158 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Yet obviously it hasn't instilled the fear of pirating music into the general public, as he music industry isn't magically recovering back to their 1990's numbers. If people try and do the same to strong arm gamers into submission, they will fail. If government agencies across the world can't stop pirates from being scared, there's no reason to think a developer would.


What would be smart is for video game developers to look at the music industry for lessons. Mostly in how to not do things, but more recently, how to do a few. The number of subscription-based music devices is on the rise. Services like Pandora or Spotify have found ways to provide people what they want in an instant, need-it-now-get-it-now digital world and still make money in a legal way that also pays the artists and record publishers.

Maybe instead of a platform like Origin, EA might fare better with a subscription model to let you play all of their game library for a flat fee. Developers would get revenue based on how many players use the service for that developer's particular game(s), EA gets a steady revenue stream and the consumer doesn't have to get suckered into making purchases on hype, not pushed into pre-ordering for day one. That's a solution I would entertain.

It doesn't remove hackers, but it makes it as viable of a method as Netflix is in a world of free downloadable pirated movies. Which is to say... pretty dang viable.

 

What you suggest depends on the moral compass of the people involved. The only reason why NetFlix or other subscription based services exist is based on the moral inclination of the user. The person has to want to do the legal and right action. 

Or they believe that punishment, fate or karma will come back to bite them in some form or the other.

 

If that is the case there is very little reason for a game company to keep producing games if they are unable to make a decent profit at it. Better to close up shop and move on to an enterprise that is more lucrative. Let those employees move on to careers that can give them a better standard of living and they are justly compensated.

Where there is nothing to steal there will be no thieves. Or enter the company to an industry where the punishment for said criminal activity will fit the crime and prosecution occurs to the full extent of the law.

[Schreckstoff]

What you suggest depends on the moral compass of the people involved. The only reason why NetFlix or other subscription based services exist is based on the moral inclination of the user. The person has to want to do the legal and right action. 

Or they believe that punishment, fate or karma will come back to bite them in some form or the other.

 

If that is the case there is very little reason for a game company to keep producing games if they are unable to make a decent profit at it. Better to close up shop and move on to an enterprise that is more lucrative. Let those employees move on to careers that can give them a better standard of living and they are justly compensated.

Where there is nothing to steal there will be no thieves. Or enter the company to an industry where the punishment for said criminal activity will fit the crime and prosecution occurs to the full extent of the law.

 

Netflix works through convenience. Downloading tv series still takes an effort, you have to search links, download them, then either stream it to the TV or put it on a storage media and then have a device that can play mkv files. I still download many series as there simply isn't any legal way of watching us series in the original version but to wait for the bluray, that is if amazon ships it to Europe, and good luck trying to live spoiler free for a year, at least. I now even use a VPN service to get access to netflix which I have to pay for separately to netflix which isn't legal as well.

[AlanC9]

In addition to convenience, there's a legitimate feeling to Netflix et al. that I don't think you get from actual pirating sites; certainly not the ones I've seen. I'm sort of with Realmzmaster here, except that I don't think the mechanism is quite as individually-based as he made it sound a couple of posts ago. Frankly, I'm not sure a significant number of individuals even have moral compasses, let alone ones that will override community norms.

[Fast Jimmy]

Do you trust the government to improve it over time? To do the necessary R&D? And to do so in a cost-effective way?

I trust the government to lease out or contract the maintenance and development to one group, while the use remaining open to multiple competitor's. Just like roads.

[Fast Jimmy]

Netflix works through convenience. Downloading tv series still takes an effort, you have to search links, download them, then either stream it to the TV or put it on a storage media and then have a device that can play mkv files. I still download many series as there simply isn't any legal way of watching us series in the original version but to wait for the bluray, that is if amazon ships it to Europe, and good luck trying to live spoiler free for a year, at least. I now even use a VPN service to get access to netflix which I have to pay for separately to netflix which isn't legal as well.

This is my point, exactly. Netflix is a centralized, easy to use source that prompts its users when new content is ready, recommends content similar to things you've watched before, allows a simple method of billing and has a large library of content ready right at launch. It is incredibly easy to pick up and begin enjoying. Pirating is easy, but a user must know exactly what they are searching for. They must know the name of the product, they must know if it has been released or not, they must take exact steps to download and, since that takes time, must then follow up and execute that request later.

Moral compass has nothing to do with it - you are providing a service. If someone can find and pirate a movie free with small effort, Netflix makes it effortless. Certainly FAR less effort (and far less money) than purchasing the item, either through a traditional brick and mortar store like Best Buy or have it shipped out via a site like Amazon. It has become a cheaper alternative than other legal means, while becoming more convenient and used friendly than illegal ones.

That's what video game developers/publishers should be looking at. Steam and Origin does this somewhat, letting you know games your friends have played, what games are on sale, what new games are out, community sections for discussion and things like mod development and distribution... but they still have the barrier of the consumer needing to fork up cash at every decision level. It has all the convenience but still the biggest barrier - price points at every turn. If they could find a way to open up the experience to allow access to the entire library at their command for a flat, reasonable fee like Netflix does, you could possibly see a very large change to the industry landscape in a matter of years.

No moral fear mongering required.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I trust the government to lease out or contract the maintenance and development to one group, while the use remaining open to multiple competitor's. Just like roads.

Road technology hasn't changed much in the past 50 years.

Somehow I doubt we would have seen the massive increases in bandwidth (especially since the early demand for bandwidth was driven so heavily by demand for pornography) had the government been in charge.

[Fast Jimmy]

Road technology hasn't changed much in the past 50 years.
Somehow I doubt we would have seen the massive increases in bandwidth (especially since the early demand for bandwidth was driven so heavily by demand for pornography) had the government been in charge.

I disagree. The US government is, despite its reputation as being ineffective, extremely good at leveraging its private contractors to deliver high quality results. Say what you will about its bureaucratic function - the ability to make impossible demands of private firms that hold them to a higher standard than the rest of the commercial market is near legend.

Not to mention if private companies like ATT or Verizon were at the mercy of another government-designated company to maintain and expand their infrastrcuture to meet customer demands, they would be pounding down their door, demanding that the government revoke their contract because they can't keep up with the market. When, in today's world, ATT and Verizon don't want to pony up a dime more than they have to, because it costs them money and none of the competition is rushing to spend that money, either.

By fracturing the responsibility and throwing a huge government contract in the midst, barrier to entry in the Industry becomes much lower, completion becomes much fiercer and intense corporate back stabbing runs amok. AKA, good capitalism at work.

EDIT: Also, the US (I'm not entirely sure about the rest of North America) has very slow Internet speeds compared to other Europe and Asian nations. For one, there are markets with no access to anything other than dial up. But in addition to that, even major metropolitan markets have avetage speeds of 25 MB/sec, markets in Europe have roughly double that speed, while Hong along has more than TRIPLE that. source

Letting private companies control everything is not good capitalism. It's leads to sluggish, bloated administration that is slow to react to customer demands. The government gets involved one way or the other - through the inevitable antitrust suits that then fracture the market (like what we saw in the 80's with ATT). Why not have the government fund and own the lines and divide the adminstration of the various services to different companies, where the playing field is level and everyone benefits (and is pushing for) improved innovation and effective maintenance?

[9TailsFox]

They are doing the right thing for gamers, it is being released across all platforms, it is your choice not to install origin, you already admitted having steam an over 300 games on it, so having Origin installed on your pc alongside it should pose no problems with you

Yes it's big problem all programs running at once use resources.

[Schreckstoff]

Yes it's big problem all programs running at once use resources.

 

It takes like 2 mouseclicks to close any of them... Alternatively you could also only use the keyboard.

[Sylvius the Mad]

By fracturing the responsibility and throwing a huge government contract in the midst, barrier to entry in the Industry becomes much lower, completion becomes much fiercer and intense corporate back stabbing runs amok. AKA, good capitalism at work.

EDIT: Also, the US (I'm not entirely sure about the rest of North America) has very slow Internet speeds compared to other Europe and Asian nations. For one, there are markets with no access to anything other than dial up. But in addition to that, even major metropolitan markets have avetage speeds of 25 MB/sec, markets in Europe have roughly double that speed, while Hong along has more than TRIPLE that. source

Increased competition is certainly a good thing. If it leads to increased competition and better service, I'd certainly support it.

Regarding those speed numbers though, first of all you got your units wrong. It's mbps (megabits per second). You wrote megabytes/second. That's very different. Second, you need to take geography into account. Those other countries are much smaller and more evenly populated. Getting super high speed Internet to rural Idaho is very different from doing it in Singapore.

[Fast Jimmy]

Increased competition is certainly a good thing. If it leads to increased competition and better service, I'd certainly support it.
Regarding those speed numbers though, first of all you got your units wrong. It's mbps (megabits per second). You wrote megabytes/second. That's very different. Second, you need to take geography into account. Those other countries are much smaller and more evenly populated. Getting super high speed Internet to rural Idaho is very different from doing it in Singapore.

Fair enough.

But to put it in perspective, I live in the 16th largest city in the US, but the only cable ISP provider (faster than any of the DSL options by far) provides speeds of up to 30 mbs as the fastest, "deluxe" speed, with the more common packages being at 20. Even if the infrastructure exists for faster speeds, ISP providers aren't offering them at competitive prices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fair enough.

But to put it in perspective, I live in the 16th largest city in the US, but the only cable ISP provided (faster than any of the DSL options by far) provides speeds of up to 30 mbs as the fastest, "deluxe" speed, with the more common packages being at 20. Even if the infrastructure exists for faster speeds, ISP providers aren't offering them at competitive prices.

That there is only one provider is a problem. Why is there only one? Is that a legacy of a government-backed monopoly?

That's certainly why Canadian cities tend to have only on cable provider.

I made the point about geography because I'm in Canada (which ranks below the US on your list). I'm in one of the more heavily populated (and the wealthiest) regions, but that still means that there are fewer than 4 million people spread over an area larger than France. It's hard to get high speed Internet to all those people.

That said, Saskatchewan (one million people in an area larger than France) has done a terrific job of it, and their infrastructure and largest ISP are both government owned and operated.

[Fast Jimmy]

That there is only one provider is a problem. Why is there only one? Is that a legacy of a government-backed monopoly?
That's certainly why Canadian cities tend to have only on cable provider.
I made the point about geography because I'm in Canada (which ranks below the US on your list). I'm in one of the more heavily populated (and the wealthiest) regions, but that still means that there are fewer than 4 million people spread over an area larger than France. It's hard to get high speed Internet to all those people.
That said, Saskatchewan (one million people in an area larger than France) has done a terrific job of it, and their infrastructure and largest ISP are both government owned and operated.

The slow rates are due to the lines being privately owned, where the only company that can provide devices on them is the company that does. Which means for competition to exist, a company either needs to come in and install all of their own lines (expensive, problematic and, ultimately, wasteful since bandwidth exists in the current lines) or pay the company who owns the lines a fee to use them. Of course, it is the company who owns line's best interest to charge through the nose to keep out competition.

Ergo, nothing changes. And we have Internet using twenty year old technology in even the best instances. That wouldn't happen in a system of government ownership AND proper private market vendor relationships. Having the government control everything is just as bad as having one company - no incentive to do anything on either front.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The slow rates are due to the lines being privately owned, where the only company that can provide devices on them is the company that does. Which means for competition to exist, a company either needs to come in and install all of their own lines (expensive, problematic and, ultimately, wasteful since bandwidth exists in the current lines) or pay the company who owns the lines a fee to use them. Of course, it is the company who owns line's best interest to charge through the nose to keep out competition.

Ergo, nothing changes. And we have Internet using twenty year old technology in even the best instances. That wouldn't happen in a system of government ownership AND proper private market vendor relationships. Having the government control everything is just as bad as having one company - no incentive to do anything on either front.

Why does bandwidth exist in the current lines?

If I own a multi-billion dollar asset, I want it to be running at or near capacity all of the time.

[Fast Jimmy]

Why does bandwidth exist in the current lines?
If I own a multi-billion dollar asset, I want it to be running at or near capacity all of the time.

Well, this is typical of all systems - you have tons of bandwidth because, at peak usage, you don't want to exceed your bandwidth.

They have the bandwidth to give everyone 100mbs+ speeds, but not for everyone to use them all at once.

Now... if you could find the individuals who use the most data and begin reducing back the speed of their access to make the overall usage more stable... <begin net neutrality discussion that would put this thread completely off the rails>

[Realmzmaster]

This is my point, exactly. Netflix is a centralized, easy to use source that prompts its users when new content is ready, recommends content similar to things you've watched before, allows a simple method of billing and has a large library of content ready right at launch. It is incredibly easy to pick up and begin enjoying. Pirating is easy, but a user must know exactly what they are searching for. They must know the name of the product, they must know if it has been released or not, they must take exact steps to download and, since that takes time, must then follow up and execute that request later.

Moral compass has nothing to do with it - you are providing a service. If someone can find and pirate a movie free with small effort, Netflix makes it effortless. Certainly FAR less effort (and far less money) than purchasing the item, either through a traditional brick and mortar store like Best Buy or have it shipped out via a site like Amazon. It has become a cheaper alternative than other legal means, while becoming more convenient and used friendly than illegal ones.

That's what video game developers/publishers should be looking at. Steam and Origin does this somewhat, letting you know games your friends have played, what games are on sale, what new games are out, community sections for discussion and things like mod development and distribution... but they still have the barrier of the consumer needing to fork up cash at every decision level. It has all the convenience but still the biggest barrier - price points at every turn. If they could find a way to open up the experience to allow access to the entire library at their command for a flat, reasonable fee like Netflix does, you could possibly see a very large change to the industry landscape in a matter of years.

No moral fear mongering required.

 

The assumption here is that most people do not know what movies are out or available. I can assure you most people do otherwise the bootleggers in my neighborhood selling 10 movies for $10 would be out of business. It is not just convenience. NetFlix subscription costs money per month. Many people will not pay it especially if there is a cheaper alternative.

 

If you are savvy enough to use the Internet and Facebook going to certain torrent sites is easy and downloading even easier. There are morals involved and not just convenience. I teach now for a living . I can assure you that my students (from some of the poorest neighborhoods) can tell you exactly where to download and how to do it. Many of them are in the hustle. The ones that are not is because of their moral compass. 

 

P.S Nor repeat customers the hustlers will give a deal of 20 movies for $15.00

[Fast Jimmy]

The assumption here is that most people do not know what movies are out or available. I can assure you most people do otherwise the bootleggers in my neighborhood selling 10 movies for $10 would be out of business. It is not just convenience. NetFlix subscription costs money per month. Many people will not pay it especially if there is a cheaper alternative.
 
If you are savvy enough to use the Internet and Facebook going to certain torrent sites is easy and downloading even easier. There are morals involved and not just convenience. I teach now for a living . I can assure you that my students (from some of the poorest neighborhoods) can tell you exactly where to download and how to do it. Many of them are in the hustle. The ones that are not is because of their moral compass.

The people you are referencing selling 10 movies for $10 don't compare to Netflix. Netflix sells THOUSANDS of movies and shows for $15 a month. You can watch 100 episodes or movies in a month's time.

It almost makes it sound like you are saying Netflix is a silly business idea that is only effective because people are morally virtuous or are afraid of pirating. That's not the case.

I submit an example of why pirating is so widespread.

http://theoatmeal.co...game_of_thrones

When convenience and accessibility block consumers who actively want to give your product money, you have this happen.

[Realmzmaster]

I need to get back on topic. I see no reason for EA to put the game on Steam unless Valve and EA can come to a mutually agreeable resolution of their issues. I believe that competition is good. If EA cab steal some of Valve's thunder by using the very tactics Valve developed that is the capitalist way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, this is typical of all systems - you have tons of bandwidth because, at peak usage, you don't want to exceed your bandwidth.

They have the bandwidth to give everyone 100mbs+ speeds, but not for everyone to use them all at once.

Now... if you could find the individuals who use the most data and begin reducing back the speed of their access to make the overall usage more stable... <begin net neutrality discussion that would put this thread completely off the rails>

You'd be better off using a dynamic pricing model to encourage heavy users to move off of peak times.

If I pay for 25 mbps, I need 25 mbps to be available all of the time, regardless of how much I use it. But that, as you point out, is inefficient. So I ssuggest that ISPs simply shouldn't make that offer.

What if we use a spot market for bandwidth, like there already exists for electricity? Then, just like when you buy airline tickets, you'd pay more when the available capacity was low, and get deep discounts when there was lots of available capacity.

[Realmzmaster]

The people you are referencing selling 10 movies for $10 don't compare to Netflix. Netflix sells THOUSANDS of movies and shows for $15 a month. You can watch 100 episodes or movies in a month's time.

It almost makes it sound like you are saying Netflix is a silly business idea that is only effective because people are morally virtuous or are afraid of pirating. That's not the case.

I submit an example of why pirating is so widespread.

http://theoatmeal.co...game_of_thrones

When convenience and accessibility block consumers who actively want to give your product money, you have this happen.

 

You do know that your example points to exactly what I am saying. The person in the example gives in to the illegal activity.The person could have simply waited for the product to be available legally. The person choose to illegally download and in doing so shows the direction of his/her moral compass. The person is willing to compromise his/her morals.

 

I never said NetFlix was a silly idea. If you know what you want NetFlix is unnecessary when you can find what you want on sites like the one in your example, if one chooses to engage in an illegal activity. That is a choice. It is both a moral and legal/illegal choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The person is willing to compromise his/her morals.

Assuming one has such things.

There was a time (1999-2008) where file sharing was explicitly legal in Canada (where I am). It was called "private copying for personal use", and the law permitted it in order to levy a tax on recordable media. When that was the case, I would agree that something like Netflix made no sense at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

You do know that your example points to exactly what I am saying. The person in the example gives in to the illegal activity.The person could have simply waited for the product to be available legally. The person choose to illegally download and in doing so shows the direction of his/her moral compass. The person is willing to compromise his/her morals.

I never said NetFlix was a silly idea. If you know what you want NetFlix is unnecessary when you can find what you want on sites like the one in your example, if one chooses to engage in an illegal activity. That is a choice. It is both a moral and legal/illegal choice.

The goal of busienss is not to even have the concept of a customer's morals come into play. As a business, you should work in making your product so easy to use, obtain and consume that even IF someone were giving it away, people would pay for it.

Have you ever seen a vending machine selling bottled water right next to a water fountain? Didn't that ever strike you as the ultimate in lunacy? Yet they make sales, because for a small price, people can easily have portable water in a bottle, without the hassle of being their own cup/bottle or having to get back up and down if they get thirsty.

Netflix works the same way - I can watch Netflix movies on my tablet, or my phone, or my computer, or my TV. Easy transfer of media through different outlets. Guaranteed quality of what I am watching. A system that monitors my favorite shows or movies and alerts me when they are available. Pirating does none of that. Pirating is easy for being free, but being cheap and convenient is where the real success comes into play.

In the instance I gave, Netflix (or, perhaps more accurately, HBO) was not being convenient, preventing people who wanted to pay for their product piecemeal to not do so. In a world where people can easily steal your products for free, I have never understood the industry's insistence that content follow the same distribution model that was in place forty years ago. A season of a show should not take six months to a year after release to be avaiable for purchase, as if mass distributing sets of physical media to retail stores used to dictate. In the case of GOT, episodes are posted for free for HBO subscribers in to view within 24 hours of the viewing. Why should there be an artificial block to selling items a la carte? Such an imposition punishes the business because the consumer has many options for free (illegal) viewing of that same content.

[Realmzmaster]

Assuming one has such things.

There was a time (1999-2008) where file sharing was explicitly legal in Canada (where I am). It was called "private copying for personal use", and the law permitted it in order to levy a tax on recordable media. When that was the case, I would agree that something like Netflix made no sense at all.

 

You are correct. The person has to have morals or a conscience. But with some people something prevents them from committing an illegal act even when the chance of getting caught is zero. 

Other people have no problem committing the act even if the chance of getting caught is higher. They weigh the risks versus the benefits. They weigh the punishment versus the reward. They bring it down to a cost versus benefit analysis and make a decision.

 

Some people no matter what the consequence they will still attempt the illegal act. 

[Realmzmaster]

@Fast Jimmy,

 

You really want to use that water bottle and fountain analogy? A friend of mine who is a marketing professor always laughs when i point that out. He referred me once to a song by Gil Scott Heron called Madison Avenue. One verse always stands out.

 

They can sell sand to a man livin' in the desert.

They can sell tuna to the chicken of the sea...

You are surrounded and confounded and

dumbfounded by the happenings yes it's true

it's Madison Avenue

 

It is all a matter of presentation and getting people to believe that your product is indispensable. 

Most people cannot tell the difference between tap and bottled water.  You may call it convenience I would call it laziness

 and adding trash to the environment.

[addiction21]

ummm sometimes the difference between tap and bottled water is clear. As in you can not see thru the tap water.

 

Sorry if I am off base going to bed now.