Current Gen Console Discussions (PS5, Xbox Series X, Switch (Pro?) OFFICIAL THREAD

Started by BackFire134 pages

Originally posted by Nibedicus
What I'm saying is that difficulty isn't an issue, tho.

Buying pirated games is easy. Even easier than buying original games as pirated games require no online registration (thus requiring no internet connection) and can be found just about anywhere (there are literally 30 stores that sell pirated copies for every 1 store that sells originals here). The "difficulty" barrier is dealt with by the pirates themselves. And they seem to be extremely resourceful at cracking any and all kinds of DRM or copy protection. It's a losing battle and devs should just simply abandon DRM alltrogether, IMO and focus more on lowering costs (one example is by doing away with publishers and getting rid of physical distribution as well as lowering marketing costs).

Of course difficulty is an issue. It may not matter for professional pirates. But for those who are casual fans and merely want to play the game by downloading it off of Piratebay or something, the DRM requires jumping through more hoops than would be necessary for a game without DRM.

I agree with your last point, though. Instead of DRM the most effective way to fully eliminate piracy is to transition to a fully digital method of sales, which is what most publishers are eventually going to aim for.

Originally posted by S_D_J
And then what would the next industry boogieman be?
Piracy barely scratches it, used games don't matter, so what are they gonna blame it on? game sharing between profiles on the same console

Greed kills the industry...

What greed? People wanting to make money off the products they create? There's no more greed in the video game industry than any other industry.

-games doing "poorly" at retail in spite of selling millions of copies

-In-disc and Day1 DLC

-microtransactions in full price retail games

-Online Passes

-DRM schemes to prevent second hand sells and gain money on a game already sold

pick one

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course difficulty is an issue. It may not matter for professional pirates. But for those who are casual fans and merely want to play the game by downloading it off of Piratebay or something, the DRM requires jumping through more hoops than would be necessary for a game without DRM.

I agree with your last point, though. Instead of DRM the most effective way to fully eliminate piracy is to transition to a fully digital method of sales, which is what most publishers are eventually going to aim for.

But I think the largest loss of income devs have is more on the countries where piracy laws are very lax and income levels are a bit low. First worlds (where piracy is rare and casual gamers have no access to their services) would most likely only cover a very small amount in terms of their computed "estimated" sales lost due to piracy. In third worlds, tho. Piracy is rampant. Literally stores in established malls. Stalls by the street that sell them. These aren't back alley operations, they're small business enterprises. It's literally rampant. They pirate everything from music to DVDs/Bluray to games and it's all over the place. So while DRM might discourage the occasional casual first world gamer from even trying, the loss of sales that they encounter due to restrictive pricing (in comparison to pirated games) is more to blame for the rampant piracy and would thus be the better solution in curing it altogether.

The weakness of the software pirate would always be their distribution method. They require physical copies and they need these copies to sell in volume to cover their costs in cracking them. No volume = loss in profit making the entire operation meaningless. If devs bridge the gap a bit closer (games selling for 10 dollars or less), then a TON of the pirates operations would rendered unprofitable and they would no doubt look for easier products to steal.

One method would be for software devs to allow digital downloads/sales from authorized retailers and allow said authorized digital downloads OR multi-use physical disc that can be uploaded/installed into flash drives instead of physical discs with a single-use online registration information already installed w/in the flash drive. One the game is installed, it can no longer be installed in accounts owned by other ppl. Don't know if this is already being done in the states, but it sure isn't being done here. lol.

Originally posted by S_D_J
-games doing "poorly" at retail in spite of selling millions of copies

-In-disc and Day1 DLC

-microtransactions in full price retail games

-Online Passes

-DRM schemes to prevent second hand sells and gain money on a game already sold

pick one

All games sell millions of copies? I thought it was only some. What of the games that don't sell millions of copies? These are the games suffering from used games and piracy, where every copy sold used to a customer who may potentially purchase it new matters. These are the companies that are forced to lay off tons of employees.

All forms of DLC and microtransactions are optional. You are not forced to purchase them. Both of these are done to combat the loss revenue from industry leeches like Gamestop selling used games for ridiculous profits and not sharing any of said profit with the people who made the game. Same goes for online passes and the 'schemes' you speak of. The only form of DLC I kind of have a problem with is on disc DLC.

Nibedicus - It's interesting to hear about how rampant piracy is in smaller countries like that. But there's no way they will ever lower the prices for games to a point that can compete with pirates. It's not realistic and they'd probably lose more money doing so than they would gain.

Originally posted by BackFire
Nibedicus - It's interesting to hear about how rampant piracy is in smaller countries like that. But there's no way they will ever lower the prices for games to a point that can compete with pirates. It's not realistic and they'd probably lose more money doing so than they would gain.

I don't think they should be competitive vs the pricing of the pirates, tho. I think they just need to fall within the pricing required to be accessible to the primary market of the pirates. I feel like a pricing bracket of 10-20 dollars should be enough and with solid distribution via online, they should be able to eliminate a large portion of piracy altogether.

Originally posted by BackFire
All games sell millions of copies? I thought it was only some. What of the games that don't sell millions of copies? These are the games suffering from used games and piracy, where every copy sold used to a customer who may potentially purchase it new matters. These are the companies that are forced to lay off tons of employees.

All forms of DLC and microtransactions are optional. You are not forced to purchase them. Both of these are done to combat the loss revenue from industry leeches like Gamestop selling used games for ridiculous profits and not sharing any of said profit with the people who made the game. Same goes for online passes and the 'schemes' you speak of. The only form of DLC I kind of have a problem with is on disc DLC.

Nibedicus - It's interesting to hear about how rampant piracy is in smaller countries like that. But there's no way they will ever lower the prices for games to a point that can compete with pirates. It's not realistic and they'd probably lose more money doing so than they would gain.

where in anywhere in my post I wrote "all games"

you know what (and which) I'm taking about when I say games doing "poorly"

Day 1 DLC does not need to exist since the game is just launching and should be "complete" regardless of it being optional. It makes them look petty

Don't get me started on microtransactions, these aren't $2 games we're taking about, not even $5 games.

make games with replay value, not games you're done with in a matter of hours, and now they want you to be stuck with?

And companies closing or laying off staff? how many of those were developers suck in by the publisher? robe of their IP or simply force to exaust it and then get rid off?
or in the case of THQ, fell under bad corporate decisions that left them broke, Udraw anyone?

and they are schemes, what's sold is sold. a second hand copy has already been paid for... not to mention it's messing with my rights as a consumer. Gamestop sucks, they are leeches, but would you say the same thing about amazon or ebay?

And taking about Gamestop, the very same embodiment of the "evil" the second hand market is, how would you explain publisher so willingly and constantly jumping in bed with them? how do you explain pre-order DLC exclusive to Gamestop?, heck how do you explain pre-orders at all and the way now developers are required to "make" pre-order bonuses for all AAA games?
How do you explain pricing digital copies at the same price as retail? they want a piece of the Gamestop dough, why not just price the digital copies accordingly?, cutting the middle man, passing savings to consumers, and watch Gamestop whiter and dry cuz it's cheaper and much more comfortable to buy directly at home?

And on disc DLC sucks, but i did say to pick one and you did 😉

Well now that all the Xbox One restrictins are gone, the consoles are essentially identical again and I'll have to let the exclusivities decide for me when the time comes...

I propose it be named it the Xbox 180 to commemorate MS' change in policy.

Cool as that would be it makes it sound like it should come between the original and 360 lol.

People are getting a lot of fun out of that name lol.

Originally posted by S_D_J
where in anywhere in my post I wrote "all games"

you know what (and which) I'm taking about when I say games doing "poorly"

Day 1 DLC does not need to exist since the game is just launching and should be "complete" regardless of it being optional. It makes them look petty

Don't get me started on microtransactions, these aren't $2 games we're taking about, not even $5 games.

make games with replay value, not games you're done with in a matter of hours, and now they want you to be stuck with?

And companies closing or laying off staff? how many of those were developers suck in by the publisher? robe of their IP or simply force to exaust it and then get rid off?
or in the case of THQ, fell under bad corporate decisions that left them broke, Udraw anyone?

and they are schemes, what's sold is sold. a second hand copy has already been paid for... not to mention it's messing with my rights as a consumer. Gamestop sucks, they are leeches, but would you say the same thing about amazon or ebay?

And taking about Gamestop, the very same embodiment of the "evil" the second hand market is, how would you explain publisher so willingly and constantly jumping in bed with them? how do you explain pre-order DLC exclusive to Gamestop?, heck how do you explain pre-orders at all and the way now developers are required to "make" pre-order bonuses for all AAA games?
How do you explain pricing digital copies at the same price as retail? they want a piece of the Gamestop dough, why not just price the digital copies accordingly?, cutting the middle man, passing savings to consumers, and watch Gamestop whiter and dry cuz it's cheaper and much more comfortable to buy directly at home?

And on disc DLC sucks, but i did say to pick one and you did 😉

No, I don't know what games you're talking about because you made a vague and silly comment that in no way is indicative of any meaningful point. You simply said games selling millions and doing poorly. Though it's perfectly possible for a game to sell a million copies and still not make back the money that the game cost. It's a meaningless benchmark - the only meaningful benchmark is actual profit, which you are ignoring when you point to an arbitrary number of sales like that.

Day 1 DLC does not need to exist, and it does not need to be purchased. It's extra content that you can purchase if you wish. Despite what many think it's not content that they withheld from the product that was ready to go months in advance when they started printing copies of the game. It was content they were working on during the time between a game being gold and a game being made public.

The price of the full game has little baring on microtransactions. Just don't utilize them. A lot of people want to buy different models or outfits for their characters or whatever, and so the publishers make it available. Blame the people who buy it, not those who allow them to buy it.

You say make games with replay value, as if developers intentionally make bad games. When they're making a game they likely think it WILL have good replay value. Sometimes they just fail. Thankfully you aren't forced to purchase bad games. And you have no inherent right to play games that you don't purchase.

What gamestop does is different than what Amazon and Ebay do. Amazon and ebay don't purchase the game from you and then turn around and resell it for 400% profit. Gamestop does. Amazon and ebay simply act as an intermediary for users to sell things themselves or for other smaller venues to sell things. Gamestop literally sucks unearned income out of the industry. Just because some publishers try utilize gimmicks in conjunction with gamestop to try and make some money from them doesn't mean gamestop offers some meaningful service. The relationship between publishers and Gamestop is rocky and an ugly necessity. And this relationship is rocky because Gamestop, at their core, is a leech. They maximize their profit directly by minimizing the profit of the industry they pretend to be a part of. It's why the industry will be better off when they are dead. Which isn't going to be far off.

As far as pricing digital copies go, currently console games are still sold through physical means as the primary way of getting the product into the hands of the consumer. As such, unfortunately retail stores like Gamestop still hold a great deal of power over publishers. If a publisher were to make a digital copy permanently cheaper than what Gamestop could match, Gamestop could simply threaten to stop carrying products of that publisher, and that could be crippling for all except the biggest publishers. This already is happening with the PC market. Digital distribution of PC games is now considered the norm thanks to outlets like STEAM. Thankfully over the next ten or so years digital sales will become the norm for consoles as well and there will be nothing Gamestop and other retailers will be able to do about it no matter the tantrum they throw. And once digital distribution is the norm then they will be able to lower prices in sometimes extreme ways as PC publishers are able to do on steam, because they aren't losing money from used game sales, so they can make more profits and then pass on savings to the consumer. And there are sales on Xbox Live and PSN every now and then where games can be purchased for much cheaper than Gamestop. They just aren't permanent.

Because people buy used games publishers feel that they have to have the new product be expensive to try and maximize their profit while the game is hot and hyped. This leads to more people buying used games which then causes prices to go up more. Used games and piracy create a vicious cycle. Fortunately, the opposite is also true. The death of used games will create a cycle of greater profit and savings for the consumer.

Originally posted by BackFire

Instead of DRM the most effective way to fully eliminate piracy is to transition to a fully digital method of sales, which is what most publishers are eventually going to

Or even put things in games when said people pirate them they have to put up with it

like what Croteam did with Serious Sam 3 by putting in a immortal pink scorpion.

Indeed. I don't know why more developers don't do things like that. It's hilarious and effective.

I never understood the issue with DLC. Don't buy it. It's there for people who want the option.

I bought BF3 Premium edition. I'm glad I did because the content is top notch and it freshened up a 2 year old game. Same with the Mass Effect series.

I wouldn't buy a Season Pass (except maybe Forza) because I like to know the quality of the content I am buying but nobody is forcing people to buy it.

As for piracy, I think the idea is that you want combat piracy in countries like the US/UK/CAN. It's the rich white boys that download the game from a torrent site that is issue, not a small country with a thriving black market. Having online restrictions in place will combat those rich white boys from downloading. You would see a game like Crysis (I think over 3 million pirated games) get less and less pirated if online restrictions are in place.

Your in minority when it comes to DRM.......😬

especially when you get dev's like CD Projekt Red pretty much saying it doesn't work and most likely many others.

Maybe for PC it doesn't but for consoles I think it does.

Does anybody remember how easy it was to pirate games on the Sega Dreamcast?

You need to a lot of things if you want to play pirated games on your XBOX 360.

As always, the hackers are 2-10 steps ahead of the security measures. This is principle #1 when it comes to Secure Software Development. Many hackers sit on 0-Days for months or even years before releasing them. And the hacking community continues to grow. Most hacking occurs by "white boys" in first world countries.

Things like DRM and "always online" are the final cries of agony from an archaic and outdated system. Some theorize that intellectual property will cease to exist. I think the money system will have to disappear before we see that happen. That's decades out (and requires a very robust system of AI).

I fear....for the next two decades, the market will shift to microstransactions. DRM will probably go away and the "micro-market" will subsume our consumerspace. Damn you, Zynga....Damn you EA.

I am one of those who thinks the idea of IP will change, though how fast it will be is another thing.

I'm actually a straight arrow when it comes to purchasing media, though I don't listen to much music, I only buy films I've already seen so I know I like them anyway and I barely ever buy a game and feel I wasted my money or that the publishers and programmers did not deserve a cut, so it's an easy decision for me regardless of my moral stance. But in a broader sense, the idea of IP is already under vast attack from ease of data transfer. With books and music, it's already virtually dead in the water and the only thing slowing it with films and games is internet infrastructure. As soon as you can transmit films and games, globally, in seconds then they will be in the same situation as music now.

IP was created for a time of physical media. It also has a very strong moral case for existing, but it's fundamentally incompatible with a high-speed data age. Information will flow; the public pressure behind it will be unstoppable. The two things just don't logically co-exist. Hence the notion of ownership and the rights of creators will have to evolve to fit how the world works.

It will be publishers that lose out the most, I'd have thought. The creators will always have a moral case for getting revenue, even if it just comes down to voluntary donations, but publishers will get screwed.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, I don't know what games you're talking about because you made a vague and silly comment that in no way is indicative of any meaningful point. You simply said games selling millions and doing poorly. Though it's perfectly possible for a game to sell a million copies and still not make back the money that the game cost. It's a meaningless benchmark - the only meaningful benchmark is actual profit, which you are ignoring when you point to an arbitrary number of sales like that.

Day 1 DLC does not need to exist, and it does not need to be purchased. It's extra content that you can purchase if you wish. Despite what many think it's not content that they withheld from the product that was ready to go months in advance when they started printing copies of the game. It was content they were working on during the time between a game being gold and a game being made public.

The price of the full game has little baring on microtransactions. Just don't utilize them. A lot of people want to buy different models or outfits for their characters or whatever, and so the publishers make it available. Blame the people who buy it, not those who allow them to buy it.

You say make games with replay value, as if developers intentionally make bad games. When they're making a game they likely think it WILL have good replay value. Sometimes they just fail. Thankfully you aren't forced to purchase bad games. And you have no inherent right to play games that you don't purchase.

What gamestop does is different than what Amazon and Ebay do. Amazon and ebay don't purchase the game from you and then turn around and resell it for 400% profit. Gamestop does. Amazon and ebay simply act as an intermediary for users to sell things themselves or for other smaller venues to sell things. Gamestop literally sucks unearned income out of the industry. Just because some publishers try utilize gimmicks in conjunction with gamestop to try and make some money from them doesn't mean gamestop offers some meaningful service. The relationship between publishers and Gamestop is rocky and an ugly necessity. And this relationship is rocky because Gamestop, at their core, is a leech. They maximize their profit directly by minimizing the profit of the industry they pretend to be a part of. It's why the industry will be better off when they are dead. Which isn't going to be far off.

As far as pricing digital copies go, currently console games are still sold through physical means as the primary way of getting the product into the hands of the consumer. As such, unfortunately retail stores like Gamestop still hold a great deal of power over publishers. If a publisher were to make a digital copy permanently cheaper than what Gamestop could match, Gamestop could simply threaten to stop carrying products of that publisher, and that could be crippling for all except the biggest publishers. This already is happening with the PC market. Digital distribution of PC games is now considered the norm thanks to outlets like STEAM. Thankfully over the next ten or so years digital sales will become the norm for consoles as well and there will be nothing Gamestop and other retailers will be able to do about it no matter the tantrum they throw. And once digital distribution is the norm then they will be able to lower prices in sometimes extreme ways as PC publishers are able to do on steam, because they aren't losing money from used game sales, so they can make more profits and then pass on savings to the consumer. And there are sales on Xbox Live and PSN every now and then where games can be purchased for much cheaper than Gamestop. They just aren't permanent.

Because people buy used games publishers feel that they have to have the new product be expensive to try and maximize their profit while the game is hot and hyped. This leads to more people buying used games which then causes prices to go up more. Used games and piracy create a vicious cycle. Fortunately, the opposite is also true. The death of used games will create a cycle of greater profit and savings for the consumer.

Resident Evil 6, Tomb Raider, Dead Space 3, Hitman are the ones that come to mind. You yourself said some games, so I can interpret just as well you knew what games I was talking about. My point is Publishers deeming said games as failures when clearly they aren't.
How do you determine profit? this benchmark isn't disclose as to make proper comparison.

So what happens with a game you didn't like or thought was too short or simply are done with it as is likely you won't go back to it later.Are you just stuck with it? If microsoft were to have its way, that would have happen. I'm not talking about games you don't purchase cuz obviously you won't waste money on them and have little to complain about, I'm not taking about digital either with this point. It's physical copies they aren't ready to kill yet.
Even Steam is considering sharing games, and it might have something to do with that Germany lawsuit

DLC is not consider or done just after games going gold, they're too thought of and develop while the game is being develop as well. This does not apply to all developers, but it is happening.

About Gamestop, not just some publishers, all of them do, all of them are in bed with Gamestop, Developers are told to make this preorder things, and most are for Gamestop exclusively.
You talk about the dead of Gamestop with an all digital future, why hasn't that happen now? What if Sony were to have gone the Microsoft way with the PS4, their policies would have been pretty much the same as the Xbone, and guess what?, one of those "participating retailers" would have been Gamestop (if not primarly) so what would have happen with, like it's put mostly, pops and moms stores? what would have happen with selling your games at Amazon or Ebay? they would be gone.

They would have willingly eliminated Gamestop competition, not Gamestop itself.

Yes, they don't price digital accordingly because of retailers like Gamestop, because they are afraid of them, but this gen the gun was loaded and handed to both Sony and M$ to go all digital and outright kill Gamestop, they didn't. The infrastructure exist already and they don't use it, why?

Poor developers, even when they complain about used games, when they are gone it would Publishers benefiting from it, not the ones that make the game.

I don't like an all digital future to be honest, but it's inevitable. As long as convenience is more luring than proprietorship, I'm willing to buy digital, Steam gives you that, PS+ sales gives me that. Heck GOG is entirely DRM free and is great at it.

I think Backfire point is that games that sell millions doesn't necessarily mean they are successes.

In restaurants, you can have the resto completely full but that doesn't mean shit if your selling your menu items below the cost to make them. You will lose money.

It's the same with games. Profit = successes. Not sales. Why would you think that? You can sell 500 million copies of a game but unless the profit is there, the developer is still going under.

Again, my point is publisher stating said games as failures. It's mind bloggling to hear a game selling over 3 million copies is consider a "failure". A million seller used to be a best seller.

What happened?

Publisher getting out of control with games budget happened. It's costly to develop for cutting edge platforms, it's a risk. but when they failed they look to point the finger elsewhere: "used game", "piracy" instead of reevaluating and considering their fault at their failure. But still you heard Publisher crying out for a "next gen" already when they can recoup investment with the current gen. It's also where hypocrisy shows when this same publishers ask to cater to Gamestop with exclusive deals, while blaming them for being the bane of their existence