I agree mostly, but I think it's worth noting that for very many people who enjoy mostly single-player games their consoles have always really been disconnected devices, whereas phones never have been, out of their basic function. There seems to be a sizeable portion of the console gaming audience that prefers single-player experiences. Therefore, their needs and desires are not only not being addressed by these 'advancements', but truly infringed upon.I honestly think Msoft thought Sony would do something similar to them in regards to console DRM. But the community out pour was too great against it for Sony to support it - and while I do think that a connected device is a better device than an offline device (take your phone, how useful is it when you disable the network?) most people just aren't ready for a video game system to demand that sort of 'dedication'.
R3FURBISHED
jethrovegas' forum posts
While it seems that I can agree with you on quite a few of your facts, that's all they seem to be. What are we supposed to discuss?Blabadon
Well, strangely enough there are some individuals who seem to support expanded Console DRM. I've heard many console gamers argue, nobly, I guess, in favor of developer's rights as relates to used games. They could argue with me/you. Also those who might disagree with point number two about Steam. Many people do see it as a overly-controlling, even draconian system.
The PC's piracy and DRM debate has been consolised, no better way of putting it. As with all such draconian policy, overwritten suffocating rules that cannot effectively be applied to an open system (see also the complete inability of companies like Ubisoft to mitigate piracy over the past several years; RE: Splinter Cell: Conviction, the Assassin's Creed series, etc) will inevitably then be forced into a prexisting closed system or one will be designed to accomodate the purposes of the company's interests. The open system in this case is of course the PC and the closed ones, ready-made for control and abuse of power, are the consoles of the day. This is a very interesting debate, and an interesting shift in its venue, and I have a few thoughts on it that I think might expand it a little bit or at least make me look clever.
I. Console developers are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to restrict used games sales. Console audiences are, by a plurality, willing to purchase their games legally and often at full retail. This is, I say, while maybe loading my argument a little, a far cry from the wasteland of piracy and disregard for developers feelings purportedly established by gamers on PC. Console developers, then, are sh*tting where they eat by imposing restrictions upon console gamers far beyond what PC gamers would ever accept. This is, to cite another perception, the audience that generally eats whatever major developers sh*t out. Why in the world would you ruin that wet dream?
II. Steam only seems to be draconian on paper. For certain wild scenarios it might actually be so, but in the majority of cases it does, in my experience, adequately serve the desires of the PC gamer. I say 'desires' rather than needs because it ought to be emphasised that PC distribution networks are, if it were to come down to the war of attrition companies like Ubisoft tend to think they're already engaged in, finally at the mercy of their users and not the other way around. The PC gaming audience can be a cruel mistress. The console gaming audience has yet to display any such bitter mercy.
III. It is precisely that rancorous display that consoles gamers must make an attempt at if they wish to preserve a single one of their supposed rights, or even maintain the basic principles of ownership as related to physical, disc-based games. PC gamers have been fighting this war for years and continue to, but is one that must be fought actively and with the recognition that companies like Ubisoft and EA and Activision-Blizzard are not simply trying to make ends-meet, but rather to shape an entire industry to their financial ends. The distinction is enormous, and those supporting the changing of the console DRM world (that is, towards greater control) ought to sit down and really consider whether that world is one they want to live in on paper or in fact.
IV. Piracy will continue, period, on all platforms. This is a fact. There will always be a means to subvert DRM, and those who are interested in doing so will find those means with alarming speed in all scenarios. Therefore, with an unchanging boogeyman at the center of this debate, who cannot be caught, and who will remain in the allegorical forest of the Bad Intranets from here unto whenever, the proper consideration then becomes what to do with all the good people living in the village who actually pay for their things. What exactly? I don't know. Probably not f*ck them in the ass.
Free to play models have never incentivised me to spend money. The new Tribes for example. Played for a day or two. Realised that the time it would take to grind my way to other classes/weapons, etc, wasn't worth it. Didn't seem worth it to buy those things either. Simple reason for this: spending money in increments to gradually improve a gaming experience does not provide the same satisfaction as purchasing a game up front that justifies its cost with immediate value.
If a game is poor until you start paying for it then most likely you won't want to pay for it because it is poor. It's kind of weird, circular thinking, I guess, but that's why so many people have the gut reaction of "this is bull sh*t" to announcements like this. F2P models are overly complicated and self-defeating, basically. This Killer Instinct model is particularly dumb.
True story. My long time best buddy is a bonafide half were-pig, half native amirican, and otter ground kidney stones f***s him up something fierce, that's his bane, his KrytoKnight (character in one of my short stories that wears kryptonite armor he got from Aquaman in a sliding universe).
Who am I kidding, that's just one of my personalities...and yes, it is a b*tch. Thank you for that solidarity.
SolidTy
[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]
[QUOTE="kipsta77"]
Really? No one gets it?
TC: Your pretty smart.
SolidTy
I've always thought so. Anyway, I updated the OP to include a guide to the allegory so that everybody can understand this argument as I think it's very crucial to this generation of gaming and almost certainly the most insightful commentary on the issue to date.
That update is very accurate to my understanding of the original and it was not needed.
Then my buzz wore off.
That's a b*tch, I know. Been on vacation for a week or so, nobody's offering on the street and I'm not trying to look too hard in a third world country. Wind up buying ground kidney stones from an otter.
Really? No one gets it?
TC: Your pretty smart.
kipsta77
I've always thought so. Anyway, I updated the OP to include a guide to the allegory so that everybody can understand this argument as I think it's very crucial to this generation of gaming and almost certainly the most insightful commentary on the issue to date.
I'm really disappointed. You switched drug dealers didn't you? This isn't even on the level of the whole OT end of the world thread, or the RE 5 poem, or the Fable stuff, or the ducks aren't something and skyrim isn't a RPG. Go back to your old dealer. He had crazier shit. jg4xchamp
Yeah, but see, it's an allegory, man. It's not just some crazy story and then a random headline.
Log in to comment