DRM... EA... The future

[Asmodean]

This story makes you wonder, doesn't it?

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/15403.cfm

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080912/1319412253.shtml

Asmodean

[DrSpike]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Interesting question. I think you wont like the answer though:

In the main I've followed the games. For years this meant focusing on PC games, because there wasn't that much of the same quality on consoles. Nowadays what have people been looking forward to on PC? It's a damning indictment that the answer is probably Spore.

To be fair spikey, people have been looking forward to Spore cause its new original intellectual property, probably the beginning of a major new franchise, and (you wont like this) its coming from Will Wright.

Lots of folks are looking forward to Starcraft2, Diablo3, Crysis Warhead, Civ:Colonization, etc but those clearly don't meet the same criteria for originality.


Me, I'm looking forward to playing a game modern enough to HAVE obnoxious DRM, so I can speak more intelligently to the issue. Civ4, which I'm currently playing, doesn't seem to have it.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
Business doesn't work that way Seedle.

Then business is even more ****ed up than I think it is. Please explain how it benefits a company to purposefully spend money destroying a market. If the market is unprofitable and never will be, why spend money killing it when it will die of its own accord? If the market is unprofitable but may become so, either spend money making it profitable or let some other sucker do it and then reap the rewards at less cost. If the market is profitable...why kill it?

Originally posted by El_Cid
But i'm happy that the mainstream is so focused on consoles, i really think the best of PC gaming has yet to happen. The tech is easily in place and once we accept that 'glossy hollywood' gaming is for consoles(so go there for that), and that graphics dont=great game, then we will see another Xcom again, and it's like, and maybe better?

I don't think the mass market will ever get past judging by graphics. Heck, one of the most common complaints about the Civ series on this site is the graphics. And since this site about a game in a genre that must put gameplay first, there isn't much flash you can put in turn based strategy (notice I didn't say there was none.), and caters to what seems to be a generally older, more discriminating audience, and yet still has a solid amount of griping about graphics in a game that they are of relatively minimal importance, tells me the general public will always me mesmerized by pretty polygons...

(Yeah, not that great, best I could do on short notice, and from the computer I'm on...)

Also, are you claiming that all console games are "glossy Hollywood?" If you are, I've got a bone to pick with you...but I want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth first...

[snoopy369]

Strictly speaking most of the complaints about Civ's graphics are that the graphics are too good...

[Seedle]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Strictly speaking most of the complaints about Civ's graphics are that the graphics are too good...

I take it you mean complaints that people's computers can't handle the graphics and run quickly at the same time? Sure you get those, and probably more than what I was talking about, but I was referring to complaints about the "cartoonishness" of the graphics.

[FrostyBoy]

Civ4's graphics suck beyond words.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Strictly speaking most of the complaints about Civ's graphics are that the graphics are too good...

QFT; I remember; I was mostly on the Civ4 forums when civ4 got out!

When it got out, one of the most heard complain was that they should have stick to isometric view. Since some people didn't had videocard who supported T&L(which supported vertex or pixel Shader) or powerful enough computer.

[Adagio]

Seems like I have saved quite a lot of money this year because of crappy DRM (so far three games that was on my "to buy" list is now on my "do not buy" list. Stalker Clear Sky was also on my "to buy" list, but now it's not as it also contains an activation limit. After 5 activations you're out of luck if you want to play the game again (legally that is). This also goes for the Steam version.
This game uses Tages, so SecuRom is not the only DRM that uses install limits.
And AFAIK nobody has had any luck getting activations back. People are in an infinite loop here. Contact GSC about it, then they say you should contact those from Steam, but if you contact those they say you should contact GSC

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Seedle
...............
Also, are you claiming that all console games are "glossy Hollywood?" If you are, I've got a bone to pick with you...but I want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth first...

Hi Seedle, i've not had the pleasure of debating with you i don't think(either as my old CS child of Thor either)?

No i'm not claiming ALL console games are "glossy Hollywood"(and not much else).......but i'm 'known' for having a certain viewpoint(that i've held for about 6 years now) on what contempory AAA graphics overheads in modern gaming are actualy doing to games in general.

I think part of it is that my "uncanny valley" settings are much lower than many of todays gamers simply due to the fact I started playing games in the early 80's.
So graphics never have been an issue for me, but that doesn't mean I don't love great graphics - i was a total graphics hor during most of my gaming history.

I even used to design detailed graphics and sprites for the games I was playing(you would type many of these into your computer, so could change parts of the code) or making(nothing published). And i was always pushing the limits of the hardware, and my knowledge, to get more colours at higher resolutions etc. So yeah I love great graphics really - but my expectations of what a good graphic is, doesn't mean i need graphics that look like 'real life' or from a movie(for example).

Anyway what I've noticed(in the games i've bought and played) is that particularily in the last 6 years or so, when graphics hardware(on PC's and in consoles like the first xbox) has really enabled 'photo-realism' in games, that many of the games look great but play less good.
Maybe the whole game just sucks(60% could fall into this catergory), while looking great at the same time. Or maybe the game is very short to play and finish. Or very liniar, or maybe less complex(amount of in-game choices etc).

These are just some examples based on my experience, and fit within my history of gaming. So a personal opinion.

And well after thinking on it quite a bit, and then doing a fair amount of research, I started to come to the consclusion that the 'recent' push for photo-realism in gaming has other side effects that may not be so good for games. And one of the most simple ways to show this is that these graphics are not free to make. The principle reason behind the acceleration in costs to produce AAA current games is this graphical overhead. And that leads into all sorts of other areas. For example with more development time spent on making your game look amazing(photo-realisitc), which publishers can insist upon, is less time spent on other area's of the game.

Gamers are as much to blame for this as anyone, but I can see a very strong link between mine and others 'disconnect' with modern gaming that has at it's core too much emphersis going to photo-realistic graphics, when that can detract from some of the most important aspects of what a game is about(playing expereince). Games are not movies, and the more movies and people in the movies have gotten involved in games, the more games have gone down this more narrow track of lush visuals over gameplay/AI/interesting game design etc. Not all the time, but enough of the time to be noticable.

There thats about the long and the short of it for me, and no i'm not saying all console games are rubbish and not worth it, but I think we need to address the graphics thing, as gamers and as an industry if we want to carry on making games that people will talk about in decades to come. The Wii, for all it's flaws, I think is a positive move in this direction. And it's great to see less graphic intensive titles getting good sales on XBLA from small companies etc.

So no not all modern gaming is dross, but much of it is not as good as it should be, considering the vast history of amazing games that have preceeded pretty much everything that gets made today. Progress isn't all about graphics.

And to bring it back on track draconian DRM that punishes an honest customer is another area where modern publishing houses, and the people in them making all these decisions, are not quite able to see the wood for the trees. To me many of todays games are not worth the purchase for many reasons. Luckily some few still are.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Seedle


I take it you mean complaints that people's computers can't handle the graphics and run quickly at the same time? Sure you get those, and probably more than what I was talking about, but I was referring to complaints about the "cartoonishness" of the graphics.

Most of the complaints are that Civ4 is a strategy game, and should not have gone 3D, because that made the game unplayable by far too many systems. I see very few complaints about 'cartoonish' graphics, because frankly they're perfectly fine graphics for a TBS.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Most of the complaints are that Civ4 is a strategy game, and should not have gone 3D, because that made the game unplayable by far too many systems. I see very few complaints about 'cartoonish' graphics, because frankly they're perfectly fine graphics for a TBS.

Oh, I agree about the graphics being fine for a TBS. I like Civ4's graphics. Just many others do not. As for the 3D thing, you could make a strong argument against it for Civ4, since the gameplay is still 2D. However, in the future, 3D opens up exciting possibilities: truly spherical worlds, multiple planes of development on a single map, such as under-water or underground cities. And that's just off the top of my head.

@El Cid: Okay, I agree with your second post. Completely. I just didn't know if you were one of those people who say console games suck by default or not. It appears you aren't.

[DrSpike]

Often he is - but he appears to be going back to his more measured Child of Thor persona. This is good news, as I rather liked him.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Often he is - ..............

I can only work with the material at hand

On the DRM issue, EA has said this recently(well the other day):

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20322

"Though the publisher likened Spore's authentication to iTunes, which allows users to listen to their music on a limited number of multiple computers, an EA spokesperson later told game weblog MTV Multiplayer that it will release a patch in the "near future" allowing owners to de-authorize computers.

"We felt that this was a good step in the right direction to begin to respond to the feedback you have given us and evolve Spore," says Spore executive producer Lucy Bradshaw. "We are aggressively working on this now; we will get back to you with more information on timing as soon as possible." "

Hmm ok, but say if your DRM has already screwed my system - will this patch fix this?

[Maquiladora]

WTF El Cid is child of Thor? When and why did this happen?