overneathe, on 10 February 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:
Xenocow, on 09 February 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:
All this dipshit i already got on my PC, so why would i need it ?
Exclusives and cross game friend lists. No other reason.
To me, a friend's list isn't worth more than the convenience of actually playing a game with my friends. Let's take this example:
- My friend lives 3 hours away, and gaming is one of the ways we stay in touch after college.
- My friend has an Xbox, and I have an Xbox.
- I get game A, but my friend doesn't have game A.
- Game A has a vibrant co-op campaign.
- When I visit my friend, I want to play the co-op of game A with him.
Here's how it would currently play out:
- I bring only the disc of game A to my friend's house. We plop it in his Xbox, and jam out in co-op together.
From the sound of the article, here's how it would play out with the new DRM system:
- Option #1 - My friend now has to purchase game A, link to his Xbox account, and then we can play together via Xbox live.
- Option #2 - I bring my disc for game A and my linked Xbox to my friend's house, and we play the cool co-op together.
Now, playing a simple console game with my friend will become more cumbersome or expensive. This is an unnecessary aggravation.
The "always online" DRM that game companies seem to be pushing
will hurt the industry if it is not used on the correct type of game. MMO's are a great place to use an "always online" DRM system because the internet is required for gameplay. However, consoles don't really have popular MMO's, but mostly multiplayer or single player.
As an example, Diablo III was a poor choice for that same type of "always online" DRM because.... internet connectivity is not required for the single player component of the game. Case in point:
- If my internet connection is poor because I am stationed in Afghanistan, then I am now unable to log in and play the single player version of Diablo III.
This leads to a discussion of internet infrastructure not being where it needs to be, and yadda yadda yadda. More importantly, it leads to unnecessary game purchases. Not every game is like a movie ticket, you don't buy a personal copy for a joint experience. Back to the example, one person buys the game for a joint experience. This would be much more difficult on the proposed "always online" DRM system for consoles.
DRM systems are great for security and anti piracy, but work best in industries that create or promote other industries (Game development software, Maya, Adobe products, Microsoft Office, etc). There are many types of DRM systems, and many reasons for each type of system. Regardless, most DRM systems work well in these industry-creating-industries because the products are not meant to be enjoyed, but rather just used.
Inversly, in the gaming industry, your business will thrive or dive depending on the level of entertainment a customer experiences while using your product. If I play Dead Space 3 and love the co-op, then huzzah, you've gained a new customer or two! However, if I play Dead Space 3 and I am aggravated by the micro-transactions at every step, then bummer, you've lost a customer! The cost of doing business in the entertainment industry is not necessarily money, but rather the entertainment factor of your product (because it determines the amount of money you make).
It's rather tiresome to see companies constantly trying to balance how many deterrent features they can add to a game before it reduces the amount of customer satisfaction a product has. It is as if they created a semi-polished game like D3, and a creative gent comes up with the idea to have a RMAH. Well, if you have that then you have to have some type of security to prevent duping, so DRM "always online" is introduced. Here's another example: let's suppose that you work at EA and have a great game like Sim City 5. You have a near finished game in company hands, but you decide that you should toss in DRM because you want to prevent the unauthorized use of Sim City 5... That later spirals into a PR nightmare.
DRM "always online" is meant to prevent loss. However, I believe that it creates as much loss as it prevents.
Instead, companies need to go back to the roots of video games: entertainment and quality. I'd wager that If companies made stellar games that people grow to love and cherish, they will make more money than a decent game with DRM...
I will never understand the need to introduce elements into a game that invariably reduce the overall experience of the final product.
Side note: I don't think advances in social interaction in games should be a selling point for "always online" DRM used on a console. Advances in social interaction should be done anyway. We shouldn't be asked to put up with things that detract from our regular gameplay experience in order to have those advances.
Tl;Dr :
Things that are sold as entertainment products should not have DRM systems that require "always online" mode if it removes a layer of convenience, prevents proper enjoyment of the product, or makes the product more expensive.
1
