Curmudgeon Gamer
 Welcome to Curmudgeon Gamer Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 08:56 AM CST  
RSS Feed
Sections
Home
Interviews
Atari
Sony
Sega
Microsoft
Nintendo
Classic
General Console
PC
Mac
Linux
Update
Handhelds
Commentary
Platform Shootout
Legal

User Functions
Username:

Password:


What's New
STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments



Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer   
Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:01 AM CST
Contributed by: jvm

CommentaryHere's the game for the day: consider the technology advances of the recent past, those announced for the near future, and whatever you think might be coming down the pipe and then extrapolate to predict what the videogame scene will be like in five years. In particular, what can you do today that you won't be able to do in a few years? I have my own ideas of where this is all headed and from where I'm sitting it looks a little grim.

Remember when you first came home with Quake and typed in your CD key so you could play it? No? Oh, then maybe it was when you popped your shiny new Quake II CD in the drive and had to type in that long code on the back of the game's case. Wait, that's not right either. Ah, now I remember, I was thinking of Quake III Arena. Yes, that had a CD key! Something important happened there, and I bet you barely noticed at the time: a new, somewhat restrictive technology was gradually introduced by the game companies and by the time Q3A came out, it was just part of the standard experience of buying a new game.

Over the years, this trend of adding more burdens has continued, and it will only get worse. Quake players didn't find themselves looking for a no-CD hack and Half-life players didn't need to connect to a master server to play single-player games, but DooM III and Half-life 2 owners just might have to.

In fact, Valve's Steam, and any like services that follow its lead, are the really big step toward a new world of games. Despite the current delay, I still believe that Half-life 2 will launch and that millions of players will buy it within months of its release. At that point, Steam will be distributed to all those millions of computers, building a vast network across which Valve can begin selling software, both for itself and others. Actually, selling isn't quite the right word: they can start renting software. At first, you will be able to purchase outright and actually keep what you buy, but eventually the model will probably evolve into pay-to-play.

This is the model the game industry is evolving toward: one which allows you to access software on the fly, download the content on demand, and pay for every use according to a schedule dicated by the game's owner.

There will be many effects from this transition:

  • You will no longer own a physical medium that contains the games you play.
  • Parts of those games will exist on your computer at the time those parts are needed, but it is in the interest of the publisher to parcel out, say, a few levels at a time, deleting the older levels as you progress.
  • If you no longer own the physical medium, then you will no longer be able to trade the game when you're done with it. So, for example, you can't head down to your local store and get some credit from the used game to put toward buying a new game.
  • You won't be able to sell it on auction services like eBay.
  • You won't even be able to give it to a friend to try out for a while.
  • If there are no games being sold used, then you can't take advantage of the reduced price on used games, as has traditionally been the case.
These changes will fundamentally alter the way games are viewed, and in most cases will only diminish the value of each dollar spent on gaming.

Also, services like Steam claim to offer anti-cheating features, which when combined with the next generation of Windows security (see below), will possibly hinder the development of modifications of games. I think we may reach the point where it will become a legitimate question to ask "Could Counter-strike have been developed if Half-life had been a download-on-demand game housed within a system that prevents cheating?" Sure, there will be an SDK to allow modification this time, but it will increasingly becomes a question of how much control the game's creators are going to allow for the game player. And, when it comes down to money issues, you can be sure the creators will side with their own interests over those of the player.

There are already examples of all of these processes right now. My understanding is that by playing Half-life through Valve's Steam, your client is only downloading parts of the game as they're needed, caching only the content you're likely to need in the near future. (This may be wrong. I'd be interested in finding a good analysis of what Steam is doing, if anyone knows of such a document.) For years we've had games which existed online only, as downloadable files, and as network connections become more prevalent and robust, you can expect those files to have a "phone home" feature to police their use (i.e. prevent piracy). And there are already games that aren't being resold by the big game retailers: neither Electronics Boutique nor GameStop/Funcoland sell used copies of games like Half-life, Warcraft III, Everquest, or Ultima Online (at least via their online storefronts). The prevalence of the unique identifiers built into these games makes reselling them a liability, since pirates have found ways to get around them. If used games become less common, what will happen to these big retailers, especially since the business of used game sales has been a burgeoning part of their revenue in the past couple of years?

On the issue of software-as-service, there are some precedents worth mentioning. Save the Whales for the Atari 2600 was reportedly only available for download over the Gameline modem service (that eventually went on to become America Online), but was never sold in stores. Until recently, it existed only as an apocryphal piece of Atari history, since no one had actually ever owned a physical copy of the game. Now that a copy has been found, the world realizes that it probably should have stayed lost. Still a piece of history had nearly vanished because software-as-service lives only as long as the service.

This kind of software also lives only as long as you can pay. For example, the academic world is struggling with how to deal with electronic subscriptions to journals. With a paper subscription, you get to keep those you've bought, but with electronic-only access when your subscription goes, everything goes. The same is true of software, which is good for the game company and bad for you.

Other factors are conspiring to make the so-called Wintel PC into a closed box, a box for which user upgrades are discouraged. Already the Windows Activiation required for Windows XP uses a HWID computed from the hardware configuration in the computer at install. Changing too much hardware may require a reactivation of your Windows XP operating system, providing at least one barrier to user upgrades. The next tightening of the thumb screws will come in the form of Next-Generation Secure Computing, which will provide a locked-down environment from hardware power-on to the desktop. Once the hardware itself is involved in the security process, the ease with which users can change or upgrade hardware may again be further discouraged.

What kind of box is that? We normally call it a game console, and Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo already sell them.

And it is interesting to note that consoles are, themselves, headed toward the same sort of software model, selling services instead of a physical product. Each current console producer is experimenting, albeit at different levels of intensity, with online games. Microsoft's Xbox is way ahead of the pack, with copious local storage via a built-in hard drive, and a built-in ethernet adaptor. Both are used extensively for several games, offering extra levels, voice chat, and game invitations, all available only via their Xbox Live! integrated service. Perhaps most importantly, Microsoft has begun offering what they term "premium content" which is available for download, but only at a price.

This is the next big step, selling software to console owners through an online service, that will be most closely watched by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo as well as the big software houses like Electronic Arts. If enough people are willing to pay to download an add-on to a current game, they may also be willing to pay to download a whole game itself.

As an example, Electronic Arts could sell a game like Madden NFL Football once in the store, and then charge an annual subscription fee to download an updated engine, an upgraded set of models, and of course the new year's roster. By charging $35 for the update and saving on distribution and media production, they'll no doubt make more money on resubscribers than on the original sale. As a bonus, they can advertise it as a price break for loyal customers, since it won't carry the heavy $50 price tag of the game on physical media. Once the model is proven to work, and it can work, the whole industry will begin to shift that direction.

At that point, the problems listed above for PC games will begin to apply console games as well. No longer will you be able to rent the latest games from Blockbuster to try them out before deciding on whether to buy. No longer will you be able to sell used games when you're done with them. No longer will you be able to lend a game to a friend without having them pay the same kind of fees you paid to activate the game itself, if that is even possible. Moreover, by building network authentication into a game's boot sequence, a company like EA can begin to deactivate games like Madden past a certain date, in effect forcing the users to upgrade, even if they don't want to play online. Since local storage and broadband network connections are virtually guaranteed parts of the next generation of consoles, the ability to sell software as a service this way will become not only feasible, but attractive to the software companies.

Many will say that these things can't come to pass, that the public will rebel at some point. They'll dig up the DivX debacle or other technological boondoggles from the past decade as evidence. Yet, it will only take one best-selling game, like Half-life 2, to introduce the masses to new and more restrictive technologies that will then become standard.

And that's where were headed, like it or not. No physical media. No rentals. No used games. No sharing games among friends. Limited hardware upgrades. Pay-to-play. Unless something seriously changes the course of the industry, this is the future.



Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer | 50 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: ruffin on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:49 PM CST
Luckily if gaming platforms including the PC all become, let's say, "overly
closed", the niche will open wider for a gaming system that's particularly
open. I've wondered before why there wasn't a higher quality GPL'd (or
at least open source) gaming market.

If things in the future get as bad
as you seem to be thinking (and I don't think they will before games
have changed so much the evolution will be transparent (MMUSHes meet
GTA (and other popular genres), are downloaded, have subscription
fees, and would be meaningless to play without the virtual human
interaction later)), I think you'll finally find a Linux equivalent for the
console. Or so we can hope.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:28 PM CST
I will play devil's advocate here.

Imagine this person:

"I play a lot of games, but I do not play them very long. Perhaps for
someone who enjoys playing many different games for a short time will
be able to play games for less than the 50 dollar price tag that they must
currently pay to purchase a game, use it for a weekend, and then let it sit
on the shelf."

Just a hypothetical.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 01:38 PM CST
I judiciously review what games are available, buy one, and play it for a year or more. If it's good, it holds up that long. I would never do pay-for-play. If the industry goes that way, I'll bury my head in retro games. I already have amassed a stockpile of Atari 2600 carts for my child.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:40 PM CST
The reason that there are few good GPL games out there is that whilst programmers are enthusiastic of writing games and giving them away for free, the all-important artists and musicians are not. Some of them prefer to modify existing games - and if indeed that capability disappears then there may be more open-source artists working out there. I'm not optimistic however.

Without an enormous amount of high quality artwork, you simply cannot make a game that comes remotely close to a commercial game.

Trust me, I've tried.

I've been playing with writing a driving game - something like Crazy Taxi say. The work of writing the code was fairly easy - I could do it in a month or two of spare time. However, I need an entire city to be modelled in 3D down to each garbage can and lamp post. I need at least 1000 different building models.

Well, it takes me about one evening to construct a 3D building model...so it would take me three years to put together the artwork. To keep my OpenSource game writing at full productivity, I need maybe 30 artists working with me - and I can't even find ONE.

I should also point out that cheating is a big problem for networked GPL'ed games. When the source code for the game is freely available, cheating becomes ludicrously easy.

So - GPL'ed games are not the answer. Consumer rebellion is what it takes.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 02:16 PM CST
Well the trick to finding open source artists is to know where to look...and provide them with the tools the need. GIMP and Wings are a good start but check out the amount of things available to for say windows and then compare 2 to 50ish. But as we see more blenders and sodipodis appearing as well as the shift of the entire film industry to linux, more artists will fall under the spell of the open source ideals. I'm currently at art school and we've just moved half the 3d department to linux so I think there's hope.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 03:43 PM CST
looking for artists... check out www.3dbuzz.com. It's a learning community where may find some talented students to help with your project.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 09:01 PM CST
The main reason cheating is a problem with open source games is that many games either rely on security through obscurity or dont bother. This is mainly because less security (not checking everything with the server) makes for easier lag-hiding and lag-reduction.

Rohan
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 09:48 PM CST
Don't forget about netrek.... RSA blessed clients.
Hacking the source is not a problem, it just won't be a
blessed client. btw, netrek still rocks. Maybe more
people will start playing it.

73
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 09:55 PM CST
I need at least 1000 different building models.

You can overcome some of that through coding. Only a handful of "landmark" buildings really need to be unique. Other buildings can be built from mix-and-match peices. Slap semi-random signs on them, window styles/arrangments, color and/or texture, variable number of floors, etc.

Not purely random though - some neighborhoods would tend to have taller or shorter buildings, individual blocks would tend to have mostly the same texture, etc. Sprinkle around business(signs) or each type.

Maybe even put addresses on most (not all) of the buildings in semi-random fonts, colors, and different pre-set locations on the buildings. Again, some neighborhood or blocks would tend to focus on individual fonts or colors or locations on the buildings for the address.

You can alway add in more individual art work if/when you get it.

Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 11:46 AM CST
We always seem to forget:

Get it working
Get it working right
Get it working pretty

I'm not a gamer but follow slashdot.
This is a great thread.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 11:46 AM CST
We always seem to forget:

Get it working
Get it working right
Get it working pretty

I'm not a gamer but follow slashdot.
This is a great thread.
Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 04:01 AM CST

What impact(s) will this have on LAN events?

Downloading as games/levels as required and connecting to central servers would kill the LAN scene instantly if most games went this way.

Welcome to the Future, [Gender-neutral] Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 09:59 AM CST
a logical article, but to be honest i really cant see the games industry going that way, if it does you can be sure its gonna loose alot of money and players, despite the thought of eradicating piracy, i just dont think it will work!
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 02:39 AM CST
DVDs coexist with pay-to-view films on digital TV. The fact that most or all games may have a pay-to-play option in the future doesn't at all imply that eventually that will be the only model.

For one thing, I don't think gamers will tolerate it. There are pay-to-play MMORPGs now, but people are willing to pay for those because there's a good reason. Servers have to be hosted, content has to be added, players have to be policed. There's no corresponding reason in a single-player game of Half-Life, and there's no evidence to suggest that gamers will be willing to pay monthly if there's no justification for it.

Pay-to-play may suit some people, and I can myself paying for one month's worth of a game to try it out. But I would not be willing to pay monthly for a single player game that I might want to play again and again over a period of years.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 04:52 PM CST
PSO charged a monthly fee for minimal service. Servers don't really do that much, except acting as lobbies and very basic game setup, and supporting whatever hamfisted security attempts Sonic Team made. Security itself was a joke from the start. The XBox version is secure because of XBox Live and the lack of XBox game hacking systems (and Sega charges its own extra fee anyway). The GC version shipped with a duping bug, and an intentional Sonic Team security hole in the game compromised the security of the entire Gamecube console.

EA has mentioned in the past that they are looking into various online fee methods for their games, and simply haven't settled on which method they prefer. Limited duration sports games (with paid yearly updates) weren't ruled out though.

As for a general outcry, I don't know if it would happen. The population is getting used to an on-demand disposable life-style. People play games, finish or tire of them, and either sell them or give them away or set them aside to never touch them again barring a few exceptions. Pay-to-play is like a rental system, but the game is actually in stock and you don't have to drive to the store.

As long as you have a system that can play the next big game, you have less incentive to care about the last big game after you're done with it (unless the next big game is inferior).

Koei averages a Dynasty Warriors game every year if you include the XL updates, and people only rarely consider going backwards. (DW4 caused that concern because it is widely considered inferior in as many or more areas than it actually improved in.) They could likely pull off a yearly update system, and people would pay for it. (It is one of the most popular console game series in Japan, with each PS2 release easily passing the million sold mark quickly.) And people would probably even prefer having the game on their harddrive rather than doing disc swapping for XL updates.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:26 PM CST
Pay to play single player games are just not a reality. My question would be what developer would even be daring enough to put themselves on such a limb? Unless they all did it in unison, no one will do it, and since it isn't likely that everyone will jump on that bandwagon, it is highly unlikely any one company would. Even if major developers did, that opens the door to new companies that won't. I for one would not support a pay to play single player game, and I'm sure most of the gaming community would feel the same way. Any company that does this is just starting the path to their own destruction IMHO.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:14 AM CST
I am compeletly agreeable to this comment.
One thing is the theory /just like perpetual mobility/ the ather is the reality.
And the major developers will begin to realize this after some time in the near future.
There is going to be some kind of cosensus between users and developers.

Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:31 PM CST
No one ever washed a rented car.

Ask yourself, What main reason that Half Life 2 is so anticiapted after a six year interval between games?

You could say that Half Life was voted best game of the year in 1998.

So what though. Many games were lauded in the late 90's and are nowhere to be seen now.

What has kept Half Life alive and at the forefront of people minds is the plethora of mods that the gaming community has
created over those six years. From Counter Strike to Day of Defeat you find hundreds if not thosands of people playing Half Life mods every month.

A subscription game probably won't be mod-able and Valve
will have lost the best advertising any company could
ever want.

Are subscription games coming? The answer is a definite Yes.
Is that a bad thing? Maybe. Well have to see if the monthly fees are enough incentive to game companies for them to build and maintain their games better.

Because just as no one has ever washed a rented car, no one
will Mod rented software.

-Forde Prigot
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 01:32 PM CST
Actually, I had an old roommate who, on a long road trip, actually CHANGED THE OIL(!) of his rented car. But, he was a freak...

Anyways, to address your figurative point -- I would have to say that I believe that the *average* gamer will put up with whatever they have to, as long as it isn't a pain in the ass (and, looking at the Steam screenshots, it seems a LOT easier and quicker than running down to the nearest game retailer, or ordering plastic and cardboard on-line). They may grumble a bit, but, in the end, they just want to play the damned game.

It is the geeks among us who dream of profiting off of the games we write that will suffer. Systems like this will create niche markets full of the current big boy publishers. One could argue that the time of small-time game producer is long gone, but this seems to be just another nail in the coffin...
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:54 PM CST
The control/antipiracy aspect of this shift in the game industry is definitly one of their motives, but there is a second factor which the author seems to neglect: Wall Street. Many many developers and publishers are part of publicly traded companies. Wall Street rewards companies that have consistant and predictable quarter to quarter revenue streams. The subscription model provides this and smooths out the large spike that when a new title is released(hollywood studios also have this characteristic). I feel this motive trumps the control/piracy/secondary market issues the author identifies.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 01:10 PM CST
Exactly.

When you buy something you and the seller split the extra value. When I have total monopoly control (as copyright combined with DMCA gives me) then you will pay precisely the optimum amount of money to make me the most money, you will pay it when and how I like, and what you pay will be roughly the precise limit you are prepared to tolerate, and get no extra value.

Games will also be bundled so that you can't just pay for the games you want but are forced to pay extra for games you were not so keen on, in order ot maximse the game company profit.

Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 05:34 PM CST
Game companies serve their shareholders and not the gamers. Therefore, they will release crap.

Tools for creating games will improve, indys will assume the risks needed for new games.

New art and music will not sell games.

New experience will. Corporations fear change.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 04:56 PM CST
New art and music will not sell games.

Indy developments will continue to have problems because the general audience will base their expectations off the major titles, and that includes art and music. Which costs increasingly more as tech improves and user demands improve.

Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 04:37 PM CST
In the article it says "My understanding is that by playing Half-life through Valve's Steam, your client is only downloading parts of the game as they're needed, caching only the content you're likely to need in the near future.".
A system which works in a similar way is already running in Germany, called Games on Demand.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 07:48 PM CST
This holiday season, I got my hands on a copy of SW:KotOR. It was on a total of four full disks. It currently takes up 3.5 GBs of space on my hard drive. Even if this was to be loaded on a piece-by-piece basis, that is still 3.5 GBs of bandwidth that would be taken by having just one person play this game. Additionally, it would be a near constant stream taking up the user's entire bandwidth. Finally, every single person playing this particular game would have to have this stream, and this would take many, many servers running on the backend, just for this one game.

Many servers + constant bandwidth rape = lots of money.

I don't have the numbers here - I've never marketted a game - but I think it would be cheaper to simply burn the game onto four ten cent CDs and ship it with some fancy packaging than to deal with that.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 08:44 PM CST
so it appears that the replies have been overwhelmingly negative to the idea. It may be cost effective for the companies, but if we dont buy it, it wont happen. Its kinda scary though. (Nintendo officially dislikes online gaming) (Long Live Nintendo!)
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 05:00 PM CST
Nintendo unofficially dislikes online gaming.

Officially, Nintendo finds online gaming to still be too early in its infancy to bother with.

Nintendo also had the Bandai Satelliview(sp) in Japan with the SNES, which let you download games for a fee. (Zelda 3 was broken into something like 4 weekly episodes, for example.)
Hackers will triumph
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 09:19 PM CST
Over the years, I've watched gaming companies introduce countless security measures, only to see every single one of them defeated by industrious hackers. I think this will be true for at least certain types of games in the future.

Multiplayer games using the central server/serial model will be very difficult to crack (although I have heard of it being done in a limited fashion with games like Warcraft 3). Single-player games, however, will cause problems for companies...even if you distribute it level-by-level, and delete old levels, there's nothing to stop people from grabbing those levels as they appear and storing them elsewhere. Even if you try to encrypt data, at some point in time it has to be decrypted on the local machine, and at that point it's vulnerable. For a single-player game that doesn't actually require a persistent connection to the server, I'm pretty sure hacks that do this will come out and eliminate the need for a network connection, just like no-CD hacks eliminate the need for a CD-check.
I don't buy it.
Authored by: Ender on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 09:57 PM CST
This is going to sound a little flamewar'ish, but Valve
are really the only developers who are idiotic enough to
go with this concept. Most other developers (who create
decent semi-original games WORTH playing or preserving :)
are smarter than this, and are also at least mildly more
aware of cross-platform issues.

Valve's Steam system is frankly a steaming pile of turds,
as anybody who has used it will testify. It's unstable,
slow, limited to true Windows only, and most players
detest it. Valve is constantly on the defense about Steam,
and I think the fact that nobody else has implemented a
similar system is very telling.

As somebody who is fairly involved in the task of
preserving classic games, I can tell you that at least of
the game developers I've talked to lately, nobody is
considering a system like Steam. Several are intrested in
using download-on-demand for additional content, sure, but
nobody *I* have talked to finds it particually feasible
for selling the initial game content.

YMMV.
Steam may be crap but it's got traction.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 03:32 AM CST
Steam may be crap, but at least 50% of Half-Life players are using it anyway (based on game server stats). Why? Because Valve is shoving it down users throats. Want to play the latest versions of Half-Life and its official mods? Then you MUST use Steam.

Half-Life 2 along with Counterstrike Condition Zero will be the turning point for Steam. Steam will no longer be optional for those games. If you want to play Half-Life 2 and CZ online, you WILL use Steam to do it.

Aside from its poor performance and transient nature, the other huge problem with Steam-delivered games is that the existing game content can't be modified. Valve has wrapped up all of the game's data files into a giant protected GCF archive file. So, if users want to modify existing game content like models, sounds, or textures, they can't. One of the greatest features of most PC games is that users can edit and modify games. However, no one wants to have to recreate everything from scratch just to make a mod. Users might as well develop their own games and forget modding if they have to do that.

The author of this article hit the nail on the head, and I hope enough PC gamers will notice and boycott Steam and the like before they become widespread and intractable.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 11:08 PM CST
If they impose this on us, we just wont buy it, they go bankrupt and stop DRMing us in chains
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 01:35 PM CST
Hilarious. If they force you to buy their software, instead of not buying it like you traditionally do, then you will boycott by not buying their software, and they will go bankrupt? If you're some idiot who doesn't pay for the games you play, you're not supporting them in the first place, and they'll be just as well off without your business as with it, only now they won't have your pirate ass wasting their bandwidth.
Wow, you really missed the point!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 03:27 PM CST
>Hilarious. If they force you to buy their software, instead of not buying it like you traditionally do, then you will boycott by not buying their software, and they will go bankrupt?

You missed the point of this article entirely. Currently consumers can purchase most PC games on physical media and play them theoretically in perpetuity and transport them for play on any compatible PC. With the new DRM implemented technologies such as Steam and from other companies like Trymedia.com, this is not possible. Games using such technologies can only be played so long as publisher is still in business and makes the game available for play. The money the consumer pays has essentially become a rental fee because he is not solely in control of the availability and usability of his purchase.

Game developers and publishers may be curbing unauthorized use of their products using such DRM technologies, but they are also severely penalizing their legitimate paying customers. Any game which is tied to a specific hardware configuration and/or Internet availability for activation and use is just a time-limited rental and NOT a real purchase. Given how volatile the business world is with the myriad of mergers, consolidations, and bankruptcies, it is very likely that the DRM-implemented games that consumers buy today won't be useable tomorrow.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Myqel on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 12:18 AM CST
I started my gaming in arcades. Then i bought an Atari game console. I've also played free online games.

If something like this comes to a reality rather than a possibility, I still have my quarters ... along with my collection of PS and PS2 games.

~Michael
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 01:29 AM CST
Just get enough users ticked off because they cannot connect to the game they play every night due to server maintenance. I've seen the hell it causes on MMORPG's, and that is understandable sometimes.
Or even better, angry parents who remember the olden days when you just popped a disc in, being told by their children they can't play their game they paid for because the server is down due to congestion.... I know I'll be a parent screaming them out... well probably moreso I want to kick my daughter off the game and play... but I digress....
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 05:00 AM CST
I hate to see the industry headed this way, but I am afraid it is. I dunno what all us soldiers deployed all over the world will play. Sure I can get on the internet here in Afghanistan, but not on my own computer and I can't install any games on this one. Not to mention the fact that the interent connection is so slow sometimes you can't even check your email. I can't even get a 2MB adobe file downloaded. There are tons of games sold to soldiers here everyday.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 06:14 AM CST
Just curious. Why do I need to be able to rent at Blockbuster? With all the technology you are imagining being used to limit the length of time I can play a game, I'll be able to rent it online. And I won't need to drive out in the rain / snow to return it.
Mr. Preserver
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 06:28 AM CST
if this is the future of games

i'ld rather buy an arcade machine
Mr. Preserver
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 12:28 PM CST
Its the best choise for gamers.But i dont think that this kind of games will be popular.
Mr. Preserver
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:20 AM CST
I guess Ill have to start programing my own games again soon. I will definetly boycot those games. And everybody I know that actively play games will too, and thats about 100 people. They will loose bigg time. Half life 2 is going down anyway. Only a dumbass will buy it. After the crap that Valve did.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 05:16 PM CST
yo one just one lil thing, wuts wrong with paying 50 dollars for madden one year, then only haveing to pay 35 each following year instead of having to pay 50 dollars each year a new game comes out
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 05:22 PM CST
as for updating hardware, ur way out there, there are already many pc companies that dont want you to upgrade ur pc,i.e. any pc that comes with a factory warranty that is voided if u open ur case. How do u get around this, simple, dont but a pc from any of the big name companies, take the ten mins it takes to learn to build ur own pc, save hundreds of dollars by buying only the parts u so desire and build it ur own pc that is easily upgradeable.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:34 AM CST
Considering that most good games take up 2 CD's at the very *least*, and take up even more HD space once uncompressed. How long is it gonna take to download a game? If they do the preinstall way and reuse old data, that'll make everything look the same (read: boring) since textures, models and videoclips take up the most space.

Sorry but i guess i'm just from a place where online connection majorly sucks coz there's no freaking way i or most people over here is online 24 hours a day, which looks like i'll need to be able to run the game at all. Downloading parts of the game as needed? OMFG! That means i'll have to wait atleast a half hour (at the impossibly absolute least!) everytime i finish a level!

OI! Mga mga pre! Nabasa nyo ba to??? I boycott natin ang HL!
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 06:03 PM CST
I agree with this statement. Some people are not lucky enough to be living in an area with broadband connections. I am on a 56k modem connection and downloading anymore than 1MB takes way too long. If I wanted to wait 10-20 mins for a level/or a part of to load, I would dig out the Commodore.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:37 AM CST
I think youguys who think that this is not going to happen should read up more on industry leaders and their business practices like the unique identification of PCs via their processor, the licensing model changes of companies like Micro$oft, and some of the security mechanisms being used now like Safecast.

Go read an article on DMCA and Palladium


You dont need to necessarily download all the content each time you play.....with the dawn of IP6 and the way they make directplay so NAT unfriendly these companies want nothing more than to put an identifiable number on every person place and thing, this means every PC, every device in your home that has RF on it (which they are tryin to make MANY now) couple that with the fact they put chips in so many products now, even a pack of razors, each razor is individually identifiable and unique. They can see these and trace them from manufacture to your house. They can tell who you are where you buy and where you use. Couple this with things like the Patriot act.....they are throwing away civil liberties like mad. You think that businesses are not going to play by even less moral rules when it comes to making the all-mighty dollar?

What will happen is when you are busy using "your" computer you will be charged for your usage of this game, which every time you try to play it they will verify your every component/software combo to make sure you are legal and licensed, then identify who you are specifcally, then follow up with an authentication check for the game you want to play at that moment.

When i say "your" computer its only yours in so much as that it sits in front of you, becuase its hardware will haev to be certified to support the next generation. If it doent meet these standards than the software will not run on it. This will be a type of encoding that will be hardware, and if bypassed will cause you to go to jail for a long time.

License serving is not a new idea, but uniquely identifying all people via mac addresses will be the next piece of the puzzle.

steam is late
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:55 PM CST
steam is late, yahoo ALREADY has a game on demand service:

http://gamesondemand.yahoo.com/play
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Bob on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 12:48 PM CST
Dude, saying this is the future is yesterday's news. On-demand, pay-as-you-go is what the telecoms, the cable guys, the productivity software (you know, all those boxes that aren't games?), internet publishing, _and_ games are going. The codewords VOD, ASP, top-ups, pay-per-view, website subscriptions -- they all mean this same thing.

And if you're a free software advocate, this is a disturbing trend, because not only is the information not free, it's not even let out for exercise in the yard.

But if you pay for your games already, and can't hack 'em anyway, what exactly are you losing here? Okay, there's the Quakes -- more on that later.

Your bullet list is all about money: you can't trade the game when you're done, you can't sell it used, you can't let someone else use it free, you can't buy cheap used games...

There might be a transition where someone tries to charge "buy the game" prices for "rent the game" service. But five years from now, you're going to be able to hook up your PC or console to your internet connection and play any of hundreds of decent games for a buck an hour. Why would you want the hassle of buying a game, playing it, and selling it back, when it'll cost you the same, or less, to play it with no hassle of shlepping the CD around? You want to show it to a friend, no problem! Give him a buck and he can try it out himself at home.

Think of the hassles you won't have -- ever want to look at that game you gave away or sold back? No problem. No risk of scratched CDs. No awkward stack of CD's to store, or scratches to worry about...

Explain or link to the history of the development of Counterstrike. I was unaware cheating was part of its creation. I think what you mean is "Quake and its descendants are supremely hackable, and that allows both cheating and mods. I assume that anti-cheating features will prevent mods." I would suggest that's possible, but then it's possible for the next on-CD FPS to not give access to the internals anyway. And a clever scheme like having known-unmodded arenas where people can play without cheaters and free-devel arenas where people can try out mods in development, with migration of mods from one to the other, would still allow the hackability you crave.

>And, when it comes down to money issues, you can be sure
>the creators will side with their own interests over those
>of the player.

The player is their paycheck. From that point of view, this statement doesn't make any sense. The sad, stark truth is that what you mean is they will serve the interests of the teeming masses more than they'll serve the interests of hackers and free software freaks. Because you're afraid that most of their customers don't care about license agreements or "the right to hack" or independent mod development, and just want to play what comes out of the box without being fragged mercilessly by script kiddies. And you're probably right.

>No longer will you be able to rent the latest games from
>Blockbuster to try them out before deciding on whether to
>buy."
What are you on? Right, I won't rent it from Blockbuster -- I'll rent it direct from the developer. The only party that loses is Blockbuster, and I don't feel bad for them.

Looking at some of the posts, I see that people are thinking pay-to-play = monthly subscriptions and my game disappears if I don't pay for a month. Clearly that's what a lot of people are saying they wouldn't buy into and what some people don't see replacing buying games on media. But that's _today's_ experimentation in the "on-demand" field. Five years from now? Like I said, I see buck (or less) an hour. I see picking from thousands of games. I see playing for a while one day for $5, and coming back a month later and finishing the game over two days for another $10. Yup, I see saved games persisting for nigh eternity, or close enough for gaming purposes.

Heck, if you want to hear a rosy outlook, I see outbreaks of concern for games disappearing in the ether -- two years from now. But 5 years from now, I see smart companies in the "retro" field, buying/inheriting servershare from developers for old/niche games. Heck, I see them getting grants from the NEA to do it.

The concern here is that the market is changing, and it's going to change in a way that at least seems to take control away from the consumer. I'd be more convinced that was bad from the perspective that the corps aren't competent enough to deliver the software I want when I want it -- server downtimes, stupid "security" annoyances and malfunctions -- than that I should want the control. Control of what? Of having to store the CD and keep it unscratched if I want to recover some of my investment in it? If it were open source, and I could actually _do_ something with it, that would be something. Or if on-demand meant that a game _couldn't_ be made moddable like Quake was, that would be something. But just being afraid they're going to take away a cool feature they have now -- that could happen anyway. There's no need to blame on-demand.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 04:45 PM CST
I think of it as a massive privacy issue.
Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 22 2004 @ 09:04 AM CST
I agree, the only reason counterstrike and halflife stay alive is cheaters. Anyone who wants a game of skill will play another game, they will lean towards AA. Everyone has the same weapons, the same health, and yes AA does alow cheating services to be created, but they aren't nearly as populer. And those people can't say, im good at this game. The only reason they get a kill is because, they had to load a clear view sniper. Or ghost mode. And if they die while cheating and they do, the person who killed them can say, wow i didn't cheat and i killed this virtually indestructable dork. I feel sorry if he ever plays a real game.

Now back to the real discussion. Pay for play offline games. More and more gameing is going to online, due to games not being as fun offline. And the majority of people wan't clean gameing fun of skill and luck, not who has downloaded the best mod/hack. The majority of console games are single player for one reason, they are cheaper to make. Finding games like Halo is rare since it is not a sports game. And it is co-op, no wonder it was such a big hit. It is all about money, and consoles going online, will in no doubt make them lean towards online gaming, And them wanting to stop piracy. Before you had the "mod chip" to pirate games. But they in the future will be able to check for pirated games. And they will. Lot's of games are pay to play, yes there online. But all consoles are heading in that direction with built in modems. All about money, the people want online games, the people will pay for it, or they won't get it. Simple.

Hackers/mods in games are just lame. If you can't be the best without em, please stop trying with them. Because in a few years when you can't use them, i will own you like a 700lbs gorilla owns a banana.


Welcome to the Future, Mr. Gamer
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 12:31 PM CST
I think companies should still sell some sort of Hard Copy of the game. As stated before the amount of time it would take to download entire game files (important stuff like music, models, and other code related to game play) is emense, and games are only getting better and better which means larger and larger files sizes. I think it might be more cost effective for companies to sell a "base game" with all the code, models and music needed to play. Take the Madden Football example, Downloading that whole game would probably take a good amount of time, and i doubt that a 56k user would want to do so, even for a reduced price, so if the company makes the hard copy of the game, then sells updates to rosters, uniforms ect.. for a lower price then the whole game. You get a brand new game every 9months to a year, for less money. IMO good deal for players, good deal for developers. Less cost for players, less packaging cost for companies, and they don't alianate their slower speed users by making it impossible to play the game.

Other types of games that this would be good for is a driving game like GT 3 A-Spec. Each year be able to get the latest models of cars and so on.

To get this kind of thing to catch on with FPS and the like developers would really have to make it worth a players while to do so. This means really nice textures music, maps ect.. Which is also a plus for gamers. I don't think i would buy CS 1.6 just to have new textures and guns and maps. I'm not that hardcore, but i know there are players that would.

The one thing that is disturbing about this trend is the impact on things like LAN parties. CS 1.6 cannot be played on a closed lan. You need to have access to the internet to validate the game and all that stuff. My friend hosted a LAN party, and they had to play 1.5 because they were not going to be able to handle the internet connection from the place they were playing. Having 25-100 people log on to the internet through one cable modem is not a good idea.

That is the only thing that makes me leary of things like steam and other pay-to-play services. The fact that if you need to connect to the interent to play a single player and/or a closed LAN type of game is not a good idea. If a company like valve signed a contract with someone like GAIN to install spyware on your computer, you would be blasted with a hundred "Win a free trip" adds before you could load up your game. Not good.
What's Related
  • Steam
  • begin selling software
  • Save the Whales
  • it probably should have...
  • Next-Generation Secure ...

  • Story Options
  • Mail Story to a Friend
  • Printable Story Format


  • Created this page in 0.33 seconds


     Copyright © 2010 Curmudgeon Gamer
     All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.

    Powered By