Not even an actual game offered this week, just a DLC which is useless to anyone except Steam members who have purchased the relevant game.
Let's start a betting pool - how long before GAOTD moves to steam.com
[closed]
not even games now
(34 posts) (7 voices)-
ChrisS
AdministratorLet's start a betting pool - how long before GAOTD moves to steam.com
The adage "the customer is always right" applies. The problem being, though, is that we users are not the customer, the software developers are the customer. The developers are the ones that GOTD must satisfy to stay in business and game developers, as Mikiem has already pointed out, like Steam.Game buyers like Steam for a number of reasons and you should too for what it portends - the end of DRM. If you read this article, Why Luxury TVs Are Affordable when Basic Health Care Is Not, you'll find this:
Second, it shows that competitive industries offer goods and services that are falling in price due to market pressure. In contrast monopolized industries can extract ever higher rents from people based on restriction.
DRM exists to allegedly stop software piracy, software piracy is a form of a black market, black markets exist because the "official goods" are either over-priced or unavailable due to market restrictions. Steam is a creation of the free market (users made it what it is today) and it's both effectively driving down game prices and expanding game availability which means it's also putting an end to software piracy. Developers might see the need to install DRM on a $60 game, that need diminishes as the game drops to $20; some users might have an urge to steal the $60 game, that urge diminishes as the price drops and they feel that they're getting value for the purchase price.
Take another look at Steam with the word "competition" in mind. Look at all the games that are readily available, look at all the developers who are competing for your gaming budget and remember that competition always favors the consumer.
Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"The game "Forge of Gods" is free and could download from here. "
That is a link to Steam, where nothing is free.
"Steam is a creation of the free market (users made it what it is today) and it's both effectively driving down game prices and expanding game availability which means it's also putting an end to software piracy. "
??? Then why has every major game on Steam (not talking about simple arcade games) been hacked and made available via "alternate sources"? Because the lower monetary price comes at the expense of higher aggravation and privacy concerns due to mandatory installation of unwanted software along with the game.
As I've mentioned here in the past, I wrote Bethesda years ago "I will gladly give you $50 for a disc version of Skyrim I can install and play as I did Morrowind and Oblivion, but I will not give 50 cents for a Steam version". I have never played Skyrim, probably never will.
"Take another look at Steam with the word "competition" in mind."
That is the problem - Steam has no competition. Using the aforementioned Skyrim as an example, I have no options to buy that game from another vendor, a vendor whose policies I would find more palatable than Steam's ... so where is the competition?
"users made it what it is today"
And what is it today? In my opinion, a monopolistic totalitarian online vendor telling gamers "agree to all our draconian demands, become a member of our community, and accept installation of all our software ... or do without". I choose to do without. I will never reward a game developer for choosing such a reprehensible system to distribute his/her creation.
Posted 8 years ago # -
ChrisS
AdministratorThen why has every major game on Steam been hacked
to install viruses, spyware, and malware on the PCs of fools in hopes they'll connect via a trusted network to somebody with a job (and money) and spread the infection. In the olden days the unskilled hackers targeted screensavers, now it's free games and the ever popular "click me, Click Me, Click ME!!!! links".That is the problem - Steam has no competition.
That's not the argument I'm making. I'm talking about competition for your gaming budget via the myriad titles available on Steam. Think about Steam as Amazon (or Wal-Mart) with the view that they merely facilitate the purchase of games. There's nothing proprietary about their business, whatever intellectual property they own has minimal value, and they can be replaced without any significant effort. You keep calling Steam a "monopoly" (like your local cable utility) but they are not in any way, shape, or form a government mandated and protected monopoly. The market made them the big kid on the gaming block and the market can unmake them if need be.But let's consider the usual concerns:
- Stream is invasive: True, but is it more or less invasive than game clients from 19 publishers? The single game client reduces developer costs, provides more games to the user, and drives the cost to the user down.
- Steam may some day hold your games hostage: Also true, but the old saying "if you owe the bank $100,000 then the bank owns you but if you owe the bank $100 million then you own the bank" applies. Steam now has too many users to do something truly stupid and, even if they did, they'd be replaced rather quickly and the new provider would most likely honor the Steam Game codes. Remember that the game developers also have a lot to lose. Steam is going to be like GOTD, stuck between users and developers but the users will have much more say since they'll be buying directly from Steam.And what is it today? In my opinion, a monopolistic totalitarian online vendor
uhmmm... have you ever read the boilerplate EULA for any given software? And it really can't be totalitarian if you're free to join, or not, as you see fit. Sure, you can't play Steam games without joining but you can't use the weight machines without buying a gym membership either.Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"...you can't use the weight machines without buying a gym membership either"
But you can buy your own weight machine.
"...the end of DRM"
??????
I thought that is what Steam's software is all about."...is it more or less invasive than game clients from 19 publishers?"
I have no idea, since I will not purchase from any distributor that requires installation of anything beyond the game itself or whose game must be allowed to "phone home" every time it is run. Such practices are against my principles so I will not support, via my hard earned dollars, any developer making the decision to solely distribute his software by such means.
"...to install viruses, spyware, and malware ..."
The stock argument against any hacked software. But myriad forum discussions along with the continued proliferation of such software belies that. And many are of the opinion that all "management software" from Steam, Origin, et.al., qualifies as spyware.
"...it really can't be totalitarian if you're free to join"
Perhaps a matter of semantics. I consider it totalitarian to be told "if you want Product A you must also take Product B, whether or not you want it".
Basically, Steam could quadruple, even quintuple, the price of all their games, drop the mandatory install of their nefarious software, and I would be purchasing from them right now. But being forced to install unwanted and unneeded software on my computer is an absolute dealbreaker.
"...users will have much more say since they'll be buying directly from Steam"
And they have no say when buying directly from the developer or from a traditional vendor (online or otherwise)? And apparently all the gamers who share my opinion of Steam have no say at all.
"...competition for your gaming budget via the myriad titles available on Steam"
Again, what competition? The majority of games Steam offers are only available via Steam so you must accept their unwanted software as part of the deal. Who are they competing with? Show me another (legal) source for Skyrim.
Runic Games handled the situation properly, in my opinion. They released Torchlight 2 via Steam for those people who like Steam, but also via Runic's website for those who do not wish to deal with Steam. Runic got my money. Bethesda did not.
To my ears Steam supporters are saying there should only be one grocery store, only one clothing store, only one hardware store, only one TV station, and if you do not like that store you do without that product. There is no free market, no options, and no competition, in that equation.
Now I do not advocate Steam be shut down (though I'd not shed a tear were that to occur) because that would not be free market either. I just want to retain the option of where to spend my money, not be told it is Steam or nothing.
Posted 8 years ago # -
ChrisS
AdministratorTo my ears Steam supporters are saying there should only be one grocery store...
No, what I'm saying is that Steam is reality and that you're pining over a past that never was.In the past that you fail to recall each publisher had their own DRM scheme, and that's really what your beef is, it's about DRM and not about Steam. You want to buy a game and use it wherever and whenever as you see fit. You bought it, you didn't rent it so you should actually own it. That was never the reality, all you ever actually bought was a license to use the software, and that license came with restrictions that were subject to change without notice. It's called an "End User Licensing Agreement" and not an "End User Purchase Agreement" for a reason. With a single game client (ignoring Origin for the moment) you have a single DRM scheme. It's far easier to get to no DRM from a single DRM scheme than it is to get every developer to change individually.
There are really only 3 paths to no DRM:
Legislation banning DRM - not going to happen, there's not enough lobbying money stuffed in mattresses and buried in back yards to even get a hearing
Consumer revolt where the market says "no to DRM" - not going to happen, the market is largely fine with the concept since the market is opposed to theft
Economics - the cost of DRM is not justified by the benefits because games are so cheap. This is the only viable path.If you want a "no DRM future" then you should do your part and join Steam to lower the price of games. Set up a dual-boot system, install Steam, and buy games with a pre-paid credit card. There's no downside for you since when Steam invades your system to collect your personal information it will only find Steam, when hackers steal your pre-paid credit card information they'll get nothing, and if Steam changes for the worse and you walk away you lose nothing since you don't buy many games anyway.
Yeah, it will take a tiny bit of effort from you but you're not going to get what you want by just complaining because you're not doing anything to influence the market.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Set up a dual-boot system, install Steam, and buy games with a pre-paid credit card. There's no downside for you since when Steam invades your system to collect your personal information it will only find Steam, when hackers steal your pre-paid credit card information they'll get nothing, and if Steam changes for the worse and you walk away you lose nothing since you don't buy many games anyway.
Yeah, it will take a tiny bit of effort from you but you're not going to get what you want by just complaining because you're not doing anything to influence the market.
For many of us, the dual-boot system is just not what we want to do and many of us can't for one reason or another. That's not really a viable option for the majority of people.
The assumption of "you don't buy many games anyway" is just that -- an assumption. If the games are a cheap as you say, that may add up pretty fast.
However, I do agree wholeheartedly that complaining is not going to do anything in this situation. Steam is just too big. It's like trying to use a flyswatter to stop a hoard of locusts!
On a slightly different angle on the same concept -- android games -- there have been comments about the setup needed to run Amazon's Underground (Actually Free) games. It is a client system in that you have to have the Amazon Underground app on your smartphone or your tablet. However, it's a little different in one sense -- that app it actually part of the operating system for the fires, just as the kindle reading software is built-in.
If the software is already there with no way to possibly remove it, then there is no reason NOT to get the free games -- even the in-app purchases are free! At this time, I have 601 Android games (purchased and free - 93% free) with only a few actually installed. Of these, 423 (70%) are underground game.
Why "buy" a game and not install it? Some have disappeared from the Underground platform and their pages now come up as a 404. I can still download from the cloud anytime I want. I can still get them even if nobody new can! Actually, I do install every game at lest temporarily to be sure it works.
Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"If you want a "no DRM future" then you should do your part and join Steam to lower the price of games. Set up a dual-boot system, install Steam, and buy games with a pre-paid credit card. There's no downside for you since when Steam invades your system to collect your personal information it will only find Steam"
You do not understand my viewpoint.
1 - I am not against DRM per se. I am against it when it becomes intrusive, when it forces me to install unwanted software on my system, and/or when I must allow this software to go online from my computer.
2 - As I stated, it is a matter of principle for me. It would be the height of hypocrisy to be so opposed to Steam's reprehensible business paradigm but then monetarily support that paradigm by purchasing from them. A dual boot system, or even a separate computer just for Steam games, is irrelevant.
3 - Ultimately my ire is towards those developers who make the decision to ONLY release their games via Steam. They are denying us choices, they are denying us the option of where to spend our money.
Allow me to be analogous. Let us suppose that wherever you live there is one restaurant that has great food, great service, and great prices. And you find out this restaurant is owned by people who are staunch supporters of the KKK, so all profits go to that organization. And let us suppose you find the KKK to be a vile and detestable group. Do you patronize that restaurant because of the good food, knowing your money will go to further the KKK, or do you take your business elsewhere? (Before anyone pops up with this specious argument; I am not equating Steam with the KKK, this is an analogy of principles.)
Developers, by only releasing via Steam, are denying us the right of taking our business elsewhere."...complaining is not going to do anything in this situation"
"could we argue about something we can change"Absolutely true. But only because Steam is a monopoly, IT HAS NO COMPETITION, therefore it has no incentive to change. We, the consumers, the ones who speak with our wallets, have had our options removed, we are slapped with the ultimatum "my way or the highway". And those of us who reject this, who, for whatever reasons, decide to not deal with Steam, are castigated by the Steam fans.
"Steam is just too big"
" steam is here to stay"LOL. Tell me about Deusenberg, Studebaker, American Motors, Panam, TWA, Enron, etc. Chrysler almost joined that group.
Posted 8 years ago # -
mikiem2
ModeratorThere's nothing wrong with voting with your wallet IMHO, but if it's something someone feels strongly about, then I think it's up to the individual who's taking any sort of stand to see the costs as a true sign of their commitment to their ideals. In a way it's kind of like fasting in protest -- if fasting was easy, & had zero effects, it wouldn't be much of a protest, would it?
... Steam is a monopoly, IT HAS NO COMPETITION...
Maybe join the Windows Insider program, become an active booster, & maybe more developers will port their stuff to the store, which is an alternative to Steam, albeit not too competitive yet as not enough developers have put up their wares so far. Yes, Microsoft is a giant corp., but they're also carefully watched by governments etc.
Posted 8 years ago # -
ChrisS
Administratorjgf, the solution to your dilemma is so obvious that I hesitate to mention it and you almost solved it yourself above with:
As I've mentioned here in the past, I wrote Bethesda years ago "I will gladly give you $50 for a disc version of Skyrim I can install and play as I did Morrowind and Oblivion, but I will not give 50 cents for a Steam version".
The problem with your request to Bethesda is that it violates their licensing agreements with Steam, Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation. They absolutely cannot sell single games to individuals. The proper approach is to secure a licensing agreement with Bethesda, and all of the other publishers while you're at it, that will allow you to sell stand-alone versions of their games that can be installed from the disks without any other software. You'd have to provide some sort of software registration mechanism to prevent piracy and still allow the proper owner to reinstall, a means to install patches, and probably a portal to facilitate sales since all other retail PC versions "activate on Steam". None of that, however, should be much of a challenge since it's the way things used to be.All of the software publishers would love to have another viable outlet for their games if such would generate additional sales. Put your passion to work, contact the Bethesda sales department and ask about licensing. I said above that Steam is not a monopoly, you've got a free market solution waiting to be implemented.
It would take some cash and it might even be a viable KickStarter project. I'd certainly buy copies of your products but I don't have any passion around the project. Instead of complaining that "somebody needs to do something" be that somebody.
Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"It would take some cash..."
Not necessarily. It could be easily accomplished with no money at all - just get enough people to write the developers as I did, telling them we want alternatives, telling them we will not deal with Steam (as it exists). But that is extremely unlikely (I fully believe that had our forefathers (in the US) had the attitude of modern people, we would still be a British colony).
The "someone" who could do something should be the someone who could most easily accomplish the task, in this case the game developers and distributors themselves. Public opinion is powerful ...if you get enough public to express an opinion. "We want to buy these games, but not under these conditions."
But that is just my opinion. And my principles. I have lived too long to expect anyone, much less a majority, to agree with me on any given topic.
Posted 8 years ago # -
ChrisS
AdministratorNot necessarily. It could be easily accomplished with no money at all - just get enough people to write the developers as I did, telling them we want alternatives, telling them we will not deal with Steam (as it exists).
Sadly, that won't work. You won't move them by telling them you want alternatives, you move them by presenting them an alternative. If you tell them "find a better solution" they'll just say "Why take the risk, what we have is fine". Show them the solution and they might bite. It's the old "don't bring a problem without a solution" mantra.There's a lot of ground between GOG (Good Old Games) and Steam that your company, Just Good Fun, could occupy. You likely wouldn't be allowed to sell new games, they'd have to have been available on Steam for a year or so, and you'd probably have to give Steam some of your profits but it'd be a win for all parties. The publishers sell more product, Steam gets money from people who'd never be their customer, you sell games for a profit, and gamers get what they want. But they're not going to move without somebody else doing the work and taking the risk. Corporate America is risk adverse except on utterly foolish ventures that spend "other peoples' money".
But that is extremely unlikely (I fully believe that had our forefathers (in the US) had the attitude of modern people, we would still be a British colony).
The accounts I've read indicate that the revolution was only supported by 20-25% of the population. The rest either thought it wouldn't matter who won as nothing would really change, so why bother, that their futures were brighter colonists, or they simply feared to get involved. The revolutionaries won because they were willing to do the work; the revolution didn't start and stop with the Declaration of Independence.Posted 8 years ago # -
From what I understand, the real reason we won the Revolution was simple logistics! The rebels made such a nuisance of themselves (and many times, it was little more than that) that the British just got tired of spending all the money for men, arms, equipment... to fight a war across an ocean when the technology of the time made that "simple" trip long and treacherous!
We just wore them out!
Personally, I'm surprised they won in so many places -- I guess there was even more apathy elsewhere!
Posted 8 years ago # -
ChrisS
AdministratorUltimately, every venture succeeds or fails by logistics. In fact, this thread is about GOTD logistics with some game publisher logistics tossed in.
GOTD's logistics chain has a supply issue. There aren't enough suppliers to meet demand which is compounded by other companies poaching their market (and suppliers).
Bethesda has an unserved demand base because their licensing arrangement with Steam assumes all PCs will be served but Steam's focus is on Steam, not on Bethesda's total sales figures. It's a gap that some Jolly Good Fellow could close and make a modest sum in the process.
If we back up to the Revolutionary War (and since when has war been "revolutionary", isn't it pretty much old hat?) we can see that supply chains aren't always what they appear. As I understand it, Parliament had been largely running the British Empire before George III assumed the throne and wrestled power away from them. I suspect there was a good bit of "payback" going on with a lot of "non-support" support from Parliament, prominent families, and other wealthy concerns. They had King George's back from way, way, way back and did as little as they could to help.
I'm sure Samsung is re-evaluating their battery supply chain but at least they had a battery backup via another supplier. If your business relies on a critical component from a single source, and that single source fails, they can take your business down with them. There's a lot of opportunity in thinking about how you can better serve all or some of the demand or whether you're a better fit for part of the supply chain.
Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"Sadly, that won't work. "
Ah, but it would ... if enough people expressed this attitude to the developers who only released via Steam, and backed that up by refusing to deal with Steam, those developers would be stupid not to listen. But of course that will not happen since you will not find enough people with enough backbone to adamantly state "we will do without rather than kowtow to Steam".
"...and you'd probably have to give Steam some of your profits but it'd be a win for all parties"
And we are back to square one. I will never, as a matter of principle, do anything to put a penny in Steam's pocket as long as they continue their current business paradigm. To return to my restaurant analogy, this equates to someone opening a takeout service so you pay them to get food from that restaurant and deliver it to you - but your money still ends up with the Klan.
"...the revolution was only supported by 20-25% of the population"
According to John Adams, about a third of the (white) population of the colonies was in favor of the revolution, about a third were loyalists, and about a third didn't care. But it was that third who stood up that made the difference. And my point is that they did stand up, something I sincerely doubt you could get 10% of modern people to do in similar circumstances (prevailing attitudes being, "don't rock the boat" and "leave well enough alone"), much less in our current topic.
Posted 8 years ago # -
ChrisS
Administratorif enough people expressed this attitude...
I fear you have no idea how the world works. You're advocating individual expression of an opinion to low-level staffers who only have the authority to either (a) forward approved topics or (b) delete emails for topics that have not been approved. Telling Bethesda that you would not buy Skyrim from Steam will get your email deleted because they've already taken care of your complaint... you can buy it for the Microsoft Xbox or Sony Playstation. They've given you not one but two other choices, what could be more reasonable? DELETE (says the low-level staffer)To get the desired change you have to get your idea to a decision maker and "I will not buy from Steam" isn't a workable idea since you can already buy it elsewhere. Why on Tamriel would Bethesda spend time working on a problem that they've already solved? You need to demonstrate demand for a 4th sales avenue and one-off emails won't do that. Make it easy for them to say "yes" and you've got a shot; make them work and you've got no shot.
If we go back to the Revolutionary War (oh, it keeps coming around, that's why it's "revolutionary"), how much support would there have been without Thomas Paine and "Common Sense"? Paine used the social media of the day, the printing press, to share his vision. It's far easier to share ideas today, what are you doing to gather public support and effect change? Posting complaints in this forum won't accomplish anything.
I will never, as a matter of principle, do anything to put a penny in Steam's pocket
Not even if Steam adopted a dual licensing mechanism where you could register your game without having to install the Steam Client because you demonstrated the sizable demand via your start-up? That is, after all, the most efficient outcome for all parties. If what you say is true then why would anybody work with you?Posted 8 years ago # -
This is just a little different but I have to point this out.
Besides Steam (for which I do not have an account), there are other media that "appear" to have their own client software. I refer to such as Amazon, BigFishGames, and GameHouse, just as examples.
BigFishGames and GameHouse make you download their software to install the games. In GameHouse's case, it's still called RealArcade. Amazon controls your download but you can often keep the downloaded install executable for further installs even if it does have to "phone home" to activate.
However, in none of these cases is the software needed to actually play the games! In the case of BigFishGames, there is a hidden executable file that is the main game. You can bypass their software entirely with a minute or two work in un-hiding and creating a new shortcut. With GameHouse and Amazon, it's really only used for installation purposes.
If you wanted, you could remove the software after each install. I choose to keep it to save time. I'm a bit old-fashioned and hate wasting space but with a TB drive still not half full in almost 4 years, I'm willing to keep things that are used occasionally just to save time!
It may not be the games you want but it is an alternative to Steam that's not just the freebie circuit!
Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"You're advocating individual expression of an opinion to low-level staffers ..."
I advocate telling everyone as far up the corporate ladder as you can go, but especially the development teams who make the decision to use Steam exclusively. They, not Steam, are the ones denying us a choice of where to spend our money. If any developer receives enough messages from people stating they will not deal with Steam they will have to pay attention or risk alienating that portion of the market. Whether your product is an automobile, shoes, or a computer game, you want to reach the largest audience possible. Over the years we have often seen celebrities dropped from endorsement deals when they did something the product developer thought might alienate some of their customer base. Local TV stations will replace network programming if there is enough public outcry over that program.
But even if the email is only read by some work-at-home clerk, if they get enough messages on the same topic, that will be bumped up the ladder. A hundred messages will be ignored, especially if they are belligerent or insulting, a thousand messages will be noted, ten thousand will get the attention of someone in power. Though the best option is to do your homework; it is relatively easy today to get email addresses, even phone numbers, for anyone in any corporation, so go directly to someone who has input in company policy. Be brief, courteous, and to the point; if they get enough such messages - "we would gladly buy your games if only we did not have to deal with Steam to do so" - I guarantee there will be discussions about reaching this market.
Hence my comparison with our (US) forefathers; they had the backbone to stand up and be counted, even though there were an equal number against them and an equal number totally apathetic. But ... are there enough gamers out there who agree with my assessment of Steam and would also tell developers "no sale as long as Steam is the only source"? I doubt it; the usual response is "I don't like Steam, but I want that game".
"Not even if Steam adopted a dual licensing mechanism where you could register your game without having to install the Steam Client because you demonstrated the sizable demand via your start-up?"
To reiterate - I will never, as a matter of principle, do anything to put a penny in Steam's pocket as long as they continue their current business paradigm.
Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"Besides Steam (for which I do not have an account), there are other media that "appear" to have their own client software. I refer to such as Amazon, BigFishGames, and GameHouse, just as examples."
You can add such "giants" as EA/Origin and UbiSoft to the list, in fact their systems are more objectionable than Steam. EA/Origin installs approximately 400meg of "management software" to your system, and their games will not even run unless they are allowed to "phone home" every time they are started (block them in your firewall and clicking the icon merely gets an instant windows error box - "could not connect").
UbiSoft went a step further a few years ago with the release of Silent Hunter V - it required a constant, uninterrupted internet connection to run. This so infuriated many gamers that, once the word was out, sales fell off rapidly ...and the hackers didn't even bother with the game, they hit Ubi's websites in protest. Ubi eventually relented and reverted to a "phone home at every start" method.
But this verifies my assertion that eventually DRM will become so invasive, so irritating, so annoying, that gamers will walk away, deciding it just isn't worth the trouble. But different people have different thresholds, for many it was UbiSoft, for many it is Steam.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Actually, there are two practices for which I dislike with the distributors for which I currently do business.
The first is old and most likely not used anymore. That is games that REQUIRE the CD to be inserted to play the game, despite a full install on your hard drive. I only have about 3 or 4 games like that and only one where I would love to find a hard-drive version that doesn't cost me additional money. That is the old Microsoft game called "Pandora's Box." I know it's very old (Win 98, I think) but it still works even if the resolution is a bit low for modern machines.
The other practice is where I MUST download/install the game. There is no way to keep a backup copy of the downloaded install for which to transition or re-install if needed. If the initial download is just a stub, it's this category. As was noted with GameHouse recently, they can LOSE the license that you have and then you have a fight on your hands. At this time, there are two sources of this frustration - GameHouse and BigFishGames. All I can do is keep complete records of purchase (date/order number), unlock key (if provided) and so forth to give details of my claim if needed.
I much prefer having a full download and I can zip and burn that to a backup. Even with CD/DVD purchases, backups are possible in several ways.
Again -- there are ways of getting games you want without fighting Steam or the other intrusive distributors. I guess you have to be flexible in what you want in some cases. I don't like the high-power newer games anyway. I like a good logic game or other casual game.
Posted 8 years ago # -
mikiem2
ModeratorBut this verifies my assertion that eventually DRM will become so invasive, so irritating, so annoying, that gamers will walk away, deciding it just isn't worth the trouble.
I wouldn't set my hopes too high... If you look at the intrusive, perhaps abusive nature of many [most?] Android games, very few people even give that part of the game's nature a thought. The huge amount of DRM should have killed Blu-ray movie discs, but it hasn't, though sales are suffering for other reasons, like the availability of streaming. DRM has per Microsoft's intend cut sales of Office 2016 in favor of their subscription version, but it hasn't stopped sales of some audio &/or video apps, even when a USB dongle is required just for the licensing BS [works similar to having to insert a disc].
I don't like the high-power newer games anyway.
Some of those also have pretty high hardware requirements to boot -- read of one new game coming out that wants to see a $400-$500 graphics card installed on your PC!
Posted 8 years ago # -
jgf
Member"The first is old and most likely not used anymore. That is games that REQUIRE the CD to be inserted to play..."
As I've said in another thread here, developing DRM is a waste of time. Every DRM/"copy protection" scheme has been cracked within a few weeks of the games' release; so all DRM does is annoy the legitimate purchasers of a game and provide exercise for the hackers (no doubt the hackers see DRM as a game in itself). The CD Check was doubly irritating because you had to keep all your game CDs nearby to swap them in and out as you played different games, not only increasing the risk of damaging them from all that handling, but consider the extra, unnecessary, wear and tear on the optical drive. The first thing I did after installing such as game was go online for a no-cd patch.
"The other practice is where I MUST download/install the game."
Absolutely. When I pay for software, I want a hard copy. But beyond that comes the time you may want to reinstall the game, so another three or four hours of download/install/update/patch/register/validate/etc.; with a hard copy just put the disc in the drive and in fifteen minutes the program is reinstalled.
"...DRM should have killed Blu-ray movie discs..."
But video DRM is relatively easy to circumvent; since all discs must be playable on all players/recorders, a common system is used. So a small, inexpensive "decoder" can be used with free standing players or a simple, passive, piece of software for a computer. (FTR, Blue-Ray is "dying", or at least has never gained the popularity its developers hoped, for the same reasons Betamax died - incompatible format requiring specific hardware, relative lack of prerecorded material, and public indifference.)
Posted 8 years ago # -
Whiterabbit-uk
Games GuruI don't like the high-power newer games anyway. Some of those also have pretty high hardware requirements to boot -- read of one new game coming out that wants to see a $400-$500 graphics card installed on your PC!
Unfortunately I do like quite a few of these high power games. Being virtually house bound for the past 11 years, I find some of these games helps to take me away to far away places, especially open world games like 'The Elder Scrolls Online', or one of the open world racing games such as 'The Crew' (which incidentally is free for the next fortnight over on uPlay, (though you do need the uPlay client to get the game), or Battlefield 4 (which is also totally free for a limited time over on Origin - yet another necessary installation of a game client). Unfortunately, if you don't have one of those expensive graphic cards with at least a minimum of 3 or 4GB of graphics RAM, Most of the most recent releases will not play on a standard computer, especially one with only a motherboard based graphics chip.
I've just had to replace a generation 7 NVidia graphics card (GTX 780), that cost me several hundred pounds a few years ago and to replace it I bought two second hand 9th generation (last years model) NVidia GTX 980Ti's but they still set me back over £700,(to purchase new they would have cost me well over a thousand) which would buy you a decent gaming laptop these days. For me though the expense was worth it as I now have DX12 capabilities and 12GB of gRAM, which will increase frame rates significantly that in turn will give me a more realistic and smoothe game play visually, as well as future proof the computer; at least for the next few years and allow me to enjoy next generation games to the fullest extent.
Posted 8 years ago # -
mikiem2
ModeratorUnfortunately, if you don't have one of those expensive graphic cards with at least a minimum of 3 or 4GB of graphics RAM, Most of the most recent releases will not play on a standard computer, especially one with only a motherboard based graphics chip.
FWIW my son [the gamer] was telling me that quite a few of his games have a 4GB minimum, which makes the new, lower cost Nvidia card completely useless at 3GB -- he was chuckling at the marketing sleight-of-hand.
For me though the expense was worth it...
It's also good for graphics & video. *Hopefully* prices will come down soon though. The new Nvidia & AMD graphics cards are Very nice for the price, & the new AMD CPUs are supposed to compete again with Intel, which *should* mean competitive pricing once again.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Unfortunately I do like quite a few of these high power games.
...
For me though the expense was worth it
I understand your point of view. Just a short time last winter being pretty much immobile after a fall and a very small tear in my muscle left me almost unable to move most of the winter.
However, even if I were in a house bound situation, I just cannot justify the extreme expense for these high-power cards. It just is not in my lower-middle class budget!
I'm NOT putting you down -- I'm just saying you're not lucky to be in your situation but you're lucky to have a way you can partially live with the situation. I sincerely hope you enjoy your high powered games as much as my casual games (if Treasures of Montezuma 5 doesn't lose my latest stats again, that is).
Posted 8 years ago # -
mikiem2
ModeratorWith Google bringing Android apps to Chromebooks, app developers will hopefully work on scaling their graphics, & designing more touchpad or mouse friendly GUIs &/or controls. That would let you use Android [& Kindle] apps & games, same as with a tablet or cell phone, but still looking good on a much larger screen. I could see that becoming the ideal solution for the casual gamer, rather than a full fledged Windows device.
Right now you can buy a cheap Android box for around $30 to play media files &/or stream video to a HDTV, but not so much for apps & games. The big limitation gaming on devices like the Kindle TV box is that fewer games are available that scale *well* to HD. If most, or maybe even all Android/Kindle games would also look good on bigger screens, while working just as well without touch, I could realistically see my wife very rarely sitting down at a Windows PC.
I don't know if it'll ever happen, but in that ideal world you could buy something like a relatively inexpensive Kindle HD & a dock, which would work like Microsoft's continuum is supposed to -- use the Kindle HD all you want as-is, same as today, but set it on the dock & use a mouse & have a bigger screen. What makes both scenarios nice is that the only advantage an x86 type CPU [which is normally what's used with Windows] has in those cases is commanding a higher price, which benefits those selling the CPUs -- Not us.
As far as more hard core gaming goes, the cheapest solution *may* be to buy a remanufactured [used] PC with an i5 for $75-$100, adding a ~$40 SSD, maybe $30-$50 for a beefier power supply, & roughly $200 for a mainstream graphics card on sale [I've now seen AMD's last generation $200 cards sell for $100 after MIR]. That should let you play most games that are out there, if not at the highest FPS or quality settings.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Whiterabbit-uk
Games GuruOnly just seen your reply Dragonlair, I love the Montezuma games as well. The first one is still one of my favorite Match three games.
with respect to gaming, I was a very casual gamer before my accident. I'd probably buy a couple every several months and play them the whole way through, usually at weekends when i wasn't working, and usually late at night, so as not to impact on family life. since my accident, I found gaming really helped to take my mind off the chronic pain and even enabled me to reduce the amount of poisons I take to reduce the pain.
I still wish I could go back to before the accident and continue the way i was, but of course that is impossible. Thankfully I have been able to afford whatever I want due to the compensation i received, which has made life much more bearable than it was following the accident, when we really struggled becasue our income had been reduced by more than half.
I do think the latest graphic cards and the requirements many of the latest AAA games require are too much. They the developers should allow for lower graphics power so more people can enjoy the games. When the latest cards are costing more than the p[rice of a decent gaming laptop (almost), it's becoming a rich mans hobby.
As soon as a new generation of cards (and cpu's) are released you'll see a massive increase in second hand cards from the previous generations going up for sale on places like ebay. You can sometimes grab a bargain, but generally you are still paying high prices for some of these second hand goods. Which can be a bit of a gamble as you don't know what that person has been doing with the card while its been in use. I purchased two GTX 780 graphics cards a couple of years ago. They lasted less than a year before I had to replace then and cost me over £700, yet a GTX 275 graphics card I purchased about 8 years ago is still working perfectly in one of the back ups I use frequently and still plays a lot of AAA games, though not the latest as the gRAM doesn't come up to standard for these new games.
I sometimes wonder whether the increased gRAM is worth the effort. When Bethesda released the graphics upgrade package shortly after Skyrim was released, I couldn't really see much difference. Their latest release of the game has been upgraded further with remastered art and effects as well as other upgrades yet again I see very little difference between that and the original (which I still have installed) that justifies the extra costs (via repurchasing the game and requiring a better graphics card) you need to now play the game. TRhe original minimum specs for Skyrim were@
Dual Core 2.0GHz or equivalent processor
Memory: 2GB System RAM
Hard Disk Space: 6GB free HDD Space
Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB of RAM
Sound: DirectX compatible sound cardthe latest version quotes
Processor: Intel i5-750/AMD Phenom II X4-945
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 470 1GB /AMD HD 7870 2GB
Storage: 12 GB available spacebut they now recommend
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 780 3GB /AMD R9 290 4GB
Storage: 12 GB available spacethe original release (11th Nov 2011) recommended
Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
4GB System RAM
Video Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher)You can buy the original for £9.99 via Steam whereas the new edition which is supposed to have more characters, more missions and better graphics etc costs £29.99 (there's no discount for those who purchased the original. The original does come with a free upgrade pack that upgrades many of the textures.
Please excuse the off the topic comment. Wanted to reply to Dragonlair.
Posted 7 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.