| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (102)

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:29PM AutobotIronhide said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I don't think it's really going to screw you over if games still distribute digitally. If games exclusively distribute digitally, then yeah, you're screwed. I don't think OnLive is the right system for you btw.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:29PM Wiizer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nintari

I don't think that day will ever come and the reason, remarkably, is the used game business.

Even if GameStop should disappear into thin air, I know lots of free gaming trade sites (gametz.com) that show thousands of gamers how to trade physical copies of games for other copies.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:29PM Acosta02 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Nintari

Dibs on your collection when you're done with gaming!

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:33PM BigFat IsBack said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
My only problem is I don't see prices decreasing, since xbox live's inception all I've seen is prices incress on on digital games ( I blame braid)

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:41PM DustbinK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BigFat IsBack On XBLA arcade. PSN prices are typically cheaper (though with less sales for desirable games. Though good ones do come! And the bundles are a great deal and you don't really see that on XBLA.)
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 10:19PM BrianH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BigFat IsBack

why do people think that games are going to go down in price?

Besides electronics (which are then replaced with newer electronics that cost the same as the previous generation), what product costs less as time goes on?

they either remain constant or go up.

you could say that other items decrease in price, but that's when they aren't the newest thing available.

Just like games, a 10 month old game that is brand new (not used), is usually cheaper than a game that game out that week.

Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 10:50PM sonicspike41 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BrianH

After awhile a developer not only recoups their initial costs, but starts to make a profit (depending on how well the game sells, obviously). After this point the developer could lower the price and still make a profit per game sold.

It's not exactly the same thing as a piece of hardware becoming cheaper to make, but it's still a reason why costs can go down.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 11:45PM ravissimo said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@BigFat IsBack

Inception was totally awesome.
Reply

Posted: Jul 18th 2010 11:23AM a falling stone said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BigFat IsBack I think it would be smarter for them (games on demand) to just have the new releases. Why is elder scrolls 30 bucks still!

no booklet and disk to make. discount it 5-10 bucks. and i will buy online every time. i got the 250gb.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:38PM DustbinK said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Nintari I like to play games not collect them.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:41PM MachDelta said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
The thing developers need to understand about Steam/Impulse/etc sales is that they let gamers try new games, new genres, new publishers/developers that they wouldn't risk their money on otherwise. For example, during the recent Steam summer sale I picked up the King's Bounty package for like $10, without knowing much of anything about it or the companies behind it... and now i'm hooked. As in, I can't put the game down. It's a HOMM tribute done to a T, and if that series left scars i'd have track marks up and down both arms. So guess what... when the KBAP expansion Crossroads is released later this year (I hope), I will buy it, at full price, no questions asked, probably for as long as the series exists. And isn't that the holy grail of games?

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:47PM The Tim said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There will ALWAYS be a used game market as long as there is physical media. 'Packaging' in free dlc that only works with a new game purchase is only a half assed solution; in my eyes, many times the value of the dlc is less than the savings of buying a used game. I save my new game money for the games I know I'm going to like and keep and sink a lot of playtime into. Otherwise I'll rent or buy used when the price drops sufficiently.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:55PM Thomas Zane said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
That seems a little harsh unless you don't actually play your games and only collect for the sake of collecting

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:31PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's odd... Posting from the app sent my comments to the wrong place
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:55PM Ezio Auditore da Firenze said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Nintari I used to be a collector.

And then I realized how ridiculous it is that all these games are sitting on my shelf, collecting dust and losing value, when I have absolutely zero interest in playing them ever again.

So now I keep a small group of games, and when I'm done with them, they get sold/traded. I also rent games more than I ever have.

That being said, I'm not 100% sold on DD, only because I can't sell/trade the game away when I'm done with it.

Direct Download for rentals, however? I'd be all over that. I'd love to be sitting at home and say to myself, "Shit, I'd love to play some Singularity right now." So I go to the PSN or whatever, click it, and it starts download the minimal amount of stuff that I need to begin playing the game, and the rest downloads while I'm playing.

Seven days later, it stops working, and I can either delete it or 'rent' it again.

So I guess you can call me a fence-sitter when it comes to DD. Not sold on buying, but I want to rent Digitally. =/

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:26PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The issue of ownership is what keeps me from DD as well. It's fine for small indie games, but if I'm paying 60 dollars, I want ownership of a physical product. Until the first sale doctrine applies to digital content for sure, I'll remain skeptical of DD.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:58PM Mrguy you know that guy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I got nothing.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 4:58PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nintari You're complaining about DRM, not digital distribution. I'm going to comment below about it, but I have no problem with downloading DRM-free versions of games off the internet. The Humble Indie Bundle that was available recently was a terrific example.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:01PM Talos Izanagi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Nintari I live in an area with a crappy connection, so does my whole community, DD is a blight upon me. If the physical media ever disappears then I'll stop calling myself a gamer and give up on games.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:02PM Cleric said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
DD makes games cheaper, easier to distribute.

I'm all for this.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:19PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Cleric
DD makes cheaper games more widely available, but I dare say it makes games overall cheaper. If that's true, why did first-tier releases go from $50 to $60?

DD let's us pay $10 for games that--in terms of development budget, gameplay quality, lasting gameplay, and production values--are rarely equivalent to 1/6th of a $60 game. There's a few exceptions of course, but I think in general we're overpaying proportionate to what we're getting.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 9:43PM TubaDude49 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8 Then again, you have things like Wipeout HD which could have easily been a $60 retail release instead of $20, with Fury being $20-$30 instead of $10
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 10:19PM BigD145 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Cleric DD tends to be the same price or more than physical copies. I'll take the physical copy and not have to wait to redownload or worse, be in an area without internet and not be able to install and/or play.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:03PM Deschain said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Nintari

That is a really lame reason to stop playing games. Assuming you played a lot in the first place anyway. Gaming has nothing to do with the piece of plastic the game is protected by or even the disc it self. It's about what is on that disc and how fun it is to play. I understand that you would possibly quit collecting games, but it's no reason to stop playing them.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:06PM Deschain said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

Nothing he said has anything to do with DRM. He is a collector who wants physical copies of games.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:08PM BrianH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm playing more games, and better games for cheaper.

I still buy physical if it has a nice collectors, and if i want the collectors stuff of course.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:11PM sigma8 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I think Digital Distribution is a great OPTION for getting games. What I detest with a passion is that DD is frequently being used as an excuse and medium for onerous DRM methods and policies.

I'm not sure if DD has increased how many games I buy, because it's too hard to separate from the DRM, which has definitely DECREASED the number of games I buy (both physical media AND digital download). It has also decreased the amount I am willing to spend on games.

I love my PC. Love it. Love to game on it. However, I'm not going to put up with borderline malware DRM mechanisms, or something that's going to nag me to be online. When I see a PC game I want in the store, if it has any "branded" DRM, I put it back. If it requires Steam I put it back, because if I know if it requires Steam, that I'll eventually see it for half-off during some Steam sale. I never pay retail price for any games that require Steam. I also try to limit my Steam "license acquisitions"--because I am generally not fond of being able to play a game only when I have permission from someone who just wants my money. I'm not saying Valve has done me wrong, it's just the whole model that I have problem with.

Combine the annoying DRM with increased prices in general. It's a cocktail I don't want to drink.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:25PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

I will never understand why people dislike steam because of it's pseudo-DRM. Not once have I ever had an issue with Steam, (a real physical issue not a theoretical one). If I don't have an issue with it there is no reason to complain. Besides, most games are played online these days with multiplayer, so the odds are that you would be connected to the internet constantly anyway. Again not that steam forces you to stay online for games. You just need to sign in to enable offline mode. The only DRM that I know of that requires a constant connection to the internet is the DRM Ubisoft has implemented for their games. Which in that case, I agree with you, DRM is horrible and is a blight only to the legit consumer. However, Steam is not anywhere near has restrictive.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:29PM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

Yeah, I'm not sure about that at all? I use steam but not often; can you explain what you mean by "license acquisitions"? I don't think I've ever been stopped from playing a game, not even offline.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 6:48PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain There's nothing "pseudo-" about it, it's full-fledged DRM. And I would like to clarify, my beef is really with DRM in general--not Steam specifically.

You say that because you have no issue, there's no reason to complain. I agree you shouldn't "complain", but just because a problem doesn't affect you, doesn't mean there's not a problem. e.g. iphone4 antenna. Just because it doesn't affect someone, doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist.

DD-DRM is an issue that exists, and I and a pretty firm believer that it will eventually bite us all in the a**, regardless of the apparent benevolence of whatever profit-driver company is handling it today. If I only spent $20 a year on games, I honestly wouldn't care...but I don't want to be the guy with $1500 worth of Steam purchases over 5 years that can't authenticate anymore if Steam ever ceases to be. And don't think it can't happen. Bear Sterns went from King to dead virtually overnight. It can happen in any industry. I'm not waiting in my bomb shelter for it to happen, but I'm not putting all my eggs into a basket I don't own, either. I'm still playing all the games I really want to play, I'm just making far fewer impulse buys.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:09PM Zoinks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

I think there is more risk of your house burning down, destroying all your physical game discs, than there is of Steam going under and making your games unplayable.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:15PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Zoinks Right, I totally 100% agree. But the problem is: if my house burns down, the rest of you guys are ok. But if Steam goes down, millions of people will be screwed. So let's ask it more like this: what is more likely? Steam going under? Or everyone's house burning down at once?
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:40PM Zoinks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

My point is there's less risk of me losing my games by having them on Steam rather than owning a physical disc that can be lost, stolen, or destroyed. As far as me being able to access my games, it doesn't matter what happens to everyone else.

If Steam did go under, what are the odds that no other company would buy it? Tens of millions of customers or potential customers are at stake. The odds of Valve being unable to continue operating Steam are extremely low. The odds of no other company buying it out before matters got that bad are even lower.

Yes anything can happen, and I'm not an expert at risk management, but it seems to me like having the majority of my game collection in the hands of a stable, private company is much less risky than having physical items in my possession that can be lost, stolen, or destroyed.

Think of it like a bank. I don't keep a lot of cash on me or where I live. If I get robbed I don't lose every last cent I own. I'm certainly not saying that owning physical copies is a bad thing. It's just that there are risks associated with everything, even with physical items.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:49PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

Steam is not a full fledged DRM anymore. As I said you can play games offline which is not in-line with that a real DRM is where you are required to have a constant internet connection. It's a form of DRM, yes, but it's easily the most lenient DRM there is. You do have a good point though about the possibility ( very small possibility) of Steam ceasing to exist for one reason or another. But, if that happens then Valve would just plan accordingly. There are a variety of things that could happen in that case, but in the end I honestly don't think it's something worth worrying about. Besides that you can't compare an investment bank to a privately owned game company and their digital distribution service. When a company tanks overnight it's usually because of mismanagement. Valve is one of the best ran video game companies there is.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:51PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Zoinks When Steam is federally insured, I'll feel better about it. DRM is only occasionally inconvenient for me, because I buy my games. It only annoys me when they implement it stupidly. That said, there are scenarios when even good DRM could injure my use of what I bought. I'm not saying DRM is bad just because it annoys me, that would be pretty selfish. I'm saying it's bad in general. For everyone.

Sure, today Valve is a stable company. A couple years ago, we all hated EA and liked Activision. Then we started hating Activision and liking EA. Ten years ago, putting your life's savings into Microsoft stock probably didn't seem like too stupid of an idea. I'm fine with DRM for rentals. That's how I view Steam, actually. I am enjoying Torchlight on Steam, but I don't feel like I own it. For $5, I don't really care. However, the way people talk in here, they do think they own this stuff.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 7:58PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain Not full-fledged? You realize most DRM schemes that have existed don't even have online components. Disc-checks are a form of DRM. And having faith that Valve would plan accordingly is noble, but a bit naive, I'm afraid. I'm not saying it won't happen, but all Valve is, is a corporate charter that is managed by an executive team. That team can change at any time. For all we know, Newell will sell it to Bobby Kotick next year for a billion dollars...and once that happens, god knows what could happen. I'm afraid without some kind of oversight, capitalism is pretty ignorant about consumers' long term interests. It's very calibrated to short-term interests of supply and demand. It's totally possible that we will all financially support a system that will screw us in the end, because "hey it seems pretty cool right now, what could possibly go wrong?" ok, gotta head out for the evening :(
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 8:17PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

You are just being a pretentious pessimist. Almost nothing you have said holds any water. Gabe sells Valve to Bobby Kotick? Yeah right, if that happens I'm gonna to go to my insurance agency and buy some alien abduction protection. I should build a bomb shelter in my back yard while I'm at it.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 8:46PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sigma8

After reading your other post I can now agree that Steam should be federally insured. I easily have 500 bucks of games on my Steam account going by the sale prices. Actual retail is closer to a grand. It's something to think about and it's something that should be implemented. However, I believe it won't be an issue for a very long time. Making absurd comparisons and accusations well defiantly not help your cause either.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:15PM ALBGunner04 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When it comes to PC games, I don't mind digital distribution. Hell, Steam DRM is better than most the DRM games have (requiring you to put the disc in the tray to play the game isn't convenient if you want to play a game on your laptop like I do a lot of times). When it comes to consoles however, I prefer the physical media, but for PC gaming, I believe digital distribution is the way to go (thank god for Steam).

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:18PM RKN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sucks for console gamers if they sell their console, they have to sell their account with the system as well.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:22PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@RKN Why? Can't they just format the hard drive and, like, sell the console for what it is? Unless you mean sell it with all the DD as part of the price... In which case, yeah. That also probably violates the terms of your license agreement, meaning that even if you handed over the password and everything all properly, Sony, Nintendo, or MS would probably be legally within their rights to not allow the new buyer to play those games.

I'd have to look up the TOS for transferring ownership of an account and/or licenses granted to that account.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:26PM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@RKN

Maybe on the Wii and DS...

(And maybe the PSP? I don't know about that one)

On 360 and PS3 that's not true at all.
Reply

Posted: Jul 18th 2010 11:31AM a falling stone said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@RKN
My licences travel with my xbox live id. I could sell my console and buy another one and re download all my stuff.

this isn't itunes!
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:22PM HR Pufnstuf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain Well DRM can effect how he technically "owns" a game.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:27PM Deschain said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@HR Pufnstuf

That still has nothing to do with that the OP was complaining about. He just wants physical copies. DRM or no DRM it makes no difference in regards to that.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:33PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain Maybe, maybe not. I fully appreciate the tangible nature of a boxed game, but it depends on what he's complaining about: the lack of a box? Or the lack of ability to play the game once the game's authen servers go offline? I collect lots of stuff as well, as my big fear is that some of it simply won't function in the future. For example, my copy of Tribes 2 is useless out of the box (there's community workarounds).

I consider un-DRM'ed games I've bought to be part of my collection, but I consider DRM'ed games I've bought to be part of whoever else's collection of my customer info, which can be revoked at any time.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:36PM titanium50 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
TBH alot of the original digital distribution games these days have been more exciting and innovative than the big selling counterparts imo.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:50PM treeofmana said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My biggest gripe with digital distribution is that in most cases saves aren't handled properly. I like to keep saves on my games. All my old cartridges have save data but now the transition to saving things on the system itself has made it hard to manage save data. iDevices are hopeless right now. If you need to remove a game off of your device, you loose the save data (in almost all cases). With the Wii, there is the potential to loose data, though I guess you can back up with an SD card. I think memory cards like the GameCube or PS2 had were good solutions. It's a shame that when digital distribution came in, no one really took the time to think about the players who like to pick up a game for a little while and return to it later or those of us who like to look back and see our progress from years before.

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 8:58PM Zoidberg said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@treeofmana I hated memory cards, if only because they always got lost.
Reply

Posted: Jul 17th 2010 5:52PM tchuks said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I just want to say that's a REALLY nice picture of an ethernet cable.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW