In keeping with the theme that the current PC model is
broken, Gas Powered Game's Chris Taylor thinks that the platform will live long and prosper, as long as on important change is made as to how we play the game.
During GDC last week, Taylor threw his support behind the idea of curbing piracy by having gamers sign into a secured server, where they can be authenticated as paying customers -- before being able to play:
"It's all got to be secure, we can't afford to make this stuff and give it away for free. I don't think we should be sending the message to anybody that PC gaming is dead. We're going to secure it and our customers have to know why we are securing it. They have to appreciate why we're protecting it. It inconveniences a little but now they know why. And then we can get the economics back in line and maybe we can actually start offering it up at a lower price point in the future. So it will come around full circle,"
Seems fair enough to me, as long as they make sure that the authentication process is smooth, and it doesn't force us to jump through a bunch of hoops while they perfect the model. Since developers devote valuable time and money into their projects (which are risky enough as it is), they undeniably deserve the right to protect their own interests. How does our own PC crowd feel about this? Cheaper games are certainly attractive to us all.
[ Via Gamesindustry.biz -- Thanks, Justin!]
Contest:
2:15 PM on 02.27.2008
| 
/thread
but personally i think valve has it right with steam
as long as it doesnt greatly change how i play the game then ill go for it
HAHA Try catchin' me now 360-bitches!
I will agree that PC Piracy is at an all time high. When more people pirate Crysis than buy it, thats sad.
That being said, I am an avid Bittorrent fanboy, but I only use it to (a) download anime that isn't in the US and (b) download old games that I cant buy anymore
Here's one: at launch, release 10 different torrents of full versions of the game that are deliberately broken, and that play for between 1 - 3 hours before stopping with a warning about downloaded versions. People would probably download 2 or 3 versions at the most before giving up. Yes, a small percentage would get it working, but they would be neglegable by this point. This would actually help promote sales because the game would act as a demo. It would be more effective and cheaper that copy protect, and most importantly, it wouldn't harm the average honest consumer.
Also, to any wankstain who says that PC gaming is dead, don't be so full of yourself. It's like Rod Stewart. It's old but it will keep on giving to ones who want it. I know, it's a sickening analogy but it's slow to say that PC gaming is dead.
Every single fucking person in the entire fucking world that has anything to do with computers needs to look long and hard of the case of Sony BMG, their DRM, the exposure of it, and the public backlash that resulted. That single event did more for the expanding of piracy than the inventions of Limewire, Bittorrent, and Usenet combined.
Although what happens to multiple computer installs?? And what about those people who don't have access to the internet at the time they want to play (on a plane etc)??
my solution?
tiny pc's dedicated to play games! we can strip most of the OS functionality away and replace it with a custom gui. maybe do away with the keyboard and mouse too, and replace them with something friendly, like, a controller. these computers would hook right up to your existing entertainment center, and become part of the living room! these 'gaming' computers will only read discs that have write encryption on them. oh man, the future's gonna be sweet!
I'll often bring non-online games with me when I travel to make sure I can play something while possibly not having internet access. Although most places have some kind of wireless access and pc gaming desperately needs better copy protection, internet authentication could pose a massive inconvenience both logistically (finding internet) and financially (having to pay for internet access while away from home, etc).
BRILLIANT! Why didn't someone think of that 20 years ago!?
Oh wait...
I have far less headaches buying a game off of Steam, having it install, and playing, compared to a game packaged with, say, Securom, because I use a program Securom black flags (Process Explorer, an official Microsoft produced replacement for the standard task maanger), meaning I have to restart my computer every time I'd want to play a game that uses Securom, besides disabling any disc emulation services and inserting the CD into my computer.
As for System Requirements, they've caused a big exodus to console gaming in the last few years. People have realized, especially since the 360/PS3 came out, that they can get just as complicated and good looking games for cheaper if they buy a console instead of a PC. This prevents them from getting a number of great, imaginative, and forward moving games, and a whole lot of other advantages of the PC platform, but the monetary bottom line is too big for a lot of less patient gamers to ignore.
Instead of pressing forward at the same rate we always have with increasing requirements, we most definitely need to be pulling those reins back, and aiming requirements at what most PCs used for gaming actually ARE. According to a Steam hardware survey, only 50% of PC gamers have computers that support Shader Model 3, and 70% Shader Model 2. SM2 has been the bottom line requirement for most games for about four to five years now, and in the last year Shader Model 3 has become standard minimum, instantly cutting off a full HALF of potential PC gamers, and that's not counting those who don't use Steam.
Valve on the other hand, has a minimum of DX8, or Shader 1.1, for their latest release, the Orange Box. According to that same survey, a full 95% of PC gamers have support for at least Shader 1.1, with the majority of that remaining 5% reporting unrecognized hardware or incorrectly completing the survey rather than flat out using DX7 or worse hardware.
Because, you see, I usually play my games on my laptop.
I play Civ on airplanes, I play it in airports that charge $20 for "All you can use one day internet" when I'm only dealing with a 45 minute layover. I play at coffeeshops, all of which have a different deal with someone else for their hotspot. It's not like I can get a subscription to AT&T or T-mobile or whatever - because even AT&T would only work at like a fifth of the places I'm likely to be asked to pay for my wi-fi. When I'm at home, my internet works ~80% of the time.
To me, having to sign in every time I want to play is jumping through a bunch of fucking hoops. It's kind of like the people who've gotten refurbed 360's and have to sign in under the purchasing live account, online, all of that to play their arcade games or purchased movies.
I bought Civ off of IGN's download service, whatever it's called. It took a day for the most recent expansion to download, but once it did I had to put in a code similar to a cd key. I'm pretty sure it validated online, but I wouldn't swear to it. I never have to mess with re-authenticating it.
When I got a new computer I had to redownload everything (~36 hours) and reinstall it, then type in those codes again, and then it was off without a hitch.
I think the IGN setup is alright. If my internet worked reasonably well, it probably would've been a cinch. On the other hand, I think the idea of having to log in everytime you want to play is ridiculous. Maybe once the internet is everywhere and always works and servers never go down and companies never go out of business or abandon their IP; but until then, there's got to be some compromise.
How are you planning on playing Counterstrike when Valve stops supporting it?
In Steam's default Online Mode, it gets in contact with the Steam servers every time you run the game. If it cannot find an internet connection, it will fail to launch. However, you can set it in an Offline mode, which will verify everything then disable the internet checking until you turn it back Online (for online gaming). Before leaving for your flight, connect to the internet, start up Steam, and tell it to restart in Offline mode. Wait for it to fully restart, and then you're good to go. Close Steam, restart steam, play games, reboot windows, no matter what everything will work just fine. The only limitations are that you can't play online (obviously), and you can't get updates off of Steam (obviously).
As it turned out I was able to play eventually because my mom got a new laptop, and I've bought Audiosurf and Peggle since via Steam. I feel like a dirty damn hypocrite. Notions such as the doctrine of first sale and ownership no longer apply the way Steam works. As a collector, this rubs me the wrong way.
What was my point again? I don't know. I'm still not a fan of having to log on to the internet to play Peggle, I guess. If consoles ever start doing this I'm going to become a 100% retro gamer.
It's not perfect for the devs or the gamers, but it is a start.
And PC gaming will never die. Mostly because WoW will never come to a console.
Streamline a steam like program where its just log in and there are your games, nothing else and i think that would work just fine.
Here's what can (and will go wrong) with this type of scheme down the line:
1) Lack of availability of authentication servers
Either because you're not connected to the internet, or because someone screwed up on their end and the servers are down. This was recently demonstrated by Microsoft with they WGA server authentication down time which left legitimate copies of XP and Vista marked as non-genuine. Congrats, you're a pirate.
2) False positives
Again, let's take Microsoft as an example. With their billions of R&D there are still plenty of people complaining that the WGA scheme incorrectly tags their install as non-genuine. No software is developed without bugs, that's to be expected, but in this case their presence prevents you from using the product and makes you jump through hoops with their tech support to enjoy what you've just paid for.
3) Discontinuation of the authentication scheme
Either because the company that sold you the product has gone under or because they reached the conclusion that it's no longer cost effective to continue to supply the service (the authentication scheme). This was also demonstrated recently when Google stopped providing the commercial component of their video service, leaving people who had purchased videos laced with DRM unable to play them back. That game you just purchased? You'd better forget about playing it again 5 years or more down the line. It will not authenticate.
This is just the stuff I can think off the top of my head. But the really ironic bit is that people who pirate these games actually have a better consumer experience than you since they don't have to deal with all this bullshit.
A) How can you make a "secure server"? Steam is the closest we got right now and even it has things like PACSteam. Nothing on the PC will ever be secure.
B)It's not just the PC. It's just as easy to pirate games for the Wii, PS3 and 360. It takes some extra steps from point A to B but it just won't happen.
People have shown time and time again that having Piracy is just as good as bad. I personally do pirate some games, who hasn't. But when a game is truly good, and offers a unique experience or has an astonishing multiplayer aspect I go out and buy the game. If not it doesn't bother me. PC gamers just need to realize that they can't pirate everything and expect developer's to keep supporting PC.
But in the end, this only helps so much. What about people like me? The one's who refuse to spend the necessary cash on upgrades every fucking year to play the newest games? This doesn't do a damn thing for me anyway.
PC Gaming isn't going to die either way, but this could make it more viable.
But really, as far as solutions, what about some sort of industry organized protest/boycott/strike. If it's something truly near and dear to them they might have to take a stand for it, one outside of our respective boxes.
Singleplayer games will still be pirated to hell and back tho, no solution to that "problem".
hackers brain > security
The end result is pain and trouble for the folks who pay for their games. Take BioShock. I bought it on 360 solely because I didn't want to activate a copy, have to reinstall it, and call the guys up or send them picture proof of the actual DVD, manual, box, receipt. Instead of PC gamers buying it, they revolted and cracked that silly code, making the people that stole the game have the convenience of playing the game and reinstall it all they want. You want to stop piracy? You can't. Some people end up buying a game after they've played the pirated copy, solely to support only the best games.
There's a reason I'm not concerned with this potential new security implementation--I have a Mac and we don't get games anyway. I figure by the time they were to do something like this on a Mac the bugs would be ironed out. Besides, Mac users are used to paying a fortune for poorly ported games anyway.
But to be fair I don't always mind services like Steam terribly it has its place and it works ok most of the time. My biggest gripe with stream is the loss of being able to choose where I want to install a game.
You Sir, are 100% correct on all points.
As an avid retro gamer I often go back and play games from companies that no longer exist, that I originally bought for a computer that no longer exists. If I had to authenticate them again I would be SOL and have to get a crack anyway. How does that prevent piracy?
When you come out with watered down crap like UT3, PC users aren't going to buy it. And on a side not, Gears on PC isn't good either, something about being able to headshot people at range with the sniper rifle while not zoomed in...just too easy.
Crysis sucked IMHO, and I personally have no problem with steam or the authentication that goes with it.
That and the fact that PC gaming is so slow these days they're nothing like they use to be, not even 1/10th. The fact of the matter is that PC gaming is hindered not by piracy but by cheaters. Why play Call of Duty 4 on PC when you have no idea the level of cheating going on at any particular moment it's a 100% chance that you'll run into cheaters day in and day out. This is why so many FPSers are moving to console. Not only that but the fact that replacing the PC far out weighs the games that are currently being made, especially when they are coming out for console.