daveman247 said:
Waaghpowa said:
-Using an indie developer as an example doesnt prove much. They have less money to play with.
Obviously, not sure what you're trying to prove with that. Obviously people with more money are going to have more leeway. Does that mean that costs aren't high? No. And how is an independent developer less important? They're responsible for some of the great more recent games such as The Witcher and Bastion. Paying 40 grande to release a patch is ridiculous.
I did admit that, but the costs of such fees are STILL smaller than the loss of money due to piracy on the PC. There is an article which broaches the topic here: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_6.html
What money is lost due to piracy is never accurate. Publishers often exaggerate in order to justify their actions. A corporation lying? Never!
Also, I guess that means Valve never makes any money. That 5 million concurrent user count they have on a daily basis is all just a lie.
There is also mention that development costs for consoles are cheaper because there is a fixed amount of hardware to use, instead of having to work with the many varied systems of a PC.
What it fails to mention is the cost of development kits as well. Which can cost upwards of 2000 dollars per, or more. http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/513/ask_the_experts_console_vs_pc_.php
The following link talks about getting your game sold, the pros and cons of each platform etc. Not to mention the barriers of receiving certification of authorization. There are so many ways to release a game via PC, other than steam, that an indie dev can do what they want.
And still, my opinion isnt subjective. It is fact. There are more steps to getting a PC game to work than a console game. More steps = less user friendly.
Download steam game, maybe a patch, play steam game. More steps? Sounds subjective to me, since every time I play a game on my PC it usually boils down to download then play.
Nicely leads back to the original topic of this thread
Which the OP asked "Will these kind of leaks lead to tighter control over software distribution in the future generation? New digital distribution models? Super-special encryption and release date checks?". To which I responded "eventually".
If piracy was harder to do on PC, THEN consoles may be less viable. But due to the internet being so open, this is not possible.
It's also due to the open nature of the PC platform, not just the internet. PC gamers don't have to adhere to corporate rules or regulations, proprietary software or accessories without fear of getting your hardware bricked by some faceless entity.
Besides, if developing for consoles was so bad - why would companies bother? As your original link said, its not a charity. Money MUST be being made.
Of course money is being made, console games sell for more and more people are buying them. You seem to miss the part or your link where John Carmack himself states that the move to console is due to the incredibly high development cost and consoles are used to guarantee the most units sold.
John Carmack said:
"developing games costs tens of millions of dollars now and the focus just has to be on the consoles where you've got the chance to move more millions of units there."
Of course people are going to blame piracy every time, because it's easy. There are plenty of developers who do most of their work for PC games and they do just fine. There is more than enough money to be made when making a PC game, opening it to consoles adds costs on top of the normal costs of development, but the benefits are that it will be offset but the high number of sales. Gabe Newell himself has proven that piracy isn't necessarily a cost issue, it's a service issue. http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1213357p1.html
All the evidence needed is in the link I provided earlier. If you're simply ignoring it because you're lazy and don't want to read or simply in denial. Fine, then discussion is over. Might as well argue evolution with a creationist.
