Oh I agree with everything you said. Only I fear we are a minority, not significant enough to really change the world. People keep on buying EA.

With that kind of argumentation the fact that physical console games sell so much better than Steam (or other digitally downloaded full price) games proves that gaming masses prefer physical games (with no umbilical cord to authentication servers).

After all, if they didn't prefer physical copies, they would simply not accept it and refuse to buy their console games, right?

Timppu, I think you are too critical of Velvets arguments. Even if he does not 100% prove that customers accept Steam or any other online service then still it is very, very, very probable that he is just right - just from the many happy customers of Steam or other services that actually agree with it, agree with the DRM. You can try to prove the opposite, if you like! :)

I already gave the proof: physical games on consoles sell much better. :^)

If I ever see that console gamers demand that they should be able to download their AAA games instead of playing from DVD or BR disc (with the DRM restrictions that come with it, like that they can't lend their games to their friends, swap games or even sell them away), then I'm ready to believe you.

In PC it is hard to tell anymore which would sell better because games are not offered both as DVD-only games (with no umbilicar cord to authentication servers) and downloadable games. The only options nowadays pretty much are:

- physical game with umbilicar cord to authentication servers
- digital copy with umbilicar cord to authentication servers

It is important to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In this context when I talk about "physical games" and "downloadable/digital games":

physical game = a game delivered on e.g. DVD with only CD-check. No online authentication, limitations to re-installing or re-selling the game.

digital game = a game that can be delivered fully downloadable, and comes with DRM that requires you to have a connection to an authentication server at least upon installation, and usually limits that you are not able to e.g. swap games with your friends or sell your old games (or buy second-hand games, for that matter).

If we take other alternatives also (like GoG, which is DRM-free downloadable games), then of course I could say I prefer digitally distributed games, because GoG is my favourite. Physical CD-check games come second (as long as they don't have grazyass Starforce etc. protections that mess up my PC and cause compatibility issues with extra drivers).

That's completely irrelevant, you can't compare console sales to PC digital sales to make a point. Console sales vastly outstrip PC sales on any level.

Now Xbox does have digital versions of some games but it's relatively rare, they always come out after the physical version and they are not priced right or put on sale, nor are they marketed. There is no comparison to make there yet.

You can make the comparison much better than with the Netflix and Itunes examples which are not games at all.

As I said, the comparison can't be anymore made on PC side either because hardly any DVD games with mere CD-check are offered anymore. Do you think this is because people didn't want such games, but rather downloadable games with all kinds of extra DRM restrictions?

If you are offered kick to the balls, or kick to the balls and shot to the head, choosing the first one does not necessarily mean you enjoy being kicked to the balls.

From the "Risen 2 will use Steam" discussion:

"I'm getting this on my Xbox so I don't have to worry about Steam"

That is just one opinion of course, but somehow I think these kinds of sentiments are much more common than the opposite, ie. someone choosing the PC version rather than the console version just because he can get it on Steam (with all the related extra DRM).

Hence, physical console games continue to sell better than PC games, not despite PC digital DRM deliveries, but partly because of it.

Well surely one forum comment is the basis for an argument. Oh wait, no it isn't. There are a ton of people who complain about Steam DRM, I have been one of them many times, but they are a minority. For many Steam revitalized PC gaming, not the other way around. The PC has seen a resurgence since digital distribution and Steam caught on, not a fall.

Even if you are right and most consumers prefer boxed disc sales with no DRM or service aspect, they're still fucked. The Xbox and Playstation will be going more toward DRM and online services in future hardware and are already doing as much as they can this generation. Downloadable games are massive, DLC has been a huge part of this generation, Xbox Live and PSN offer Steam-like services and "project $10" and similar things make used copies less and less useful. It's only a matter of time until Xbox and Playstation games tie to an account just like Steam games.

Is there any hard data on Steam revitalizing PC gaming, e.g. PC game sales have skyrocketed thanks to Steam? The fact that digital distribution has gotten a bigger part of the PC pie is no news because the corporations have at the same time intentionally killed the alternative (ie. physical copy with no online DRM). In some cases the digital Steam version has had less DRM than the boxed version with extra online DRM, which of course makes the digital Steam version more lucrative to anyone. Kick in the nuts is still preferable to kick in the nuts and a stab to the face.

For the second part, the point of this discussion was not whether the whole game market (including console games) is going towards digital distribution with strict DRM (on console side I could see one such DRM limitation to be that the game is always locked to just one console, ie. you would not be able to swap games with your friends; that's where the corporations are pushing console games already with personal DLC). I think that is very much what the corporations wish, and will push of course (ever since CircuitCity DIVX) Your argument appeared to be that this move is because the majority of consumers want it that way, I disagreed (especially after they personally face the first problems with it).

Pretty much every corporate financial statement talks about online sales revenue being a massive boost. Steam sale numbers are very high, going on the information we do get. A lot of it is all secret though, because the companies want it that way. In any case I would say common sense and paying attention to the gaming media shows that digital delivery has lead to a PC resurgence, not a PC downfall.

Two responses here. 1) Companies can't do shit without consumer approval. If the majority of consumers did not want PC games to be online purchases or to have DRM on them then they wouldn't. Consumers have approved these things through sales. 2) Consumers crave convenience over all else and online services are very convenient. It's easier to rent a movie through your cable company than to run to Blockbuster. It's easier to download a game than to try and find it in increasingly vanishing boxed retail or to wait for an amazon delivery. It's easier to use MP3s than CDs. In most cases convenience trumps quality. Second to convenience is value. Netflix offers great value compared to buying movies or renting them from Blockbuster. Steam offers great value with it's sales, pre-order discounts and added features (cloud, achievements, auto-patching).

Consumers embrace digital distribution and the service model. There is no question about it. It will take longer in countries with lesser internet availability and some kind of boxed product will always exist for big releases, but media as a whole is moving online. More frighteningly, media as a whole is moving toward subscription and away from purchase. It is happening because consumers embrace it.

My feeling is that PC gaming never really was going down so much as they said it was. I never really played much console games and always played PC games. Steam has even rather restricted my choice of PC games. So, while Steam certainly made gaming on PCs more convenient for some people, I think that the temporary dip in PC gaming was greatly exaggerated. However, PC gaming is not the biggest share in the gaming market since long time probably since the first XBox, PS2, ... And then came smartphones, ... so the available plattforms grow and grow and PC gaming will slowly decline. And the superior graphics performance of a PC is fine, but in most cases not really needed, while the higher hardware costs are always annoying.

Nintendo 3DS price slashed to $170 according to this article. Sorta off topic but thought I would share . . . =)

Link to Article

Google + Games Article mentions EA

Nintendo is another piece of work company.

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/nintendo

I agree but . . . I have fond memories of Zelda . . . =)

I always prefer getting single player games on the PC.... First because my pc can perform better than the consoles and second (and most importantly) they're cheaper. If the game has draconian DRM like ubisoft's then I won't buy it on pc but nor will I rush to buy it on console. I'll wait till it comes down to £17.99 or £10 and then buy it.

Multiplayer games, at least ones that my friends will be playing, I begrudgingly get on console.