PS3 encryption keys now on the net

[Reaperman]

Goofball Sterling says it best. Although I wouldnt wear a pirate outfit if my life depended on it. Sick to death of pirates and.....those disney films.

"Videogame pirates, admit you're ****ing thieves"

Didn't we have a whole thread on how piracy wasn't theft?

 

Software pirates aren't thieves, so why would they admit to such a thing?

They are software pirates, and generally admit to that. Generally they'll acknowledge that piracy is illegal too. Where's the problem?

Perhaps the video was going after them not all owning up to piracy being 'wrong,' but I simply can't get past the common misuse of words like 'theft' and 'stealing.' It's the same mentality that gives us "fur is murder."

 

I made it a minute in--that's got to be some kind of high score, right?

Edited February 11, 2011 by Reaperman

[cimerians]

Goofball Sterling says it best. Although I wouldnt wear a pirate outfit if my life depended on it. Sick to death of pirates and.....those disney films.

"Videogame pirates, admit you're ****ing thieves"

Didn't we have a whole thread on how piracy wasn't theft?

 

Software pirates aren't thieves, so why would they admit to such a thing?

They are software pirates, and generally admit to that. Generally they'll acknowledge that piracy is illegal too. Where's the problem?

Perhaps the video was going after them not all owning up to piracy being 'wrong,' but I simply can't get past the common misuse of words like 'theft' and 'stealing.' It's the same mentality that gives us "fur is murder."

 

I made it a minute in--that's got to be some kind of high score, right?

 

 

 

Well a pirate by definition is someone who commits robbery and violence. Steals shit.

Maybe disney and hollywood re-difines them but thats what they are.

 

Maybe the term should be changed to Software Borrowers.

 

Its basically focused at the hypocrites who hack a system and then dont admit to stealing games (but secretly do on weekends) and then defend themselves on message boards etc.

 

Torrenting or Gameflying them and dumping them on their Xbox drive or their USBLoader enabled Wii.

 

I agree with them ....games are too expensive. The DRM issues etc. But those who rip those games and then say its not stealing are full of crap. Thats basically what it is. Just be honest.

[Reaperman]

 

Well a pirate by definition is someone who commits robbery and violence. Steals shit.

Alternate definitions for 'piracy' unfortunately did stick, and they are now an accepted part of our language.

I'm not especially thrilled about that, but if we all come together we can stop the dictionaries of the world from ruining 'theft' too.

 

Maybe after lunch I'll find my attitude leaning a bit less toward the pedantic.

Still I think we all agree at the core of it. Piracy is wrong, but expensive stuff for free is its own reward.

[Shannon]

Maybe the term should be changed to Software Borrowers.

 

Its basically focused at the hypocrites who hack a system and then dont admit to stealing games (but secretly do on weekends) and then defend themselves on message boards etc.

 

Torrenting or Gameflying them and dumping them on their Xbox drive or their USBLoader enabled Wii.

 

I agree with them ....games are too expensive. The DRM issues etc. But those who rip those games and then say its not stealing are full of crap. Thats basically what it is. Just be honest.

Haha.. try going over to the mame forums and tell the devs they are a bunch of pirates because there is no way they could own the PCB's to every arcade game for which they wrote support drivers for. See how far you get..

 

Anyways what was your point again?

[cimerians]

Maybe the term should be changed to Software Borrowers.

 

Its basically focused at the hypocrites who hack a system and then dont admit to stealing games (but secretly do on weekends) and then defend themselves on message boards etc.

 

Torrenting or Gameflying them and dumping them on their Xbox drive or their USBLoader enabled Wii.

 

I agree with them ....games are too expensive. The DRM issues etc. But those who rip those games and then say its not stealing are full of crap. Thats basically what it is. Just be honest.

Haha.. try going over to the mame forums and tell the devs they are a bunch of pirates because there is no way they could own the PCB's to every arcade game for which they wrote support drivers for. See how far you get..

 

Anyways what was your point again?

 

It's stealing. Thats the damn point.

 

MAME is legal. Most roms aren't. Everyone has them. I do.

 

Does that still make it legal if everyone has them? I don't think so.

 

The whole point of the guy's blog is that people simply dont admit to stuff. I agree. I'm not talking about MAME either and games that are legally copyrighted but nobody gives a rats ass about anymore cause they are so old.

 

I'm talking about the wiseguy that rents or torrents Black Ops and looks at you and says, "Thats not stealing. Yeah I got a hacked PS3 so what?"

 

Those types of people.

[potatohead]

It's infringement.

 

That's the word we have for it. We have that word because a successful claim of theft requires proof that some material loss of property happened.

 

When a game is copied and used by somebody who isn't authorized to make that copy, distribute it, and use it, the rights holder didn't lose anything. This is subtle, but important.

 

The rights holder still has the right of distribution, use, copy, etc... They still have the opportunity to sell those rights --even to the infringer.

 

Nothing is lost.

 

What does happen is somebody exercises a right they didn't have permission for, which is why we call it infringement and not theft.

 

And it's wrong too. Make no mistake on that.

 

The reason I personally regularly call for the use of the correct word is so we don't end up with ugly, draconian, burdensome law. That is what will happen, if we don't actually characterize the problems accurately.

 

Infringment. That's the crime. Those that do it are infringers. Those that did it, have infringed. And so that means pirates are infringers. Not thieves, or borrowers. Infringers.

 

A borrower is somebody who takes posessesion of property to use for some limited time and in limited ways, and who does not take ownership of said property.

 

A thief is one who simply takes possession and claims ownership of said property.

 

Both of those crimes involve a material loss to the property holder. They had something, and after the act, they don't have it anymore.

 

With software, it's all about copies and rights. The owners don't lose anything when somebody makes a copy, nor do they lose anything when somebody makes a use. When those uses are authorized, life is good. We carve out a few cases where we give blanket authorization too, whether or not the owner authorizes doesn't matter. Those few uses are called "fair" or "necessary" uses. All other uses are unauthorized, and are known as "infringing" uses.

 

Please consider using the right words. Several things will happen.

 

1. We won't get shitty laws and have to continue to tolerate old antiquated business models that equate physical goods to bits.

 

2. The idea that infringing is bad when unauthorized will rise in prominence just like the idea that theft is bad currently is

 

, and

 

3. The understanding that all software comes with a license for use, and that people don't BUY software, but instead BUY a license to use a authorized copy of the software will become more pervasive, and that will clarify a lot of things, reinforcing number one above.

 

And it's fun!!!

 

You can use all the colorful words and analogies just as you can thieves or pirates, and I would start right off with "those fucking infringing pirates", as a nice lead in, mix in a healthy dose of George Carlin, and just hammer it home solid.

 

Bonus points for creative uses that sound good, like we've got for thieves! Have some fun, get the word out proper, and let's get this right over time, so we don't have to live with getting it wrong.

 

Infringement, infringers, infringing, infringed. That's the word for the problem / crime / issue being discussed here, otherwise known as software piracy, as opposed to simple, old school piracy.

[moycon]

I agree. I'm not talking about MAME either and games that are legally copyrighted but nobody gives a rats ass about anymore cause they are so old.

 

Might as well give up cimerians, you can tell someone over and over that you aren't talking about MAME, or emulation and then bring up what you are talking about and show multiple examples where it actually hurts modern gamers, because they still will revert back to trying to justify piracy and they'll do it by bringing up MAME and emulators, because that's all hacking and piracy is aboot. Then they'll tell you you're ruining the thread because it's only supposed to be about hacking for goodness and the American way.

[Emehr]

Thank you, potatohead, for that reasonable and well-written post. It's always a pleasure reading your posts.

 

3. The understanding that all software comes with a license for use, and that people don't BUY software, but instead BUY a license to use a authorized copy of the software will become more pervasive, and that will clarify a lot of things, reinforcing number one above.

 

This is what I have the biggest issue with. I'm worried about something like this preventing people from reselling hard copies of software they have purchased. I believe manufactured media should be resellable no matter what's on it (music, movie, software, etc.) If the laws will fairly distinguish between software on printed media and software obtained by download, I would have no problem applying "license", not "purchase" to the latter. This goes for music and movies, also.

[potatohead]

Yeah, that's a interesting case. (thanks, BTW! That is nice to hear)

 

I did get to ask the RIAA once about licenses vs authorized copies. In the case of a movie, or music, we buy a authorized copy, and we have a implied license to "use" it. So no worries on the movies or the music. If it's on physical media, then we get to sell it, and we get to transcode it, and rip, mix, burn it for personal "fair" uses.

 

This doesn't mean they won't try to make it difficult. And that means we have to watch what we buy and why. DVD / CD is open. No worries. Blu-Ray is nearly there, but something to watch out for, because they can do some damage on those basic abilities with code. I'm personally making light purchases, but not going whole hog until Blu-Ray is fully archivable / rippable.

 

(and hey! I've got kids, and like to watch stuff on the laptop, and don't like losing expensive disks)

 

With software there is NO discussion. The law is clear. All use of software comes with a license, and more importantly, the courts are ruling in favor of the shrink-wrap licenses being enforceable. So, I would absolutely not count on most software being resellable.

 

I deal in very high end, expensive software all the time. The stuff is 10K plus a seat, and people buy a license, and they know it, because we tell them what that means, they sign a contract, and so on. Those licenses are often keyed to very specific computers, and are not transferable, but for a few cases involving the sale and merge of corporations.

 

Often, those licenses come with a annual fee, called maintenance, that keeps the door open for changing computers, or for getting support, etc... Pay it, or be locked onto the version you've got, on the computer you've got, and if that computer dies, so does the software.

 

That's just how it is.

 

On the scale of games and software that people buy from the store, it's less draconian, just for sales reasons. Most people can't deal with the mess, so they don't. And the numbers are big, so it's not a big deal to just sell it simple. Games are similar things, but...

 

At the end of the day, when you buy a game, you are buying a authorized copy of the game, and a license to use said game, and just keep that in mind. Reselling is something people want, just like they do archives, but it's not set in stone given. All software comes with a license, and it is the license that controls the use rights, distribution rights, etc...

 

All of that said, I own almost no commercial software. What I do own, I've virtualized so that I don't worry about media, and so my licenses are secure. I recommend people do the same. For online things, products tethered to a server some where, my advice is just don't do it, or if you do, do it as cheap as you can, because it's not gonna last.

 

The other thing I recommend is using as much open code as you can, and to keep your dependence on closed software to a absolute minimum. For games, look for the vendors offering good experiences with a nice, relaxed license, and reward them with your time and dollars. I play NOTHING on Steam, et al. because I don't find the licenses acceptable, nor the overall cost. Given how tempoary things can be, I would rather not pollute my PC with those kinds of DRM messes, because it could really cost me.

 

Playing by the rules is actually quite expensive, if you don't do open code.

 

I will drop some bucks on a digital console game, no media, but it's gotta be like $10 because then I don't care whether or not I can archive it, and it's just a game. As I get older, I find the need to archive the things grows less and less, leaving me to look for favorable experiences, write my own stuff, and just enjoy the tech side of things, or the retro side of things where one person can make a game and another can play it, leaving the big fish to fight it out over time.

 

If they want $60, then I want a non-tethered license so I can swap with friends and bring that cost back down to the $10 or so it's really worth just to play. The Potatohead will not be buying into very many things that require online authentication, unless that scheme allows for a transfer, like physical media generally does. (And yes, most games are worth about $10 to play. That's where I'm at on it.)

 

That's the reality of where most larger scale gaming is headed. The economics of it, and failure to think the problems through (wrong words = bad law) are taking us. So, get off early, be opportunistic, and don't get locked in on some expensive stuff to regret later. Sad but true.

 

 

Re: Purchase.

 

In either case you make a purchase, but you purchase a license and media. The license may or may not permit the software on the media to be used by somebody else. That's how the law is, and it's not going to change.

 

This is why many products are tethered to online services for authentication. Best step away from that, because the license is what regulates use, not whether or not you have a copy on media. Those are two different things. Always have been, always will be.

 

The only matter under discussion these days is the level of piracy, AND the level of abuse of the power of the licenses people contend with every day, not whether or not having a copy of software entitles one to use said software.

 

This is even true for ones OWN software. If I write a program, I as the owner have a de-facto license to use said program. If I sell my use rights, for example, but keep my ownership rights, then I wouldn't be able to run my own program, even though I own it, and maintain a copy of it.

 

Sorry. That's harsh, but that is the law that will endure throughout this whole mess. It's worth knowing those things, so that what the software companies do and why they do it and how they do it is clear. From there, good choices often can be made, and the expectations set in a way that doesn't anger people, or cause them losses.

Edited February 12, 2011 by potatohead

[Shannon]

It's stealing. Thats the damn point.

 

MAME is legal. Most roms aren't. Everyone has them. I do.

 

Does that still make it legal if everyone has them? I don't think so.

 

The whole point of the guy's blog is that people simply dont admit to stuff. I agree. I'm not talking about MAME either and games that are legally copyrighted but nobody gives a rats ass about anymore cause they are so old.

 

I'm talking about the wiseguy that rents or torrents Black Ops and looks at you and says, "Thats not stealing. Yeah I got a hacked PS3 so what?"

 

Those types of people.

Yeah so you're concerned about people with copies of modern games but could care less if they have images of older games. And where exactly is this line drawn?

 

Anyways I had a point with my MAME comment.. Seriously.. go over to their forums and try making those acusations and see how far you get. Game age has nothing to do with this suggestion.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Shannon

[Emehr]

In either case you make a purchase, but you purchase a license and media. The license may or may not permit the software on the media to be used by somebody else. That's how the law is, and it's not going to change.

 

This is why many products are tethered to online services for authentication. Best step away from that, because the license is what regulates use, not whether or not you have a copy on media. Those are two different things. Always have been, always will be.

 

Online authentication is part of the reason I still use Photoshop 7. They started online authentication with version 8 (CS). I prefer nonrestrictive use. If I have eight personal computers, I want to be able to install the software on all eight. There's only one of me so, naturally, I can only be on one of the computers at any given time. Multiple installs does not necessarily mean multiple users. This is part of the reason I don't agree with online authentication: it typically restricts installation to up to three computers and it leaves open the chance of forced obsolescence if the company goes out of business and the authentication servers go down. I realize the software companies have to impose some limitations to protect their product but there has to be a better way.

 

Regarding End User License Agreements:

 

What would be ideal, I think, is if there were some trade-offs in this agreement between developers and users. As it stands, the EULA needs work (and less legal-speak). Here's my proposition as an addendum: I, as a user, will happily concede that I am bound to the licensing agreement for the duration that the company supports their software AND supports their software for the hardware on which I install it.

 

For example, if Adobe stopped supporting Photoshop 7 for Mac OS 9 (which they may have, not sure), then that particular version would be "freed", so to speak. PS 7 on torrent sites? Sorry, Adobe, the law can't help. You shouldn't have dropped support!

 

Sounds fair, right? It would make abandonware completely legal (and not in that gray limbo it seems to be stuck in). The potential loss of control of their software would give incentive to developers to not completely abandon older hardware in next year's update (as is the trend). This would be a win for users who can't afford a new computer every two years. The bottom line is this: if a developer wants to maintain legal control of their software, they need to work for it and stay on top of supporting it. If a version falls by the wayside in favor of a new one, they need to just let it go.

 

Enforcing an EULA on old, unsupported software is beyond unreasonable and I think a concrete "release" needs to applied across the board and in writing so there is no doubt about its legality (e.g. abandonware).

 

As a hobbyist programmer, someday I would like to release my work(s) to the public and I would be happy to apply the above to my own software.

 

It's stealing. Thats the damn point.

 

MAME is legal. Most roms aren't. Everyone has them. I do.

 

I'm talking about the wiseguy that rents or torrents Black Ops and looks at you and says, "Thats not stealing. Yeah I got a hacked PS3 so what?"

Yeah so you're concerned about people with copies of modern games but could care less if they have images of older games. And where exactly is this line drawn?

I would say that if the software is on store shelves AND being supported by its parent company, then that is the line.

[Mendon]

The following was posted on Kotaku yesterday:

 

"Crysis 2 won't be released officially for another month, but a playable version of Crytek's ambitious PC shooter has already made its way online, much to the disappointment of its creators.

 

According to those who have played it—we first heard about the leak via the Facepunch forums—that leaked build of Crysis 2 comes complete with multiplayer and the master keys to the game's piracy protection. It is allegedly playable from start to finish, a seemingly near-complete beta version of its campaign.

 

We contacted EA and Crytek for comment. Here's what they had to say.

 

"Crytek has been alerted that an early incomplete, unfinished build of Crysis 2 has appeared on Torrent sites," reads EA's response to Kotaku on the matter. "Crytek and EA are deeply disappointed by the news. We encourage fans to support the game and the development team by waiting and purchasing the final, polished game on March 22."

 

"Crysis 2 is still in development and promises to be the ultimate action blockbuster as the series' signature Nanosuit lets you be the weapon as you defend NYC from an alien invasion. Piracy continues to damage the PC packaged goods market and the PC development community."

 

The game is scheduled to be released on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC on March 22 in North America."

 

I'm not going to get into a debate on "stealing", "infringement", "theft" or whatever as each of us have our own opinions on the situation and these opinions probably won't be changed, no matter what argument is used.

 

So my unchangeable opinion is that this type of "leaking" and "sharing" situation is not good for anyone who enjoys gaming.

 

 

Mendon

[rxd]

There can be no justification at all for leaked software on the Internet. I mean come on, the developers haven't even had a chance to make a dime yet.

 

I hope we can all agree on this point at least...

[potatohead]

@Emehr: Yeah, I hear all of that. I have open code and some old versions of things too. Professionally, I just let somebody else buy the stuff, unless I see the need for personal use. Saves me a LOT of money that way, and I keep my skills mapped to stuff I own and can count on to be there when I need it.

 

There is a kind of complex set of things going on and the law is goofy.

 

Now I fully support MAME. Right now, I currently do not have a ROM set, nor a running MAME executable. Probably should score one though. It's just not a priority. But, when I did have one, I let the kids game on it, and emulation to take them through gaming history. It was a lot of fun. Some companies have gone to the emulation project for their own works too. History preserved.

 

So I see it this way. If the software isn't really archivable, it isn't worth much, unless using the software can make a lot of money. In that case, it's a simple business decision, and no worries. That's what I do for a living, and it is very, very difficult to archive the software licenses we sell. Yes, it's possible, and I know how to do it, but that is absolutely not common knowledge. I own a seat, and it cost me dearly, and I use it for fun, hobby, and to grow professionally. Sue me.

 

I see the value of software in what it can do and the state of it's development in relation to what is common knowledge. Open code generally demonstrates where the line is. With expensive CAD software, for example, it's worth the money because the development man-hour costs are off the charts big, and the audience small, and it's not like ordinary people can write that software. A word processor? Ordinary people can write those, and so it's worth a lot less.

 

Some companies use online authentication to create artifical value. They also use integration to do this, introducing dependencies that force purchases, just because. That's not for me. I like to buy once, learn to use, and then just use. Open code is huge because a person can do that! It also makes me wonder about $400 Office licenses too.

 

I like being able to see the history of gaming, and if licenses were paid straight up, nobody would be able to really enjoy that aspect of things, so we get MAME and this kind of tense tolerance for what is a real legal mess. And I've got old software on media that has died too. Fetch a copy and run it? Yes. Why not?

 

Lots of ugly things here.

 

Which brings me back to the hack, and the state of current gaming. There is a triangle, one of those classic three factor, but pick two things in play here.

 

If the game copy and license is locked to a single device, that's worth far less than one that's on simple media that endures over time and that the media contains the license to use. Selling somebody a console is more sexy, and it has more value than renting one to somebody, and or offering them service to maintain the subscription device too. But the trade off is they OWN it, so they get to do stuff on it that is not approved.

 

So the deal is more control, less end user value, less control, higher risk, greater end user value.

 

It takes some work to build sustainable businesses. With software, is always tempting to just use control schemes to build artificial value, and when that happens people reject it, and we see piracy, hacks, etc... Doing those things isn't right in a lot of cases, but neither is structuring things to generate high costs of use and aquisition either. Fair is fair.

 

And then there is this mess: What is the goal of the software publisher? Revenue. The best way to generate revenue is to put out solid value at a cost that brings a good return to the user. $60 for a online authenticated game that cannot be traded, sold, used on another device? Nope. That's worth about $10, particularly if it's a short game, but really it's just about the return on the value. $10 can get somebody a lot of entertainment. Maybe $20. At those prices, people pay for experiences, not worried too much about ownership.

 

$60? 100? That's got to be something more enduring, because it consumes a lot of a persons FIXED entertainment budget, and I think that's not often considered in gaming, and in a lot of things. We don't have infinite entertainment dollars. Most people have a amount that can be entertainment, and so all the forms of entertainment compete! Price a particular form too high, and people seek other entertainment, or will entertain the entertainment of just tinkering with stuff. (that's what I do, buying very little honestly)

 

Long ago, I cracked a few games, working from the assembly code shipped on the disk! Was fun as hell. Honestly, worth way more than the game was. Today I'm good at computers because of that "entertainment", and on occasion will still crack something, just because. (and no, I do not share those, because distribution is the crime, not hacking)

 

We get to hack our stuff. That's not a crime. Here's another subtle point. Ever see file downloaders sued? No. It's uploaders that get sued, because they are infringing on a distribution right. It's the same for hacks and or technical knowledge in genera. It's not illegal to know how something works, nor is it illegal to repurpose your stuff, rip, mix, burn, etc... It is illegal to TELL SOMEBODY ELSE how to do it.

 

Honestly, that's offensive to me at a very low level. I learned what I did by opening up the box and peeking at what is inside, because it was MY BOX. Many of the people writing software today did the same damn thing, and they know it.

 

So that's the other part of this mess I can't deal well with. I don't feel any regrets for draconian schemes getting cracked, because there really isn't any fair uses carved out into the law to balance the cost of things with the risk of things, forcing ordinary people to bear all the costs and the risks. Not cool with me at all. And learning stuff pays me well these days. Poo-pooing on that won't get any sympathy from me.

 

Mostly these days then, I play on retro gear and micros where it's open, fun, hackable, low cost, low risk and very entertaining. I encourage all of you to start doing the same. If there is a good modern deal, where I'm not out much, I'll play, but I have no illusions about being able to archive it, etc... it's just a experience, and as such, is worth what a experience is, not what a real purchase would be, particularly when I know a server somewhere will be turned off to generate more revenue or lower costs. That's reality, and it seriously lowers the price I'll pay for that experience, because that is exactly what it is when that is done. A rental, nothing more.

 

It's understandable to hear and read and see the anger ordinary people have for those who hack and crack. But is the same dynamic seen the other way around? For those that know better, getting rooked like we do is maddening! Don't hear much about that though, do we?

 

I think there are good solutions, some of which I've put on the thread, and others I am sure are out there. But, to see them, we've all got to come to Jesus on what is worth what, and respect the rights of ordinary people just as much as we want respect for companies, or it will just continue to be cat 'n mouse, and over time? The mice win. Always have, always will.

Edited February 12, 2011 by potatohead

[Underball]

It costs less to produce a PS3 game than your average Hollywood movie. Yet games are still $60 and movies are $10.

 

There would be a lot less piracy if the consumer costs were in line with their entertainment industry competitors.

[potatohead]

Exactly my point.

[moycon]

It costs less to produce a PS3 game than your average Hollywood movie. Yet games are still $60 and movies are $10.

 

Any one of billions of people in the entire world can go to a movie (the requirement is that they get to a theater).

The number of people that own a PS3 is just in the millions. Billions to millions. I don't think the earning potential is the same.

To me if $60 is too much for a person to invest on their hobby and they have to resort to illegal activity then maybe a person could just find a different hobby?

Or how about wait a few months until they can pick up that $60 game for like $20 maybe.

[potatohead]

A few scenarios:

 

Buy it used

 

Don't buy it at all (which is what I do most of the time)

 

Buy it, but swap different titles with friends, so 6 friends, 6 titles = $10 / title. (I do this too)

 

Rent it. (sometimes, but not often)

 

Buy it later on for lower cost.

 

Buy it digitally, for lower cost.

 

Most of those are on the table right now. Some are only on the table sometimes, so it's good when they are, not so good when they aren't.

 

As for a different hobby, are you kidding? What's wrong with lighter modern gaming, based on what one is willing to pay?

 

I didn't put $10 out there as a justification for piracy. I don't do it. I just don't buy very much, and when I do, I make sure it's a good buy.

 

So there are some factors. Video gaming competes with other entertainment period. If a person has $200 per month for entertainment, and that's a perfectly reasonable amount given our current state of employment and flat wages since the 70's, spending $60 is very significant, where $10 isn't.

 

Add in monthly connect fees and such, and a single game can consume a significant fraction of one's entertainment dollars. That's going to result in many potential sales, assuming the non-pirates, who choose to limit, or buy late, or not buy at all, lost to movies, music, or some other entertainment form.

 

If there is a lot of value, $60 makes sense. So where is the value?

 

Playtime, replay value, trade with friends, sell used, archive for play in the future, are a few I can think of. Maybe there are more elements of value. Story, progression in a series, etc...

 

One big value might just be, play with no additional cost, as in not having to be online to enjoy the game.

 

So then compare a digital download to physical media.

 

Trade with friends, sell used, archive for play in the future, not having to be online all could go away with a digital purchase, so how much of that $60 of total value then goes away?

 

Compare costs too.

 

Physical media costs a lot to produce compared to a digital download. Arguably the risk is higher too, as are the opportunity costs. When people can't swap titles, maybe there is more opportunity for sales.

 

I think starting with half the value is a great place to start, putting a digital one, or even a physical media tethered to a online authentication server equal to half the value of the same title released in a way that embeds the use license in the media.

 

Do we see that?

 

Sometimes! Not always, and in fact, not often. That's been my experience.

 

When prices are lower, there are more sales. I've seen some discussion of that price curve. I know for me personally, $30 titles will see more buys than $60 ones. The question in that case is really whether or not one company gets the margin on the $60, or whether two get the margin on the $30, or whether it takes two transactions to do $60, instead of one. IMHO, with physical media, I can understand keeping the value high.

 

With a download, that's a lot harder proposition, considering the lower overall value returned for the dollar.

 

IMHO, the people that really pirate hard aren't going to suddenly buy a lot more stuff. But, the casual people, who buy but don't buy much, may well buy more, and or some people who don't game much at all might start too.

 

That's more or less what happened with music and online distribution. Value for dollar went up, and more people buy more music, more of the time and it's heavy digital now too, keeping costs fairly low all around, which is a good thing.

 

And when home brew / indie gaming hits the PS3, that's gonna be a great value add. Can't wait. Loved the Dreamcast, and still do. It's a killer machine that I've enjoyed for a long time, buying things for it off and on, for a long time now. I absolutely will pay for a great indie / home brew title. I know where that money goes, and the work that went into it. No brainer, and fun to show off too.

 

People who OWN their consoles get to do that. Funny how that works isn't it?

 

All of this brings me to a really hard question:

 

Is blockbuster gaming worth the hassle?

 

Gotta say no most of the time. Maybe a smaller scale, with lower expectations makes sense for more people? Fair question.

 

IMHO the piracy issue is a "out" for a lot of other hard questions that should be asked. I'm not condoning it, though I absolutely 100 percent support opening up the console. It's mine, and if that is to be prevented, rent the thing, problem solved.

 

Won't budge on that.

 

Also would love to see 'the wild west' compete with 'disneyland' too. Take the controlled rental scene, and it's high security, no cheats, and put it right up against people buying the consoles and dealing with hacks, but also dealing with home brew, indie, and other things.

 

I would absolutely take the wild west, unless the subscription rates brought me a good value for disneyland. Could be compelling, and very nice too, not having to worry about a broken console. It dies, ship it, or return it to a depot, pick up another one, and play on.

 

So the whole, "life would be good without the problems" bit doesn't wash. There are solutions and options. Lots of them. Selling people things, when the real expectation is that they don't really own them is absolutely not ok. Won't ever be.

 

IMHO, there is money to be made exploring some new business model ideas, and before we write more fucked up law that criminalizes learning how shit works, I think they should be tried.

 

Music industry learned their lesson kicking and screaming. I wrote stuff in 2002 that called it just about like we are seeing it, but back then the whole thing was all about old companies bitching about adapting to changes in technology and how people value things, just as much as it was about sharing tunes.

 

Gaming is going to experience the exact same things. Count on it.

 

Edit: All of that adds up to getting more people to buy more games more of the time is the growth answer. Doing draconian things isn't going to get that done anywhere near as well as delivering very high value for the dollar will.

 

I sure love being considered a potential criminal for tinkering with my own hardware, and or considering a game purchase... Don't you guys? And I don't pirate, and I don't hack, beyond whatever things I feel like doing on my machines, in my home, for my own reasons. We all get to do that.

 

Crime to share how in many parts of the world, but not yet a crime to learn. Sad days

 

(which is why I really love indie / home brew / retro, because that doesn't happen for the most part)

Edited February 13, 2011 by potatohead

[Jess Ragan]

Kevin Butler posted the encryption key on his Twitter page! Schmuck.

[Underball]

It costs less to produce a PS3 game than your average Hollywood movie. Yet games are still $60 and movies are $10.

 

Any one of billions of people in the entire world can go to a movie (the requirement is that they get to a theater).

The number of people that own a PS3 is just in the millions. Billions to millions. I don't think the earning potential is the same.

To me if $60 is too much for a person to invest on their hobby and they have to resort to illegal activity then maybe a person could just find a different hobby?

Or how about wait a few months until they can pick up that $60 game for like $20 maybe.

Your average Hollywood HIT movie grosses $250 Million domestic in it's total run. At $10 a ticket, that's 25 million people, assuming no one sees it more than once.

 

There are 47 million PS3 owners in the US.

 

If a PS3 game makes $250,000,000 - that means it sold 4,000,000 units. Roughly 10% of the install base.

 

600% more profit, even though the production costs are lower.

 

 

I'm not saying this as any sort of justification for piracy. It's just simple economics. Something that cost less to produce, should cost less to buy. the fact taht it doesn't unnecessarily excludes a good portion of the potential market. I just believe that if video game prices in general were in line with movie sales, even DVD prices at $15-$20 each - piracy would go way down, and sales would go way up.

[HammR25]

Prices do go way down after the games have been out a little bit. If suckers are willing to pay $60 to have a game when it first comes out then they should charge that price.

[Itchy Koala]

Prices do go way down after the games have been out a little bit. If suckers are willing to pay $60 to have a game when it first comes out then they should charge that price.

 

 

True, some games hardly make it two weeks before a price drop. Especially sports games. Its unreasonable to say all ps3 owners are paying 60 dollars a game.

[moycon]

Something that cost less to produce, should cost less to buy.

 

Like for instance caviar, honey or gold?

Some things cost next to nothing to produce and still demand a high price.

Sorry your argument holds no water. It's all about supply and demand.

If a million people are willing to pay $60 for a new game who are you to say it's not worth it and if the price is what a person is concerned about, why can't they wait a few weeks till the price drops?

[Bilnick]

60 dollars for a videogame is a far better value than a movie which costs 10 dollars per person for admittance.

 

When I go to a theater to see a movie I never go alone, a movie is a minimum 20 dollars for just my wife and me. If I take the family (5 of us) to see Toy Story 3 in 3D, add some popcorn and drinks, the bill is well north of 60 dollars. And the movie is over in 2 hours.

 

A 60 dollar videogame can entertain the whole family for years.

 

 

 

P.S. There are 47 million PS3s sold worldwide, not in the US. The US is under 20 million.

[potatohead]

For what it's worth, honey, caviar and gold have very different costs of production.

 

Honey is inexpensive, because it's common, and not too labor intensive. Caviar is less common, and more labor intensive, and gold is uncommon and labor intensive.

 

Comes down to time, in all three cases, and scarcity, which really is just time again, in that rare things take a long time to acquire, or may not be available at all.

 

That said, the margin expectation on big name games is higher than it really should be. Waiting for a lower price is all fine and good. I do that regularly, just because it's not a big deal. There is lots to do, no need to wait in line for a new title.

 

I also seriously question the value of incremental releases, or the many license games that are fundamentally the same game, different skin.

 

Then I see stuff like PopCap games, landing in the lower price brackets. Great value, digital download, well executed titles with good replay value.

 

Nothing wrong with pushing for the highest price possible, except when competition is not in play. When people own their consoles, where home brew / indie is more possible, there is that competition, which would force more innovation, diversity, and higher value for the dollar.

 

How it is right now does not add up well at all. We all know about the crash, people making crap, but things have changed considerably. There are good ways of differentiating titles, and so the danger in that is far less. Casual gaming has exploded for all the options.

 

So Square works for 4 years on one of it's mega epics, and that's worth 60! I pay it, and enjoy a great experience that has a lot of play time and entertainment. Of course, when I'm done, I'm done, so I pass it off to another person and that value is seen several times.

 

I wouldn't pay 60 for that on a digital. Would have to be less because I can't share and that's lower value, despite the development effort.

 

We see articles on used gaming is bad, killing the industry, etc... and I just have to wonder about those dynamics too. Not all is as it is nicely packaged and presented.

 

If they earn the 60, sure! Makes perfect sense, but I must say for a lot of titles, I don't see it.

 

Re: Movies.

 

Hell yes! I don't do theaters anymore because of that. It's way outta control value for dollar wise. Buy the Blu-Ray or DVD, enjoy on a nice home set, and swap with friends. I've a huge DVD / Blu-Ray library, and so do some others, and we do this regularly. Hell of a deal.

 

And we make our own killer food. I do miss the WAL*MART pick up candy and watch the pre-movie freak show though! LOL! And yes, I absolutely do bring my own special candies, but I do pay for the popcorn, if I go. Call it checks and balances

 

Where I'm at on all of this is promoting anything and everything that improves value for dollars over time. On the flip side, they (meaning big corporations) are constantly working to dilute that, and labor wages paid, fair is fair.

 

Lighten up on the cheap labor policy, treat people right, lower their risks and overall costs, and guess what happens?

 

Entertainment dollars go up, and with that demand, and life can be good.

 

All of this cuts both ways.

 

Hell, we can't even make a PS3 in the States, nor a Kindle, iPad, etc... Is there any wonder the costs of things are at issue? Hell no there isn't.

 

And it's true that one game can entertain for years, but isn't it funny how there are regular efforts to insure that perhaps it's not playable for years?

 

Think on that one too. My original Atari purchases still entertain, but many of my PS1 / PS2 titles don't, and they've not been re-release, or when they have, they've changed, or are not the same quality of experience.

 

SSX is one of those I'm thinking about here. I love that game, but it's hard to manage being able to play it with fickle consoles, no real emulation ability in current machines, etc...

 

Half tempted to rip that one and play it on a PC, and people ask why MAME, et al. matters. There you go right there. Or, since we can own a PS3 now, maybe playing SSX on it can happen in the near future. Funny how that all works, isn't it?

Edited February 13, 2011 by potatohead