They've got a long way to go then. I recently purchased, yes paid cash in hand for a copy of Might and Magic Heroes VI because simply put I love(d) the series and wanted to check out their latest iteration.
After hours of trial and error, scouring message boards, safe modes, tweaks and yes the offline play they announced last year, I was still unable to keep the game from crashing constantly (well going to black but still running). And while I rather liked the idea of a dynasty and heroes and the weapons and all that, I simply gave up, downloaded a cracked version and haven't crashed since after hours and hours of play.
So while my paid copy with its registered key sits on the shelf I have to resort to other parties that have managed to fix their constant attachment to U-Play. I haven't purchased a Ubisoft PC game in a long time and this was a lesson dearly learned.
That would be in regards to Mr. Fox's set up and sale for the premise behind his latest Infamous game - the "courage" as he put it, to fight and rise up against the watchers, the ubiquitous cameras in the UK, the cell phone record seizures, the idea of an exaggerated police state.
He really puffed up this idea that we live in this in a world that is most definitely heading towards the conception of 1984 and only his superheroes (mutants if you will, think this whole schtick has been done before by a certain comic) can stop them. So when that's the best that he can offer for my motivation, I found it a bit difficult to swallow when I can look down at the controller in my hand, tap a share button, and fuel the very thing this game is trying to sell to me as being this great creeping evil.
I think that Nate Fox of Sucker Punch just gave me whiplash with that hyperactive Orwellian fearmongering of what was an obvious reveal of another Infamous game. Way to break the mold on that one big guy.
I find it a bit hard to really get all jazzed up about taking down big brother on a system that has a freaking share button on the same controller that I would use to take down this culture of fear he so wants us to buy into.
I have been inspired by this bill and propose to offer my plan to Sen. Reid only this afternoon!
In Las Vegas food that is prepared (like that in a restaurant) is taxed, but unprocessed food that you purchase at the grocery store, like bananas and Cocoa Crisp, is not. I would propose a 12% tax on these foods to establish better public awareness in the cause and effect eating excessive amounts of food has on a person and their health. (the extra 2% would go towards the school district which allows teachers only one ream of paper for the semester per class, yes they are that hard strapped)
@Zid96 If I was able to decipher your message (you should really consider a quick read through before you hit the post button), your logic here is that the increase in cost won't derail a child from receiving money from their parents to purchase the game.
Whether you agree or disagree with the proposed bill, the stated purpose is not to detract from purchasing the game, but rather to be put towards the funding of programs with the intent of understanding what (if any) connection they have on violent crimes and their use.
The extra $10 dollars is not in an effort to keep children from getting funds to purchase games (which I wonder how many persons actually have to beg someone else to fund their purchase).
While I certainly can't speak to the rest of Yee's record while in office because I am not a resident of California, I truly don't want their policy to influence anyone over here in Nevada.
Furthermore, another user posted Senator Yee's email address below me, and I thank him for that. I sent Senator Yee an email touching upon some of the similar issues you raised, namely why should any industry be expected not to speak up when being subject to libel?
@DarthVillainous "On the other hand, there are people who will pirate stuff because they feel forced to, or else out of protest, because the developer/publisher has put crappy stuff like DRM/spyware/etc. on their disc, and is treating their customers like potential criminals." This makes no sense. Nobody forces you to play a game. No amount of online activations (or lack thereof) will compel you to commit an illegal act. If you do claim this to be a reason you're a strange person indeed. You're either interested in the game or not. The DRM comes after the fact and may influence your decision to purchase the game. Nevertheless you can still enjoy and support the game but condemn their DRM decisions (of course the purchasing of the game doesn't exactly voice your opinion as well as a protest or a piracy does I will grant you that). But to credit these people as the ones who truly care about the developers is puzzling. What is even more interesting is in the contradiction your statement offers. In the beginning there is the implication that these customers are honest patrons who have been "forced" to piracy (an illegal act make no mistake about it) because "developer/publisher has put crappy stuff like DRM/spyware/etc. on their disc, and is treating their customers like potential criminals.". Excuse me? They've just pirated their software and you're confused as to why they would put DRM in to try and deter these potential criminals? They are criminals, they just pirated your game! "Spore, the #1 pirated game last year - and of all time - occupies that spot solely because of the widespread anger that occured because of its DRM." I'd like to see the information that supports the opinion of the vast majority of people that pirated this game BECAUSE AND ONLY BECAUSE they were upset over the DRM. If you were to do a poll on why it was pirated you would get a thousand different answers as to why. I am far from unreasonable though and would gladly admit that you would find many that cited DRM, but attributing this as the sole reason is laughable. Until you have some information that states this was the primary reason it was pirated (or perhaps the larger reason that it was an incredibly highly anticipated game by the creator of the series that has sold more copies than Mario Bros.) then don't assume you know the reason why this game was pirated, something that is arguably impossible to answer. "While Spore and the other 6 games with DRM on that list would no doubt have been pirated lots no matter the circumstances, had they all been DRM free the numbers would've probably been significantly less." Pirated lots no matter the circumstances. Simply keep that in mind and read the last part of your statement. Both cannot be true. You cannot have a significant number based on DRM, or as you would imply in the first part of your statement by virtue of the game itself. I would argue that I see no reason they would have been significantly less. Unless you can show me that a majority of those who did pirate this game did so out of protest to the DRM (which is again a flawed method of protest) then I have no reason to conclude it would decreased in any significant amount.
@Hydrolix "I mean really, what's the point of going to all the trouble to crack/hack a game if you can afford to buy a copy and support the developers?" Believe it or not, those who would consider piracy don't care about developers. Why pay for something that they could acquire without paying anything for. The choice of keeping your money or giving it to a system that you feel isn't as beneficial to the developer as it should be is a hard sale.
@Humorguy_basic "Surely anyone looking dispassionately would say having a 4 year old Fallout compilation managing to get in the NPD Top 10 and DLC being No.1 on D2D's chart and an unknown indie title at No.1 on the Steam chart do not point to huge numbers, but to small numbers" Again I've yet to see this so I would like to be on the same page as you and reviewing the same listing provided by the NPD. But we'll go with what you've written; Fallout 3 was released barely over half a year ago to much critical acclaim, bringing a lot of series novices into franchise that had been going on for 4 previous games (Yes Tactics BoS and BoS were still Fallout games). A recently released game compiling the PC releases of a game that gathered in the least a lot of attention really doesn't indicate that its sales were low. For all we know it could have been 200,000 units or 200. The quality, timing, or even personal bias towards them really doesn't speak to whether or not it's performed well, rather all of those games that you've listed were new releases, which should come as little surprise that they could top charts. But that would also assume I've got the same chart as you do, in fact the most recent NPD sales chart I've seen that did list Wrath of the Lich King as number 1 also has the Fallout Trilogy on it, but at number 7. "Meaning NWN2 DLC is outselling Empire Total War, an indie title is doing better than WoW Litch King and the Fallout compilation sold 100,000's of copies last week to enable title above to sell more than that?" I never said that D2D or Steam are producing huge numbers, but I did say that they gather sales of products that may or may not have been sold otherwise. So while the NWN2 DLC may have topped the weekly chart on D2D it could equate to 70,000 units, I don't know. However even though this trend is gaining more momentum, not only in the PC gaming section, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that for nearly all titles majority of their sales come from retail boxes. Bearing that in mind Empire Total War being at number 10 could mean that it sold 80,000 units. The point is that comparing to two as if they were on equal levels isn't going to give you an accurate, or as you put it 'intelligent guess', because again neither of us have any hard figures so trying to infer the quality or budget, or whatever criteria it is you're using to reason that the placement of these titles doesn't equal large sales is baseless. "That DLC and unknown indie and four year old compilations in charts means sales are low, and therefore allowing these niche titles to appear when in a higher selling market they would not get to such high positions." Again we've no idea how many of these units were sold. These products are both new releases, and both of them are exclusive in being available only through a digital distribution. (On a side note where are you getting 4 year old compilation? There are two compilations of Fallout, one by Gator the other by Global Soft, neither of which was released four years ago. Gator's was in fact released less than a month ago the other released in 2008. And the most recent of the games was released in 2001.) In regards to NWN2 DLC's being delayed for 2 years due to better DRM you are absolutely correct. Time will indeed tell if it was enough DRM, however if I may make an 'intelligent guess' myself: they have not come up with the magic bullet, and this will not defeat piracy. It was a title for a particular community, one that would most likely support it given their dedication to the game. But just as it was made, it will once again be unmade and those who want to acquire it for free will have little trouble in getting through 2 years of "better DRM". Which was really the whole message throughout these posts. DRM is an understandable goal. You want to protect your investment, you need the return on your development costs, you must stay in business, piracy doesn't help this. The larger yet less clear issue is to what extent can a company go towards protecting their product before it turns away consumers and what impact does it have on pirates (and even further what impact do pirates really have on sales?). These are the ones that much like our discussion regarding the market share that retail sales hold over digital distribution is one that cannot be answered given our limited information and would still remain difficult to say even with hard numbers, since those show the numbers that did or did not buy.
@Humorguy_basic You are correct I did not see your earlier post, but I will address at least the section that you've quoted. "As much as gamers repeat the lie that downloads are happening in huge numbers, this is based on a 'hope' that PC gaming won't die, because no one that has ever ever seen sales numbers - so it must be based on blind hope" Two words - Non sequitur. By your own admission we've not seen the sales figures for these digital distribution services. This means only one thing: neither of us can comment with any confidence that either of us are correct. You may be correct and they may make up a small portion of PC game sales, you may also be incorrect. I've not repeated a lie when it cannot be refuted. Unless NPD or Gabe Newell pops into this thread and gives us hard numbers we're still left in the dark. But regardless of where those numbers are is irrelevant. Because a sale of Left 4 Dead on Steam is still a sale of Left 4 Dead. If only 5 people were purchasing games through these methods that's still 5 people that purchased the game just as if they would have purchased a retail box. Neither of us will know if they would have purchased it at the store, or if it was the method of distribution that aided in their sale. No marketing group can track that information. The only difference however between the sale of a game online or at a retail store are that A. You and I don't know the numbers, but market research groups do (i.e. NPD as well as Valve) and B. The developer made a larger profit through the digital distribution by avoiding a retail box, shipping, and a middle man, and yet they still sell for the same price. The incentive for a developer to cut costs and increase their profits will always trump their a traditional venue, especially if you consider that the risk is minimal without any inventory. Services like Steam risk virtually nothing to put up a webpage listing information about the game, and a server to then distribute it. Allowing them to sell as many or as few games as the case may be. In a traditional setting their game may have to compete with other titles for shelf space, something that as you've witnessed is becoming less and less. Whether you and I like it or not, the writing is on the wall, with less retail boxes for PC games and more DS Pokemon covers you can in the very least infer that the way we purchase these games is changing. But nailing the coffin shut on PC gaming is also premature. "When you have the Fallout compilation (Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics), a four year old budget title in the NPD Top10" I couldn't find this, in fact I found a larger point when I searched NPD PC game retail sales, one that I had already mentioned listing Wrath of the Lich King topping the charts as of one of the more recent (but not most recent) released figures. I did confirm what you'd said about NWN2 DLC for the D2D chart, but what you failed to mention that this was released that week of reported sales (by the way this also the same chart where I saw Wrath of the Lich King topping the retail). You may have read those figures differently than I did, but when I see DLC being developed for a game that was released two and half years ago says that there is at least enough interest in this game, an exclusively PC game I might add, to warrant the development and distribution (again the exclusive method of the DLC) of an expansion to the game. Ask yourself this: how willing would Ossian Studios as well as Atari be to lose money on DLC if there was no interest in it, and or the (alleged) poor sales of an online distribution service. Furthermore Killing Floor topping the charts for Steam is again a skewed observation. Indie games have little chance of making it on the shelves of a retail store, for games like these they've gained a medium that offers little investment to get their products out to people that otherwise may not have purchased it. Games for instance like Braid, one that was critically well received. D2D caters to different users, Steam caters to different users, brick and mortar stores cater to yet another the bottom line is that the more ways an item is available the more likely it is that you'll reach one of those consumers. This may affect your local gaming store, but unfortunately I couldn't do something about it if I wanted to. I prefer to go into a record store and purchase an album, I know many people that haven't been in one for years and go to iTunes for their purchases; digital distribution is catching on whether we like it or not. But it doesn't equate to less sales, just in a different medium. "If you say something positive about PC game sales, people believe you, if you say something negative, even if it's true, you get flamed! This is noway to discuss PC gaming!" If this is the way it is then I suppose ignorance is in fact bliss, and the more we both spread these alleged rumors (which again nether you nor I can confirm or deny) the better the general outlook will become PC gaming. But the distaste of another method of distribution affecting your local gaming store is hardly the because of pirates, is more affected by digital distribution, but again a sale elsewhere is still a sale and doesn't mean PC gaming is dead.
pwnzord's comments