The Age of New DRM

[Tigranes]

Yep. I can think of at least a dozen people I know IRL who play games, don't care for the games 'community', don't know what DRM is, but will be enraged and pissed to hear that they have to be online for single player.

 

and you know, the funny thing is, for a hardcore RPG player, there's a much higher chance that they will so want to play the game they will buy it anyway, buy it and crack the DRM, or pirate it. For your hey-ho guy that plays some games, there are hundreds of games out there and to him one's just as good as the other. He will just move on the second he realises this game was made by anally retentive people.

 

Despite Purkake's everlasting cynicism, the gamer minority getting their panties in a knot isn't completely pointless in this regard. Get more general tech places like Wired to pick up on this kind of stuff? That does help.

[Purkake]

The thing is that PC gaming itself is pretty non-mainstream by now and the bigger publications don't really care. The thinking goes something like this: if you want to play PC games you put up with the DRM, otherwise you play console games.

 

Also, proud to be the official cynic

[Orogun01]

While not mainstream, it is still considerably big and anyone here can think of at least five PC exclusive games that sold well. Plus for people that don't own an Xbox or the PS3 or have one and not the other, the PC is a third alternative for exclusive games.

Companies should reward their loyal customers, instead of going after a problem with no viable solution at the expense of possibly alienating them.

[Gorgon]

There are still a gazillion more people with computers than with consoles. Of course if publishers think they can make their games more or less immune to piracy like WOW the prospects are enormous. I bet the idea is to wane us unto allways online by selling their games in tiny fragments or having a version update every other weekend.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Gorgon

[Purkake]

Let's not pretend that PC gaming is anywhere as relevant as console gaming aside from flash games, facebook games and MMOs.

 

Also WoW is hardly immune to piracy, it just works slightly differently with that.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Purkake

[jaguars4ever]

The thing is that PC gaming itself is pretty non-mainstream by now and the bigger publications don't really care. The thinking goes something like this: if you want to play PC games you put up with the DRM, otherwise you play console games.

 

Also, proud to be the official cynic

I don't think the binary bandits really care. Their thinking goes something like this: if you want us to buy PC games you piss off with DRM, otherwise we pirate.

 

Also, proud to be the official iconoclast

[Tigranes]

It's a lasting question for me, actually. There's no denying that the console market is bigger now and the game publsihers pay a lot more attention (and money) to console gaming. But in wider society, is there a strong recognition that PC gaming is 'dead'? I don't know, but i haven't seen any good evidence or arguments to suggest either way. In fact, if there's a fine example of Purkake's 'stuff-only-gamers-care-about', this might be one of them.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Their thinking goes something like this: if you want us to buy PC games you piss off with DRM, otherwise we pirate.

 

No its: we pirate regardless and laugh at your stupidity for annoying your paying customers.

[Purkake]

@Jags: I was talking about the publications' thinking as to why they don't really bother covering all the DRM shenanigans.

 

@Tigranes: PC gaming is seen as it always has been seen: something that nerds do in their basements with ultra-expensive rigs. All the casual stuff and even WoW doesn't go under the traditional understanding of "PC gaming".

Edited February 1, 2010 by Purkake

[RPGmasterBoo]

It's a lasting question for me, actually. There's no denying that the console market is bigger now and the game publsihers pay a lot more attention (and money) to console gaming. But in wider society, is there a strong recognition that PC gaming is 'dead'? I don't know, but i haven't seen any good evidence or arguments to suggest either way. In fact, if there's a fine example of Purkake's 'stuff-only-gamers-care-about', this might be one of them.

 

Consoles successes are overblown. The Wii is a dead end gimmick, the PS3 has strangled itself by being so slow and the XBOX360's limitations are more obvious with each day.

 

The PC endures as it always has. A period is coming where this generation of consoles will be winding down and the PC platform will be the best place to game, at least until the next generation.

 

I invite anyone to scan through XBOX360's and PS3's most successful games. You'll see that we have a PC version for 90% of them. The PC has covered practically everything of note, without suffering the constraints of the consoles.

 

In fact buying a console, especially the XBOX360 is a senseless move since you can play almost everything worthwhile on it on the PC. +everything else the PC offers

Edited February 1, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

Don't kid yourself, Wii sold 3.81 million units this December alone and the PS3 has been picking up during the last year.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Don't kid yourself, Wii sold 3.81 million units this December alone and the PS3 has been picking up during the last year.

 

The Wii is a bubble waiting to burst. However its of little interest to us anyway since it lies outside the "serious" gaming scene.

 

Its too late for the PS3, its techincal capabilities are past their prime or will be soon.

Edited February 1, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

Nice deflection there.

 

Where do you get all these little factoids about the consoles?

[RPGmasterBoo]

Nice deflection there.

 

Where do you get all these little factoids about the consoles?

 

I'm a mentat.

[Purkake]

Don't drag Dune into this.

 

360's graphical capability has peaked a long time ago, but it is still the yardstick for graphics. Why? Because it's the most common next-gen console out there and sells the most next-gen software. This isn't going to change until the next console comes out, no matter what the PC does. People don't just jump from console to PC because the graphics are better, the cultures around the systems are fundamentally different.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Purkake

[RPGmasterBoo]

Seriously:

 

1. Wii

Its a high tech toy with its self contained market and games. Yes it sells like candy, but so did the tamagochi's. Until people grew bored of them and they went to the dung heap of history. Even if the Wii outlasts everything else its still a separate world of little bearing to the gaming scene.

 

2. PS3

Cool technology, great hardware. That sat for several years doing nothing, and is not up to much now. And day by day its technology gets older and older.

What it sold it sold on the promise of being another PS2. Which it is not.

 

3. Xbox360

Sell's well, the PS2 of this generation. Would be great if almost everything didn't get ported to PC. Weaker in tech than PS3, and is already showing its age.

 

4. The PC

Has got far better tech than anything else now. Gets almost every console game of note. Is compatible with untold number of games. Gets its own games on top of the better console titles.

 

Actually to suggest that there is a better place to game in the last several years than the PC is insane. The only flaw being, we have to wait a little more until we get the ports.

 

360's graphical capability has peaked a long time ago, but it is still the yardstick for graphics. Why? Because it's the most common next-gen console out there and sells the most next-gen software. This isn't going to change until the next console comes out, no matter what the PC does. People don't just jump from console to PC because the graphics are better, the cultures around the systems are fundamentally different.

 

True.

 

Consoles have their permanent crowds, and its going to stay that way.

 

Still console successes derive mostly from the fact that they get better and much more aggressive marketing. They get it, because they have to sell. The PC doesn't, because its not a luxury toy - its a necessity. Its sales are pretty much guaranteed.

 

Really, look back - its all been marketing and hype. Besides we've yet to see a viable innovation in the console department. What are they going to offer to improve upon the PS3 and Xbox360. They've already simplified the gameplay of the principal genres to the point of mind numbing stupidity. It has to wear out its welcome.

Edited February 1, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

I never said there was a "better" place to game. I'm saying that the PC isn't in the gaming mainstream anymore and no amount of crazy graphics is going to change that. PC games aren't going to outsell 360 ones anytime soon.

 

The consoles won't fall into obscurity under the PC's awesomeness, they will be replaced by the next generation which will continue to sell software better than the PC. When Wii sales finally start dropping significantly, Nintendo will release a new add-on, a new Super Mario game or in the worst case scenario a Wii 2.

 

Consoles have their permanent crowds, and its going to stay that way.

 

Still console successes derive mostly from the fact that they get better and much more aggressive marketing. They get it, because they have to sell. The PC doesn't, because its not a luxury toy - its a necessity. Its sales are pretty much guaranteed.

 

Really, look back - its all been marketing and hype. Besides we've yet to see a viable innovation in the console department. What are they going to offer to improve upon the PS3 and Xbox360. They've already simplified the gameplay of the principal genres to the point of mind numbing stupidity. It has to wear out its welcome.

 

A gaming-capable PC is just as much a luxury toy as a console these days. Does it matter that consoles' popularity is created by marketing and hype? The fact is that they are popular and Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have a lot more money for future marketing and hype. The lack of "viable innovation" hasn't really hampered the software sales, has it? When we see any signs of it wearing out it's welcome, you might have a point, until then it's just baseless speculation.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Purkake

[RPGmasterBoo]

I never said there was a "better" place to game. I'm saying that the PC isn't in the gaming mainstream anymore and no amount of crazy graphics is going to change that. PC games aren't going to outsell 360 ones anytime soon.

 

The consoles won't fall into obscurity under the PC's awesomeness, they will be replaced by the next generation which will continue to sell software better than the PC. When Wii sales finally start dropping significantly, Nintendo will release a new add-on, a new Super Mario game or in the worst case scenario a Wii 2.

 

I disagree. I think the consoles are running out of ideas that will still be interesting to the masses in a few years time. They've gone too far in the streamlining to leave room for innovation.

 

The PC needs a few unique games that won't be released for the consoles, to put its full technical abilities on display. Also releases of long awaited sequels are coming soon: Starcraft II, Diablo III etc. They will have some impact.

Give the PC its "Halo", something to make the console gamers envious and it'll draw people back.

 

The PC wont kill the consoles of course, but it can regain a significant role in the market and that opportunity is not far off.

Edited February 1, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Tigranes]

PC's not in the gaming mainstream, definitely not. But again, I'm still really not sure whether anyone has a good grip now on what the 'wider society' impression / understanding of PC gaming is. Is it still nerds in the basement? I really doubt it. There are so many kids playing games now, and people who don't care about games are hardly going to differentiate between console gaming and PC gaming! I think it's actually a transposition of a gamer's categories and distinctions. Maybe society at large still thinks gaming as a whole is 'basement fat nerd activity', though with so many people playing now it's not certain. I don't think there's been enough good research and I don't think anyone can just say "well its obvious, non-gamers all differentiate PC gaming from console gaming to say PC gaming is nerds in the basement and not worth caring about".

 

Can't agree with Boo though, I don't think it's realistic to dismiss consoles like that. Again its a transposition of a gamer's knowledge and categories to draw conclusions about a public that includes non-gamers. There are people who own a PS3 or Xbox360, and they don't KNOW if that graphical technology is outdated, or how it compares. They don't read NVIDIA news. I know a guy who owns a PS3 and as far as he's concerned it's the best, because, well, from the games he can take a look at on a quick internet search or in ebgames, it has the best looking games. The Wii is not a 'gimmick' because as far as those guys who don't usually game are concerned, the Wii IS the norm. It's just how gaming works for them. The Wii isn't a games console, it's just a 'thing'. Comparing the Wii to a PS3 and saying the Wii is a gimmick, to them, is like comparing apples and oranges. They don't know or care about the PS3 or what gamign consoles are usually like. The Wii is a Wii and they like the Wii.

[Purkake]

@Boo: It's nice to speculate, but there's no evidence that consoles are becoming less popular for whatever reason or that they will at any point in the near future. "Running out of ideas" isn't exactly quantifiable.

 

Starcraft II and Diablo III will certainly be popular whenever they come out, but if WoW didn't manage to make PC gaming relevant, those two won't either.

 

@Tig: I meant that the console gamers still see PC gaming as nerds in basements, not the general public.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Purkake

[RPGmasterBoo]

When we see any signs of it wearing out it's welcome, you might have a point, until then it's just baseless speculation.

 

I actually saw it with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Before you point out that the game sold in huge numbers, and the rave reviews, I'd just point you in the way of various gamer opinions (on metacritic say) which are uniformly terrible for various reasons. These people feel they got burned, and while I don't put much stock in their cleverness not to buy the next game in the series, I wouldn't write off their complaints as meaningless or a minority.

 

 

 

What I see there is that the gulf between the hype and the press on one side and the gamers on the other is wider than ever before, and I think its a reasonable assumption that cracks will start to show soon enough.

 

The perpetuated fantasy that games are getting better all the time has an expiry date. I look at games and all see is stagnation and an endless parade of sequels. Especially in console games.

 

i like to think its educated guesswork *shrugs*

 

Lesson: when things are looking at their best, something's probably already going downhill.

Edited February 1, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

How do you know when things are looking their best? It could still be getting toward that point.

 

As for metacritic user reviews, they're like youtube comments. The PC version has a low score mostly because people heard that there will be no dedicated servers and found a place to vent their hate. 1-5% of the reviews are probably anywhere near honest. As for the console ones, Metacritic has an age-old tradition of PS3 fans giving the 360 version a low score and vica versa, especially when the games are high profile.

 

Most of the more honest people were disappointed with the single player, everyone seems to love the multiplayer and that seemed the focus from the start.

[RPGmasterBoo]

How do you know when things are looking their best? It could still be getting toward that point.

 

Are they not? The consoles are the order of the day ever since XBOX360 got into full swing. The actual influence of console gameplay on PC games has never been greater.

 

As for metacritic user reviews, they're like youtube comments. The PC version has a low score mostly because people heard that there will be no dedicated servers and found a place to vent their hate. 1-5% of the reviews are probably anywhere near honest. As for the console ones, Metacritic has an age-old tradition of PS3 fans giving the 360 version a low score and vica versa, especially when the games are high profile.

 

Most of the more honest people were disappointed with the single player, everyone seems to love the multiplayer and that seemed the focus from the start.

 

Actually from what I read the multiplayer lacks options and is severely unbalanced. Complaints for the multiplayer are second only to complaints for the single player campaign.

 

Regardless the numbers are too large to dismiss so easily.

Edited February 1, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

Let's look at some additional numbers, then:

 

Giant Bomb score: 5/5, user score 4.3/5 (76 reviews)

 

IGN scores:

360: 9.5, user score 8.8 (3899 ratings)

PS3: 9.5, user score 8.9 (1589 ratings)

PC: 9.5, user score 3.6 (1534 ratings) - probably the "no dedicated server" squad again

 

Gamespot scores:

360: 9.0, user score 9.0 (9260 votes)

PS3: 9.0, user score 9.1 (5071 votes)

PC: 8.5, user score 7.1 (6766 votes)

 

How do you know when things are looking their best? It could still be getting toward that point.

 

Are they not? The consoles are the order of the day ever since XBOX360 got into full swing. The actual influence of console gameplay on PC games has never been greater.

What I meant was, how do you know that console influence won't increase even more? There's nothing to say that things won't be looking even better instead of going downhill.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Purkake

[RPGmasterBoo]

I don't put much faith in gamespot's or IGN's scores mostly because every time i bothered to read the user reviews the scores are taken from its usually illiterate gibberish or fanboy drivel.

 

That said the metacritic crowd is only marginally better.

 

Still, barring Gamespot there is a discrepancy. IGN's 9.5 denotes a game of insta classic status, an 8.9 is a seasonal hit/very good game.

 

The reason I use metacritic as an example is because its general grade for PC games has a way of being fair. The rave critics get diluted by the occasional overtly negative reviewand you end up with something approaching a realistic grade. Up until a few years ago user scores tended to follow the general score, since then I keep seeing the discrepancy between AAA title grades and user grades. this was the worst of the lot.

 

I think its better for taking the "pulse" of the gamers than the review sites *shrugs*

 

What I meant was, how do you know that console influence won't increase even more? There's nothing to say that things won't be looking even better instead of going downhill.

 

Because I don't see the way to simplify core gameplay even further, something they keep doing to broaden the appeal of console games. If they can't simplify it more, they have to keep it on the same level or make it more complex. They'l never do the latter and the former is bound to run out of steam.

 

Most AAA games function as Win buttons of instant gratification. Instant gratification works fine for a while, but i think even the plebs learns to dislike a game that's rigged in his favor all the. Not to mention that its all remarkably similar which everyone notices at some point. I hope.

Edited February 1, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo