In reality, those serial games exist because people buy them.It's idiotic to get mad at the market for having wants that differ from your own. However, games like Portal, Mirror's Edge, or Little Big Planet can be a gold mine precisely because they are different.

There's a huge new segment of gamers that have wants that are radically different from the "standard faire", and the enthusiasts tend to award the new and exciting. Higher production values simply polish those ideas into a far better product. Portal is a *far* better game than the college "portal doorway" game Valve started with. Without the distinct art st yle, excellent voice acting, well designed levels, and entertaining story, is Portal the same game? Of course not. Games of that calibre exist because of the desire of artists to push the medium.

Anyone saying otherwise simply wants to stop the cutting-edge of art because the less-skilled are unable to keep up. A decade ago Sony ruled the MMO world with Everquest - now Blizzard does with WoW. There is progress, and yet people get upset at high-quality products for being successful. How dare those people make a quality product!

Is it? Perhaps the technical quality of the product, but very little headway is being made in game design. More effort is concentrated on tangential qualities of games: story, cinematic presentation, production values. Things that are static to the end user, things which a gamer cannot change. Does that sound right for an artistic medium whose main distinguishing quality is interactivity? It's akin to novelists trying to improve their books' cover art rather than their writing.

And if you're wondering what this has to do with holding back technology, it's this: cost is affected by technology, and higher costs are associated with a more conservative, less innovative industry for a particular medium. Only when cost no longer becomes an issue can an artistic medium produce works of quality. mjarantilla

Last generation it was nearly impossible for a college startup to produce a game on a console. The dev kits, licensing fees, and tools were too expensive. This generation efforts like WiiWare, PSN, and XNA Community Games make it possible to make a game with incredibly small budgets. Freely available tools continue to rapidly improve, and a growing number of companies make their software freely available to newcomers in the hopes of distinguishing their toolsets.

-

Those distribution channels only exist because advances in online distribution, storage, and console hardware have occurred. If someone had said "let's stop here" in the PS1 / N64 era, community games would not exist on consoles.

-

As far as "interactivity" goes - the writing, characters, story, content, and production values of games are *far* superior to where they were a decade ago. Games on the quality of Final Fantasy VI were the *exception*, not the rule. The average game today is far more enjoyable than the average game of two generations ago. The increased competition, larger audience, and superior technology have also enabled far more interesting games. When your hardware limiation is PS1-era 3D, you can't make a game like Portal, you can't have a level editor on the quality of Half-Life 2.

Spore, Portal, Little Big Planet, Banjo: Nuts & Bolts, Mirror's Edge, MGS4, No More Heroes, Mass Effect, Mario Galaxy... yeah what we have in gaming is a creativity problem :P

Gaming is not a hobby except for a small minority. Like television, it's primarily a convenient leisure activity and should thus be compared to other such activities. mjarantilla

Hence why it's extremely important for gaming to improve in production value, interface, and design. As the graphics, sound, and controls improve, more people are able to appreciate what games can offer. The production values in movies and television continue to improve, to remain competitive with non-enthusiasts, gaming must innovate as well.

-

And just to add the "cherry finish" to this, let me add - people who are against hardware progress are also destroying the environment. Standards like RHPS compliance, Energystar, power-saving hardware (Wii, idle / standby, low-power mode, etc) only exist because of huge advances in manufacturing technology, fueled by the demand for better tech. Not only that, people who are opposed to progress who live in wealthy post-industrial nations are *hurting* the other 80%+ of the world's population. The huge technology advances of the past decade have made initiatives like the "$100 notebook computer" possible. Not everyone in the world has the luxury of saying "I could buy an Xbox 360, if I wanted" - they're relying on *our* advances, and *our* progress to lower prices to a point that it becomes affordable to them.

-

This opposition to progress is simply ridiculous, through and through. People complain about the price of the high-end, yet they never complain about the huge advances in the overall standard of living that it brings. The "low-end" computer, TV, movie player, food, clothing, car, healthcare, and entertainment is vastly superior to what it was fifty years ago. There were old-timers standing around going "we should just stick to radio! TV is a waste of money!" then too - y'know what? They were wrong.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Why not? That's what the entire home entertainment industry does every 15-20 years.

mjarantilla

Huh?

It's always been in a constant state of evolution. The thing is, paying for a $8,000 two channel speakers + amp is different from getting an $800 graphics card, but more importantly, home theatre relies on all other aspects surrounding it. To put it succinctly, 56k modems weren't going to cut it back then. The only reason we perceive to be a huge jump is because digital video has recently caught up with film, simply making anything and everything faster and more affordable. No need for analog-to-digital transfers anymore. Having digital from production all the way to the end makes it faster, cheaper, and easier for everybody.

.....

Are we talking about the same thing?

Yes, Frozen just pointed out something not many people think about - home theater does make progress. When I bought my Sega CD, the idea of a *stereo system* was impressive. There were instructions on how to hook up stereo speakers to the system to take advantage of *CD fidelity* sound. Such a receiver, amp, and speaker setup was expensive then. Now, you can get a good quality surround sound setup for $500.

An Xbox 360 is $200 now, $300 if you want the 60gb hard drive. At launch a Sega Genesis (adjusted for inflation) was $350. Final Fantasy VII cost $37 million to make (adjusted for inflation). Gears of War cost $10 million. Halo 3 cost $30 million. Again, these claims are simply ridiculous on your part. You're parroting information without checking your facts, or being honest about where the complaints are coming from. We have to stop the march of progress, because "game designers" who paid $100,000 for a worthless degree lack the skills to get jobs in a competitive market?

We have to stop the march of progress because fifteen year olds can't afford HDTVs? They couldn't afford regular TVs a decade ago, what has changed? I fail to see where there is any legitimate reason to stop the march of progress other than vague notions and nostalgia-driven "good old days" sentiments.

Boy, and I thought I was long-winded.

Wrong.

Enthusiasts MAKE progress. Without the enthusiast market, there is no progress, period. Without people who will buy that first $25,000 plasma screen, $1800 OLED set, or new-fangled Blu-Ray player, progress comes to a stand still. It is extremely expensive in the traditional media industries to set a format / tech revolution without early adopters to start the price curve. Without a demand for high-end GPUs, CPUs, displays, and media standards, progress would be dramatically slowed, perhaps even halted.subrosian

Like I said, they take what they are given. And you are right in that they are the first to set the price curve, but they are not the reason why businesses initially develop the new technologies in the first place. In general, business first begin to develop new technologies in hopes of capturing the mainstream.

The enthusiast segment helps to establish the new technology, but they are almost never the initial target of the technology to begin with. I repeat: they take what they are given.

It seems to me you're uninformed of how videogames are made. Artists don't sit down at a compiler and say "okay, time to program MAYA, Zbrush, PhysiX, and Unreal Engine!". They sit down at workstations with that software already provided. When a game studio needs custom software to make its life easier, it hires software engineers, not artists, to create that software. Take a look at the credits for a game - individuals are divided into roles - and that has *only* happened because the production values for games increased.subrosian

Actually, it seems you are the one who is uninformed. I am talking about larger scale separation in roles, not consolidation.

When I say that separation should be maintained between the different groups, I am talking about spinning off those software engineers into different entities. The technological development should be kept separate from the creative direction. That is how it is done in the rest of the entertainment industry. Industrial Light and Magic and WETA Digital do not make movies; they merely provide the technical services to the people who do make the movies. Likewise, Universal Music Group and Sony BM do not compose the songs, and Del Rey and St. Martin's Press do not write the books. In every other industry except the video game industry, technical development is kept separate from production.

Currently, there is almost no emphasis on the production. Everything is focused on the technology because of the insistence of companies to remain "on the cutting edge." When a game is presented, the developers seem to be advertising their technology more than their creativity.

You act pissy at the notion that the programmer would also be the artists - but the policies you advocate (stopping the advance of technology) would actually be a *return to that era*. It is because the technology advances that we need specialists. We need a specialized 3D texture artist because people want more detailed faces. We need a specialized cinematographer because people want the animation to look "human" and "fluid". We need people who are experts at their specific crafts because of demand.subrosian

Again, read above. For once, you've got it completely wrong.

As far as the notion that the production group should "only produce", what a slap in the face. What an utter insult to artists and designers everywhere. Game designers and artist aren't your drones. You don't crack the whip and say "go on boy, make another Mario!". They do what they do *because* they have the opportunity to push the envelope, to try new ideas, to experiment. Why on earth should they be confined to the status-quo?subrosian

Where on Earth did I say this????

Eighteen months ago a GPU on the quality of a Radeon HD 4830 would have cost $400+, now such graphics power can be had for under $150. In a year and a half, the price has fallen to nearly a third of what it was. Why? Rapid progress and stiff competition in the graphics market. On the other hand, HDTVs took many years to see that kind of price reduction, because of the slowness of the market.subrosian

That is a terrible comparison and (ironically) a gross oversimplification, but thank you for bringing it up, because this, I think is where your misunderstanding of my point lies.

GPUs are linearly scalable, HDTVs are not. Double the transistor count of a GPU, and you (more or less) double its performance. You cannot double the pixel count of a TV and say it is twice as good as the previous TV, because the pixel count does not directly affect a TV's primary function.

Other linearly scalable technologies and devices include storage (hard drives, Flash drives, etc.), network devices (routers, switches, etc.), integrated circuit chips, optical discs, etc. Do you notice a pattern here?

These are all COMPONENTS, not end user products. Highly specialized, mass produced components which are themselves composed of many copies of single basic building block (the logic register, the transistor, the memory cell, the magnetic disk sector, etc.) arranged in a linear fashion, each of which adds to overall performance.

You cannot compare the price curve of a COMPONENT to the price curve of an end user product.

This is the core of my argument, because I am totally against the extreme focus that video game companies place on the performance of their COMPONENTS rather than their products, especially now that we have reached this level of development.

Now, it's true that as the PS3 and 360 slowly become obsolete, game developers are starting to focus their marketing more on the gameplay rather than the technology. However, it's already been THREE YEARS since the start of the generation. In previous generations, the focus would've been off the technology within six months, a year at most.

The slow adoption has also resulted in a great deal of compromise. HDMI is *not* the best possible technology for consumers. The cable hardware is inferior in quality to component (material composition, not picture standard, where HDMI is superior) and yet companies were charging more for HDMI cables simply because the average consumer was unaware of how cheap they were to manufacture. We only have HDMI because of HDCP and the false belief in content protection. In the home entertainment field, big media companies want control of the hardware - the content producers take actions that increase the price of your hardware, and often give you an inferior product, because it benefits the existing corporate giants.subrosian

RROD, anyone?

Compromise is a constant in any sort of industry.

Au contraire, it actually forces publishers to constantly seek the next "big series". People love to point at EA / Madden and say "see, see, this is what big publishing does!". In reality, those serial games exist because people buy them.It's idiotic to get mad at the market for having wants that differ from your own.subrosian

Those "next big series" are usually only incremental. I want more than incremental evolution.

However, games like Portal, Mirror's Edge, or Little Big Planet can be a gold mine precisely because they are different.subrosian

Portal, Mirror's Edge, and Little Big Planet are minor tweaks to existing genres. They are flash-in-the-pan successes with no lasting impact on gaming.

Not like, for example, Devil May Cry, or Grand Theft Auto III, or Counter-Strike in the last generation. Not like Super Mario 64, or Tomb Raider, or StarCraft in the PS1/N64 generation. Not like Super Mario Kart, or Street Fighter II, or Dune II in the SNES/Genesis generation.

There's a huge new segment of gamers that have wants that are radically different from the "standard faire", and the enthusiasts tend to award the new and exciting. Higher production values simply polish those ideas into a far better product. Portal is a *far* better game than the college "portal doorway" game Valve started with. Without the distinct art st yle, excellent voice acting, well designed levels, and entertaining story, is Portal the same game? Of course not. Games of that calibre exist because of the desire of artists to push the medium.subrosian

Portal is a much better game than Narbacular Drop, but Portal's quality has little to do with the technology behind it.

We both value the same thing: creativity. I just think that without the extreme focus on numeric advancement and linear scalability, creativity can be allowed to grow even more.

Anyone saying otherwise simply wants to stop the cutting-edge of art because the less-skilled are unable to keep up. A decade ago Sony ruled the MMO world with Everquest - now Blizzard does with WoW. There is progress, and yet people get upset at high-quality products for being successful. How dare those people make a quality product!subrosian

It's not about the less skilled, it's about lowering the financial and technological barrier for entry to allow MORE "more-skilled" people to get involved.

Last generation it was nearly impossible for a college startup to produce a game on a console. The dev kits, licensing fees, and tools were too expensive. subrosian

And now those dev kits, licensing fees, and tools are about 5x more expensive.

This generation efforts like WiiWare, PSN, and XNA Community Games make it possible to make a game with incredibly small budgets. Freely available tools continue to rapidly improve, and a growing number of companies make their software freely available to newcomers in the hopes of distinguishing their toolsets. Those distribution channels only exist because advances in online distribution, storage, and console hardware have occurred. If someone had said "let's stop here" in the PS1 / N64 era, community games would not exist on consoles.subrosian

Oh, you're talking about THOSE dev kits.

Well, WiiWare, PSN, and XNA are great tools for amateurs, but they haven't sparked the creative revolution of this generation. On the contrary, they segregate those kinds of developers and deny them the opportunity to compete. David Jaffe put it well: video gaming has not seen its "Blair Witch" moment, when a talented independent with limited resources can still create a product that can compete with the bigwigs.

What was the video game industry's solution? To shove those talented independents with limited resources into a corner with sticks instead of swords.

As far as "interactivity" goes - the writing, characters, story, content, and production values of games are *far* superior to where they were a decade ago. Games on the quality of Final Fantasy VI were the *exception*, not the rule. The average game today is far more enjoyable than the average game of two generations ago. The increased competition, larger audience, and superior technology have also enabled far more interesting games.subrosian

The writing, characters, story, and content of these games would have continued to evolve REGARDLESS of technological improvement.

When your hardware limiation is PS1-era 3D, you can't make a game like Portal, you can't have a level editor on the quality of Half-Life 2. subrosian

Who said I wanted to limit hardware to PS1-era 3D? PS1-era 3D was nowhere near approaching the gameplay plateau that current technology is now.

Spore, Portal, Little Big Planet, Banjo: Nuts & Bolts, Mirror's Edge, MGS4, No More Heroes, Mass Effect, Mario Galaxy... yeah what we have in gaming is a creativity problem :Psubrosian

Anyone can make lists. GRAW, GRAW 2, COD2, COD3, COD4, COD:WAW, R6V, R6V2, Splinter Cell IV, Splinter Cell V, DMC4, Halo 3, Alone in the Dark 5, RE5, Twilight Princess, SSBB, Oblivion....There, my list outlists yours 2-to-1. Can we not do that again?

(And I can't believe you listed Mass Effect as an example of "creativity.")

Hence why it's extremely important for gaming to improve in production value, interface, and design. As the graphics, sound, and controls improve, more people are able to appreciate what games can offer. The production values in movies and television continue to improve, to remain competitive with non-enthusiasts, gaming must innovate as well.subrosian

If that is so, then why is it the 360 and PS3, the exemplaries of production value, have both failed to capture a non-enthusiast market?

And just to add the "cherry finish" to this, let me add - people who are against hardware progress are also destroying the environment. Standards like RHPS compliance, Energystar, power-saving hardware (Wii, idle / standby, low-power mode, etc) only exist because of huge advances in manufacturing technology, fueled by the demand for better tech. Not only that, people who are opposed to progress who live in wealthy post-industrial nations are *hurting* the other 80%+ of the world's population. The huge technology advances of the past decade have made initiatives like the "$100 notebook computer" possible. Not everyone in the world has the luxury of saying "I could buy an Xbox 360, if I wanted" - they're relying on *our* advances, and *our* progress to lower prices to a point that it becomes affordable to them.subrosian

Sheesh....

This opposition to progress is simply ridiculous, through and through. People complain about the price of the high-end, yet they never complain about the huge advances in the overall standard of living that it brings. The "low-end" computer, TV, movie player, food, clothing, car, healthcare, and entertainment is vastly superior to what it was fifty years ago. There were old-timers standing around going "we should just stick to radio! TV is a waste of money!" then too - y'know what? They were wrong.subrosian

I guess I was not too clear with my initial statement, but I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the focus on scalable technologies, not end user technologies.