I think more people need to realize the timeframe discussed. IIRC in 1999 a friend of mine was paying upwards of ~70/month to get 384/384 DSL in a major metropolitan city and Duke Nukem Forever was only experiencing slight delays. 10 years from now I'd be mildly surprised if we were even still using consoles (at the least I'd expect we'd be on our final consoles by current standards).Tobor said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Peter Moore: Disc Based Gaming Is A "Burning Platform"
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
poppabk said:
I wasn't talking about DRM, but still It depends. If a company uses DRM to devalue my property, only allows X number of installs or prevent me from playing my game then I say it does, but again all of this has gone largely unchallenged and it will have to get taken to court.
In any case DRM is a failed system as evidenced in the music industry. Nobody likes it and only so much will be tolerated. The same will eventually happen with games.
The point is that the videogame industry brazenly admits that they are renting you a game, in spite of legal precendent, and that they can take it away from you whenever they wish. They get away with it now because no one has stood up to them, but eventually someone will.
lowrider007 said:
The law governs what legal, not what technological, measures can be put in place. If MS develops a system where every Xbox title is Live Arcade and ties them only to the console ID, that's OK, but they're not allowed to harass you if you try to sell the Xbox. There hasn't really been a lot of consumer-level litigation on more interactive services that springs to mind, however.
Philthy
Member
Zachack said:
10 years ago I was on the same cable I'm on now. Charter. It went from 1.5 to 5 down in that amount of time. The cost has gone up by about five bucks since I have a large package and the discounts apply to that. What's funny is the modem hasn't changed at all since then. I've had maybe five die on me in that time, and they are always replaced with another similar looking model.
In 10 years, we will all have 20GB caps.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Is it safe to say that blu-ray is pretty much a given for the next wave of HD consoles? Wouldnt ISPs be pretty much against 50GB downloads? Arent they trying to cap bandwidth as it is?
Haven't read the rest of the thread, but -
Sigh. Why do they not want my money. Fuck them. I don't want cloud-driven, subscription-based service-oriented bullcockfuckshitery. I want to own my own stuff, WHAT A FUCKING CONCEPT.
Maybe I can tell my kids "Sonny, remember when we used to not get raped in the ass? Those were the days."
Fuck them and their bullshit. I won't have any of it. If think they can sell me this "future" then I'll find something better to spend my money on. I'm pretty attached to games, but there are other fish in the sea. Cater to me or don't get my business. Marketing 101.
Sigh. Why do they not want my money. Fuck them. I don't want cloud-driven, subscription-based service-oriented bullcockfuckshitery. I want to own my own stuff, WHAT A FUCKING CONCEPT.
Maybe I can tell my kids "Sonny, remember when we used to not get raped in the ass? Those were the days."
Fuck them and their bullshit. I won't have any of it. If think they can sell me this "future" then I'll find something better to spend my money on. I'm pretty attached to games, but there are other fish in the sea. Cater to me or don't get my business. Marketing 101.
I really don't care whether or not I "own" the games I play. It really doesn't matter to me. The game itself has no intrinsic value. I download it, play it, discard it. Whether or not the code of the game sits on a disc or in cyberspace somewhere there's no difference to me.
Number 2 said:
well, the next wave of consoles will not be DD only so its not something to worry about yet.
those consoles are less than 3 years away. Sony will use Blu ray but I swear I have no idea what MS will do. They might just stick with DVD. I wouldnt put it past them if they want to go in a more casual and cheaper direction.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Number 2 said:
Who's to say that 50gig games will be or will start to be a requirement? Look at the easily the best selling game that will be released this year... MW2. It easily fits on a DVD. Just because the space is there, doesn't mean we NEED it right now. Is it nice to have... sure, is it REQUIRED... not yet. Time will tell but I'm not sure what the next systems will have to be honest.
Kitschkraft
Member
Number 2 said:
This is why I think a lot of this stuff is just a pipe dream.
I think everyone underestimates just how much telecom companies want to ruin the internet.
percephone
Neo Member
poppabk said:
DMCA is a law against illegal copying of protected content. It is an extension of copyright law that try to protect content in the digital ages.
Want some case law? Vernor vs. Autodesk
TLDR: Autodesk tried to use the DMCA to shutdown the Ebay sale of some of it's product by Mr. Vernor. MR. Vernor notified Ebay that the copy that he was trying to resell were ligitimate. Autodesk reintered the complain to Ebay and Ebay suspended Vernor's account. Vernor sued Autodesk and won.
On Authentification, that has not been validated by the court yet but the Clayton act seems to apply if the company making the software product try to prohibit resale by anti-competive practive. ie. Not allowing transfer of ownership using DRM or Authentification.
Specifically,
On Price
Clayton Act said:
On resale
My boldClayton Act said:
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Yes, admittedly DD in the future is most likely inevitable for home consoles unfortunately. For the people who are actually embracing an all DD only future. I am guaranteeing you that companies will take advantage of the consumers every chance they get. Have fun paying for full price for 3 year old games that you can't do a thing with after you are bored of them.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
DMCA is law which makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection, which would imply that copy protection is itself recognized as legal. The autodesk case appears to be mainly about restricting sales of legitimate working copies of autodesk that were protected by license agreements. He was suing for his right to sell them, not for his right to have a saleable copy, which I think is substantially different.percephone said:
So the question comes down to whether DRM is illegal when it comes to the first sales doctrine. DD almost definitely constitutes a first sale, but it is hard to tell whether the first sales doctrine requires a product to be transferable. The current cases seem to revolve around whether a license is binding, DRM has not been addressed as far as I know, and the use of anti-trust legislation might be a stretch.
-viper- said:
I remember how large a 90 MB FFVIII PC demo seemed to me in 1999. I had to get a PC magazine to get that as I couldnt download it.
90 MB seemed huge.
In ten years, 10 GB wont seem like so much.
Heck, even now. 10 GB is just a couple HD movies off Apple TV or the MS marketplace. or around 5 large game demos. hardly a huge amount.
The Blue Jihad
Member
I figure you were referring to me, so here I go.
Wait, let me get this straight. So GAF is sticking up for the casual gamers now? After years and years of berating, ridiculing, and mocking them? Come on. GAF may be a hooker with a heart of gold, but it ain't that noble. It's absurd to think that gaffers in this thread have been arguing against DD purely out of altruistic concern for the "Joe the Gamers" everywhere.
Plus, do you really think Joe the Gamer will even give a shit what the distribution medium happens to be ten years down the line? All he'll care about is being able to get the game he wants, when he wants, without paying more than he feels he should pay. I highly doubt he'll be so broken-hearted over being unable to trade-in his old PS2 or 360 titles for credit toward a new game purchase.
So again, who do you really think GAF is thinking about here when GAF is bitching about not being able to trade in or re-sell games? And on that point...continue reading below...
...no, it's good consumer habits to not buy 95% of the games in the first place. That is why the entire "DD is a bad idea because it removes my ability to save money"--and truthfully, that's what the argument boils down to--argument is complete nonsense. Buying a new 60-dollar game, only to sell/trade it in a month for 2/3 of its MSRP, only to apply that credit to another 60-dollar game in a never-ending cycle of ever-diminishing returns...costs you MORE in the long-run.
If you were serious about saving money at all, you'd go to a Blockbuster to spend 8 or 10 bucks on a rental, or you'd wait a few weeks until the game is available to rent, or wait even longer to pick up the game at the inevitable price-drop.
If any of you were serious about saving money at all, you wouldn't have monthly "Pick Up and Post" threads. If any of you were serious about saving money at all, you wouldn't have yearly "Show us your gaming set-up" threads.
Granted, those gaming set-up threads are actually useful, because they can give you some really great ideas about layouts, but when there are pictures of shelves featuring nothing but dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of games...it becomes incredibly difficult for anyone to realistically discuss "good consumer habits" in this forum.
Let's not forget gaffers talking about buying multiple copies of the same game. Or about the many collector's editions they've picked up. Or about their propensity to pay upwards of 15 dollars just to get a tin case with their "Day One" purchase.
Come on man, let's not play the "it's good consumer habits" game here. lol
Okay, so then why should the "elite hardcore gamers" be against DD? DD guarantees them a truly new, unopened game.
That "value" is artificial. Why should anyone let an outside system determine what value their game purchase has? Simple answer: they shouldn't.
I'm sorry, but the level of hyperbole here is staggering. The industry just wants all the money forever? They wish the customer didn't exist? Don't you realize how contradictory those two sentences even are? There is no money to have if the customer didn't exist. The gaming industry wants happy customers just as much as customers want a happy industry. When one suffers, the other suffers. That's simple economics.
Furthermore, and this goes for everyone reading, if you don't like how things operate now...if you want things to stabilize...get out and do something about it. Stop just wantonly buying hundreds of dollars worth of crap you'll likely play for a few days then eventually trade-in. Stop acting like you all are completely innocent in how insane the industry has become. I'm not trying to preach here, but sometimes I really can't understand GAF's thought process.
Kaijima said:
Wait, let me get this straight. So GAF is sticking up for the casual gamers now? After years and years of berating, ridiculing, and mocking them? Come on. GAF may be a hooker with a heart of gold, but it ain't that noble. It's absurd to think that gaffers in this thread have been arguing against DD purely out of altruistic concern for the "Joe the Gamers" everywhere.
Plus, do you really think Joe the Gamer will even give a shit what the distribution medium happens to be ten years down the line? All he'll care about is being able to get the game he wants, when he wants, without paying more than he feels he should pay. I highly doubt he'll be so broken-hearted over being unable to trade-in his old PS2 or 360 titles for credit toward a new game purchase.
So again, who do you really think GAF is thinking about here when GAF is bitching about not being able to trade in or re-sell games? And on that point...continue reading below...
...no, it's good consumer habits to not buy 95% of the games in the first place. That is why the entire "DD is a bad idea because it removes my ability to save money"--and truthfully, that's what the argument boils down to--argument is complete nonsense. Buying a new 60-dollar game, only to sell/trade it in a month for 2/3 of its MSRP, only to apply that credit to another 60-dollar game in a never-ending cycle of ever-diminishing returns...costs you MORE in the long-run.
If you were serious about saving money at all, you'd go to a Blockbuster to spend 8 or 10 bucks on a rental, or you'd wait a few weeks until the game is available to rent, or wait even longer to pick up the game at the inevitable price-drop.
If any of you were serious about saving money at all, you wouldn't have monthly "Pick Up and Post" threads. If any of you were serious about saving money at all, you wouldn't have yearly "Show us your gaming set-up" threads.
Granted, those gaming set-up threads are actually useful, because they can give you some really great ideas about layouts, but when there are pictures of shelves featuring nothing but dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of games...it becomes incredibly difficult for anyone to realistically discuss "good consumer habits" in this forum.
Let's not forget gaffers talking about buying multiple copies of the same game. Or about the many collector's editions they've picked up. Or about their propensity to pay upwards of 15 dollars just to get a tin case with their "Day One" purchase.
Come on man, let's not play the "it's good consumer habits" game here. lol
Okay, so then why should the "elite hardcore gamers" be against DD? DD guarantees them a truly new, unopened game.
That "value" is artificial. Why should anyone let an outside system determine what value their game purchase has? Simple answer: they shouldn't.
I'm sorry, but the level of hyperbole here is staggering. The industry just wants all the money forever? They wish the customer didn't exist? Don't you realize how contradictory those two sentences even are? There is no money to have if the customer didn't exist. The gaming industry wants happy customers just as much as customers want a happy industry. When one suffers, the other suffers. That's simple economics.
Furthermore, and this goes for everyone reading, if you don't like how things operate now...if you want things to stabilize...get out and do something about it. Stop just wantonly buying hundreds of dollars worth of crap you'll likely play for a few days then eventually trade-in. Stop acting like you all are completely innocent in how insane the industry has become. I'm not trying to preach here, but sometimes I really can't understand GAF's thought process.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Your personal experience is not equatable to an advance in technology. In 1999 downloading a couple of GB meant nothing to me as I was on a university T3 line, while for my in-laws downloading the average email attachment is still a big chore, because they don't have cable or DSL in their area. There have not been any major technological break throughs in the last decade with regards to increasing data transfer that I am aware of, broadband is just more readily available.LCfiner said:
If you think the telecommunications companies are gonna rip up all the lines they currently have installed so that they can increase your speed/bandwidth you are mistaken, bandwidth won't be increasing significantly for most people for a long time.
Version 3.0
Member
The Blue Jihad said:
Holy heck, are you out of touch. If people didn't want to trade in their games for credit, then Gamestop would be out of business instead of being the biggest game retailer.
You're right about this, though: Joe wants the game he's after, when he wants it, without paying more than he feels he should pay. And that's where DD falls flat on its face. That's the point of trading in games (never mind that there are more cost-effective options; Joe doesn't know or doesn't find them convenient).
I'm going to start a thread about this after work...
permutated
Banned
dragonlife29 said:
QFT.
Walk-Out Basements
Banned
well one has to ask how will the dvd and blu ray market be doing 10 yrs down the road?
i am sure the physical media will remain and prices for blu ray will have dropped drastically - if it isnt already replaced by another Higher higher definition.
physical media for big production games will remain - especially with advances like cryengine 3 - it is not becoming for the masses to download games of that caliber and then find out after the consoles life cycle and heaven forbid their console dies on them - that they no longer retain ownership rights to said digital downloaded game- i think that the recent releases for arkham asylum and borderlands has proven that 39.99 is the price most consumers wouldnt mind spending for a brand new game instead of waiting it out for it to show up in the used section for roughly the same price.
i am sure the physical media will remain and prices for blu ray will have dropped drastically - if it isnt already replaced by another Higher higher definition.
physical media for big production games will remain - especially with advances like cryengine 3 - it is not becoming for the masses to download games of that caliber and then find out after the consoles life cycle and heaven forbid their console dies on them - that they no longer retain ownership rights to said digital downloaded game- i think that the recent releases for arkham asylum and borderlands has proven that 39.99 is the price most consumers wouldnt mind spending for a brand new game instead of waiting it out for it to show up in the used section for roughly the same price.
And which telcom is going to stand for DD'ing potentially millions of games at 4-27 gigs each? They can keep saying DD is the future all they want, but, at least in the states, the infrastructure simply isn't there to support such a massive venture.
Whatever floats their boat, though.
Of course, I'm still remembering the days when they said that broadband will be everywhere. That was years ago. I give it 20 years until we're at where we're supposed to be (with other nations). Hope I'm proven wrong and we get up there faster, but I'm ont optimistic.
Whatever floats their boat, though.
Of course, I'm still remembering the days when they said that broadband will be everywhere. That was years ago. I give it 20 years until we're at where we're supposed to be (with other nations). Hope I'm proven wrong and we get up there faster, but I'm ont optimistic.
Vercingetorix
Banned
The question is how long it'll take.
My guess? 10 years for it to be completely digital. In the next generation I'm guessing digital will already be maybe half of the sales on consoles.
My guess? 10 years for it to be completely digital. In the next generation I'm guessing digital will already be maybe half of the sales on consoles.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
The Blue Jihad said:
I wasn't referring to any one post. As for this part here:
Yes, I do think your remarks seem out of touch. The game industry - much of it, not ALL of it - has run amok for a while now. They do not want to service the customers; they don't put them first. The push for DRM that treats the customer like a criminal, the push for milking franchises to death with no new content, the push for DD to "sell" people products that they don't own, but only lease, and many other things. What the industry "wants" is demographics; they want to sell hardcore games to an addicted hardcore - in this regard some of what you've said has bearing - sell "casual" - read: stupid and cheap - games to "the new casual demographic" - read: the latest trendy demographic label to have been created. They would prefer it if they retained all the value of what they sell themselves - yes, they want all the money forever. Business is about money, but there's business, then there's rapacious greed and glee at raping what is judged to be a plump, ignorant market ripe for the picking.
And Joe Average just wants the games, and part of him wanting to pay what what he feels is fair has come to hinge on used games and re-selling. It's an entire /culture/ at this point. Once again: Gamestop might not be able to exist without that culture at this point, as a sign of how widespread it is.
As an aside, the various comparisons to the success of music DD with iTunes leading the way is kind of misleading, I think. The iTunes model is based upon the sale of individual music tracks at a very low price, tracks that the buyer either already is familiar with or can test before purchase. When people buy music they know they enjoy, it tends to become something that they keep forever and extract essentially unlimited usage from. There's no real reason for them to sell used music when it comes in a form that doesn't stick them with whole albums full of drek that they just wanted one single from, albums that they end up having no use for and could stand to unload and get a bit back on their purchase for.
There /is/ a point to be made that part of the fault lays in the hands of the way that game companies are developing and releasing games. But the problem that is more core to the issue is that publishers are not focusing on true "evergreen" titles but on disposable yearly updates and exploitable franchises. Most games are not games most people would want to keep. They lose value - that includes play value - quickly. Symbiotic relationship between customer and publisher? Sure. But, I suspect, the mentality of the publishers up till this point has been that they liked it that way and didn't mind if the customer "demographics" became conditioned to purchase those kinds of games. Less risky business; easier to develop disposable updates, no dicey investment in new ideas and new IP. Eventually leads to inbreeding and stagnation, and to, oh, huh, a huge used game marketing and culture of buying used, trading, and selling. Suddenly the industry gets real unhappy...
TheChewyWaffles
Member
grandjedi6 said:
What the fuck does this have to do with Microsoft?
edit: my bad, Peter lists them as being a good bet pioneering the all-DD console. Sorry, grand.
Black Rainbow
Member
I think he forgot that Peter Moore is no longer working for Microsoft.BigNastyCurve said:
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Synth_floyd said:
I can buy my music DRM free from iTunes and do whatever the hell I want to with it. Where, in your little analogy, do DRM'd, platform-locked videogames fit in?
TheChewyWaffles
Member
nm
TheChewyWaffles
Member
lowrider007 said:
You're implying I can sell my copy of Trials HD that I bought on XBLA or lend it to a friend if I want to? 'cause I can sure as hell do that with my physical copy of Arkham.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
lowrider007 said:
Holy mother of God you are the king of fucking trolls.
Shin Johnpv
Member
Slavik81 said:
That's just wrong. A game doesn't sell in the retail sector and Gamestop has 100k left over stock through the country, instead of sitting there at 59.99 it drops in price. Most stores are only paying 5 - 10 bucks less than what they charge you on a new game. So anything below that is below the floor Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, or who ever sets. With DD there's no left over stock taking up shelf space that needs to be cleared out. A game can sit at what ever price they want it to indefinitely. Plus again there's going to be no competition, when Sony is the only one selling you games for you PS4, there isn't going to be price matching deals or shit like that.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Scrubking said:
Probably the best post in this thread.
Manmademan
Member
Shin Johnpv said:
"leftover stock" isn't the only reason for price drops. Publishers are very aware there are certain customers that are price sensitive, and those that aren't. Who do you think is still buying PS2s?
Even in a DD only future, Games will sit at full price (say, 59.99) until they stop moving enough units to justify dropping the price to get those on board that will only consider 39.99, or 29.99...whatever.
it might TAKE a while, but do you really think Halo X will still be at full price the week before/After Halo XI comes out?
Rekki-Maru
Banned
:lol
it's like they want people to pump quarters into home consoles to keep playing games, just like the arcades..it's creeping toward that scenerio.
Maybe that was the big idea all along? :O
it's like they want people to pump quarters into home consoles to keep playing games, just like the arcades..it's creeping toward that scenerio.
Maybe that was the big idea all along? :O
green_focus
Member
All I know is the day that this hobby becomes DD only, I will have moved on to something else.
percephone
Neo Member
poppabk said:
That's the point i'm trying to hammer. Licenses are not binding in case of a first sale doctrine as you can see by case law. I think, i got this point across so this will stop the "but..but...you agreed to a license" crowd. Although there might be places that licenses are binding but this seems to be the exception not the rule.
I don't think it's right when copyright holders are attempting to restrict use of copyrighted material in ways not covered by existing laws. Creators can certainly protect their works from alteration and illegal copying but the owners of legitimate copies certainly have rights too. One of those rights is the right to transfer ownership through sale.
Unfortunately, the legislators haven't yet codified the first sale doctrine to digital distribution but that doesn't mean that first sale doctrine do not apply on digital media.
NTIA was asked in 2001 by the US Congress to evaluate the effect of electronic commerce on The Copyright act. Specifically, section 109 (first sales) and section 117 (Limitation of exclusive rights: computer programs). report
Even if NTIA didn't see the need for an amendment to 109 or 117 with regard to digital media. They conclude their report with
NTIA DMCA Report said:
lawfully made digital copy ---> Section 109 apply --> right to resell. Simple, no?
DRM or no DRM, you have a lawfully made copy.
BananaBomb said:
These discussions are always messy because of conflating these two topics.BananaBomb said:
It's understandable that, due to a lot of gamers' current experience with buying downloads from "major label" companies, they tend think of them as going hand-in-hand, but really this thread is 99% about DRM and only 1% about the act of moving data over the internet instead of on plastic.
The DRM present on console discs is still, in my opinion, the gold standard method: it is portable from system to system, it limits the ability of most players from making their own copies when well implemented, it allows consumer-friendly service such as defective product returns, game rentals, trading and borrowing, and used game resale, and it is durable. When I say 'durable' I mean that it works independent of expensive servers or other maintenance-costly mechanisms: as long as you have an operating console and a readable copy, the game will play.Kagami said:
By comparison everything on offer for digital download DRM, even Steam, is unfriendly to outright hostile.
Tenkai Star
Member
But I want awesome Collectors Editions in my game shelf =(
How will I otherwise impress the gurlz!?
How will I otherwise impress the gurlz!?
SCReuter
Member
We'd be transferring nearly all the power over to publishers, limiting our options as consumers and almost certainly be paying more for less.
"Oh, but you'll have more shelf space (you know, because physical media can only be stored on shelves) and won't be required to get up off your ass anymore to switch games. Is that not progress, you caveman?"
I'll take physical along with digital.
"Oh, but you'll have more shelf space (you know, because physical media can only be stored on shelves) and won't be required to get up off your ass anymore to switch games. Is that not progress, you caveman?"
I'll take physical along with digital.