This week's Humble Bundle

[MattM]

I'm not sure how many people round here have heard of the Humble Bundle, but it is a (sometimes) weekly offer by a games developer, often indie developers, offering their titles in a bundle for which you can pay what you like. The money goes to charity as well.

This week's bundle seems like a great one too, even if it has been offered by EA:

https://www.humblebundle.com/

You can pay what you like for games like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space 3, Crysis 2 and if you spend more than the average (currently less than $5), you get Battlefield 3 and The Sims 3 with some DLC as well.

Seems like a no-lose situation really.

 

[Dax]

I'm going to keep sounding this foghorn, but any company that overly promotes downloaded games is bad. The moment you have no disc, you have no rights to do what you would like with property you have paid for. You're basically paying (often) out of your ar*e to rent the game from the sales (or in this case a leasing) company.

It's more terrifying though, when they offer games dirt cheap to fill the statistic requirements so they can justify the total transfer from CD to image download. Don't forget, guys - We're the last generation before this became a norm, so we're the only people that can actually resist this change (even if only temporarily).

 

[MattM]

I'm going to keep sounding this foghorn, but any company that overly promotes downloaded games is bad. The moment you have no disc, you have no rights to do what you would like with property you have paid for.

That's absolute garbage. You are getting *exactly* what you paid for- access to the entertainment content of the game. The idea that the buyer has some right to a physical copy which they can then lend to someone or take to play on some other machine is a complete farce. You are denying the owner of the property/intellectual rights the money they deserve from releasing the game.

Then further there is the concept of the 'second-hand' market, which is again something that really shouldn't exist unless the original developer of the game is receiving a cut.

I do not understand how paying for a game should give you anything other than the opportunity to 'rent' a game. You are paying for the privilege of playing a game, not owning a share in the intellectual property. This extends to any sort of media- books, music, films, whatever.

Legality aside, the cheaper distribution costs of downloads as opposed to hard copy sales broaden the market to a lot of smaller & indie developers who otherwise would siphon off funds that can be spent on game development and honing.

The downloadable format improves the experience for gamers as well as developers.

The only exception to the rule is when a client requires you to be online to play a game, e.g. Diablo III. Fine, require a player to register, but after that it should be possible for a gamer to access the game at any point, online or offline.

 

[Alcibiades]

I'm going to keep sounding this foghorn, but any company that overly promotes downloaded games is bad. The moment you have no disc, you have no rights to do what you would like with property you have paid for.

That's absolute garbage. You are getting *exactly* what you paid for- access to the entertainment content of the game. The idea that the buyer has some right to a physical copy which they can then lend to someone or take to play on some other machine is a complete farce. You are denying the owner of the property/intellectual rights the money they deserve from releasing the game.

Then further there is the concept of the 'second-hand' market, which is again something that really shouldn't exist unless the original developer of the game is receiving a cut.

I do not understand how paying for a game should give you anything other than the opportunity to 'rent' a game. You are paying for the privilege of playing a game, not owning a share in the intellectual property. This extends to any sort of media- books, music, films, whatever.

Legality aside, the cheaper distribution costs of downloads as opposed to hard copy sales broaden the market to a lot of smaller & indie developers who otherwise would siphon off funds that can be spent on game development and honing.

The downloadable format improves the experience for gamers as well as developers.

The only exception to the rule is when a client requires you to be online to play a game, e.g. Diablo III. Fine, require a player to register, but after that it should be possible for a gamer to access the game at any point, online or offline.

Agreed with all of this.

 

[Dax]

I'm going to keep sounding this foghorn, but any company that overly promotes downloaded games is bad. The moment you have no disc, you have no rights to do what you would like with property you have paid for.

That's absolute garbage. You are getting *exactly* what you paid for- access to the entertainment content of the game. The idea that the buyer has some right to a physical copy which they can then lend to someone or take to play on some other machine is a complete farce. You are denying the owner of the property/intellectual rights the money they deserve from releasing the game.

Then further there is the concept of the 'second-hand' market, which is again something that really shouldn't exist unless the original developer of the game is receiving a cut.

I do not understand how paying for a game should give you anything other than the opportunity to 'rent' a game. You are paying for the privilege of playing a game, not owning a share in the intellectual property. This extends to any sort of media- books, music, films, whatever.

Legality aside, the cheaper distribution costs of downloads as opposed to hard copy sales broaden the market to a lot of smaller & indie developers who otherwise would siphon off funds that can be spent on game development and honing.

The downloadable format improves the experience for gamers as well as developers.

The only exception to the rule is when a client requires you to be online to play a game, e.g. Diablo III. Fine, require a player to register, but after that it should be possible for a gamer to access the game at any point, online or offline.

But then this in itself is a bit of a farce - They charge you for a game (Xbox 360 currently stands at £50 opening price nowadays), then they release 'downloadable content' for an additional fee. Now, why should a user pay such an obscenely exorbitant fee for a game in the first place (when you also take into account that the games market is a massively expanding market, and has been ever since it's formation), but then to add another £25-40 for game content? What is this f*ckery, you might ask sensibly? And greed would be the answer I yell back yonder to you.

If games initially didn't come with a hard copy that was yours to do as you like with (sell it if it's total horse sh*t to get some of your hard-earned money back), then I wouldn't have much of an argument - But the fact is, games have gotten significantly worse over the past five years in particular (much as the film industry rapes sequels and prequels for anything that makes more than break even), so why should I sacrifice my ability to get some money back on a total failure by selling it so a company that employs human beings can re-sell it for a much more appropriate price to somebody else? You're forgetting that by changing everything to downloadable only, you eliminate a workforce sector in the UK alone of around and very likely to be above 400,000 people. (Source: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/400-000-retail-jobs-could-be-lost-in-next-5-years-analyst/0117603)

It's called having a bit of compassion for your fellow man, dear Sir. Your protest is as terrible as that which comes from the wondrous 'Intellectual Rights' lawyers and spokespersons - It's based on bullsh*t. The way everything works with a hard copy of a game works/worked fine. Companies made obscene profits from total idiots, and I got a nice hard copy of a game when I purchase one which I can get rid of or lend out as I please (which I, as a purchaser believe I do have the right to be able to do if I give them fifty f*cking quid of my f*cking money).

They are simply doing this in a poor effort to reverse the effects of 'game piracy' - Because they were too busy filling their bed mattresses with your cash to invest in a future-proof system. History in technology tells us that failure to innovate results in failure to continue existence. Nobody saw government policy manipulation to allow the Amstrad to keep going, did they? No. So why should these stupid, greedy media executives do it? Just sit back, and have a good old think about it Matt. You're an intelligent bloke - I'm sure you'll figure it out.

 

[MattM]

But then this in itself is a bit of a farce - They charge you for a game (Xbox 360 currently stands at £50 opening price nowadays), then they release 'downloadable content' for an additional fee. Now, why should a user pay such an obscenely exorbitant fee for a game in the first place (when you also take into account that the games market is a massively expanding market, and has been ever since it's formation), but then to add another £25-40 for game content? What is this f*ckery, you might ask sensibly? And greed would be the answer I yell back yonder to you.

So straight off- all my views and comments are going to be in regard to PC gaming, I don't have any experience with consoles.

Downloadable content is a different entity to games that are bought through a client like Steam or Origin. You are paying whatever for the initial game fine. It is down to you whether you want the DLC for a game or not- usually you are either getting new episodes/missions/story content for a larger price or you can get small things like a Team Fortress hat for a nominal amount. In the most part, you are not losing anything from the original game from not having this DLC, what you are doing is judging whether you will get enough entertainment out of the DLC to justify spending the money on.

For something like Civ V I can justify shelling out £30 for the vanilla game and then £20 apiece for two expansion packs because of the hours I know I'll get out of the game. When I consider I've spent over 550 hours playing the game, I consider that pretty good value for my "hard-earned" money.

But the fact is, games have gotten significantly worse over the past five years in particular

That's completely subjective.

You're forgetting that by changing everything to downloadable only, you eliminate a workforce sector in the UK alone of around and very likely to be above 400,000 people

That's the product of a developing market. Retail in general is greatly shifting towards online, not only due to convenience to the customer, but also costs to the companies. Yes, it will involve job loss in areas such as high-street retail, but there will also be job creation in stocking and deliveries and technical support. But these are always associated with a change in dynamics, and people will have to adapt. This sort of change has been prevalent our society for centuries... (cf. agricultural revolution) why is change a bad thing?

when I purchase one which I can get rid of or lend out as I please (which I, as a purchaser believe I do have the right to be able to do if I give them fifty f*cking quid of my f*cking money)

Frankly, once you've paid for a product or service, you have no right whatsoever to get your money back after you've used it unless the product is broken. If you don't like a product, then tough. You can't get your money back if you think a film is terrible half-an-hour in. Do you research beforehand.

History in technology tells us that failure to innovate results in failure to continue existence

Which is *exactly* why companies who are not moving to digital distribution are going to suffer. The market is better and stronger for digital distribution.

 

[tobapopalos]

I agree with everything MattM has said. Excellent argument presented in an excellent manner.

 

[Dax]

It's a general standpoint from which I speak (because this will affect everything from films to TV shows to video games over all platforms, so consideration of such things should be taken into account when formulating a counter-argument), because that's what this is ultimately about. The PC market is the smallest of the gaming markets by a massively significant difference (Source: http://www.steamgifts.com/forum/YAKms/2005-2012-pc-vs-console-gaming-population-growth-rates), so to respond purely from a purely PC POV would be a bit silly. It's true that the PC gaming market is far more user-friendly than consoles, but the reason for this is that it's the weakest of all the markets - They wouldn't make anything from it if they didn't slash the prices and throw in some smiley faces to keep the PC guys happy.

I've been in computer technology for ten years now (I started in a computer shop at late-13 as an apprentice to the guy that designed the entire PA and consultancy system for the UK head of HSBC banking in Canary Wharf), and I'm giving you my full assurances that digitisation is not the answer you want. It will simply make everything worse for the designers/modders (because digitising games makes game modding significantly more difficult due to the copyright and licensing system in digitised downloads (ie, you have NO right to access the actual game files themselves)) and the end user (because you won't be able to reliably test a game before buying it, and as you aptly pointed out a review of something is entirely subjective), whilst making it significantly more profitable for the middlemen (the distributors, etc). All-in-all, it's a no. And whilst you guys might not have seen some of the stuff I've seen in the IT and gaming sector, I do sort of expect you to want to do some research into what they ideally want the end result to be - A system where you pay out even more for even less. If these games were always offered at a stupidly low cost, then I would obviously support this - But the fact is this is only to lure people away from loyalty to the hard copy, and once they have you in digital download territory they will amp the prices up to the hard copy prices (if not even more) for less actual product.

Next, for the job losses: Sure, this happens in all aspects of advancing technology - But you have to genuinely consider that we are a country and a world where employment is grinding to a total standstill as it is, let alone before we happily allow greed to axe human beings from being able to support families, households, etc. The human effect of these changes is enormous - So to simply brush it off could at best be perceived as a little inhuman.

If you can't tell, this is a subject I'm extremely passionate about. I've been predicting this ever since the release of Steam and iTunes (has anybody actually researched the company that technically owns the Steam system and distributes the mother company's games by any chance?). And the fact is, when I buy a disc copy of Fallout: New Vegas and all I get is a prompt to connect to the internet (which at the time I was one of those very few people to not have the internet at home on my PC) to download my allowance to access the game (and to additionally install Steam to be allowed to play it) I'd paid £40 for - How do you justify that? Seriously? Then on top of that, I have to wait five hours on a mobile internet signal to download updates for the game (which wouldn't play until I'd installed these updates - Curiously these updates were fixes to stop access to the core files of the game, not actual game changes) - I get even more wtf'd. Below, I'll stick one paragraph that sums up what the Steam device is made for:

"Valve announced it's games platform Steam in 2002. At the time it looked merely to be a method of streamlining the patch process common in online video games, but was later revealed as a replacement for much of the framework of the World Opponent Network service and also as a distribution/digital rights management system for entire games." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28software%29#Beginnings
That's right. It was projected as something far nicer than it in fact was. Why? Because nobody would have any of it had they known it's true purpose from the get-go.

Simply put - This system is both damaging long-term, and short-term. And there will come a time where I guarantee you will look back and say "ah crap, Dax was actually right about something". You have been warned.

 

[MattM]

"Valve announced it's games platform Steam in 2002. At the time it looked merely to be a method of streamlining the patch process common in online video games, but was later revealed as a replacement for much of the framework of the World Opponent Network service and also as a distribution/digital rights management system for entire games." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28software%29#Beginnings
That's right. It was projected as something far nicer than it in fact was. Why? Because nobody would have any of it had they known it's true purpose from the get-go.

That paragraph does not actually appear appear in the article, if you meant it as a summary, so be it, but it doesn't strike me as a particularly accurate one. They did initially release Steam as a patch process and it was optional, but after testing etc. the made it quite clear by the Half-Life 2 was released (2004) that it was now a tool to protect copyright too- there was a lot of controversy about this at the time, as Steam was necessary to install to ratify your game purchase code.

(has anybody actually researched the company that technically owns the Steam system and distributes the mother company's games by any chance?

Has anyone researched Valve? One of the biggest computer gaming companies in the world, who own the biggest distribution service for games in the world and run some of the most-played multiplayer games in the world (DotA2, TF2, CS...)? Yes I would say they have.

Obviously I can't speak for the whole PC gaming world, but from what I've seen, I can get more games, for cheaper prices from a whole variety of developers easily and quickly. As a gamer, that is a good thing for me.

And the fact is, when I buy a disc copy of Fallout: New Vegas and all I get is a prompt to connect to the internet (which at the time I was one of those very few people to not have the internet at home on my PC) to download my allowance to access the game (and to additionally install Steam to be allowed to play it) I'd paid £40 for - How do you justify that? Seriously? Then on top of that, I have to wait five hours on a mobile internet signal to download updates for the game (which wouldn't play until I'd installed these updates - Curiously these updates were fixes to stop access to the core files of the game, not actual game changes)

As I said previously, I don't have an issue with a developer requiring you to register a game online- it protects their interests and they have every right to do that. I do agree, however, that requiring people to be online to play, or even to update shouldn't be necessary.

It will simply make everything worse for the designers/modders (because digitising games makes game modding significantly more difficult due to the copyright and licensing system in digitised downloads

I have never modded a game. However, there are a significant number of Steam games that come with modding tools nowadays, and the Steam Workshop has been in swing for over a year now. From my own experience there are a wide range and large number of mods available.

From a completely different standpoint, if a developer wants their game to have the option for modding then they should be developing a tool to enable that, or giving access to the code. However, if they *don't* want that, the gamer shouldn't have the right to mod.

The PC market is the smallest of the gaming markets by a massively significant difference (Source: http://www.steamgifts.com/forum/YAKm...n-growth-rates), so to respond purely from a purely PC POV would be a bit silly.

Firstly, if these figures are correct they are interesting. I do have a lot of reserve about these figures- he claims that they don't represent actual sales of games or actual hours of gameplay, but are some modified number based on these and the size of the sample he took. However, there is no indication of what size sample he is working with or what he has done with the data. It is some fairly poor statistics (aside, don't get me started on poor statistics in general).

With nothing else to go on it is hard to make direct comments. I do not doubt that console gaming made a larger proportion of the market than PC gaming (albeit over several consoles), however those figures seem not to add up to me- for a start World of Warcraft was in its prime from 2005-2009, and according to Wikipedia (not the best source, I know), they had 10m subscribers in 2008 alone. Moreover:

2005 568,968

He is claiming some-weighted-number of 570,000 PC games across the billion or so PCs across the world were played in 2005? That strikes me as not very believable.

Looking at more recent years- 2012, 33.4m PC games played. Quote Wikipedia in regards of League of Legends:

"As of October 2012, Riot Games claims League of Legends has over 32 million registrations and averages 12 million players worldwide per day.# Global concurrent users online peaked at over 5 million players as of March 2013."

I would say we need to take Riot Games's words with a pinch of salt, but I certainly believe they hit closer to the truth than the weighted-number 33.4m, certainly when you look at the stats for TF2 or Dota2 on Steam (there are currently 3.5m on Steam in total).

Anyway, assuming the data has some element of truth to it, it says that PC gaming is growing exponentially, compared to a decline in console gaming (I think this is generally recognised as being true), but also in terms of market share, those figures for consoles are for *every console ever released*, so are not as skewed as it might first appear.

Obviously console gaming is still a large market share, nobody is going to deny that. I don't think that PC gaming is the niche you made it out to be though.

In general, I don't think we're going to agree on this, but it is certainly interesting to hear another point of view.

 

[Max]

I'm with MattM in that I only care about PC gaming.

I'll be honest - when I saw MattM post this link my reaction was:

"Seriously? This appears too good to be true!"

I am certainly very impressed with the offer, for sure. If I wasn't trying to finish my PhD, I'd pick it up immediately. So my first comment is "Thanks for this MattM!"

I am worried by some of the trends in the gaming market, but on the other hand, I think it's a simple case of adapt or die. I also agree with DaX that the trends we are witnessing in the gaming market are mirrored in the overall film and TV industry.

But can we really always just blame greed? Surely the fact that we are living in the age of a global economic downturn has rather a large part to play in all this? We are fortunate enough to have lived (many of us as kids) through a very prosperous 1990's and early 2000's. We shouldn't expect the industry to stay the same when finances get tough, I think that would be unfair.

So, as a final comment for my thoughts on the issue, if I as a consumer am strapped for cash and MattM comes along suggesting this amazing cheap bundle offer, why the badger would I feel bad for saying yes? Cheap entertainment is precisely what I and many others are looking for during tough economic times. The gaming industry will adapt.

 

[Dax]

Matt, the first source was jumbled as I had multiple links on my clipboard and I forgot which Wikipage I had taken the paragraph from - It was a Valve stub, which linked out to the Steam-specific stub. But either way, it's not like I just typed that out and stuck a random link there to accompany it.

On those user-to-platform statistics? Well yes they are a bit odd, but it's a rough pointing of where the markets stand without having to pay some stupid amount of money to see the official market sales statistics. What you have to remember is, that whilst games like WoW/LoL are huge for the PC market, they still pale in comparison to the sales of games such as Call of Doodie on the consoles. And where WoW is crumbling, games like CoD are somehow still growing exponentially.

Everyone is obviously give choice - But having the choice doesn't mean you shouldn't think about why they are offering you this magical deal in the first place, that's all.

I think the thing that annoys me most about this is that I would probably agree with you Matt if the designers and the actual development teams for games saw a decent share of the money made by the games' successes - But ultimately this just isn't the case. The whole piracy sham is overinflated and pursued by the actual franchises (who are the profiteers - Notice yet again the middleman wins, not the front provider or the end user), not the designers. When you ask a designer, or a music maker (I'm one, and I have a lot of friends that have gone pretty far in the blues & extreme metal scenes) - They are often just thankful people want to spend their time using their material at all, whether it is paid for or not (and to pirate something, at least one person has to purchase/leak it to be made available to the masses via P2P/torrenting). The big picture is that a true artist just wants their art to be seen. Money and world economy is an entity which was created to control and siphon the average Joe like you and me. I work repairing computers and helping people do oddjobs because I enjoy doing it. That gives me what little will I need to want to wake up the following day to do it all again, because the money sure as hell doesn't accomplish that.

Sorry about the tangent, but as I said before it's something I feel very strongly about and have personal understanding and experience to support these feelings. I am extremely annoyed when people just assume piracy is this huge thing - It really isn't at all. If people made games/films worth buying (or had a price tag worthy of their actual worth) in the first place, they would be bought more often. SOLUTION.

 

[MattM]

On another tangent, and out of personal interest, how many copies has the latest CoD game sold? Is it more than LoL? From my brief Googling on my phone, I see it sold 10m in its first month. LoL has over 32 million subscribers, though.

As I said though, interest more than anything else.