Game Developers Becoming Similar To Hollywood Studios? 171
CNet is running an article that looks at the growing parallels between the major movie studios and some of the most successful game publishers, which have gradually turned into the juggernauts of the industry as they've absorbed a variety of smaller developers in recent years. "If we consider Hollywood — the model to which the video game industry is always compared — it doesn't take long before we realize that it's dominated by a handful of studios that effectively control a large percentage of the industry, while the independent studios are left trying to defy the percentages and get their innovative and artistic films to the masses. Since most fail, it's the big studios that enjoy profits as the independents try to find some way to stay alive." Gamasutra has a related piece suggesting the opposite trend: "Smaller, less expensive games made by smaller, more agile teams seem like a very logical step, now that the industry structure is better able to support it, with no less than three venues on which to distribute content as a small team. These are downloadable console, direct to consumer PC downloads via Steam-like services, portals, or direct sale, and iPhone and potentially DSi downloads."
don't forget.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think marketers are "cursed, booed, spit on..." because they take a bad product and make it look good. People buy said product, take it home and use it, find out it is a piece of crap, then curse, boo, spit on the marketers. :-)
It is a bit like the shyster lawyers who take clients who don't have a real case, yet win it and bankrupt some poor innocent person. Use your powers for good, not evil.
More on topic, I think video games have become "Hollywoodized." Most go strictly by formulas now. FPS, RTS, RP
Re: (Score:2)
At least our computers aren't locked down like the consoles (yet), so anyone has an opportunity to make their own games...
But the TVs are locked down. The vast majority of people who play games on a monitor big enough for four people to fit around do so on a console, not a TV. Even though PCs can easily handle four gamepads through a USB hub, they don't because end users don't want to buy a separate PC for the TV room or a separate TV for the PC room. Nor are they willing to buy $50 scan converters from, say, SewellDirect.com to convert high-definition (768p RGB) signals from a PC into standard-definition (480i composite) sign
Re: (Score:2)
marketing costs a lot of money.
You mistake cause and effect. Marketing costs a lot of money because the large entities (try to) make it necessary.
drown in the flood of games that are released.
Drown in the flood of marketing by the large entities, you mean.
A bad game with marketing will almost always outsell a good one with no marketing.
I'm sure you're right, and that's one of the more severely damaging aspects of copyright. In a free market system with interchangeable goods there's a limit to the value of m
Re: (Score:2)
Remove marketing and the only way people are going to hear about games is word of mouth. That's fine until you remove copyright as well, at which point the same people who tell you about it can also give you a free copy. Then the only way there's any profit in games is making them either heavily DRMed or thin clients dependent on a server to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Remove marketing and the only way people are going to hear about games is word of mouth.
I've always suspected all those gaming mags were just huge paid-for-ads...
No, seriously, and apologies for being snide, but the games industry is one of the least dependent on word of mouth. Reviews and recommendations highly sought after by consumers. Combine it with web 2.0 and you have all the marketing channels you need, but more tailored towards people finding what people want instead of telling them what you (or a
Re: (Score:2)
That model works for software which companies use, because companies are willing to pay for support. Where games are concerned the user will simply bin it and play a different game.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculously short-sighted. In an open-source scenario as you've explained, it would be difficult to make money on the development of the game, sure. But consider that there is money to be made in the support of the product.
"Support of the product" has long been the mantra of selling open-source business software. It has not generally, to my knowledge, been seriously proposed as a viable solution for a consumer product - an entertainment product at that - one which people tend to (for single-player games) play once and once only. The only support gamers need is when their game doesn't work. And at that point, they're probably not exactly in a mood to start handing over money to the developer.
Just because the first guys to develop a product see no immediate profit, it doesn't mean that there can't be an entire ecosystem of support developers who make a good living helping users with the game.
You're not doing a very good job
Re:don't forget.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actually in every big media's interest to make marketing as affordable as possible, since they pour multiple billions into marketing each year. Your saying that the interests of Big Advertising can somehow outweigh the interests of Big Movie, Big Music, Big Game, Big just about anything else? Perhaps marketing costs so much because it works so well.
Small games can easily slip under the marketing flood. The real problem is that under the marketing flood, there's a flood of flash games, indie games, open source project games, etc, all equally vying for your attention, with no effective method of marketing or spreading via word of mouth. I think the OP meant what he said.
There are two things wrong with that argument. Firstly, there is competition in copyright systems. You can buy (or, in some cases, get legitimately for free) other products from the competitors, but you just can't get an identical product. It just means that if you want that exact work, you have to take the distribution method with it. That's all.
Secondly, see my sig. If you want competition of distribution models over the same artwork, then the creator is not going to get any money, assuming the free market works (which it does in most cases). Consumers will typically go for the cheapest distribution. The artist not making any money, will typically result in him finding something else to spend his time on, something that puts food on his table. He simply can't compete with file-sharers.
You think that lack of competition is bad with copyright, you should see it without copyright.
And what about non-monopoly protected sectors? I'm pretty sure that Coca-Cola spends considerably more on advertising than it does in production, or research into new formulas, etc. It's not a monopoly, yet it still "suffers" from the same problem. It happens with most large businesses, monopoly or not.
Look, nothing is stopping you from searching from behind the advertising. Advertising doesn't actually make other goods harder to get, it just promotes them into the forefront of what most people will compare when they decide to make a purchase.
I think you're blowing this all way out of proportion. There aren't mind-controlling waves emanating from advertising. If you don't look beyond advertising, it means either you're lazy, you're stupid, or you're happy enough as it is buying from whatever advertisers serve to you. If the first applies to you, it's your own damn fault. If the second applies to you, then getting rid of advertising won't help you. If the third applies to you, then you're not complaining. What's your problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Your saying that the interests of Big Advertising can somehow outweigh
Not at all. I'm saying advertising is very effective, but most effective when you have more and better than others who are advertising.
Perhaps marketing costs so much because it works so well.
It costs so much because others advertising works so well. And vice versa. It essentially becomes a self-sustaining increasing spiral.
Firstly, there is competition in copyright systems.
Read up on the concept of monopolistic competition. The broadest
Re: (Score:2)
Oh absolutely. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying that without copyright, it wouldn't be possible. What you propose, as you said, is a form of copyright, just with mandatory licensing.
Interesting idea too, even if it isn't really in line with the free market. The free market is supposed to guarantee sellers some rights as well, like the right not to sell if they don't want to, to avoid drawing them into an inefficient, unprofitable markets at their expense. Still, tune it up a little, add a few details, a
Re: (Score:2)
A bad game with marketing will almost always outsell a good one with no marketing.
I'm sure you're right, and that's one of the more severely damaging aspects of copyright. In a free market system with interchangeable goods there's a limit to the value of marketing; make too much and your product becomes too expensive and people buy the competition.
Perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but if there was no copyright protection then the "free market" would result in the cheapest price being charged by duplicators who give nothing back to the creators.
There are certainly flaws with copyright as it stands at present, and in many ways it's gone too far. However, the basic reasoning behind it is sound- ironically for the reason that many Slashdotters give when saying copying such goods isn't "theft".
Because, for most intellectual works, t
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make
Sort of. I'm objecting to the particular implementation that increases the value of marketing to the disadvantage of the incentive to the creators.
then you're going to have to come up with a workable alternative.
Usually I advocate the easiest option; an end-point levy on revenue similar to what's done with radio, but over all end-sales of material. Ie, put a 25-75% 'sales tax' on books, music, games, etc, and hand that money directly to creators and artists
Re: (Score:2)
It's an effect that's noticable in every monopoly protected sector, from pharmaceuticals to music; more money gets spent on marketing than on the actual product.
Much as I dislike some of the workings of the pharmaceutical industry, most such drugs would not have been developed without some sort of patent, since they're dependent on expensive development and *more expensive* testing, approval, etc.
One might argue that they were the wrong approach anyway; medicalising issues because that's where the money was.
I would accept that this is true in some cases, but not all- and since you didn't mention this, I don't bel
Re: (Score:2)
(Additional; I should have replied to this above)
Ah, missed this :)
Your problem is that you effectively argue for abolition of copyright and patents
Well, no, and I should perhaps been more clear about that, but this was more regarding marketing as it pertains to monopoly protected sectors.
I'm arguing for the abolition of the _monopoly_ aspect of copyright and patents, to be replaced with a _revenue right_ aspect for such materials.
It's the monopoly aspect that is responsible for close to every problem with
Mouse Trap. (Score:2, Insightful)
Marketing baby!
Re: (Score:2)
marketing is accessible for small entities thanks to internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing (including product focus, positioning, and other less tangibles) is still important. Advertising is just a small part. But a leveler playing field is always welcome.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Put him on commission.
One competent marketing/sales guy can put business through the roof. Hate on marketing if you like but they're responsible for putting the SHINE on that little button you just clicked.
Guide to starting a business? (Score:2)
One person with some skill in game design and programming can make a living from their own wares if they are willing to do what it takes to start *ANY* small business *ANYWHERE*.
Can anybody recommend a good guide to starting a software development business and growing it past the home office stage? In particular, Nintendo platforms require developers to keep devkits in a separate office.
News, indeed! (Score:2)
I was comparing the two more than a decade ago, and discussing it with friends who agreed. The parallels are, dare I suggest it, obvious.
The title does not match the summary (Score:2)
Or does the author of the submission assume that game developer = game publisher?
Words of hope from Techdirt's New Year '09 Address (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Wait, sorry, was I supposed to answer the headline or read the submission?
Not really opposite (Score:2)
The diffence is that in the movie industry,
Yes they're the same (Score:2)
Some big differences. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollywood can sell the same content six times (cinema, pay-per-view, pay cable, free cable, terrestrial broadcast, DVD -- not to mention airline sales, overseas licensing, etc.). Videogames only run on the machine(s) they're made for.
Movies can continue to be shown for decades. With a tiny number of exceptions, a game is dead meat within a year.
Movies have star power. The general public doesn't care who made the game.
Filmmaking is very nearly turnkey if it doesn't require special effects. Every game is a unique piece of software engineering.
A big film is 3 hours tops. A big game is 40-50 hours. That's a lot more content.
The economics of the two are very different, and the production models can never be the same.
Re:Some big differences. (Score:4, Funny)
Movies have star power. The general public doesn't care who made the game.
Whoah whoah whoah...I think we all remember when John Romero was going to "make us his bitch!" with Daikatana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daikatana#Controversy [wikipedia.org]
Suck It Down /.
Re: (Score:2)
My take on it. [coolinc.info] (I showed it to Romero, he thought it was funny.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Movies have star power. The general public doesn't care who made the game.
One word: Blizzard
Re: (Score:2)
Brad Pitt!
This is fun! OK, now I'll name one, and you match it with another big name in the Games Industry.
Angelina Jolie! ...
*crickets*
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some big differences. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't care which studios make a movie either. Games have stars just the same as movies. Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog, Lara Croft, etc., they're all stars as well as characters that fall in from other media -- Star Wars comes to mind. Similarly they have behind-the-scenes "stars" as well, instead of well-known directors there are well-known game designers who add a cachet to their productions (Will Wright, Sid Meier, etc.).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I watch movies. I am NOT a "movie guy" or a "movie afficiando" or a "movie snob."
I work in IT, and thus am a geek. Just browsing the web doesn't make me a geek.
My sister drives a car, but that doesn't make her a gearhead or mechanic. I read car magazines regularly, participate in forums online about cars, and do a bit of work on my own. Thus, I am a gearhead, and she is not.
When I say "gamer", I do not mean just "a person
demolishing each point to oblivion (Score:2)
Hollywood can sell the same content six times (cinema, pay-per-view, pay cable, free cable, terrestrial broadcast, DVD -- not to mention airline sales, overseas licensing, etc.). Videogames only run on the machine(s) they're made for.
You haven't been on the online marketplaces lately huh?
Seems like every time I show up at my buddy's house he's playing a 15 year old game on his 1 year old Wii.
Movies can continue to be shown for decades. With a tiny number of exceptions, a game is dead meat within a year.
Only a tiny fraction of 1% of movies are in theatre for longer than two months.
How long has WoW been sold?
Movies have star power. The general public doesn't care who made the game.
Games have star power. Star voice actors, their likeness, and Spore sold mostly based on the big name of the man who made the Sims.
Filmmaking is very nearly turnkey if it doesn't require special effects. Every game is a unique piece of software engineering.
Reusing the same engine and concept is a videogame tradition.
A big film is 3 hours tops. A big game is 40-50 hours. That's a lot more content.
You haven't been looking at the bonus material, huh?
The economics of the two are very different, and the production models can never be the same.
T
No, you're wrong and just being argumentative. (Score:2)
You're carefully choosing what appear to be exceptions but aren't on closer examination. You're just being argumentative.
Your buddy's 15-year-old game had to be rewritten for the Wii. The director, actors, editors, etc. have to do NOTHING to take a movie to another medium. Yeah, you can use a emulator -- but how many real people, i.e. Wal-Mart shoppers, use emulators?
When a movie leaves a cinema, then its REAL economic life begins. When a game leaves the shops, it's done. And don't even think of comparing W
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, THAT crap. (Score:2)
He didn't say what 15-year-old game he was talking about. Fine -- there are emulators on the Wii. It doesn't change the basic point that the game industry's economics and the movie industry's economics are not remotely like each other.
When it takes as much money to make a big game as a big movie, and that game earns for the next 50 years, then they'll start to have something in common.
STFU (Score:2)
Your buddy's 15-year-old game had to be rewritten for the Wii.
No it did not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_emulator [wikipedia.org] You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
The director, actors, editors, etc. have to do NOTHING to take a movie to another medium.
Wrong again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaster [wikipedia.org]
Do you pay to see the same movie monthly (jokes about the Friday the 13th series aside)? No, you don't.
Cable movie channels.
Does a movie have to be tested for months by dozens of people to make sure it works
Yes it does: Focus groups.
40-50 hours of bonus material with a movie? Not in any cinema I've been to. When I buy a game, that's what comes IN the game.
The bonus material are on the DVD you buy, you imbecile.
Re: (Score:2)
All your points are wrong.
Game publishers can also resell the same game many times. I bought some games from retail stores, some from online distribution, I got some packaged with hardware, some with magazines, I even got a few with cereal boxes!
I regularly play games which are 5 to 25 years old. I bought several games from GoG. There are still a lot of people playing pac-man. Anyway, there is only a handful of movie which can be shown for decades.
I don't care that much about stars in a movie. What will dra
Christ, for the last time! (Score:2)
The economics of the two are very similar.
How much does Will Wright get paid? How much does Will Smith get paid?
END OF DISCUSSION.
See my replies to your bedfellow. (Score:2)
Your counterexamples are too insignificant to refute the general principle: the economics of games and movies are very different. Repetitive hallways in Halo don't change that basic fact.
Go down to Main Street and ask how many people have heard of George Clooney. Then ask how many people have heard of Carmack. Then go away. Only fanboys and industry veterans have heard of Carmack.
The economics of many things which have similar production models are very different.
Um... did you ever take any classes in logic? This has exactly what to do with my point?
Once again, I suspect I'm dealing with a
Re: (Score:2)
Your counterexamples are too insignificant to refute the general principle: the economics of games and movies are very different. Repetitive hallways in Halo don't change that basic fact.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to color it all in for you, but here goes. First, you are making broad generalizations about games. Some games which are very easy to put together still sell for as much as games costing an order of magnitude more to develop. Think puzzle games, for example.
Second, as games have become more popular it has become possible to take advantage of economies of scale in much the same way you do in movies and television, and this trend will only continue as the tools for making games ma
Re: (Score:2)
Counterexample: Game ports
There is next to zero effort in porting a movie to a new environment: all you have to do is take the original DVCPRO (etc) master that was transcoded into DVD and pipe that through another encoder, and possibly bleep swear words if you're targeting an FCC-controlled or advertiser-controlled environment. Games, on the other hand, may need a complete rewrite: a game might have been written in C++, but one target platform can run only Objective-C, another only ActionScript and other SWF languages, another only
Re: (Score:2)
There is next to zero effort in porting a movie to a new environment
Massive FAIL. There is next to zero effort in doing a shitty transfer (hint: it's not a port, and trying to make it one won't make it true) from the masters to a new form of media. Just as there is next to zero effort (on a reasonable difficulty scale) to do a shitty game port, if the game engine was designed for portability in the first place. In some cases, like when the PS2 or PS3 is involved, the bar is very high. Luckily it is totally unnecessary to support a Sony console at this stage - Microsoft and
Re: (Score:2)
There is next to zero effort in porting a movie to a new environment
Massive FAIL. There is next to zero effort in doing a shitty transfer
I apologize for not knowing about the existence of poor transfers.
Games, on the other hand, may need a complete rewrite
If you design games intelligently, this is not true.
Platform A can run only JVM bytecode. Platform B can run only CLR bytecode. Platform C can run only ActionScript bytecode. Platform D can run only ARM machine code, and the distribution license forbids implementing a virtual machine. If I want to make a game with the same physics and rules on all four platforms, even if the input and output are highly platform-specific, in what language should I implement the physics and rules so that they ar
Region coding is exactly the same (Score:2)
Games are different. When a new game comes out, no matter how obscure the developer is, I'll have no problem getting and playing it (as long as it's released for my platform, but that's a different matter).
Unless it's region coded to the USA and you live in the UK or vice versa; that would be the closest to your "no cinema near you" situation.
Other situations that hurt obscure developers: It doesn't come out at all because the company holding the digital signing key to the platform rejects all titles produced with clever workarounds for a shoestring budget. (I'm looking at you, Nintendo, and your ban on home offices.) Or unless the platform that it does come out on isn't very popular. For example, a game de
Hardly surprising... (Score:2)
Given that one of the largest studios in the industry, Activision Blizzard is owned by Vivendi Universal (one of the largest media companies on earth and, last I checked, owner of Universal Studios, one of the largest film production/distribution companies on earth)
Also, we have Sony who seem to have their fingers in media of all sorts (including games) AND the devices to play it back on.
EA arent a film studio (FMVs for Red Alert 3 not withstanding) but they act just like one.
Vivendi sold most of Universal (Score:2)
Given that one of the largest studios in the industry, Activision Blizzard is owned by Vivendi Universal (one of the largest media companies on earth and, last I checked, owner of Universal Studios, one of the largest film production/distribution companies on earth)
Vivendi sold an 80 percent stake in Universal Studios to General Electric's NBC in 2004 but kept Universal Music Group.
hers's the problem with this (Score:3, Insightful)
developers != publishers
publishers are 9 times out of 10 owned by larger media conglomerates.
the few who aren't, have abandoned the art.
Re: (Score:2)
developers != publishers
Came here to say that, but in defense of their confusion: most publishers also do in-house developing.
Still, publisher is not a synonym for developer!
Business 101 = consolidation. Game business is (Score:2, Interesting)
the same as any other big business.
Automotive started with 100's of small companies 1890-1910. Soon there was a handful. Then just 'Three', then a global handful. Soon to be a few again.
Game development takes a lot of resources over an extended time to produce content. Somewhere that cash has to be available to fund those resources.
So most games will be produced by large production houses; who will be in constant consolidation.
(On the star-comment, look at the Lara Croft series.. reversed direction of s
Re: (Score:2)
The geek sees everything as code.
Rapture must first be imagined before it can be built. The "heavy lifting" has nothing to do with how to animate water.
It has to do what role water will play in the game.
That is why the underworld of Grim Fandango seems more real and compelling than the generic fantasy lands of the high tech shooter or RPG.
huh? (Score:2)
Game publishers are becoming just like the movie studios.... except aren't the movie studios supposed to be dinosaurs from a bygone age, their empires being slowly chipped away as they fail to adapt to the new reality of cheap distribution, mainly because they dare not slight the theaters or WalMart? Does this mean the age of epic scale games with budgets in the tens of millions is coming to a close as indie developers buck the system by distributing their own games while pirates sap the publishers remai
Inde Game Resources (Score:2)
Everyone interested in indie games should sign up to computer graphics world [cgw.com] and Game Developer mag [gdmag.com]. They give away subscriptions if you're a developer. You know, basically anyone who fills out their form. Their online articles are decent too.
One of the best features of Game Developer is the postmortem, the what went right, what went wrong. Fascinating stuff about the industry for an indie publisher or an outsider to read.
The Indie Games [igf.com] show off some of the best out there.
While there are some very good i
technological convergence too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because they consolidate the industry? You know, steam has been very [steampowered.com] friendly [steampowered.com] to [steampowered.com] indie [steampowered.com] developers. [steampowered.com]
Or maybe it's a simple issue with DRM. Oh well, the games are (mostly) cheap, and they can be installed on multiple computers. It's good enough for me.
Re: (Score:2)
If the gaming industry was like Hollywood, you would have to sleep with some producer, just to get your foot in the door.
Can you really see Hollywood embracing a distribution system that makes it easy for independent studios to reach consumers?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If the gaming industry was like Hollywood, you would have to sleep with some producer, just to get your foot in the door.
Can you really see Hollywood embracing a distribution system that makes it easy for independent studios to reach consumers?
The flaw in that plan is that nobody wants to have sex with computer nerds. Perhaps, in exchange for allowing them to get their foot in the door, the evil game industry executives can demand sex with the nerd's girlfrien...... oh wait... never mind....
Re:Steam? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't necessarily make a good movie with a handful of guys and some talent. There are very real expenses involved, including paying or compensating actors.
A game? A guy can sit down and code a game on weekends by himself. Look at Flash games: many of them are more complex than games of the NES era and worlds of fun.
Look at mods like Eternal Silence, Fortress Forever, Dystopia, Insurgency... these are teams of a handful of people (10-50) working on their free time and they put out a quality product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't necessarily make a good movie with a handful of guys and some talent.
Have a look at the recent Half Life short movie [rockpapershotgun.com] or movies like The Man from Earth [imdb.com] or Primer [imdb.com], you very definitvly can make a good movie with a tiny budget. The only real disadvantage that a movie seems to have is that you need to have all the crew in the same place at the same time, while a game can be developed by people connected via the internet and can recycle lots of content from the parent game. But of course, a tiny movie budget won't give you the next Star Wars any more then a tiny game budget will g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But of course, a tiny movie budget won't give you the next Star Wars any more then a tiny game budget will give you the next Half Life, that however doesn't mean they can't be good in their own way.
I think a group of talented people could easily take the budget for the original Star Wars (about $13 million [imdb.com]) and make a much better movie than any of the last three that George Lucas has put out.
Sure, you wouldn't have monster special effects, but you don't need those to make a good movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen it. The thing is, when you say "Game", it can be anything from 5 minutes to hours upon hours of play.
When I say "movie", people think 90 minutes+, not 3 minutes. That's a short film.
If we're talking a game that you can get 40 hours of quality play out with decent graphics compared to a 90 minute movie, I'd wager that the game would be cheaper and easier to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wanted to point out making NES games would probably be much easier nowadays. Compilers have become very good so the developers could probably move up from assembly to C.
There are people on nesdev.com/bbs who are trying to make some support libraries for programming the NES in C [parodius.com], but it's not practical so far, for two reasons:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time those mods:
1. Build on a significantly developed technology base that the creators probably could not have made on their own (or it would have required a much longer development time)
2. While above 'amateur' in quality, are not necessarily at commercial quality (Dystopia's levels could use some work)
3. Have low exposure and low adoption; I'm lucky to see 2 Eternal Silence or 3 Dystopia servers with a lot of people even at prime time. And this is after the mods became Steam Installable; the
Sleep with a producer to get onto a console? (Score:2)
If the gaming industry was like Hollywood, you would have to sleep with some producer, just to get your foot in the door.
It almost is that way with the console makers. They have historically cared more about the trappings [merriam-webster.com] of a business than about the product. Nintendo in particular states on warioworld.com that it still requires the Wii and DS devkits to be kept in leased office space, not a home office. If your team isn't rich enough to relocate to one location and set up an office, you're restricted to PCs running Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. The big drawback of PCs is that the screens hooked up to those usually aren't big
Re: (Score:2)
I think "EA" is a step backwards.
ftfy
Re:Steam? (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to buying non-tangible product online without any manuals/booklets/maps/goodies, waiting hours or days for gigabytes of game data to download, slowing down your internet connection during that entire time, not being able to install/play those games without being connected to Steam or if they decide to let their servers become too busy, not being able to lend the game to a friend or take it with you somewhere else, being at the mercy of Valve et al if they decide to deactivate your game and/or account and not being able to play those games should Steam ever shut down or if Valve goes out of business.
Yeah, sounds like a fucking great way to buy a game to me...
Re:Steam? (Score:5, Informative)
If you get a new machine, just copy over the STEAM folder and run the
You also do not need to connect to STEAM to play - once it's installed, and you've run it once, you can play it in offline mode from that point on.
Whilst I have heard of people losing their VAC standing, which means they cannot play online on VAC secured servers, the only time I've heard of STEAM locking entire accounts is when a fraudulent purchase is made, or a charge does not process correctly.
and if Valve ever goes out of business, they have already developed and tested a "kill switch" patch for the client, to remove all activation requirements.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
and if Valve ever goes out of business, they have already developed and tested a "kill switch" patch for the client, to remove all activation requirements.
This is an oft-repeated statement with little proof behind it, but lets assume it is true
What I wonder is: will Valve actually be allowed to do this? Sure, they can free their own products (Half Life, etc), but to "unprotect" games from other publishers that are hosted on Steam seems of dubious legality. I have a hard time imagining EA has agreed to such
Steam?-Truths. (Score:2)
"This is an oft-repeated statement with little proof behind it, but lets assume it is true"
The same could be said of piracy's "But I'll pay for it...eventually" so I guess we take our truths were we can.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a valid question. If Valve goes bankrupt, would a bankruptcy judge allow Valve to deploy their "kill switch"?
In bankruptcy, the creditors are in charge, and I find it likely that the creditors would object.
That said, I love steam and I'm willing to bet that valve will be around for a long time. When I get a new computer, I just install steam, and all my games are right there. No hunting for CDs, and then having the pain of changing multiple CDs mid install, etc. Plus an integrated friends list and
Re:Steam? (Score:5, Interesting)
And how would you take it elsewhere? Go through the whole download again? Waste DVDs burning it? With physical media it's easy, just grab it and go.
The same applies to getting a new machine, although I suppose you could copy the files across a local network. What happens if the old machine died? You have to download all of your games all over again. With physical media you can easily install at your leisure.
What if you don't want the game any more and want to sell it? You can't. Again, with physical media this problem doesn't exist.
IIRC, offline mode is only good for a limited amount of time (ie. 30 days). If you don't connect to Steam after that time period, you lose the ability to use offline mode. Also you have to actually be online to activate it (makes a lot of sense, huh?), so if your internet connection goes out or the Steam servers are unreachable, you're SOL. Say goodbye to your games.
Still, people losing their account does happen and people can get locked out at the whim of a single company or employee of the company for any reason, real or bullshit. From their EULA.
13. TERM AND TERMINATION
Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time. You understand and agree that the cancellation of your Account or a particular Subscription is your sole right and remedy with respect to any dispute with Valve.
C. Termination by Valve.
1. In the case of a recurring payment Subscription (e.g., a monthly subscription), in the event that Valve terminates or cancels your Account or a particular Subscription for convenience, Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide a prorated refund of any prepaid Subscription fees paid to Valve.
2. In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.
3. In the case of a free Subscription, Valve may choose to terminate or amend the terms of the Subscription as provided in the "Amendments to this Agreement" section above.
And how about their region locking [shacknews.com]? I travel a lot and have sometimes bought games while in other countries. Or what about people who move, do they suddenly lose their entire library of Steam games?
I can't trust a company on just their word that they will unlock games if they go out of business or stop the service. If they go out of business, what incentive do they have to provide anything? If they stop the service OR go out of business, they may not even be able to provide the ability to unlock games if the specific game developer or publisher doesn't permit them to.
B. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
NEITHER VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, NOR THEIR AFFILIATES SHALL BE LIABLE IN ANY WAY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND RESULTING FROM THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE STEAM, YOUR ACCOUNT, YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS AND THE STEAM SOFTWARE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES. IN NO EVENT WILL VALVE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH STEAM, STEAM SOFTWARE, MERCHANDISE THAT YOU ACQUIRE VIA STEAM, ANY INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, OR THE DELAY OR INABILITY TO USE MERCHANDISE OR ANY INFORMATION, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF VALVE'S WARRANTY AND EVEN IF VALVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBIL
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you want to take it elsewhere, just put the applicable folder from steamapps and put it on a USB stick - I have an 8GB USB stick with STEAM installed, Audiosurf installed via STEAM, and the rest is music, and I can take that, plug it into any computer, log in and play. Likewise, I have previously installed L
yea. alright. (Score:2)
grab and go. easy. and ONE problem comes up with your fuckiing cd, a dent, a scratch, even some incompatibility with your particular dvd/cd reader and that cd they printed, you drive back to the fucking store.
with the download, if i have to redownload, computer does it itself. i can spare that time to other things.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. I've had some console DVDs scratch on me, and it's always a pain. With Steam I never have to worry about the longevity of the physical media. I can burn it to a disc, or put it on a USB drive, or do anything with it that has a helluva better chance of being there in 5 years than a frigging disc.
Re: (Score:2)
then you are not buying as many games as many people do. i had a lot of disk issues. and disk issues, as you seem to be not aware due to inexperience with them, are not limited to 'scratching' due to 'bad treatment'. you buy your cd, open your box at home, shove the cd/dvd into the drive, only to see it attempt to read it millions of times to fail in the end. reason ? your cd drive and what printed that cd has incompatibility. be it alignment, be it some other thing.
Re: (Score:2)
To answer your question because I asked them this because I often travel to Thai -> UK.
No.
You only lose access if you buy the game in Thailand and try to use it in UK. If you use your UK account in Thailand it's no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard from a friend that you can deactivate steam games and give/sell the codes to people.
Then he gave me a code to the original half-life. :D
I've never done it myself, but it's something to look into.
Oh, and region locking is total BS. I hate that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true - you are free to take the game elsewhere, as you are free to install on as many machines as you please.
But you have to activate them online after doing so.
And if you have more than one game in your account, and you playing one of them online, your wife or kids can't play another one online.
Offline mode is a pain, doesn't always work, and of course, restricts you to games that can be played offine.
If you get a new machine, just copy over the STEAM folder and run the .exe - it'll just work, even of
Re: (Score:2)
Because finances aside, if they go completely under and fail to release such a thing it is possible the most culpable individuals (read: executives) could potentially face criminal charges for fraud and theft. It's an outside chance, but it's also fairly trivial to write a nuclear option patch that completely defeats the possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Because finances aside, if they go completely under and fail to release such a thing it is possible the most culpable individuals (read: executives) could potentially face criminal charges for fraud and theft. It's an outside chance, but it's also fairly trivial to write a nuclear option patch that completely defeats the possibility.
You'll want to do some research into how a corporate bankruptcy actually proceeds.
If they go completely under, they are REQUIRED not to go and devalue the company assets so that
Re: (Score:2)
I've just copied & pasted this from a post I made in the previous discussion about whether physical distribution will survive.
I've never been able to actually find that quote [that they'll release a free activation tool], which is generally attributed to Gabe. I find it hard to believe that they would actually do that however as firms go bust when they become unable to meet their financial obligations. In just about every jurisdiction ever destroying your most valuable assets before defaulting on all yo
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And if it is on Steam? Too bad because I will never use it. All of you with Steam accounts are just one keygen away from losing one of your games or more.
If you don't purchase the boxed game, this is not an issue.
The collision with a keygen serial number can only happen if you use the boxed game to unlock the download from Steam.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing you to download the product in addition to having the physical disks is a convenience, not a right. Valve doesn't have to offer this...they do so because they are a fairly nice company overall.
Yes, you had a problem, but the only thing you lost was the ability to download that game from Steam. Perhaps Valve's customer service could have been better, but their lack of resolution for the issue doesn't stop you from playing the game. You still have the game you purchased, and it still works just fi
what manual, booklet ? (Score:2)
bullshit. i havent read 3 manuals or booklets since 1986. if a game requires extensive booklet/manual reading, it means that it has failed in terms of user friendliness.
if i need ANYthing, i resort to online forums, communities, guilds. it is high chance that someone had exactly the same problem with me before. i dont have time to waste while solving/learning specific stuff through an arduous booklet.
yes its a fucking great way to buy a game. i dont waste gas, i dont waste time, im with my family, in my paj
Re: (Score:2)
Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, Assasin's Creed, World of Warcraft, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Age of Conan, Spore, Medieval II Total War, Diablo II, Lord of the Rings Online, Ilyushin 2 Sturmovik, Colonization II, Patrician III ....
these are just the boxes i see when i turn 70 degrees to my left. and i didnt read manuals of any of those.
so these arent the right games. but, age of empires with its something-inch units poster is ?
Re: (Score:2)
gaining 3-6% more from gameplay through reading a full booklet in an hour is waste.
i'd rather live the universe than read about it. the universe should guide me and let me play itself.
i dont want to walk bike or hop on the metro to the shop. i can use my time to do other things which i can get more out of, and not peripheral too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, isn't it dreadful how Steam makes it so easy to buy games?
I can order a game from Amazon.de (Germany), have it at my doorstep the next day and pay 5-10EUR less then buying it on Steam and of course I get a printed manual and a box too. With that given digital distribution doesn't look so great any more.
Re:Wait, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny how non-gamers seem to run to Hollywood as a comparison for everything.
Honestly, games have been quite varied from the start, many producers and many distributors. The whole "hollywoodisation" of gaming has come in recent years with massive corporate entities like EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, and the like taking over smaller studios to feed their own agendas.
Yes the game industry is moving toward a Hollywood model, but it's definitely not the one that it's 'always compared'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, there have always been plenty of "B" Movies.
Of course there used to be a few "A" Movies too.
Re: (Score:2)