Is The Game Industry Dropping The 60 FPS Standard?

[canadianvice]

Some of the most pirated games in history have been less than $10. So no, price is not the reason for it. People say that is why they do it, but reality contradicts that. It is more likely that most do it because they can get it for free.

There's always some ass who will try to dl anything for free.

They will not be stopped and it's like the war on drugs: the only thing game studios do by giving a hoot is make the experience worse for their customers who do pay, on top of losing money.

The way I see it, the problem is still very clear cut. A value product increases sales and does decrease piracy. It's an omnipresent threat, but at least they recoup costs and then some even with it.

 

[bystander]

Some of the most pirated games in history have been less than $10. So no, price is not the reason for it. People say that is why they do it, but reality contradicts that. It is more likely that most do it because they can get it for free.

There's always some ass who will try to dl anything for free.

They will not be stopped and it's like the war on drugs: the only thing game studios do by giving a hoot is make the experience worse for their customers who do pay, on top of losing money.

The way I see it, the problem is still very clear cut. A value product increases sales and does decrease piracy. It's an omnipresent threat, but at least they recoup costs and then some even with it.

Do you have any evidence? I already showed that cheap games get pirated a ton too.

I think people say this because they are justifying themselves, though if you can show something to back up your claim, go for it.

I'll see if I can find the dev who tried to go without DRM, and at low costs to see how it effected sales. It didn't seem to help from what I recall.

 

[bystander]

Anyways, this is my last comment on this tangent. Read this for an interesting experiment. http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/

The dev's released a game for $8, and a pirated version to the popular torrent sites with code to send them info about if it was pirated and a slightly different behavior in game. Over 93% of the downloads ended up being pirated versions with a lot of hilariously frustrated users.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Anyways, this is my last comment on this tangent. Read this for an interesting experiment. http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/

The dev's released a game for $8, and a pirated version to the popular torrent sites with code to send them info about if it was pirated and a slightly different behavior in game. Over 93% of the downloads ended up being pirated versions with a lot of hilariously frustrated users.

93% is really sad to hear, especially for a game that would only cost $8. And you guys above told me that the majority do not pirate and that it does not affect develpers' attitude toward PC? Yeah right.

 

[Novuake]

Highly doubt console game makers care about what pc gamers want. The majority of pc gamers pirate their games.

Ah yes, the tired, old "All PC gamers are pirates!" nonsense comes into this once again. I was just waiting until someone tried spouting this BS.
Listen, you give me cheap games that I can actually afford (none of this 60 dollars and then 40 extra for DLC nonsense) and then I will actually buy the games instead of get together with my friends and SHARE our games using a communal Steam library.

Yeah, I feel that gaming as a hobby has become ridiculous.

As a rule I wait for games to drop in price (or for GotY edition to come out) before purchasing, more out of principle than anything else, with an exception here and there, like Borderlands pre-sequel.
I just can not justify paying 60 dollars for a game, and then 30-40$ per DLC. But 40$ for a complete game, hell yes.

 

[CAaronD]

I've never actually paid more than $20 for a game. But I've spent more than $80 in game in some games. Like how those free games always have this premium system, etc.

 

[djazzoff]

Most people pirate because there's no more demo's which u can play before buying full product. Some people download the pirated game, play it for a while, if they like it, they buy it, some even finish it and then still buys it when the price drops, but some never spend money on games, unless there's a game with MP and u can't play it with pirated version.

 

[RussK1]

Piracy isn't the issue and never has been. It's a cheap cop-out that they use...

It has more to do with less work (overhead) = more profit.

People need to quit finding excuses for the lethargy of developers and demand accountability using their pocketbook or lack thereof...

 

[Zxjamesxz]

As a PC gamer since I can remember, 10+ years, (20 now). I started out with junky computers that could hardly play the games I wanted. My dream was "Playing Oblivion on highest settings". I always had to stick to low FPS to get the high settings I wanted. I think 30 FPS is more than playable, and now that I can play anything I want at well over 120 FPS, I still choose V-Sync when it's available, because I know I will never care about the extra 60 I could be getting.
It's the spoiled PC elitest attitude that has been causing so much trouble right now with the consoles vs PC war. Until now, how many console gamers even knew what FPS was...? We need to stop teaching them things, they're becoming self aware. Developers should keep us a little further separated from them and stop the piss poor ports.

 

[canadianvice]

Some of the most pirated games in history have been less than $10. So no, price is not the reason for it. People say that is why they do it, but reality contradicts that. It is more likely that most do it because they can get it for free.

There's always some ass who will try to dl anything for free.

They will not be stopped and it's like the war on drugs: the only thing game studios do by giving a hoot is make the experience worse for their customers who do pay, on top of losing money.

The way I see it, the problem is still very clear cut. A value product increases sales and does decrease piracy. It's an omnipresent threat, but at least they recoup costs and then some even with it.

Do you have any evidence? I already showed that cheap games get pirated a ton too.

I think people say this because they are justifying themselves, though if you can show something to back up your claim, go for it.

I'll see if I can find the dev who tried to go without DRM, and at low costs to see how it effected sales. It didn't seem to help from what I recall.

Simple logic really. Why risk the law when you can get something at a fair price?
Piracy is not going away, and if PC weren't the scapegoat, I'm sure the consoles would have it before long. That said, if it's not going away, you have two options:
- Fair release, fair value (increases sales from otherwise-pirates)
- Unfair value, unfair DRM (steam is fair. Always online is not) get more pirates.

Strikes me that forced to choose between two evils, they should opt for the one that will mean more money, no?

The only games I have ever acquired are the Sims, because EA screwed me on several appropriate purchases. Moral, immoral, whatever, but the fact remains I would have paid if not. And a few that are simply impossible to find.

If you treat your customers well you maximize revenue. That means release a game at a fair price and with non-intrusive DRM. Sure, there will always be people who pirate simply because they can, but it's learn to cope in those circumstances or abandon the market - one that I should mention is still very profitable. You don't even need to manufacture disks anymore!

I'm not advocating piracy, but I do see why they do it and I can see the completely inappropriate DRM that punishes customers. In turn, creating pirates who dislike the DRM. It's a neverending cycle.

I do feel for the people victimized by piracy, and so I make a point of avoiding it, barring those who have victimized me. That's why I wait for sales on games like KSP. I could have pirated it, but that wouldn't have been right. So I waited, and got it at a fair price.

 

[skit75]

I wonder how many pirates were made due to frustrating DRM on legitimately purchased games. No doubt, they have created some monsters as well.

 

[bystander]

Simple logic really. Why risk the law when you can get something at a fair price?
Piracy is not going away, and if PC weren't the scapegoat, I'm sure the consoles would have it before long. That said, if it's not going away, you have two options:
- Fair release, fair value (increases sales from otherwise-pirates)
- Unfair value, unfair DRM (steam is fair. Always online is not) get more pirates.

Strikes me that forced to choose between two evils, they should opt for the one that will mean more money, no?

The only games I have ever acquired are the Sims, because EA screwed me on several appropriate purchases. Moral, immoral, whatever, but the fact remains I would have paid if not. And a few that are simply impossible to find.

If you treat your customers well you maximize revenue. That means release a game at a fair price and with non-intrusive DRM. Sure, there will always be people who pirate simply because they can, but it's learn to cope in those circumstances or abandon the market - one that I should mention is still very profitable. You don't even need to manufacture disks anymore!

I'm not advocating piracy, but I do see why they do it and I can see the completely inappropriate DRM that punishes customers. In turn, creating pirates who dislike the DRM. It's a neverending cycle.

I do feel for the people victimized by piracy, and so I make a point of avoiding it, barring those who have victimized me. That's why I wait for sales on games like KSP. I could have pirated it, but that wouldn't have been right. So I waited, and got it at a fair price.

Your logic is nothing but a guess. Likely based on some justification for your actions.

I posted a link, which you likely did not read, with a story of a released game at $8, without DRM, and found that 93% of the copies downloaded were pirated copies (they uploaded the pirated copies so they could send back data).

Was $8 too much? Was a lack of DRM too inconvenient?

 

[canadianvice]

Simple logic really. Why risk the law when you can get something at a fair price?
Piracy is not going away, and if PC weren't the scapegoat, I'm sure the consoles would have it before long. That said, if it's not going away, you have two options:
- Fair release, fair value (increases sales from otherwise-pirates)
- Unfair value, unfair DRM (steam is fair. Always online is not) get more pirates.

Strikes me that forced to choose between two evils, they should opt for the one that will mean more money, no?

The only games I have ever acquired are the Sims, because EA screwed me on several appropriate purchases. Moral, immoral, whatever, but the fact remains I would have paid if not. And a few that are simply impossible to find.

If you treat your customers well you maximize revenue. That means release a game at a fair price and with non-intrusive DRM. Sure, there will always be people who pirate simply because they can, but it's learn to cope in those circumstances or abandon the market - one that I should mention is still very profitable. You don't even need to manufacture disks anymore!

I'm not advocating piracy, but I do see why they do it and I can see the completely inappropriate DRM that punishes customers. In turn, creating pirates who dislike the DRM. It's a neverending cycle.

I do feel for the people victimized by piracy, and so I make a point of avoiding it, barring those who have victimized me. That's why I wait for sales on games like KSP. I could have pirated it, but that wouldn't have been right. So I waited, and got it at a fair price.

Your logic is nothing but a guess. Likely based on some justification for your actions.

I posted a link, which you likely did not read, with a story of a released game at $8, without DRM, and found that 93% of the copies downloaded were pirated copies (they uploaded the pirated copies so they could send back data).

Was $8 too much? Was a lack of DRM too inconvenient?

I did read it. I don't think you're making a very genuine effort to read mine though.
Piracy happens and it always will. The only ways to navigate that evil are to either leave a large, still profitable market, or try and mitigate piracy. Logically, we know the latter is still a better option. I would bet that if he had added crappy DRM to it, it would have been 100% piracy. Sometimes you can't win, but you can certainly increase your odds of doing so.

Therefore, we can either turn off paying customers by using excessive means of DRM or by insisting on releasing products at an inappropriate value, or, we can not do that and encourage legitimate purchases over piracy.

Piracy isn't going away, so the only way to "win" is to try and minimize it, and antagonizing your paying customers is not the way to do it. The logic of how to do that is simple. These companies insist on ignoring it though, and so they only make an unfixable problem worse. What's the possible logic in that?

You also completely ignored where I said that I no longer pirate anything except EA's titles and ones that I legitimately cannot find elsewhere. I don't much care about the opinion on those other two, since EA screwed me and it's simple payback, but otherwise I don't pirate anymore.

 

[skit75]

Well, I see what you are trying to say with the $8 game link but I think this doesn't tell us much. The pirate highway never closes and is always aware. The "test" was flawed because there was no other means of releasing the game to an equal amount of legal awareness. For this to be a fairer test, they would have had to get some legitimate advertising funneled into the game.

You can't just release a game with little to no advertising and distribute it on your own website... (not even on Steam) and then purposefully drop a cracked version onto the pirate superhighway and compare 1 days worth of results to attempt to illustrate a point. There really is no other result that could have come from this "test", by design.

The wiki page for Greenhouse Games is also in a neutrality dispute. I was beginning to think maybe GHG was a publisher's or DRM developer's "shell game-dev company". The whole thing sounds fishy, to me.

 

[bystander]

As pirates, I understand your need to justify, and there is no way to be honest with yourself, much less know what others are doing.

And I'm not arguing pirated copies are going to be purchased copies, but some are lost purchases. I'm just pointing out that no matter what the price is, no matter if they have DRM or not, pirates will justify their choices in one way or another.

The test isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. People are pirating without even looking at the cost. They just go to a torrent site and start downloading.

But there is no point in arguing with you guys, as clearly you need to justify your activities.

 

[skit75]

As pirates, I understand your need to justify, and there is no way to be honest with yourself, much less know what others are doing.

And I'm not arguing pirated copies are going to be purchased copies, but some are lost purchases. I'm just pointing out that no matter what the price is, no matter if they have DRM or not, pirates will justify their choices in one way or another.

The test isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. People are pirating without even looking at the cost. They just go to a torrent site and start downloading.

But there is no point in arguing with you guys, as clearly you need to justify your activities.

I am not trying to justify pirating. What happened to demos? You can't chum the water and then blame the sharks for not taking bait on a line. What world are you living in?

I don't pirate. I have a healthy steam and origins account. But, I fully understand why they do it. It doesn't matter if I agree or not.

 

[usertests]

I don't mean to insult you in anyway but this is what frustrates me. WE pay the developers OUR money. They should make games that will run on OUR hardware, not make games for hardware we have to buy every fucking year. If a game was designed well enough it could run at 1080P on a playstation 1. Now thats just a theory and the amount of programming to do that would take centuries, but there is no reason that a gaming pc built in 2013 is out of date in 3 months. DESIGN FUCKING GAMES THAT RUN RIGHT.

They should just make games that scale well. They deliver a certain quality setting and resolution at a certain FPS for typical hardware, and the maximum settings should target top end hardware or hardware that isn't even released yet, to display more detail and at higher resolutions (4K+).

Oh wait, the game designers that aren't shit already do all that.

 

[canadianvice]

As pirates, I understand your need to justify, and there is no way to be honest with yourself, much less know what others are doing.

And I'm not arguing pirated copies are going to be purchased copies, but some are lost purchases. I'm just pointing out that no matter what the price is, no matter if they have DRM or not, pirates will justify their choices in one way or another.

The test isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. People are pirating without even looking at the cost. They just go to a torrent site and start downloading.

But there is no point in arguing with you guys, as clearly you need to justify your activities.

I think you want to be blind to the fact that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about stopping piracy.
If we acknowledge the fundamental truth that it is going to continue being a problem, there are only two logical choices:
- Maximize revenue and try to reduce the problem
- Leave the market

It strikes me as sensible that if even 10% of pirates only downloaded the game because of cost or DRM, if you are fair, you may just get 10% fewer people pirating your game. What's the alternative? Lock it down and penalize your customers?

The only direction for these tactics is positive. Fair DRM like steam is as effective at preventing piracy, and fair prices encourage people to buy over pirate. I know I've purchased many times over used other means precisely because a price was fair.

So, yea, all I'm saying is you can either screw your paying customers and push them toward piracy, or you can try to maximize the number of paying customers through legitimate means.

That's not justification, that's not philosophizing, it's cold hard fact. Make more money and have fewer pirates, or make less money and have more pirates. It's all related to business decisions.

Piracy, tbh, is very much like taking a walk in the rain without an umbrella. One way or another, you're getting wet. That leaves you to try and minimize just HOW wet you get. IIRC, it's running, but I don't remember the scientific answer.

 

[bystander]

As pirates, I understand your need to justify, and there is no way to be honest with yourself, much less know what others are doing.

And I'm not arguing pirated copies are going to be purchased copies, but some are lost purchases. I'm just pointing out that no matter what the price is, no matter if they have DRM or not, pirates will justify their choices in one way or another.

The test isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. People are pirating without even looking at the cost. They just go to a torrent site and start downloading.

But there is no point in arguing with you guys, as clearly you need to justify your activities.

I think you want to be blind to the fact that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about stopping piracy.
If we acknowledge the fundamental truth that it is going to continue being a problem, there are only two logical choices:
- Maximize revenue and try to reduce the problem
- Leave the market

It strikes me as sensible that if even 10% of pirates only downloaded the game because of cost or DRM, if you are fair, you may just get 10% fewer people pirating your game. What's the alternative? Lock it down and penalize your customers?

The only direction for these tactics is positive. Fair DRM like steam is as effective at preventing piracy, and fair prices encourage people to buy over pirate. I know I've purchased many times over used other means precisely because a price was fair.

So, yea, all I'm saying is you can either screw your paying customers and push them toward piracy, or you can try to maximize the number of paying customers through legitimate means.

That's not justification, that's not philosophizing, it's cold hard fact. Make more money and have fewer pirates, or make less money and have more pirates. It's all related to business decisions.

Piracy, tbh, is very much like taking a walk in the rain without an umbrella. One way or another, you're getting wet. That leaves you to try and minimize just HOW wet you get. IIRC, it's running, but I don't remember the scientific answer.

I don't know the answers to your philosophy, but let's be real here.

DRM's are a result of people pirating. Pirating is the reason they exist. So you can't blame the dev's for causing piracy by using DRM's.

As to the solution, that is the unfortunate thing. They have show that pirates cannot be stopped with DRM's. They won't be stopped by removing them, and they won't be stopped by charging less money. They can be slowed down a ton, or completely, with a pay to play system. Sadly, that may be the way PC gaming goes.

I also have a hard time supporting the pirates cause, when these games are nothing but a "game". It's not like they are taking things they need. It is entertainment, which is pirated far less on consoles, which charge more for all their games..

 

[lookanlearn]

As pirates, I understand your need to justify, and there is no way to be honest with yourself, much less know what others are doing.

And I'm not arguing pirated copies are going to be purchased copies, but some are lost purchases. I'm just pointing out that no matter what the price is, no matter if they have DRM or not, pirates will justify their choices in one way or another.

The test isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. People are pirating without even looking at the cost. They just go to a torrent site and start downloading.

But there is no point in arguing with you guys, as clearly you need to justify your activities.

I think you want to be blind to the fact that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about stopping piracy.
If we acknowledge the fundamental truth that it is going to continue being a problem, there are only two logical choices:
- Maximize revenue and try to reduce the problem
- Leave the market

It strikes me as sensible that if even 10% of pirates only downloaded the game because of cost or DRM, if you are fair, you may just get 10% fewer people pirating your game. What's the alternative? Lock it down and penalize your customers?

The only direction for these tactics is positive. Fair DRM like steam is as effective at preventing piracy, and fair prices encourage people to buy over pirate. I know I've purchased many times over used other means precisely because a price was fair.

So, yea, all I'm saying is you can either screw your paying customers and push them toward piracy, or you can try to maximize the number of paying customers through legitimate means.

That's not justification, that's not philosophizing, it's cold hard fact. Make more money and have fewer pirates, or make less money and have more pirates. It's all related to business decisions.

Piracy, tbh, is very much like taking a walk in the rain without an umbrella. One way or another, you're getting wet. That leaves you to try and minimize just HOW wet you get. IIRC, it's running, but I don't remember the scientific answer.

I don't know the answers to your philosophy, but let's be real here.

DRM's are a result of people pirating. Pirating is the reason they exist. So you can't blame the dev's for causing piracy by using DRM's.

As to the solution, that is the unfortunate thing. They have show that pirates cannot be stopped with DRM's. They won't be stopped by removing them, and they won't be stopped by charging less money. They can be slowed down a ton, or completely, with a pay to play system. Sadly, that may be the way PC gaming goes.

I also have a hard time supporting the pirates cause, when these games are nothing but a "game". It's not like they are taking things they need. It is entertainment, which is pirated far less on consoles, which charge more for all their games..

There is an easy way around it all.




But I would want paying for sharing the information.

 

[Novuake]

Can a moderator PLEASE stop this off topic discussion now.

 

[canadianvice]

As pirates, I understand your need to justify, and there is no way to be honest with yourself, much less know what others are doing.

And I'm not arguing pirated copies are going to be purchased copies, but some are lost purchases. I'm just pointing out that no matter what the price is, no matter if they have DRM or not, pirates will justify their choices in one way or another.

The test isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. People are pirating without even looking at the cost. They just go to a torrent site and start downloading.

But there is no point in arguing with you guys, as clearly you need to justify your activities.

I think you want to be blind to the fact that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about stopping piracy.
If we acknowledge the fundamental truth that it is going to continue being a problem, there are only two logical choices:
- Maximize revenue and try to reduce the problem
- Leave the market

It strikes me as sensible that if even 10% of pirates only downloaded the game because of cost or DRM, if you are fair, you may just get 10% fewer people pirating your game. What's the alternative? Lock it down and penalize your customers?

The only direction for these tactics is positive. Fair DRM like steam is as effective at preventing piracy, and fair prices encourage people to buy over pirate. I know I've purchased many times over used other means precisely because a price was fair.

So, yea, all I'm saying is you can either screw your paying customers and push them toward piracy, or you can try to maximize the number of paying customers through legitimate means.

That's not justification, that's not philosophizing, it's cold hard fact. Make more money and have fewer pirates, or make less money and have more pirates. It's all related to business decisions.

Piracy, tbh, is very much like taking a walk in the rain without an umbrella. One way or another, you're getting wet. That leaves you to try and minimize just HOW wet you get. IIRC, it's running, but I don't remember the scientific answer.

I don't know the answers to your philosophy, but let's be real here.

DRM's are a result of people pirating. Pirating is the reason they exist. So you can't blame the dev's for causing piracy by using DRM's.

As to the solution, that is the unfortunate thing. They have show that pirates cannot be stopped with DRM's. They won't be stopped by removing them, and they won't be stopped by charging less money. They can be slowed down a ton, or completely, with a pay to play system. Sadly, that may be the way PC gaming goes.

I also have a hard time supporting the pirates cause, when these games are nothing but a "game". It's not like they are taking things they need. It is entertainment, which is pirated far less on consoles, which charge more for all their games..

Fair enough, that's a more measured response. Though it's important to note I'm not saying that DRM came before piracy, all I'm saying is its tendency to harm legitimate customers contributes to the problem. I actually bought the Sims legally via a humble bundle (because I could give all the money to places other than EA) but I still pirated it because I don't want to use origin and I don't think they'd give me a Steam key if I asked.

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

What's up with the topic derailment? It should be about discussing fps in games and not about piracy. We should be redirecting the discussion to the original topic, guys.

 

[skit75]

What's up with the topic derailment? It should be about discussing fps in games and not about piracy. We should be redirecting the discussion to the original topic, guys.

I don't think it was derailed so much as this was the end result after 5 pages of topic discussion. The community does not buy the reasoning of the "game industry's" decision to drop a 60 FPS standard. The reasons they give fly so blatantly in the face of the reality of the consoles hardware capabilities. The spin is amusing. It probably does need to be locked at this point, but it wasn't derailed.

 

[lookanlearn]

What's up with the topic derailment? It should be about discussing fps in games and not about piracy. We should be redirecting the discussion to the original topic, guys.

I wasn`t talking about Piracy. I was talking about cheaper games for everyone. Leading to greater distribution (more customers), and better performance, as nothing like DRM slowing stuff down and jacking up costs.