Support NeoGAF

[Tellaerin]

Wow, some people are so fucking cynical.

And others are hopelessly naive.

The move to download-based PC gaming from CD-based gaming isn't so that big scary corporations can watch you while you're sleeping, it isn't because they want to screw you out of even more money, and it isn't even due to the fact that they can cutom-tailor in-game ads for you (which they could do right now if they wanted to, btw)

Guess what? They already are. And I don't like it one fucking bit. I consider it extremely intrusive, even if you don't, and regardless of whether or not you think privacy concerns are unreasonable or 'not founded in any sort of sanity', that shouldn't mean that the rest of us should have to accept this shit by default. You want to live in a virtual fishbowl? Fine, be my guest. Those of us who don't shouldn't be forced to agree to that kind of crap just to play our games. At the very least, there needs to be an easy way to opt out of any data collecting, without a hassle and without it impairing your ability to play the game you've already spent your money on.

, it's because online distibution is so much fucking cheaper. The idea of buying a physical CD or DVD from a bricks-and-mortar shop with your game on it is filled with a hundred completely redundant expenses, from the physical cost of the disc and packaging to the huge number of people that have to be payed to ship this item around the world and hand it to you when you give them your money.

It also keeps any number of people gainfully employed, from the guys pressing those discs to the teamsters loading the trucks to the sales associates at those brick-and-mortar outlets. Do those guys deserve to lose their jobs in order to streamline the distribution process? I guess they shouldn't matter to anyone, though--they're not developers.

Don't get me wrong. I think the relationship between publishers and content developers is unfairly skewed in favor of publishers, and that's true of most media. Unfortunately, 'cutting out the middleman' here forces the consumer to make an unacceptable number of sacrifices when it comes to the final product, as I've explained below.

Online distribution removes all of these, resulting in much cheaper games for you, and more profits for the developers.

It also results in something that I consider a lower-grade product.

The bottom line is, I don't want to be forced to rely on external systems or services, over which I have no control, in order to play my games. Networks go down. Authentication servers fail. Companies go out of business. This 'you won't be able to purchase games on standalone media, and won't be able to play them without online authorization' introduces any number of unnecessary dependencies into what should be the simple the process of playing a game, any one of which could lead to me being unable to do so. To be honest, no savings is worth that to me.

Then there's also the fact if all content is only made available through downloads and not on traditional media, I'm forced to forfeit the ability to lend my games out to friends, borrow games from friends, or trade them in at a brick-and-mortar for credit when I get tired of them. I know developers and publishers would prefer that people not be able to do any of those things, since forcing everyone to purchase individual copies and eliminating the secondhand market altogether would increase profits. As a consumer, I think not being able to do any of those things with an item that I've purchased positively blows.

That's right, I said developers, not "large corporations", because the extremely low cost of online sales (with bittorrent-style downloads) means that the developers themselves now have an opportunity that they haven't in many years, and that is to self-publish at very low cost and very low risk. Aside from handling advertising, it makes large publishers pretty much obsolete which means that, for the developer, each sale is nearly 100% profit. This results in lots of games that would have been deemed "too risky" to publish in years gone by actually seeing the light of day, with developers being able to subsist on a smaller userbase if needs be, which will in no small part contribute to the creative, as well as the economic growth of PC gaming.

If small publishers who can't get onto shelves any other way want to go the download-only route, more power to them. As long as I'm not forced to have an active net connection while playing a single-player game and I'm allowed to burn a copy so I can reinstall it in the event the company goes out of business and my HD dies a tragic death, I can live with that. It's fine as an option. I just don't ever want to see it replace games that come on a disc, in a box, with a proper printed manual.

And to those complaining about the need to connect to the internet to play a single-player game, we're talking about this sort of thing phasing in over the next few years, not tomorrow, by which time every computer will be connected to the internet at all times, for all intents and purposes.

That doesn't mean networks or authentication servers won't go down.

Broadband speeds will also grow faster than the size of disc-based storage media,

There's an upper limit to how fast broadband's going to get. You can't cheat relativity. On the other hand, the size of games will continue to increase as code and assets become more complex, and that is a fairly steady progression without a defined upper limit. So the downloads probably won't get much shorter, and sooner or later, they'll start getting longer.

meaning that in not too long, having to re-download old games you've wiped from your hard-drive won't be a problem, in fact, it'll become quicker than finding the CD and manually installing it. In fact, I can't find one reasonable problem with the move to online-distribution (and no, to be honest, I don't consider people's fears over privacy to be reasonable [or founded in any sort of sanity]), and, as far as I'm concerned, the sooner the better.

I think I've just offered several valid objections, apart from privacy issues. You may not share them, but I don't think you can dismiss them, either.

 

[Kon Tiki]

*applasue*

About time. Now if that dinosaur RIAA can allow bands/artitsts to seelk albums over the net*, I would be happy.


*I am not talking about some shitty mp3 on itunes, I am talking about loseless albums.

 

[Thraktor]

I'm not going to go point-to-point with everything you've said (I have better ways to spend my time), but there's one thing I'd like to point out:

It also keeps any number of people gainfully employed, from the guys pressing those discs to the teamsters loading the trucks to the sales associates at those brick-and-mortar outlets. Do those guys deserve to lose their jobs in order to streamline the distribution process? I guess they shouldn't matter to anyone, though--they're not developers.

This is exactly the same argument Marx used in his treatises against industrialisation, and, like him, you'll find that it's completely impractical, and hugely detrimental to an economy, to keep people in unneccesary employment purely as an act of charity towards them. The system works quite simply, as the number of man-hours required to keep an industry running decreases, the output of that industry becomes cheaper, resulting in (as combined with the same effects in other industries) a cheaper standard of living. This means people don't have to (or should I say want to) work as many hours, which results in more jobs to cancel out those lost at the start of the process. It may not be immediately obvious to someone who just got fired because a machine can do their job twice as efficiently for a fraction of the price, but it's the way the economy works, and a rather neccesary part thereof.

 

[ChennehCis]

it's because online distibution is so much fucking cheaper. The idea of buying a physical CD or DVD from a bricks-and-mortar shop with your game on it is filled with a hundred completely redundant expenses, from the physical cost of the disc and packaging to the huge number of people that have to be payed to ship this item around the world and hand it to you when you give them your money. Online distribution removes all of these, resulting in much cheaper games for you, and more profits for the developers.

Downloading for X amount of time with a cable connection:
http://www.direct2drive.com/185/product/Buy-The-Chronicles-of-Riddick-Download

Vs.

Stopping by at a local gamestop/EB and picking up a physical version with all the goodies for the exact same price (give and take some gas money and tax, but you pay for those on everything you do and buy)
http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product_id=645983

Is online a cheaper distribution method? Yes. But at this point, there's no savings to the consumer whatsoever and when given the choice of tangible or not tangible, people usually go for the "stuff".

Go to direct2drive.com's website. They're still charging 49.99 for a damn game, so what the hell. Empire Earth, Swat 4, Dead to Rights 2 and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory are all going for 50. You'd think they'd be able to knock off at the least 10 bucks for not giving you a thing except a download link but that is clearly not the case.

Hell you can even get games cheaper than from the D2D site with help from sites like Cheapassgamer/Ebay/Half.com it's just not worth it.

That's my take on the purchasing aspect.

Well, I personally much like most of you, have experienced this "Online" distribution method (for most of you Steam). I however have also tried Bioware's Premium Neverwinter Nights modules which require online verification everytime you load a game. Sure it takes . 1% of your gaming comp's power, but it still took well over 5-10 seconds just to verify everytime I loaded (I have a 9 mbit connection and a gaming rig, so it really isn't a comp issue I don't think)

This not only got on my nerves but other peoples as well, who were having other problems such as verifying despite actually purchasing the product. Hell, a funny observation includes the fact that the Premium Module technical support forum has over 1/2 the topics the Premium Module discussion has. 2:1, Not a good looking ratio there

I do not think the modules sold well, not just because NWN is an old game, but the constant verification gets annoying quick. Bioware even held a "SALE" to the early adopter's chagrin to boost sales about 2-3 months after the first modules had been released.

I dunno, Roper makes some good points, but I don't know if the mass consumers are ready for this. I know that I'm not (yet). I'm still stunned with the fact that digital versions are still priced on par with the physical versions. Absolutely ridiculous

 

[mrpeabody]

I don't care that much about the privacy issue, and I am willing to pay for games. However, when I buy a game, I want to own it and be able to play it as long as I have hardware on which it can run.

Steam and BF2 are all well and good, but not every company is Valve and EA. What happens when the auth servers go down or the developer/publisher goes out of business (which they do, all the goddamn time)?

I'm still playing System Shock 2 and Fallout and Planescape, all of which were made by now-defunct companies. If games require online authorization to play and the company goes out of business, the single-player games I paid for just stop working? O brave new world.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

NO! Not a Steam thread! :lol

 

[Brannon]

Online distribution removes all of these, resulting in much cheaper games for you, and more profits for the developers

Dunno about that, my HL2 Silver copy was much cheaper than the same version one could download from Steam. This is especially true now. Where are the savings on Steam?