PC Gaming and Piracy: Examined

[JaFO]

Screenshots and vids have ALWAYS been more flattering than actual gameplay, features have ALWAYS been overhyped and system requirements have always been unfortunately low. This isn't a new thing, it hasn't even happened in the last ten years, it has been constantly like this. To blame an industry shift is flat out deluding yourself.

but the industry is part of this problem.
The only vote a consumer has/had is by only trusting those magazines/websites that post real screenshots as opposed to the spoonfed-official stuf that everyone is using.
I'd even say that there isn't a review in the world that has honest to god real screenshots made by the reviewer(s).

Neither can you argue that just because it has always been like this that this practice should continue. The few magazines alive don't need extra high-resolution screenshots, because current hardware can easily deliver.

// ---
A week or even two weeks worth of time is useless if the publishers decide to not do a world-wide release.
Heck .. part of the reason for modded consoles is the fact that games tend to be released months (and sometimes even a year) later in some territories.

...
people could become game-buyers if you gave them a good reason to be a game-buyer
...

pc-games have a very simple way of giving a good reason : bring back the damned manuals !
Seriously ... when was the last time you had a game that had a manual that was more than a few dozen pages and/or a digital file ?
Remember games like Civilization and practically any simulator back in the good old days ? (I still have the Jane's Longbow manual for example)
Or what about all the extra fluff we got when buying a rpg ? (Ultima 6 had a cloth map).
Nowadays these things are onyl availby in 'special editions' (like the limited edition of Bioshock 2 for pc) and even then the best you can hope for is extra content and maybe a soundtrack-cd.
That stuff really made it feel like you spent money on something real instead of a bunch of bytes.

 

[ambershee]

Pirated games may be easier to come by, but PC game sales are not falling as dramatically as the common pirating argument may lead you to believe.

Crysis, once more is a solid example. They may have cried 'unfair' at the large number of pirated copies of that game, but in reality they still sold nearly two million copies of a game that barely ran on average consumer hardware, if at all.

For the record, the number of PC games that have sold that many copies ever is very small - and in many cases they tend to be the more 'legendary' titles such as Doom.

Even if piracy is rife, PC game sales are not in some sort of dramatic decline, as is clearly evidenced by the success of the heavy hitters, the issue is more of the middle-range titles that are entering a far-too-crowded market where the barrier to receivership is much higher then before.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Pirated games may be easier to come by, but PC game sales are not falling as dramatically as the common pirating argument may lead you to believe.

Crysis, once more is a solid example. They may have cried 'unfair' at the large number of pirated copies of that game, but in reality they still sold nearly two million copies of a game that barely ran on average consumer hardware, if at all.

The problem isn't that high profile PC games don't sell, the problem is that they don't sell more than ten years ago. Heck, UT sold between 1 and 2 million copies. This despite the fact that plenty of studies have shown that there are at least 15 times that many gaming ready PCs (which is much more than there were ten years ago).

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

The problem isn't that high profile PC games don't sell, the problem is that they don't sell more than ten years ago. Heck, UT sold between 1 and 2 million copies. This despite the fact that plenty of studies have shown that there are at least 15 times that many gaming ready PCs (which is much more than there were ten years ago).

who is saying what a gaming ready PC is though?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Eh, there was some baseline requirement. I can't remember what it was.

 

[ambershee]

The problem isn't that high profile PC games don't sell, the problem is that they don't sell more than ten years ago.

It hasn't declined at all. Some older games have sold more, simply through the benefit of having been around for much longer, and being re-released several times. In many cases, newer games are still selling more than older titles ever did.

As an example, there are only a handful of games that have sold over 5 million copies; Dawn of War, Doom 3, SimCity 3000, Myst, the Half-Life games, StarCraft and The Sims games.

The Sims 3 was last year. Dawn of War, Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 are just over five years old.

Other 'biggest hitters of all time' on the PC platform include Supreme Commander, C&C3, Bioshock, The Orange Box, HellGate: London, STALKER and Age of Empires 3. That's all within the past few years.

PC Gaming is not in decline. It's just not as lucrative as the more easily accessible and far better advertised console market.


Edit: For the record, UT sold less than 1 million copies around it's release date, and more thereafter when rereleased.

This despite the fact that plenty of studies have shown that there are at least 15 times that many gaming ready PCs (which is much more than there were ten years ago).

That's because in the past few years it has been very difficult to purchase a new machine that isn't 'gaming ready'. Almost all machines come with some sort of fairly capable graphics card built in, the only exceptions tending to be those with nasty Intel onboard sets, but they're still not that common (although perhaps a growing trend).

Plenty of people have 'gaming ready' PCs, but don't play many games on them.

 

[Grobut]

The problem isn't that high profile PC games don't sell, the problem is that they don't sell more than ten years ago. Heck, UT sold between 1 and 2 million copies. This despite the fact that plenty of studies have shown that there are at least 15 times that many gaming ready PCs (which is much more than there were ten years ago).

Why should we assume that more gaming-ready PC's equals more Gamers though?

Back in the mid to late 90's when the PC was really hitting its stride and becomming more than a geeks toy, there was more choice in what kind of PC's that where for sale, anything from glorified typewriters for grandma and up to gaming rigs.
Thease days though, the glorified typewriter market barely exists at all, walk into any store that sells PC's and even the cheapest one in the store could play games (maybe not the latest AAA titles on full graphics, but it can play games).

And besides that, PC's have been steadilly winning favour with the older generations, when i was a pimply faced teen none of my parents dared to touch a PC, they where scared of the thing, they thought they would break it if they touched it, but today? they both own one each, and yes, they are capable of playing games as allmost all PC's are thease days, but they dont play games.. well, my mom plays solitare and thouse Facebook flash games, and thats it, but that doesen't really count, not in this debate anyway as they dont show up on any sales charts.

And not forget the females, again, when i was a teen, PC's where seen as toys for the boys, none of the girls i knew had one, and they certainly wheren't gamers, but fast forward to today, with the rise of email, MSN, Facebook and all of that, and the PC is not an uncommon sight in the girls rooms of today, and most of them can play games.. but gamer chicks are still a rare breed, they don't buy a ton of games, and it's even rarer that it's the action packed genres that cry over piracy when they do buy something.

And then there's the rise of the Console, there are lots of people out there thease days who game allmost exclusively on their Consoles, but most still own a PC for their internet pr0n, email and gamer news and forums, because Consoles are a bit.. not good for thouse tasks, and indeed, most of thease PC's will be capable of gaming, they just aren't beeing used for it.

And lets not forget the PC's triumphant march into the workforce, you could barely find a company that doesen't have a PC somewhere in their opperation thease days, and indeed, some percentage of thease could be called game-ready, but will never play a single game (lest someone lose their job..), and the same is true of education, where PC's are becomming a standard tool aswell, and again, some percentage of thease will be capable of gaming, but not used for it.


The total number of game capable PC's is just not an appropriate yard-stick by which to gauge the gaming market, there's a big difference in who owns them now and 10-15 years ago, and the kind of hardware that is sold as standard.
If there is indeed more piracy now, this just isen't the way to prove it.

It hasn't declined at all. Some older games have sold more, simply through the benefit of having been around for much longer, and being re-released several times. In many cases, newer games are still selling more than older titles ever did.

Just to add to this: Back in the day there was also a much wider gap between big releases, when say.. Quake2 hit the market, what was it's competition at that time? i can't remember it having any of the same caliber, but thease days, big AAA titles crowd the market and hit in waves, it's not uncommon to see 3 or 5 of the big hotly anticipated titles release within the same week, this just isen't the same market i was back then, it's a much more crowded one.

And lets not forget the rise of Multi-platform development, lets just look at Quake2 again, you wanted Q2? you had to have it for the PC! and it was a PC exclusive for a long time, now though.. you want one of the latest shooters? you can buy it for the Xbox360 and PS3 right now! and the PC will have a port of it in 1½ months.. yeah, so thats not the same market now is it? so why should anyone expect the PC to gobble millions of copies when it's forced to be in direct competition with two cheaper platforms?

And despite thease handicaps, games today seem to move more copies on the PC than they did in the Quake2 and even the UT/Q3A era, soooo... why was the sky falling again?

Ahh yes! now i remember, it's because making games has become more expensive! but wait.. who's fault is that exactly? i know it's not mine, so i'll go right on ahead and point the finger at the 1upping graphical arms race the industry has been engaged in since games went 3d or thereabouts, so gee, could the problem simply be that the industry overestimated the markets growth potential and overreached themselves? God no! perish the thought! bad Grobut! BAD! how dare i suggest the industry shares any blame for their current situation, it's preposterous! no, clearly the blame lies fully with the end users, who are all damned dirty pirates! PIRATES I SAY!!!

 

[dragonfliet]

Grobut,

While indeed it would be foolish to imply that with 15x as many gaming PCs there would be 15x more gamers, the fact that the gaming share is not growing while yet more and more people have capable PCs is a surprising, surprising fact (backed up, again, by the high number of pirated games). The gaming pc argument is simply a counter to the whining cry that people put out that the PC industry isn't growing because games require such a heavy hardware investment. It simply isn't true. It isn't expensive anymore to game on PC because people already have the machines.

The problem with the numbers staying the same comes from the fact that games cost SIGNIFICANTLY more to make, yet they aren't bringing in the sales to justify the costs.

Look at the BC2 thing. The Dev is saying that PC had more people on than the consoles and yet from the numbers we have so far, the PC made up only 16% of the sales. Either the PC people don't sleep or (DING DING) piracy is in play.

No one of these things is alarming, but all of them together certainly is.

~Jason

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I don't think PC game sales are declining at all. I think they are staying roughly the same as they always have.

Units moved matters less and less as time goes on. I'm pretty sure you can find a new copy of UT for no more than $10 right now, so continued sales aren't helping them rake in any additional money. For what it's worth, I've been told that UT, UT2003, UT2004, and UT3 have all sold pretty much the same amount of units within the first 6 months.

 

[Grobut]

Grobut,

While indeed it would be foolish to imply that with 15x as many gaming PCs there would be 15x more gamers, the fact that the gaming share is not growing while yet more and more people have capable PCs is a surprising, surprising fact (backed up, again, by the high number of pirated games). The gaming pc argument is simply a counter to the whining cry that people put out that the PC industry isn't growing because games require such a heavy hardware investment. It simply isn't true. It isn't expensive anymore to game on PC because people already have the machines.

The problem with the numbers staying the same comes from the fact that games cost SIGNIFICANTLY more to make, yet they aren't bringing in the sales to justify the costs.

Look at the BC2 thing. The Dev is saying that PC had more people on than the consoles and yet from the numbers we have so far, the PC made up only 16% of the sales. Either the PC people don't sleep or (DING DING) piracy is in play.

No one of these things is alarming, but all of them together certainly is.

~Jason

Hah! i insta-edited your arse! neener neener neener!

No but seriously, with the examples i've given, standard hardware beeing more beefy, older genrations, Consoles finding all new popularity, more women adopting the PC and all that, i don't think it should be all that shocking that there are so many more game-ready PC's than there are PC gamers, atleast i'm not the least bit supriced by the fact.

And as for games costing more to make, i covered it in my edit, but really, who's fault is that? i've been saying it for many years now, the constant graphical arms race was going to burry the industry, they have been thrashing the graphical innovations along at a breakneck speed, constantly moving the bar higher with every release, and quite frankly, at an unrealistic pace, how many games have been released that could never be maxed out on the most powerfull home cumputers avalible at their time of release?

And sadly, in doing this so consistantly for decades, they have also conditioned the consumers to expect every new game to be a quantum leap in graphics, so it's a bit of a catch 22..

And it has cost gaming more than a higher development pricetag aswell, since so many resources go into blinging out the games with the latest and greatest tech, games have suffered in other areas, they have gotten much shorter because it takes so long to make just one level/map, story and atmosphere building often takes the backseat to more flashy effects and so on, you just don't find games on the scale of say.. Unreal and Deus-Ex anymore, and i lament their loss.


And lets talk piracy then, did anyone really expect it to go away? if so, i'll gladly call them an idiot to their face, it should have been painfully obvious to anyone that as the market grew, the newcommers would not all be legit customers who buy their games, there was also going to be pirates amongst them, that shoulden't have caught anyone by suprice.

So it seems to me that the industry has painted themselves into a corner here, apparently they expected the market to grow at the same pace as their development costs, despite the fact that they where moving ahead at an unrealistic pace that the hardware could barely catch up to, and now it is catching up to them, they are starting to feel the hurt, the number of people willing to pay for their products nolonger offset their high development costs like they expected it would.

Honestly, am i the only one who saw this comming from 10 years away? how could it not end up like this?

What did they really expect? that there was no cieling to the market? that it would be ever expanding like the univers? that DRM would grow lazer pew pew's capable of forcing people at gunpoint to buy games? what? surely they must have realized that this market, just like any other on the planet, only has X number of people willing to pay for their services at any one time, and that they would need to adjust their expectations accordingly..


Yeah piracy is a problem allright, but it's one we all knew existed, and one companies should have expected, so before we charge off into the sunset in a holier than thou anti-pirate crusade, perhabs we should take a minute to ponder the industry's own culpabillity in their current predicament..

 

[Capt.Toilet]

I don't think PC game sales are declining at all. I think they are staying roughly the same as they always have.

And if Valve would release steam sales to the public, I am sure that number would increase quite a bit.

 

[dragonfliet]

Your argument has a major flaw, however. This isn't the problem of the games. The games will continue to be made looking better and better and doing all of the neat things--only you're not going to see them on PC. The console side of things is doing great, selling copies, etc. The problem isn't the INDUSTRY not having the AAA games, but the PC. Consoles are seeing more growth which scales well and PC is not and frankly, if it continues like that, the PC will simply be left to the indy devs, so if you want to play Machinarium, World of Goo and Torchlight (all good games) and not BF3, Assassin's Creed, etc., you're in luck.

Oh, as for the what was out then that was good: LOTS. But with piracy not nearly as big of a problem, they were MERELY competing against each other. You talk about cheap ports or delayed ports but again, you're trying to make a chicken and the egg argument only it was piracy which came before the delayed ports. Previously, games were ported from PC to console, and not the other way around, a large amount of the time. Piracy changed that. Again, the gaming industry isn't in risk of going away, gaming on the PC (again, AAA titles, mostly) is.

~Jason

 

[ambershee]

And if Valve would release steam sales to the public, I am sure that number would increase quite a bit.

This is also largely correct, digital download sales aren't always recorded in sales statistics either - and they represent a much more significant sector in the PC space than they do in console space.

PC Game sales over all are rising, but individual title sales are maintaining a status quo. There are far more PC gamers than before, each often purchasing more titles than before, but the sheer volume of PC games now released each year is not growing as quickly, which is what is resulting in the seemingly smaller PC market.


Every so often, a big hitter will come along, and smash that aside. The Sims is a classic example that demonstrates how many more PC gamers there actually are compared to any other individual platform. Try selling 10 million copies of a game on the 360 or Ps3..

 

[Grobut]

Your argument has a major flaw, however. This isn't the problem of the games. The games will continue to be made looking better and better and doing all of the neat things--only you're not going to see them on PC. The console side of things is doing great, selling copies, etc. The problem isn't the INDUSTRY not having the AAA games, but the PC. Consoles are seeing more growth which scales well and PC is not and frankly, if it continues like that, the PC will simply be left to the indy devs, so if you want to play Machinarium, World of Goo and Torchlight (all good games) and not BF3, Assassin's Creed, etc., you're in luck.

Oh, as for the what was out then that was good: LOTS. But with piracy not nearly as big of a problem, they were MERELY competing against each other. You talk about cheap ports or delayed ports but again, you're trying to make a chicken and the egg argument only it was piracy which came before the delayed ports. Previously, games were ported from PC to console, and not the other way around, a large amount of the time. Piracy changed that. Again, the gaming industry isn't in risk of going away, gaming on the PC (again, AAA titles, mostly) is.

~Jason

I'm not disputing that at all, infact, as you may recall, i have been whining and pining over the state of PC games and how they are the wrong kind of games thease days for a long time now

Thing is, i do feel the PC and Console game markets are rather different beasts, and that the current trend of treating them as identical, and releasing the exact same games on both markets is a big mistake, one that definately contributes to the poor sales, and people chosing to game on their Consoles instead of their PC's.

I think the PC does need more exclusives before it will become profitable again, and if you look at the user data Steam has gathered on the average PC's in opperation today, then it should also be obvious that Crysis levels of overcompensatory bling bling graphics are not what the market is geared for at all, things have changed, perhabs people got sick of upgrading because 80% of games where limited to the capabillities of the Consoles anyway, maybe the economy is to blame, whatever it is, there seems to be fewer PC gamers with super beefy highend rigs thease days, so if you want to make money on the PC, you'll want to take that into account, and in turn, it'll also reduce the overhead and cost of development, making it more profitable on a market that is smaller than the Console market, makes some sense, does it not?

But above all, what needs to be satiesfied is the mechanics of supply and demand, the industry just isen't doing much to satiesfy the demand for good PC games (and by that i mean PC exclusives), and very little if anything at all to spark interest in the platform and attract new gamers to it.


Now as you assert, the Console market is doing great, and it's on the PC that there are too many pirates per paying customers, yeah thats true, but have you also wondered why that is? is it just that piracy has exploded out of nowhere? or is it that the market has become lobsided?

Where are the paying customers? well mostly on the Consoles thease days, but why should that suprice anyone? they are marketed to hell and back, its where all the games are beeing released, and instrumental to their success is their lower price of purchase (thease days it's less of an issue, but back when the PS2 and Xbox started to create this market situation, the gap was much wider, and now it lives on as a standard).

And ofcourse, you find most of the pirates on the PC, but again i ask, why is that supricing? where else would they be? the PC is an open platform that is much, much easier to pirate on, so obviously it's going to be the platform of choice for the pirates.

You see what i'm saying? if you only look at the PC market, its damned easy to make claims about piracy having exploded! yeah, but is it really because piracy has run amok? or because today there are more overall gamers than they where 10 years ago, and for the same reason also more pirates, and the problem looks much worse than it is on the PC because more gamers choose to buy Consoles, whilst Pirates are targeting the PC because its better suited for their goals? that there is a lobsided distribution between legit customers and pirates?

I'd say that makes perfect sense, wouldent you?

So by that token, if the industry made the effort to revive the PC, if it once again boasted an attractive catalogue of exclusive titles that where made-for-PC that would attract gamers to the platfom, instead of just getting sloppy seconds from the Console market, then woulden't it stand to reason that a lot more legit customers would flock to the platform and it would do a hell of a lot better, and the buy-to-pirate ratio would be much improved? i'd think so.

Obviously the pirates would still be there, they aren't going to die off, they would still choose the platform because it's easier to pirate on, but they would be there regardless, you know it and i know it.


But, i will have to give you a swift kick in the bum for ignoring my main point:

*Kick*

Which was that the industry is too damned quick to tell us that the problem is 100% the pirates fault, but comon, i call BS, the industry has made some bad choices over the years, that certainly has contributed to the economic situation they find themselves in, they share blame too, and we shoulden't let them sweep that under the rug whilst pointing fingers at everyone else but themselves, that dog wont hunt.

If real solutions are to be found, we cannot allow scapegoating and passing of the buck to muddy the waters, and taint our perceptions of the real situation.

 

[dragonfliet]

While again I'm going to agree that piracy isn't going to be 100% of the problem (that would be silly) and I wouldn't put the rate at which piracy costs a game a sale over 50% (that would also be silly and I would guess that the answer lies somewhere in the 30-50% range), you're deluding yourself a bit when you argue for why piracy affects the PC more.

You're right in saying it's because PC is an open platform, but that's it. The reason piracy isn't NEARLY as much of a problem on the consoles is, in essence, DRM. You can't modify your console or you get banned and so 1) people who do mod sometimes get caught and banned and cry about it 2) many people don't mod their console for fear of the ban. Meanwhile, you simply can't lock out someone's PC from playing games. The fact that piracy v sales for the PC is 10-1 or 5-1 and MUCH lower for consoles isn't because the PC has failed to attract gamers like the console has (because there would be a similar proportion of pirate-sales; which is to say, there would be LESS copies sold, but also less pirated copies, and as it stands now there are less copies sold and MORE pirated copies), but simply because it's much more simple and feasible. Putting out more exclusives isn't going to fix this problem. So should you make an exclusive like Crysis that eventually sold 2 million copies (sales were very slow for the game), but has many, many times that in downloads) that is still the best looking game out there and was pretty well received across the board, or do you do a Crysis 2 and put it on consoles and cut your piracy WAY down and get higher sales? Unless something happens to keep the pirates away, whether through spreading the word and making people feel bad or DRM which is effective for more than a few days and ISN'T massively intrusive *COUGH*UBISOFT*COUGH*, then PC gaming will simply not be home to AAA titles as it has been.

~Jason

 

[Grobut]

While again I'm going to agree that piracy isn't going to be 100% of the problem (that would be silly) and I wouldn't put the rate at which piracy costs a game a sale over 50% (that would also be silly and I would guess that the answer lies somewhere in the 30-50% range), you're deluding yourself a bit when you argue for why piracy affects the PC more.

You're right in saying it's because PC is an open platform, but that's it. The reason piracy isn't NEARLY as much of a problem on the consoles is, in essence, DRM. You can't modify your console or you get banned and so 1) people who do mod sometimes get caught and banned and cry about it 2) many people don't mod their console for fear of the ban. Meanwhile, you simply can't lock out someone's PC from playing games. The fact that piracy v sales for the PC is 10-1 or 5-1 and MUCH lower for consoles isn't because the PC has failed to attract gamers like the console has (because there would be a similar proportion of pirate-sales; which is to say, there would be LESS copies sold, but also less pirated copies, and as it stands now there are less copies sold and MORE pirated copies), but simply because it's much more simple and feasible. Putting out more exclusives isn't going to fix this problem. So should you make an exclusive like Crysis that eventually sold 2 million copies (sales were very slow for the game), but has many, many times that in downloads) that is still the best looking game out there and was pretty well received across the board, or do you do a Crysis 2 and put it on consoles and cut your piracy WAY down and get higher sales? Unless something happens to keep the pirates away, whether through spreading the word and making people feel bad or DRM which is effective for more than a few days and ISN'T massively intrusive *COUGH*UBISOFT*COUGH*, then PC gaming will simply not be home to AAA titles as it has been.

~Jason

You tend to argue a bit too much in black or white, the "only reason" is not that the PC is open source, it's that it's open source and at present, it has allmost the same games the Consoles do (barring a few Console exclusives), it's got the content, it is the path of least resistance for cracking, distribution and playing, so it is the obvious choice of pirates right now.

Take away the PC games though, and that would not be the end of large scale piracy, not by a long shot, if there's no worthy games left to steal on the PC, the pirates would just set sail for HMS Console and prepare to board, and it'd be shaky at first, but all thouse talented crackers that are currently working exclusively on the PC, would now all be chipping away at the Consoles defenses, and you know what that means, Console piracy would become easier and more effective, and piracy would skyrocket on Consoles despite their DRM.

Probably the main reason Console piracy isen't more rampant than it is right now, is that there's little need for it, the PC is there, it has most of the games that gets released, and it's much easier right now, so thats where the pirates and the crackers focus their attention.
But if you changed that balance, the pirates would swoop down on the Consoles like vultures on a sunbaked carcass, simple as that.


But don't get me wrong about the whole DRM issue, i'm not one of thouse guys who thinks the industry will ever go back to zero protection, thats just not going to happen, and besides, it does make sense to atleast make sure that little Timmy can't just plop a game into his machine and start spitting out perfect copies to all his school chumps as simple as flicking a switch.

In truth, i dont mind the DRM of yesteryear, the disc-checks and the CD-keys and all of that, it required nothing too serious of the end user, and nothing stopped the end user from installing and playing the game he had purchased either, i can even accept Steam, if Steam is all that is used then thats fine, it's only when they start piling on more DRM that i start seeing red.

What i cannot, and will not accept as a legitimate customer who payed good money for the product, is this new wave of draconian DRM, stuff like limited activations, needing a constant internet connection, needing to phone home every 14 days or you lose an activation, needing to run several useless bloatware apps that i must register an account with, and that does nothing usefull other than beeing annoying DRM, and all of this junk they are trying to push on us now, that.. no, just no, i'm not ok with that, and i don't think any consumer should be.


If they could make better and more secure DRM, that is no more imposing to the legit customer than the CD-keys where, or Steam is, then i'm just fine with that, thats not a problem, only for the pirates and who cares about them.. but that's not what we're seeing at all, we're seeing sh.. poopoo like what UBI are pulling right now, and that can go die in a fire

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The pirates are already on consoles and they just don't do it for a variety of reasons.

The barrier to entry for pirating on the PC isn't just slightly lower than on console. Pirating on PC takes no more effort than HAVING a PC. Pirating on consoles takes HARDWARE MODIFICATIONS of a closed system, which is bound to cause problems (and consistently does). How many people do you know that would drop $300 on a console to pirate games on it that has a reasonably high chance of turning into a massive paperweight while doing so? I don't know anybody with that kind of money.

So, if no PC games existed and gaming was only on consoles, I think piracy rates might rise slightly, if not stay precisely consistent in terms of percent of owners of the particular console who pirate games. The thing is, anyone who wants to pirate console games already are, and everyone else doesn't give a crap.

I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but even I can see the reality of how piracy has damaged the PC game industry over the last 15 years.

 

[Grobut]

I think you underestimate the resolve of pirates there Brizz, the most dedicated of them are without a doubt on the PC now, for all the reasons we've been talking about, but if they where forced to move to the Consoles, i think you would see significantly bigger effects than you are anticipating there.

Getting stuff like mod chips and the like may be difficult right now due to relatively low demand, why bother when you can buy a PC and do your piracy there right? but if forced to abandon the PC, all thease pirates would still prefer to pirate, so demand would skyrocket, and the distribution of thease things would become easier, and all thouse cracker groups that work tirelessly on PC games and their DRM would start working on the Consoles instead (you gotta go where the market is), and i don't know about you, but i don't belive any DRM is foolproof, and with this kind of experiance bearing down on it, is it really safe to assume they woulden't make major strides in cracking it and making Console piracy easier? i would not want to take that bet..

Besides, i don't know when you got started as a gamer, but i remeber when all piracy involved physical things changing hands, there was no internet, it was tapes and floppies physically getting passed around, and then the Zip discs and the CD's, and you'd better belive it was rampant, it wasen't difficult at all to get your hands on the stuff, there was a huge distribution network surrounding it all.

This part of the "pirate culture" is barely a blip on the radar today, because the internet removed the need, but if the need returns, so will large scale physical piracy, you can bet on it, and if there's enough money in it, and there easilly could be, you might just get groups like the Russian mob interested in distribution, and then it'll flood the market for sure.

 

[JaFO]

The primary reason for not being afraid of piracy on consoles is the lack of the know-how required to successfully use 'illegal' versions of games.

However don't worry ... when we'll get to Windows 11 (or whatever MS decides to name its next OS ...) PC's will have the same level of 'protection' as consoles.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but laptops already feature stuff like 'trusted computing module' (at least mine does).
We already know that MS is slowly but surely integrating that bit of tech into its OS (and as was said ... Linux will too).

The one thing that keeps the pc from becoming the closed platform that consoles are is the level of technical knowledge of the average user. And I have noticed that knowledge is disappearing. A lot of pc-users barely understand the commandline.
creating & mounting of discs already is becoming an issue (though luckily only pirates suffer ).
And with bare-bones/DIY pc's becoming a thing of the past we effectively already have consolized(tm) the pc. That (and Vista/W7) is why there is a growing number of 'game-ready' pc's out there.

So ... while the pc may technically be an 'open' platform, the reality is that there are fewer people out there taking advantage of that bit. The average consumer is real happy to have the iWindows-machine.

who is saying what a gaming ready PC is though?

probably the same kind of people that tried to define (and failed to do so) a 'multi-media capable pc'.
It might have been the glorious 'games for windows'-initiative or whatever its name was (effectively showing how crappy they've been at promoting their cause).

The open nature of the pc-platform is also its fatal flaw, because it makes is next to impossible to define a 'game-ready' or 'game-capable' machine in a manner that the average consumer could understand.

 

[dragonfliet]

I think you underestimate the resolve of pirates there Brizz, the most dedicated of them are without a doubt on the PC now, for all the reasons we've been talking about, but if they where forced to move to the Consoles, i think you would see significantly bigger effects than you are anticipating there.

Again, piracy already exists for the consoles and certainly the more hardcore the pirates, the less able you are to stop them. Remember, however, that hardcore pirates are not who we are talking about. Nothing can be done about them, tbh, except to slow them down, and not even always very successfully.

The problem with the PC is that ANYONE can pirate it (like Brizz said) and there are no consequences. Many people can also mod their xbox (it's not really hard nor expensive) but it comes with the possibility that if they don't stay on top of their game they will get entirely locked out by MS. What it does (and would continue to do) is stop the majority of the casual pirates whereas the majority of the hardcore pirates would continue. Do I really think that the 4 million people that downloaded MW2 are hardcore? No. I don't even think that 30% of them were, I think that the vast majority were simply people (many of whom probably also have a 360 or PS3) who would rather get it for free and why not, they reason, it's not like it hurts anyone or has any real consequence.

I don't underestimate the hardcore (they have every game for the 360 already cracked), I just know that they are the few.

~Jason

P.S. This is a relatively lively and reasonable discussion, it's 7 pages long and I don't think anyone has even been slightly compared to Hitler. I am amazed.