E3 2013

[BadKarma]

Yeah I figure that, any word on if it qualifies for Prime shipping?

Mine does. Yours should to

[octopus]

Also when pre-ordering from Amazon you generally receive it on launch day (rather than them shipping on launch day and you get it 2 days later)

[Headspace]

Also when pre-ordering from Amazon you generally receive it on launch day (rather than them shipping on launch day and you get it 2 days later)

That's for games. Will probably be different with a huge console release.

[Deuce]

DRM leads to a higher capture of revenue, more potential payout justifies extra investment and higher risk tolerance. I'm sorry you're stupid.

Uh yeah, unless you work for EA or Ubisoft and can provide actual sales numbers then your argument can't be proven. In fact, EA dropping DRM policies goes to show that it in fact does the opposite.

[Minions]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/11/p...s-third-party/

Everyone keeps posting this like something has changed. They will support publishers DRM. Some games require online checkins when you start the game (DRM), some games require online passes (DRM). That already exists on the PS3. Nothing has changed, and it does not make anything Sony said less true.

[Exoduso]

Seeing as how the 360 was exploited like a whore on 3rd street, it makes sense that they would want to have the whole DRM shit on their content to avoid having the XO be pirating haven once more.
That being said, they're still going against what the consumer wants, and there are better ways to avoid pirating than doing what they're doing.

Mine does. Yours should to

I can also confirm it qualifies for Prime shipping.

[Enkidu]

Tech sites have already concluded that PS4 is the more powerful consoles, whether or not it becomes the defacto development console for 3rd parties is something we'll see in the future. Tretton already claimed that 3rd party games will look better on PS4 and that this is what he's heard from the 3rd parties, seems believable, but not a claim that can be taken at face value just yet...

XBone's TV features don't offer much more then what I could do with my laptop/tablet and those aren't 10lb bricks sitting under my TV. If I was into MS 1st party games not released for the master race then I'd probably get one eventually, but I'm not a huge Halo fan...

I'll stick with PC/PS4 this generation, probably wont even bother with PSN+ anyways seeing as how anything I play online I play on PC...

[Deuce]

Seeing as how the 360 was exploited like a whore on 3rd street, it makes sense that they would want to have the whole DRM shit on their content to avoid having the XO be pirating haven once more.
That being said, they're still going against what the consumer wants, and there are better ways to avoid pirating than doing what they're doing.

So, being a gamer that has tons of friends who game, none of which pirate their games on consoles, I'm curious, how many people actually pirate on console? MS makes it seem like everybody and their fucking mom does it.

[aurik]

To illustrate my point, I'll walk through a simple experiment.

Let's say I'm making a game that 100 million people would be interested in playing.
I can opt for no DRM, at which point maybe all 100 million people play it, but only 10 million actually pay me my asking price of $20 (90% piracy rate). That's $200 million in revenue.
Or, I can license a DRM system (which costs me idunno, $10 million to license and implement). Now only 20 million actually play it instead of all 100m--the other 80 million decide it isn't worth the money. Because no DRM is perfect, of the 20 million, only 15 million actually pay (25% piracy rate). That's $300 million in revenue...minus $10 for the DRM system. Oh and a PR campaign to offset the ill-will generated by the DRM, another $10 mil. That's still $80 million more in revenue, or a 40% increase.

If I was an investor and I was considering investing in developing a game, I would be tremendously more likely to make the investment if the payoff was increased by 40%. Furthermore, let's say I've figured out long term that I can safely invest up to $100 mil for a game with a $200 million upside if it doesn't flop. For a game that has $280 million upside, I can now justify spending an additional $40 million, even selling the game at the same price, to outcompete other games in the market.

But wait, there's more! Let's say I release the game without DRM at $20. 10% of the people who want to play the game pay me $20; the other 90 million just download it without a payment--now the game has no tail. In the DRM case, 15 million pay for the game, and 5 million pirate it at $20. Then after a year I drop the price to $10 and another 5 million people purchase the game. $50m additional revenue. Then I drop it to $5 for the holiday sale. Another 5m people, another $25m revenue. Can't really do that (or at least it's tremendously less effective) when people have already consumed the content.

[aurik]

Uh yeah, unless you work for EA or Ubisoft and can provide actual sales numbers then your argument can't be proven. In fact, EA dropping DRM policies goes to show that it in fact does the opposite.

I obviously can't share that kind of privileged information.

I can however point to the history of the industry which has been to invest increasing amounts of money in DRM systems. Do you really think that ALL the major publishers have simply hired analysts that fail so hard at their jobs they have been completely polar wrong on DRM?

EA dropping DRM policies doesn't mean they've abolished all DRM, just that one of them (Online Passes) hasn't really panned out. Probably because there's a really low conversion rate for online passes on used games.

[BadKarma]

Science bitch

[Day]

Uh yeah, unless you work for EA or Ubisoft and can provide actual sales numbers then your argument can't be proven. In fact, EA dropping DRM policies goes to show that it in fact does the opposite.

I think Aurik has worked in the gaming industry? If I'm not mistaken?

[Gokulo]

Some cool music started on the S-E channel, lol.

[SamanosukeShiva]

If that X game from monolith turns out to be Xenogears, I'm gonna lose my shit. I don't wanna buy Wii U.

[Gokulo]

Xenoblade 2 or something. They can't make Xenogears I think?

[Minions]

To illustrate my point, I'll walk through a simple experiment.

Let's say I'm making a game that 100 million people would be interested in playing.
I can opt for no DRM, at which point maybe all 100 million people play it, but only 10 million actually pay me my asking price of $20 (90% piracy rate). That's $200 million in revenue.
Or, I can license a DRM system (which costs me idunno, $10 million to license and implement). Now only 20 million actually play it instead of all 100m--the other 80 million decide it isn't worth the money. Because no DRM is perfect, of the 20 million, only 15 million actually pay (25% piracy rate). That's $300 million in revenue...minus $10 for the DRM system. Oh and a PR campaign to offset the ill-will generated by the DRM, another $10 mil. That's still $80 million more in revenue, or a 40% increase.

If I was an investor and I was considering investing in developing a game, I would be tremendously more likely to make the investment if the payoff was increased by 40%. Furthermore, let's say I've figured out long term that I can safely invest up to $100 mil for a game with a $200 million upside if it doesn't flop. For a game that has $280 million upside, I can now justify spending an additional $40 million, even selling the game at the same price, to outcompete other games in the market.

But wait, there's more! Let's say I release the game without DRM at $20. 10% of the people who want to play the game pay me $20; the other 90 million just download it without a payment--now the game has no tail. In the DRM case, 15 million pay for the game, and 5 million pirate it at $20. Then after a year I drop the price to $10 and another 5 million people purchase the game. $50m additional revenue. Then I drop it to $5 for the holiday sale. Another 5m people, another $25m revenue. Can't really do that (or at least it's tremendously less effective) when people have already consumed the content.

The issue with all of this is, I don't do DRM. SimCity or otherwise. I don't support publishers who force DRM. It ONLY affects the people who pay for these games. People who are going to pirate the games will still pirate the games. It's ineffective at what it sets out to do which is increase sales.

I skipped DiabloIII for this reason and finally have the opportunity to pick it up on PS4 offline without DRM.

[Day]

It sets out to cut down on piracy as well as increase revenue. You're just regarbling the same argument he's already disproven twice, and unless he's bullshitting he seems to be in the position to have way more information on this than any of you. You "not doing DRM" is included in his calculations, as well as people that will still pirate after DRM.

[BadKarma]

The issue with all of this is, I don't do DRM. SimCity or otherwise. I don't support publishers who force DRM. It ONLY affects the people who pay for these games. People who are going to pirate the games will still pirate the games. It's ineffective at what it sets out to do which is increase sales.

I skipped DiabloIII for this reason and finally have the opportunity to pick it up on PS4 offline without DRM.

Don't. Diablo 3 is terrible, if it had been free with my wow sub I never would have played it

[Deuce]

To illustrate my point, I'll walk through a simple experiment.

Let's say I'm making a game that 100 million people would be interested in playing.
I can opt for no DRM, at which point maybe all 100 million people play it, but only 10 million actually pay me my asking price of $20 (90% piracy rate). That's $200 million in revenue.
Or, I can license a DRM system (which costs me idunno, $10 million to license and implement). Now only 20 million actually play it instead of all 100m--the other 80 million decide it isn't worth the money. Because no DRM is perfect, of the 20 million, only 15 million actually pay (25% piracy rate). That's $300 million in revenue...minus $10 for the DRM system. Oh and a PR campaign to offset the ill-will generated by the DRM, another $10 mil. That's still $80 million more in revenue, or a 40% increase.

If I was an investor and I was considering investing in developing a game, I would be tremendously more likely to make the investment if the payoff was increased by 40%. Furthermore, let's say I've figured out long term that I can safely invest up to $100 mil for a game with a $200 million upside if it doesn't flop. For a game that has $280 million upside, I can now justify spending an additional $40 million, even selling the game at the same price, to outcompete other games in the market.

But wait, there's more! Let's say I release the game without DRM at $20. 10% of the people who want to play the game pay me $20; the other 90 million just download it without a payment--now the game has no tail. In the DRM case, 15 million pay for the game, and 5 million pirate it at $20. Then after a year I drop the price to $10 and another 5 million people purchase the game. $50m additional revenue. Then I drop it to $5 for the holiday sale. Another 5m people, another $25m revenue. Can't really do that (or at least it's tremendously less effective) when people have already consumed the content.

Ok, that's bullshit, because 90% of users don't pirate their games. The numbers are probably less than 10% of users, because guess what? The majority of consumers don't have the know-how or care to pirate a console game. I know plenty of people who still don't even know what torrenting is. In fact, I know plenty of people who are concerned about pirating because they believe they'll get caught doing it.

DRM is an attempt at getting the lower denomination sales, but in actuality, if developer's and publishers make great games they practically sell themselves through word of mouth. If the average consumer doesn't have the money to purchase a game new, well guess what, they aren't going to buy it, ever.

[Day]

Do publishers/developers recieve any money from gamestop sales. Serious yet slightly rhetorical question, because they may actually, but I doubt it.