3 ms·

Or maybe our local gamers have been voting with the paychecks they earn. Patio, I generally think your commentary is valuable and insightful. In this case I thi

by zinkem 15y ago

Or maybe our local gamers have been voting with the paychecks they earn. Patio, I generally think your commentary is valuable and insightful. In this case I think you've reduced a complicated situation to a nifty sounding catch phrase that appeals to our libertarian leanings (even mine). I used to manage a high-volume retail game store (~3m in yearly sales, $30 at a time). Many gamers literally do spend all of their disposable income on the games, and pirate what they cannot afford (and surprise, huge swaths of the gamer population are poor as dirt, and with the amount of time and money they spend on games this isn't changing). This kind of DRM would exist if 1 person or 1million people were pirating games, because its the only secure solution. I don't think this kind of DRM will be successful in improving PC sales in general. The only reason Blizzard gets away with it is because their games will always be at the top of gamer's purchase lists. They are high quality products with a shitload of content and beautiful user interfaces. If every game company followed suite, I don't think the result would be successful. edit, and context: I don't really care what Blizzard does to protect their games. People were concerned about Starcraft 2, the required online connectivity hasn't affected my game experience at all in the last year. I think this will probably be true for D3, as well.

patio11 15y ago
Here's a visualization where your understanding of the world and my understanding of the world converge: Let's say the statistical composite gamer buys 10 games a year and consumes 100. Game companies don't get rewarded for being in the top 100 and they don't get rewarded for having perfect anti-piracy: they get rewarded for being 1 step ahead of #11. You're probably insanely familiar with the importance of the new release window, where the supermajority of game sales (and more importantly to publishers, original sales) are made. All you have to do is be desirable enough and annoying enough to be a must have in those first ten days, and you secure your coveted position among games that our poor subject actually purchases. With regards to poverty and video game players: personally, I don't really see a justice concern in "I am wealthy enough to consume video games, but not wealthy enough to consume video games up to my desired level of consumption." If they were stealing food to feed their children, I'd be darn careful with how I talked about them, but unless Diablo III tastes great with ketchup...
- zinkem 15y ago
  Yea, I agree. My main point was that you can't get blood from a turnip. I don't think DRM will change sales (or even affect them that much). Those who can afford will continue to play what they normally play, and those who can't afford will just opt out of playing PC games that they can't pirate. I perhaps misread your original statement as saying "people won't pay, so they get DRM." I don't really think this is the case. I think this kind of DRM is inevitable as a natural loss prevention measure(whether the threat to profits is imagined or real), and I think games that don't provide enough content to mitigate the hassle of DRM (real or imagined) will suffer regardless. D3 sales will be huge, and SC2 sales were too. I'd hate to see someone draw the conclusion that it's the DRM selling these products. edit: In light of your response I see now exactly what you meant in your original post.
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    It is the DRM that is selling these products. Most Warcraft III players have never bought a license and play on Garena. Any of those people who want to play StarCraft II will now have to give Blizzard money. These people greatly outnumber the people who will refuse to buy it because of the DRM.

by zinkem 15y ago

patio11 15y ago

Here's a visualization where your understanding of the world and my understanding of the world converge: Let's say the statistical composite gamer buys 10 games a year and consumes 100. Game companies don't get rewarded for being in the top 100 and they don't get rewarded for having perfect anti-piracy: they get rewarded for being 1 step ahead of #11. You're probably insanely familiar with the importance of the new release window, where the supermajority of game sales (and more importantly to publishers, original sales) are made. All you have to do is be desirable enough and annoying enough to be a must have in those first ten days, and you secure your coveted position among games that our poor subject actually purchases. With regards to poverty and video game players: personally, I don't really see a justice concern in "I am wealthy enough to consume video games, but not wealthy enough to consume video games up to my desired level of consumption." If they were stealing food to feed their children, I'd be darn careful with how I talked about them, but unless Diablo III tastes great with ketchup...

zinkem 15y ago
Yea, I agree. My main point was that you can't get blood from a turnip. I don't think DRM will change sales (or even affect them that much). Those who can afford will continue to play what they normally play, and those who can't afford will just opt out of playing PC games that they can't pirate. I perhaps misread your original statement as saying "people won't pay, so they get DRM." I don't really think this is the case. I think this kind of DRM is inevitable as a natural loss prevention measure(whether the threat to profits is imagined or real), and I think games that don't provide enough content to mitigate the hassle of DRM (real or imagined) will suffer regardless. D3 sales will be huge, and SC2 sales were too. I'd hate to see someone draw the conclusion that it's the DRM selling these products. edit: In light of your response I see now exactly what you meant in your original post.
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  It is the DRM that is selling these products. Most Warcraft III players have never bought a license and play on Garena. Any of those people who want to play StarCraft II will now have to give Blizzard money. These people greatly outnumber the people who will refuse to buy it because of the DRM.