Better graphics don't automatically mean higher expenses. Metro 2033 was one of the best-looking games of 2010 despite being made with a "low-cost development model". They didn't waste any money on nonsense like famous voice actor cameos.

Unfortunately, greedy publishers might try to use this new generation's advances as an excuse to bump game prices to $70.

A lot of those complaining about Metro haven't actually sat down and given it a fair chance. I'm sitting here on the desktop side of Windows 8 and the only obvious signs that this isn't Windows 7 are the missing Start button and slightly tweaked Aero UI. When you're on the desktop side you'll only see Metro when launching or searching through the Start Screen (which replaces the Start Menu). If you absolutely hate everything about Metro you can stick to the desktop and hardly see it at all. Windows 8 isn't all about Metro either; there are many nice improvements for the desktop side such as faster start up/shut down.

The Start Screen looks very different from the Start Menu, but it still retains all expected behaviour, features and keyboard shortcuts. The only feature that has not made a seamless transition is the All Programs menu which was rarely used by Vista/7 users; it is now hidden away but can be easily accessed with the mouse or the new Win+Q keyboard shortcut.

Regardless of preference for visuals the Metro model allows for all sorts of interesting possibilities. You can share content from any app to any other app that accepts that type of content without the developers having to specifically make their apps able to work with each other. You can also launch a search inside an app from anywhere, e.g. I can enter "chocolate" as a keyword and then click on a dictionary app to see a definition, a cookbook app to see recipes, an ebook app to see books about chocolate, etc.

The animated, colorful square boxes are also kind of ugly. And each app requiring full screen does seem like a waste of screen real estate unless it's an application that would best be used that way. Oh well. Guess I'll stick to Windows 7 then. No sense in buying worthless upgrades.LovePotionNo9

Metro apps can also be set to a sidebar view (about 1/4 of the screen) to use alongside another Metro app and/or the desktop. Desktop apps continue to work in individual windows as expected.

A book is a physical good. Used copies of books are noticably more worn and degraded than new copies.

A game is a digital good. Used copies of games are identical to new copies of games, and suffer no discernable degradation.KingsMessenger

Anything that is distributed to me in a form I can hold in my hand is a physical good, regardless of what it contains or comprises. A digital good is something that is distributed to me in an intangible manner without any sort of fixed physical form.

If video game publishers don't want to be subject to the normal treatment of physical goods they shouldn't be making physical goods in the first place.

It's true that there's a correlation between high-quality and video game retention, but that still doesn't solve the underlying dilemmas that developers and publishers face regarding rampant used game sales and piracy.

peterw007

The problem is that they are treating the symptoms rather than the cause--that the game isn't worth paying for. You'll notice that the publishers and developers saying they don't care about piracy are the ones that are making great games--great games are rewarded with great sales. Piracy tends to remain at the same basic level whether a game sells well or poorly, so claiming it as a factor in a game's success is questionable at best.

Attempting to treat the symptoms of piracy with DRM and/or finger-wagging is a futile gesture because of how piracy works. Pirates fall into three basic categories:

1. "Demo" pirates. These players want to make sure that the game is worth it before buying (remember that you can't rent/trade in on the PC). Releasing a proper demo will vastly reduce this number. Adding strong DRM will make them less willing to pay for the game since it always ends up harming legitimate customers far more than actual pirates; some will wait until the game goes on sale (since the DRM has reduced its value to them), but others will shun it altogether.

2. "Limited means" pirates. These players have lower incomes and/or live in countries where video games are very expensive, so they can only afford to buy a few games a year. A game's quality will help determine whether it is one of the few they are able to pay for; DRM will simply make them skip that game.

3. "Pure" pirates. These players want free entertainment for the sake of it being free. DRM will merely make them play something else and/or wait for the DRM to be cracked. Only the most impatient will buy the game when DRM gets in the way.

No amount of DRM or other anti-customer actions will magically turn players in any of these categories into customers.

It's better to have someone playing a game for free rather than not playing it at all. Those playing a great game are going to recommend it to others (whether they themselves paid for it or not), but if there was some DRM or whatever that stopped them doing so their recommendations wouldn't exist.

Valve's Steam has been successful because it rewards customers rather than punishing them. Its DRM is comparatively very weak, but great games using Steam as DRM still see great sales.

when we download our games for cheapProtossX

What makes you think console digital distribution is going to be cheap?

Compare the prices of new retail copies of games to their prices on the current-generation consoles' digital distribution services. You'll find that retail is typically the same price or even less.

Digital distribution is cheap on the PC only because a competitor's service is always a mere click away. Buying from a competing console service requires spending hundreds on hardware so there is no such impetus on competitive pricing.

How does it feel ... being denied the game because the platform is deemd a pirate infested ground? It must be extremely frustrating and bitter. Well, you can blame piracy for that.TheOldOlder

How does it feel? Like those publishers are lying to my face. PC gamers, collectively, pay for their games just the same as console players. Some percentage on both sides opt for piracy (as with every form of entertainment), but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the player base are ready and willing to open their wallets for a worthwhile product.

Publishers seem to think that the mention of PC piracy is a Get Out Of Jail Free card that instantly exonorates them from any culpability. The PC version might be released many months after the console versions with a poor port and no demo, but they make some baseless claims about piracy and that nullifies all other factors?

On the consoles publishers blame the used market in the same manner as piracy (despite used games being legal), but this also only serves to point the finger right back at them: used copies only exist because players sold the game after completing it, so a game that sees high used turnover was obviously not good enough to achieve player retention.

A high-quality console game will see a far larger portion of players hanging onto their copies, meaning fewer used copies are in circulation, and this in turn leads to higher sales of new copies of that game--but making a high-quality game is hard work; it's much easier to artificially devalue used copies (with bundled DLC and passes) while also milking extra money out of both new and used customers by cutting pieces out of the completed game at the last minute to sell back to everyone as on-disc/day one DLC.

Similarly, a high-quality game with a great PC port will see excellent PC sales (even if it also sees high PC piracy), whereas a game that is low-quality and/or poorly ported will see poor PC sales (while still probably having high PC piracy).

Yes, some of the people who pirate games do contribute to the industry, but there are millions and millions of people all across the world who only leech off of piracy for the sake of convenience.peterw007

The pirates who don't buy anything would not magically change their ways if they had to. They would simply consume less content overall. Having someone using content for free vs. not using it at all makes no difference to profits.

Those that want to try things before risking money on them would be less likely to buy without being given the option of seeing the product in advance (many publishers don't bother releasing demos).

shareware was piracy and that's how idsoftware and 3drealms startedwewantdoom4now

Shareware was authorised and the forerunner of demos. Shareware versions specifically said at the start that you could share them with your friends, whereas the full versions specifically stated that they weren't shareware.

You cannot stop piracy. Even if some magically invulnerable system was devised that made PC piracy impossible the pirates would merely move to consoles, where piracy is even easier than on the PC. They pirate on the PC because they prefer the PC experience, not because it's an easier system to pirate for.

The game is the same exact experience whether used or new; the piece of plastic that it comes in is absolutely worthless.

So the developers should be compensated multiple times if multiple, unrelated people want to buy it.

peterw007

This book is the same exact experience whether used or new; the paper that it comes on is absolutely worthless.

So the publishers should be compensated multiple times if multiple, unrelated people want to read it.

I don't have to own all the computers I've had in the past to keep playing older PC games, so why should I need to do so with consoles?