2 Articles , Improving the Game Industry and fixing Steam

[StarKnightX]

Finished reading these articles earlier today and felt that they both brought up really good points.

Dangerous Ideas to Improve the Video Game Industry:
http://bitmob.com/index.php/mobfeed/dangerous-ideas-to-make-the-industry-better.html

What We'd do (in a Perfect World) to fix Steam's problems:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/01/what-wed-do-in-a-perfect-world-to-fix-steams-problems.ars

To comment on the first article , I pretty much agree with everything , with hesitation on the ads thing. I'd be all for more in-game ads if they led to the price of the game or DLC being cheaper. As it stands we're paying full price for games and DLC AND having to deal with extra ads.

As for the Steam article , again good points around , but feel that the idea about being able to sell the games is a bit off. Of course publishers would never allow you to resell digital downloads , since that would defeat the purpose. Instead what should be offered is the ability to return or trade in your license to a game.

Ex. You buy Left 4 Dead for $10. When Left 4 Dead 2 comes out you figure you'll never bother replaying the original again , so you "trade in" your license to the first game and get back let's say between $2.50-$5. Getting back between 25-50% return on games that you buy would be better than or equal to what GS gives for console games. This system could even be implemented for XBLA/PSN/Wii.

So what does everyone else think? Good ideas , bad ideas , ridiculous ideas that will never happen (most likely)?

 

[dmaul1114]

The trade in idea would help make digital downloads for full games slightly more bearable for someone like me who rarely keeps games as I rarely replay them.

But it's still not the same as having a physical game that I can straight up trade for another game, or sell for enough to buy another used game etc.

I don't see it happening though, as people would find ways to strip the DRM, make a copy of it and still trade back that license. Piracy will happen anyway, they'd be silly to basically be paying pirates a few books for a license they already broke.

 

[GamerLina]

interesting

 

[aosora13]

I am not sure about trading but at least you can at least do better servers so bandwidth does not get bogged down and/or let steam do DRM instead of using Securom.

 

[Renaissance 2K]

The iterative consoles idea is downright mortifying. It's bad enough Nintendo releases a new DS every year, and that's an optional upgrade.

 

[CoffeeEdge]

Article is tarded, and is the same old stupid complaints and impossible dream ideas that people have been voicing about Steam for years.

Valve can't implement any of that shit on their own. They are not at liberty to bypass DRM that publishers opt to use, they can't go magically automatically adding Steamworks multiplayer support to other developer's games, and they can't implement a reselling system (which is a ing dumb idea period) without restructuring all of their publishing agreements.

The article claims that "piracy of Steam games is such a nonissue." They obviously don't know what the hell they're talking about at all.

 

[DPsx7]

No to ads. It's unlikey prices will drop enough to compensate and I almost never spend more than $5 for DLC or $10 for a DLC game. Without a book and manual why am I paying more? Honestly I play games to get away from the ads on TV, I do not want that trash following me, marketers can go to hell.

Steam cannot be fixed. It's too late, I'm never going near that virus again after what it did during the time I tried playing HL2 with it.

 

[doodofdoods]

selling licenses back sounds good. Steam has purchase history for each member, so anyone who bought the game could get a percentage back of what they paid for selling their license.

 

[help1]

The first article started off pretty good, but then he said he wanted more ads because he believes eventually he will gain from it. Nope.

And then he has this little gem:

Iterative Consoles
Consoles now have downloadable content, patches, and extensive online communities. Now, let's make the hardware mimick the PC market. While I don't suggest creating a device that you crack open and insert new components, I don't want to see new generational shifts. In fact, let's make this the last generation of consoles.
The industry is already moving in this direction by inserting slightly better hardware (storage, mainly) at roughly the same price point. Let's continue this trend and improving consoles incrementally. Of course, at some point you're splitting your market, but that never sank the PC. Every three to five years, newer Xboxes and PlayStations will eclipse previous iterations, and instead of "system sellers," we'll have "system upgraders" -- titles so good that gamers upgrade their equipment accordingly. This should reduce development costs, improve brand strength, protect smaller developers and publishers, reduce marketing costs, and maximize revenues for any specific set of hardware adjustments.

There is a reason PC gaming is on the decline: No one likes dealing with upgrading components all the time, and its too damn expensive. Not to mention splitting your market would make it hard to get a strong foundation, since once you get that dedicated consumer base, you are going to be all of a sudden alienating everyone. That doesn't sound smart, especially in the games market. And then lets think about what he is saying, he wants SHORTER games and MORE EXPENSIVE hardware. Yea, that is going to bode well with the casual gamer.