No UMD to Digital Copy for the PSPGo

[pwnophobia]

Sorry PSP owners but your UMD discs will not be able to be converted to digital copies for play on the PSPGo due to "legal and technical reasons."

"We were evaluating a UMD conversion program, but due to legal and technical reasons we will not be offering the program at this time," a Sony Computer Entertainment of America spokesman told Kotaku.

--

"We are looking into programs for owners who have previously purchased UMD titles and want to exchange them for digital versions," Sony Computer Entertainment's Brian Keltner told Kotaku at the time. "It's something we are still hammering out the details. As soon as we have solid plans in place we will make an announcement."

via Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5367207/sony-nixes-plans-for-umd-conversion-program-for-pspgo).

[vallor]

Boo!

Didn't they learn anything from Nintendo or, heck, their own PS/X slim plans? Being able to go one, sometimes two revisons of media back smooths the path of adoption and lets them sell multiple sets of hardware to the same person in the same generation.

Nearly everyone I know that has a DS has two versions. I don't know if that would be the case if Nintendo made their exisiting software library completely obsolete when they released a revison of the same hardware and forced a rebuying of the SAME game on the SAME generation just for a different media format.

[modeps]

Yeah, when I buy a PSP for stuff like MGS:Peacewalker, I'm getting a "classic" one. This is stupid.

[Rommel]

This is a shame, as the PSPGo is a great redesign. Digital media is where I want my gaming to be - but as little an investment as I have made in my PSP library, throwing it out the window is a tough sell.

[Itchyeyes]

This is quite possibly the stupidest move Sony has ever made. They've basically shackled the PSPgo with all the problems a completely new platform faces without any of the benefits. Meanwhile the device is also still subject to many of the design flaws Sony made with the original PSP (eg single analog stick). It would have been better for them to simply launch a PSP2.

[_-Psycho-_]

Technical reasons?! When pirates can do it so can sony. But there may be legal reasons. They'd have to find a way where you cant borrow a friends copy of a game and just copy it to the GO. Regardless i'm not buying a go before it get's CFW so i can use my old UMD games on it. Dont want those to go to waste.

[Hydroeric]

Wow...that is too bad.

Since I don't have any UMD games nor a PSP this will not affect me if I purchase a PSP-Go. I can just download what I want.

On that topic, wasn't Sony planning to release all (haha, yeah right!) previous UMD games as downloads from their PSN store?

Even if it is just the best sellers, I will be cool with that.

[Dag-Sabot]

*Wow* what a great marketing strategy. Although they did succeed convincing the masses to throw away their mountainous dvd collections just to buy into their bluray scheme...

[modeps]

If they allow you to download a game that you've already bought, that may be the only saving grace.

[Johan]

Sorry to get off the bus here, fellas, but I have to say I don't think you really have much of a reason to gripe. If you buy a book, you're not entitled to a digital copy of it for free when that becomes available. If you bought DVDs, you're not entitled to Blu-ray versions for free. You're not even entitled to a trade-in or cheaper upgrade plan. The original PSP launched quite a few years ago, and expecting the hardware to remain static in terms of backward compatibility with older media is unreasonable and a bit of entitlement whining.

This is the business. It's inexorably moving forward, and there's no guarantee that what you bought today won't be cheaper or out-of-date tomorrow. I bought a 360 Elite six days prior to the rebate program. Tough on me. You bought a PSP with the lousy UMD media. You could have waited...a long while, but you could have. I always hated the idea of UMD, so I didn't purchase one. I also hate the idea of a single analog nub, and until they add a second, I'll STILL be waiting.

That's business. Whether it's a good or bad idea is another issue entirely, but expecting Sony to cater to the past is going to leave you disappointed, even when they lie to you about the importance that such a thing (backwards compatibility) holds in their customer relations. :rolleyes:

"Expectations are planned resentment."

[shadow763]

My PSP 3000 works great and has excellent titles, its really all I need so I am happy. It plays UMD and downloads. Double win.

That being said....

I bought a 360 Elite six days prior to the rebate program. Tough on me.

Just return the one you bought and rebuy it. Heck buy it now, swap the HDD, then return the old one. Then you wont lose saves. :)

[grognard66]

This is only one of many reasons PSPGo is DOA (price being the main reason). I thought Sony may have become slightly chastened by the past few years, but this is just the latest evidence of a completely dysfunctional company still suffering from hubris and a disburbing disregard for reality.

[Johan]

Just return the one you bought and rebuy it.

I thought about it. It's just a little bit questionable for my tastes, and most likely violates store policy.

Heck buy it now, swap the HDD, then return the old one. Then you wont lose saves.

Console ID/SN wouldn't match (depending on how you do that, of course), and I transferred the license for my stuff to the new box, so I'd have to wait a year to do that again and would be stuck playing online only with my digital stuff. :(

Besides, it's not really the 'right' thing to do...

[torra]

That's OK, Sony. My PSP 2000 already converts all my UMDs to digital format. Sony is not really giving current PSP owners any reason to upgrade to the PSPGo.

[wastedyears]

Sorry to get off the bus here, fellas, but I have to say I don't think you really have much of a reason to gripe. If you buy a book, you're not entitled to a digital copy of it for free when that becomes available. If you bought DVDs, you're not entitled to Blu-ray versions for free. You're not even entitled to a trade-in or cheaper upgrade plan. The original PSP launched quite a few years ago, and expecting the hardware to remain static in terms of backward compatibility with older media is unreasonable and a bit of entitlement whining.

This is the business. It's inexorably moving forward, and there's no guarantee that what you bought today won't be cheaper or out-of-date tomorrow. I bought a 360 Elite six days prior to the rebate program. Tough on me. You bought a PSP with the lousy UMD media. You could have waited...a long while, but you could have. I always hated the idea of UMD, so I didn't purchase one. I also hate the idea of a single analog nub, and until they add a second, I'll STILL be waiting.

That's business. Whether it's a good or bad idea is another issue entirely, but expecting Sony to cater to the past is going to leave you disappointed, even when they lie to you about the importance that such a thing (backwards compatibility) holds in their customer relations. :rolleyes:

"Expectations are planned resentment."


I don't know why people seem to think they are entitled to free games and or accessories. I saw an article the other day on Destructoid where the guy said he was gonna cancel his pre order because the PSPgo doesn't come with a free screen protector or pouch to carry it in. I got a PSP two years ago, and even though it didn't come with a pouch or screen protector, somehow it still works today. Shocking, isn't it?

And just to play devils advocate, why would they allow you to d/l games you already bought for free? What is to stop people from logging in to PSN and claiming that they bought two dozen games when they never bought a single one? Should I be able to log in to Steam or D2D or Xbox live and say I already bought all these games, so let me download the digital versions for free? Does Nintendo offer free downloads of its NES/SNES library for people who claim to have bought the game cartridge? Of course not. Why should it be different for PSP?

[Johan]

Why should it be different for PSP?

It shouldn't. I agree with what you said.

I think with consoles and handhelds, people get frustrated because changes in hardware often mean a loss of software interoperability between hardware versions, unlike on the PC, where every upgrade of hardware can create compatibility issues, but there is usually a workaround of some sort or other with older software so that you can get it working on even the newest hardware.

Consoles and handhelds often (though not always) leave older software in the dustbin of history with hardware revisions. Yes, there are exceptions that offer full or partial compability, but there are also many examples where the link is broken completely and you're left, as a gamer, with the need to buy the new hardware to play the latest stuff, while having to hold onto the older hardware to use your older stuff too.

This is part of what makes me occasionally consider going PC-only...for simplicity's sake (yes, I know all about patches and drivers...a different complication, for sure), and to have an enduring platform for old and new software.

[brandonjclark]

Well, in all honesty here, they might be changing hardware, Johan, but they most certainly NOT changing platforms.

This is a rip to people who are expected to throw away their old library of the same platform! The media is being delivered differently, that's it.

And to the other gent, what's wrong with canceling your pre-order because you found out the product doesn't contain what you want?

Christ, it's like the entitlement game has gone full-circle and now it's the company's who are "entitled" to our money.

Sheeesh!

[Johan]

This is a rip to people who are expected to throw away their old library of the same platform! The media is being delivered differently, that's it.

It's new hardware. The significance of the revision doesn't matter. The reality is that the hardware has been revised, and owners of older hardware should know by now that this is the way console/handheld gaming has worked for generation after generation. Hardware is revised every several years, and backwards compatibility with older software is often a crapshoot.

I would encourage people who don't approve of the features offered to avoid buying one. I won't be buying one, either. I want a second analog nub.

[Samstag]

They should consider a trade-in program, where you mail your old UMD in to get a download credit for the same game. A little expensive to administer, but if you want existing customers to upgrade to your newer and more expensive product, it's the most fair option.

[atariv8]

They should of called it PSP 2 or at least not market it as a replacement to the PSP. This would be like if the slim PS3 no longer played regular PS3 games...

That being said, I dumped my PSP a long time ago due to having to replace all my UMD cases on my own dime and haven't missed it. I'm waiting for a true next gen handheld that can afford to put 2 analog sticks on the unit.

EDIT: My bad, I guess they plan on making the PSP-3000 in conjunction with the PSPgo, not replace it. So the PSP that can download games AND play UMDs will be cheaper than the model that can only download...hmmm.

[OakTr33]

well after johan's argument all I can say is the pspgo is firmly aimed at scoring new psp users (unless you're a diehard lover of your stuff in digital). anyone who has invested a few hundred bucks in umd is out in the cold. From my point of view, digital games offer just as many features as drawbacks and are not worth throwing away what I currently own on umd just to digitally replace for hundreds of dollars more. I see zero incentive to upgrade, especially when there's a larger-screen version of the same system for cheaper. Let's see if Sony can produce enough stellar psp games to grab new users because with this one Sony alienated me and I think lots of others

[CSargeP]

What the hell, they want me to buy my games all over again? No thank you.

[Ilikecapcom]

This is dumb on Sony's part. I have and still play my PSP. I own a good number of UMD games. I don't really want to get a PSPGo now, as it is not an upgrade, but another machine to own, since I can't play my UMD games on it or move them over.

[modeps]

I understand Johan's position, however I also can't say I completely agree with it... mostly because of how the PSP Go is being pitched. Since the announcement, it's been perceived as the next model of the PSP, similar to the PSP 1000, 2000 & 3000... NOT as a wholly new platform. It clearly doesn't have the new features to make it a new platform. In fact, its more like the shift from GBA to GBA SP. Different form factor, same general functionality and games. Just the fact that you're going to be able to play the SAME games on it (just not on disc) proves this. Additionally, they're giving people incentives to "upgrade" to the PSP Go.

[Zander]

The PSP Go is a downgrade. I'm just glad that people are now seeing it for what it is.

[vherub]

it's true, no one is entitled to additional content unless explicitly given said content.
But I would think Sony also wants to sell the pspgo to enough people so it does not fail.

There are enough sony stores around the US. Why not run a promotion where you buy a pspgo at sonystore, and trade in all your umd discs for digital content at the store at time of purchase. That would provide a simple, legal solution for psp owners that feel sony has abandoned them, and give the system a strong jumpstart. Sony also would be able to take a large chunk of the used umds out of the system.
3rd party companies would be able to give permission for their games to be used in the conversion process. And if not, there would be a list of games not available for umd-digital exchange so psp owners would have full disclosure beforehand.

[gzsfrk]

This is the most braindead move I've ever heard of. I predict an upgrade ratio of existing PSP-1000/2000/3000s to the Go of less than 20%. I'd actually be surprised if it was that high, but then I long ago ceased giving the typical consumer the benefit of assuming they were even halfway aware of the implications of their purchases of high-technology.

Major fail on Sony's part. Right up there with MS keeping ZuneHD development cordoned off. WTF, morons?

[gzsfrk]

Sorry to get off the bus here, fellas, but I have to say I don't think you really have much of a reason to gripe. If you buy a book, you're not entitled to a digital copy of it for free when that becomes available.

It's nothing to do with entitlement--it has to do with incentivization. We're not saying Sony is doing something immoral or breaking the law; we're saying that this is a stupid move that will--along with its ridiculously higher price given its reduced functionality--severely hamstring the unit out the gate. It's not illegal to walk out of the bathroom with your fly unzipped, but don't be surprised when people point and snicker.

If you bought DVDs, you're not entitled to Blu-ray versions for free.

Now that's just a disingenuous comparison right there--Blu-ray has features that are quantifiably above and beyond what you get with DVD (hi-def, better audio, improved menus, et. al.). By my understanding, the only improved feature you get with a digitally-downloaded game on PSP-Go versus a UMD-based copy is that you no longer need the physical media inserted to play the game. Nice, but it certainly doesn't justify having to re-purchase a game.

[gzsfrk]

Since I don't have any UMD games nor a PSP this will not affect me if I purchase a PSP-Go. I can just download what I want.

While this particular policy may not affect you, the fact that the PSP-Go will only allow the playing of digital media certainly will. Hope you enjoy paying full price for your digital copies that you will NEVER be able to trade back in towards new games or give to your friends to enjoy.

Sony should be paying people to upgrade to PSP-Gos in an effort to kill the used games market, rather than charging a premium over what UMD-based PSPs cost. Morons.

[BabyJesus]

While this particular policy may not affect you, the fact that the PSP-Go will only allow the playing of digital media certainly will. Hope you enjoy paying full price for your digital copies that you will NEVER be able to trade back in towards new games or give to your friends to enjoy.

Sony should be paying people to upgrade to PSP-Gos in an effort to kill the used games market, rather than charging a premium over what UMD-based PSPs cost. Morons.

Agree, Agree, Agree.

Stupid idea on Sony's part with the Go, but they fucked themselves with the shitty UMD format outta the gate. Sony just can't seem to get out of its own way.

[Major Dan]

Sorry to get off the bus here, fellas, but I have to say I don't think you really have much of a reason to gripe. If you buy a book, you're not entitled to a digital copy of it for free when that becomes available. If you bought DVDs, you're not entitled to Blu-ray versions for free. You're not even entitled to a trade-in or cheaper upgrade plan. The original PSP launched quite a few years ago, and expecting the hardware to remain static in terms of backward compatibility with older media is unreasonable and a bit of entitlement whining.

This is the business. It's inexorably moving forward, and there's no guarantee that what you bought today won't be cheaper or out-of-date tomorrow. I bought a 360 Elite six days prior to the rebate program. Tough on me. You bought a PSP with the lousy UMD media. You could have waited...a long while, but you could have. I always hated the idea of UMD, so I didn't purchase one. I also hate the idea of a single analog nub, and until they add a second, I'll STILL be waiting.

That's business. Whether it's a good or bad idea is another issue entirely, but expecting Sony to cater to the past is going to leave you disappointed, even when they lie to you about the importance that such a thing (backwards compatibility) holds in their customer relations. :rolleyes:

"Expectations are planned resentment."
The flip side, I don't have to buy a PSPGo! I wasn't planning on it, but this is another reason not to buy one.

[Johan]

It's nothing to do with entitlement--it has to do with incentivization.

It may not be entitlement for you, but it appears to be for some. I agree, however, that any company offering a product needs to offer incentives for people to purchase it. The question is which incentives will bring in the biggest bang as compared with the cost to Sony. Apparently, they're pretty comfortable with what they're offering, but many here aren't and think it should include a UMD-to-digital upgrade program for their present titles. That would be a hefty incentive, but it's not happening. It's probably far more costly and complicated (licensing/legalities) than we know.

[evild]

PSPgo is wholly targeted at new users not current PSP owners. Sure, they're probably hoping current PSP owners make the purchase but I don't think they're counting on it a whole lot.

[Capt_Thad]

I must've read this different from what everyone else here. What I see is Sony saying they can't figure out how to do it right now, but that they're working on it.

"We are looking into programs for owners who have previously purchased UMD titles and want to exchange them for digital versions," Sony Computer Entertainment's Brian Keltner told Kotaku at the time. "It's something we are still hammering out the details. As soon as we have solid plans in place we will make an announcement."

They'll figure something out. It might take them awhile, but I wouldn't be too worried about it. If you're not wanting to upgrade until it can be done, then don't. It's very simple.

I'm looking at picking up a PSP within the next couple months (they finally broke me down), and I'll be grabbing a PSP3000 personally. I'm just not ready for a fully digital system.

[gzsfrk]

I must've read this different from what everyone else here. What I see is Sony saying they can't figure out how to do it right now, but that they're working on it.

They'll figure something out. It might take them awhile, but I wouldn't be too worried about it.

Your optimism, while a bit laughable, is honestly refreshing. :)

[Capt_Thad]

Your optimism, while a bit laughable, is honestly refreshing.

Hey, I'm just repeating what Sony said. If they fail to deliver on the promise, then you all can nerd rage. I'd wouldn't call that so much laughable as logical, but to each his own. ;) People drawing conclusions solely from an article title about a platform that hasn't even been released yet is more along the lines of laughable.

heh Glad I'm refreshing though. That's something I like to strive for.

[Johan]

I'm just repeating what Sony said.

That, sadly, is what makes it funny.

[Capt_Thad]

That, sadly, is what makes it funny.

heh yeah, I can't really come up with a clever retort for that. Maybe I am holding some laughable optimism that their typical corporate PR doublespeak might amount to something in the end.

[crackeriah]

So the PSP that can download games AND play UMDs will be cheaper than the model that can only download...hmmm.

And that's why I just bought a PSP-3000. Let's do the math, shall we?
+ Bigger screen
- bigger and heavier (could actually be a plus, depending on the size of your hands)
+ Plays used games ($10 copy of Lumines?)
+ Plays entire catalog of games (PSN only sells 2 of the all-time top 10 games)
+ replaceable battery
+ Cheaper ($25 less, even after buying 16gb of memory stick)

I simply cannot comprehend what customer the PSP Go is targeted at.

[Pumped'Up]

And that's why I just bought a PSP-3000. Let's do the math, shall we?
+ Bigger screen
- bigger and heavier (could actually be a plus, depending on the size of your hands)
+ Plays used games ($10 copy of Lumines?)
+ Plays entire catalog of games (PSN only sells 2 of the all-time top 10 games)
+ replaceable battery
+ Cheaper ($25 less, even after buying 16gb of memory stick)

I simply cannot comprehend what customer the PSP Go is targeted at.

Me. I own a PSP-1000, plays everything, except that it it doesn't have the latest firmware.

I'm buying the PSP Go to complement my legit PS3 and to use the PSP literally on the go, unlike the PSP fat which is far from mobile. Plus free GranTurismo PSP??? sweet.

[Pumped'Up]

The PSP Go is a downgrade. I'm just glad that people are now seeing it for what it is.

Nope, just you. I'm just glad Microsoft has a better handheld.

[Pumped'Up]

They should consider a trade-in program, where you mail your old UMD in to get a download credit for the same game. A little expensive to administer, but if you want existing customers to upgrade to your newer and more expensive product, it's the most fair option.

Absolutely man, just like when Nintendo offered owners of the Gameboy version of Zelda Link's Awakening (monochrome) free upgrades to the color version of ZLA DX for Gameboy Color.

[NightRain]

I'd be happy if all they offered was a method to copy the UMD from a PSP connected to a PS3 then to the PSPGo, surely they could make that work and incorporate somekind copy protection. I have a PSP 1000 and PSP 2000, I was planning on getting the PSPGo if my 30+ UMD games would be usable on it in digital format without paying again. Besides that most of the PSP digital downloads so far are priced too high since I can buy them cheaper at retail for the most part.

[92miata]

funny thing is the pirates are already playing. support the legit people sony. let us send our umds. we are out here. i talked to one of you at the costco conference today. hire me and i will do the job, k?

[brandonjclark]

This might or might not be the thread that I should bring this up in and I'm sure some of you (most?) are sick of me bringing it up but here goes.... again.....


Publishers should start selling gaming as a service. I pay them x amount of dollars and I get access to their entire library, any way I want it. If I want to download the game and burn a copy, fine. If i want a purely digital library, fine. The point is I'd own a license to run this publisher's library by paying a monthly fee.

This would inspire better competition between publishers to make a better product as the cost of this "gaming service" would obviously, neccesarily, be higher than the cost of typical game, possibly even a console and the consumer would be much more critical of how they spent their dollars.

"Consoles" as we know it wouldn't truly exists as separate platforms, even handhelds.

Also, all of the royalties normally paid to the "big three" for publishing a game on these consoles would not exist and could be spent on collaborating with hardware vendors directly to create a puiblisher's coding platform, adhering to strict JEDEC standards.

The only problem I see with this is the platform becoming another console, but this might be reigned in or controlled if the coding platform was regulated(openGL 3.0 anyone?). In this way we'd have a much wider selection of consoles to choose from, much like the PC industry, which would, by regulation, have to conform 100% to the hardware and software platform environment.

I understand most of you "cling" to your branded consoles almost as crazily as I cling to my PC platform, but in this way we'd have the best of both worlds. Human interface devices (controllers) would have to be regulated as well, but only as far as meeting the basic requirements (think Wireless protocol N"+", or an "enhanced" standard.)


So, to sum up, in order to initiate the best competition between developers and pubs, we need to regulate or "monopolize" the gaming industry and sell it as a service.

Please someone respond to this and tell me why it's a bad idea. (I'll let it go if it makes no sense, but I need some input on this.)

[gzsfrk]

Please someone respond to this and tell me why it's a bad idea. (I'll let it go if it makes no sense, but I need some input on this.)

It's not a bad idea, and several companies are basing their business models around something very similiar (e.g. GameTap). Now I think for obvious reasons, you're not going to find a service that lets you burn copies of the games for use the way you can with music downloads--publishers would never go for that, even with a strong DRM system in place.

[vallor]

This might or might not be the thread that I should bring this up in and I'm sure some of you (most?) are sick of me bringing it up but here goes.... again.....


Sorry had to get rid of that tiny ass font. Also, there may be a kernel of goodness in this idea but the implementation is very problematic.

Publishers should start selling gaming as a service. I pay them x amount of dollars and I get access to their entire library, any way I want it. If I want to download the game and burn a copy, fine. If i want a purely digital library, fine. The point is I'd own a license to run this publisher's library by paying a monthly fee.

So far so good, this isn't much different than gamefly or the Zunepass (which is possibly the single best thing to happen to music on the internet ever!).

This would inspire better competition between publishers to make a better product as the cost of this "gaming service" would obviously, neccesarily, be higher than the cost of typical game, possibly even a console and the consumer would be much more critical of how they spent their dollars.


First, I don't think this would inspire much more competition than we already have. This type of competition servers the customer better since it becomes a fairly trivial matter to switch to another publisher. The current model locks you into a fairly expensive propriatary format that makes it hard to change to a different provider (you have to spend 300-$800 bucks).

Your subscription would have to be several magnitudes higher than a game+console to make any license last forever. If it isn't "a lot more" expensive you have to make a provision for DRM. Don't pay your subscription and your license expires. Otherwise there is no reason for you to continue paying for the service except for as long as it takes for you to download and burn then cancel the sub.

Plus royalties to the developers are usuall far less on Digital distros than physical media... the digital delivery system (Steam) usually sucks 30-70% of the cost of the game right off the top, not leaving much for the publisher and developer to divvy up.

Can you imagine the monthly costs to subscribe to every publisher there are far more than the big three that get talked about here? Activision, EA, Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Steam/Valve, Take2, Warner Bros, and on and on.

Even at $15 a month you're now paying potentially hundreds of dollars a month on the off chance that publisher will release something that month. Remember if you cancel your account the DRM kicks in and nothing you have gotten from that publisher can be played until you reactivate.

"Consoles" as we know it wouldn't truly exists as separate platforms, even handhelds.

Also, all of the royalties normally paid to the "big three" for publishing a game on these consoles would not exist and could be spent on collaborating with hardware vendors directly to create a puiblisher's coding platform, adhering to strict JEDEC standards.[/quote]


You totally lost me here. What is the incentive now for anyone to actually develop the hardware and SDKs that will run the next generation of games if you take away the licensing fee? Companies need the big three to pay for their pushing the hardware envelope. They can't afford to do CPU and GPU design and you can pretty much forget Nintendo/MS/Sony from collaborating on a single console.

Even what you suggest sets up a master "console maker" who is so spread thin trying to develop all the hardware and software to support Mobile gamin market, "console" (insert and play) markets, PC markets, and handheld markets. You don't think these guys are gunna need some huge start up capital, 10 years of development time, and oodles of money?

The only problem I see with this is the platform becoming another console, but this might be reigned in or controlled if the coding platform was regulated(openGL 3.0 anyone?). In this way we'd have a much wider selection of consoles to choose from, much like the PC industry, which would, by regulation, have to conform 100% to the hardware and software platform environment.

A regulated coding platform stifles innovation and the agility necessary to accept new additions. It also doesn't provide an avenue for other contenders to stand on even ground with the enforced standard.

There is a reason OpenGL is no longer the standard. It was not quickly adaptable when the market started moving away from dedicated 3D cards. Sure a regulatory body could then control when the hardware changes to make sure the software keeps up, but then we would have missed out on 3 years of great games and the launch of a great company in nVida.

I understand most of you "cling" to your branded consoles almost as crazily as I cling to my PC platform, but in this way we'd have the best of both worlds. Human interface devices (controllers) would have to be regulated as well, but only as far as meeting the basic requirements (think Wireless protocol N"+", or an "enhanced" standard.)

So, to sum up, in order to initiate the best competition between developers and pubs, we need to regulate or "monopolize" the gaming industry and sell it as a service.

Please someone respond to this and tell me why it's a bad idea. (I'll let it go if it makes no sense, but I need some input on this.)

What you describe is not a sustainable business model for the companies or the customer. You take away choice and replace it with an illusion of full access with no hardware limitations to get in the way.

What you end up with is the worst of all worlds. Lose/Lose/Lose/Lose for the publishers, developers, hardware companies, and customers.

Companies with no incentive to innovate, bloated companies stretched thin trying to develop and maintain all the hardware and software necessary for gaming across all the markets (screens, whatever you want to call each market) and no innovation or slow innovation due to being protected from outside resources.

You have some freedom in your gaming but it costs the gamer an extrodinare amount to maintain the subscriptions to all the publishers OR they pay just as much to burn a "forever" copy of the game as they would if the game were normally released to retail at existing market prices.

Very few people (though they are vocal) cling to any one platform. I think many folks in this forum and site are more along the lines of "I own the platforms I want to play games on".

That concludes my 10 minute analysis on this proposal.

[brandonjclark]

Sorry had to get rid of that tiny ass font. Also, there may be a kernel of goodness in this idea but the implementation is very problematic.



So far so good, this isn't much different than gamefly or the Zunepass (which is possibly the single best thing to happen to music on the internet ever!).



First, I don't think this would inspire much more competition than we already have. This type of competition servers the customer better since it becomes a fairly trivial matter to switch to another publisher. The current model locks you into a fairly expensive propriatary format that makes it hard to change to a different provider (you have to spend 300-$800 bucks).

Your subscription would have to be several magnitudes higher than a game+console to make any license last forever. If it isn't "a lot more" expensive you have to make a provision for DRM. Don't pay your subscription and your license expires. Otherwise there is no reason for you to continue paying for the service except for as long as it takes for you to download and burn then cancel the sub.

Plus royalties to the developers are usuall far less on Digital distros than physical media... the digital delivery system (Steam) usually sucks 30-70% of the cost of the game right off the top, not leaving much for the publisher and developer to divvy up.

Can you imagine the monthly costs to subscribe to every publisher there are far more than the big three that get talked about here? Activision, EA, Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Steam/Valve, Take2, Warner Bros, and on and on.

Even at $15 a month you're now paying potentially hundreds of dollars a month on the off chance that publisher will release something that month. Remember if you cancel your account the DRM kicks in and nothing you have gotten from that publisher can be played until you reactivate.



Also, all of the royalties normally paid to the "big three" for publishing a game on these consoles would not exist and could be spent on collaborating with hardware vendors directly to create a puiblisher's coding platform, adhering to strict JEDEC standards.


You totally lost me here. What is the incentive now for anyone to actually develop the hardware and SDKs that will run the next generation of games if you take away the licensing fee? Companies need the big three to pay for their pushing the hardware envelope. They can't afford to do CPU and GPU design and you can pretty much forget Nintendo/MS/Sony from collaborating on a single console.

Even what you suggest sets up a master "console maker" who is so spread thin trying to develop all the hardware and software to support Mobile gamin market, "console" (insert and play) markets, PC markets, and handheld markets. You don't think these guys are gunna need some huge start up capital, 10 years of development time, and oodles of money?



A regulated coding platform stifles innovation and the agility necessary to accept new additions. It also doesn't provide an avenue for other contenders to stand on even ground with the enforced standard.

There is a reason OpenGL is no longer the standard. It was not quickly adaptable when the market started moving away from dedicated 3D cards. Sure a regulatory body could then control when the hardware changes to make sure the software keeps up, but then we would have missed out on 3 years of great games and the launch of a great company in nVida.



What you describe is not a sustainable business model for the companies or the customer. You take away choice and replace it with an illusion of full access with no hardware limitations to get in the way.

What you end up with is the worst of all worlds. Lose/Lose/Lose/Lose for the publishers, developers, hardware companies, and customers.

Companies with no incentive to innovate, bloated companies stretched thin trying to develop and maintain all the hardware and software necessary for gaming across all the markets (screens, whatever you want to call each market) and no innovation or slow innovation due to being protected from outside resources.

You have some freedom in your gaming but it costs the gamer an extrodinare amount to maintain the subscriptions to all the publishers OR they pay just as much to burn a "forever" copy of the game as they would if the game were normally released to retail at existing market prices.

Very few people (though they are vocal) cling to any one platform. I think many folks in this forum and site are more along the lines of "I own the platforms I want to play games on".

That concludes my 10 minute analysis on this proposal.[/quote]

Thank you for the time you spent, it's much appreciated. :cool:

[HALO 32]

That ruins any chances of me getting a PSP Go.

[Anenome]

Did anyone really expect anything different? The logistics and pitfalls of any other policy can be pretty easily imagined. The 5% who would game the system entirely ruin it for the rest.

[vallor]

Thank you for the time you spent, it's much appreciated. :cool:

After re-reading I realize I came off a lot less positive than I had hoped.

Like I said in the beginning, I think subscription music services are THE BOMB and something along those lines would be terrific for gaming and there is a kernel of awesome in your idea.

There are also a bunch of hurdles to get through, not the least getting the publishers and console makers to break away from a business model that brings them a brazillion dollars a year. Whatever the replacement for the current system is, it will have to show them that they can realize more money than the current (to also account for the cost of retooling their processes).

It might be easier to revisit the idea as a subscription to a console which pushed costs upstream from the publishers to the hardware providers. This makes it easier to put pressure on just a few entities rather than having to convince the entire industry.

Also MS and Sony are already used to, somewhat, the idea of subscription type services (MMOs for Sony and Zunepass for MS) that they may be more receptive. Nintendo is a tougher nut to crack since I don't think they have any experience with this sort of paradigm.

[Anenome]

I don't think the subscription model can be applied to the gaming industry in a similar way that it has been to music. Music can easily be broken down into individual songs which are consumed passively and within regular units of time, ie: 2-5 minutes, and average out to a low cost per song.

Games are nothing like this. They require active participation, cost a whole lot more than an album, are not arranged into standardized units of time, and vary in quality along time spent according to user interaction (paused gameplay vs actually playing).

So, to take on a subscription service you'd first need far more commoditization of gaming than currently exists--this commoditization does exist in music. Currently games vary in length and quality considerably. I played FFVII until the counter stopped at 99 hours and 59 minutes. Meanwhile, one can play through an FPS like Halo in 2-3 hours. But there wasn't a huge price difference between them compared to the amount of money needed to produce them.

Which brings me to the second point: Standardized development costs. When the product is standardized, the cost of producing it becomes fairly standardized also. That is not nearly the case within gaming. Some games cost hundreds of millions of dollars, some under a million.

Gaming simply isn't to the point where commoditization is possible across multiple titles and producers.

Now, I can cite some places where such a model would work: retro-gaming. If Nintendo offered a subscription for access to every NES and SNES and N64 game ever made, that would be a hell of a deal. But, they clearly feel they'd make more off a nominal fee anyway, and it's probably better that way anyway for the consumer.

And the last problem: cost. If a new game costs $50 - $60 dollars, how much would a subscription service cost you???

Many games are financially viable because you cannot judge it 100% on the merits. That is the entire basis of hype-based marketing. If you can get enough people to buy it on day one before word can get around that your game isn't the second coming of god, then you can make a profit. Just look at how people glowed about the Halo:ODST marketing video. It didn't show a single second of gameplay, yet it hyped people up about a product.

If we had a subscription service and told developers that we would pay them according to how often gamers play their game, that would be judging every single game on the merits. That would probably be good for the industry in the long run, but it's also likely that many publishers would balk and therefore doom the service. Plus, you're adding in a middleman to distribute digitally and administer billing, costs, etc., on top of the developer, meaning it would actually cost less to buy the game you want yourself and own it, as long as you made sure to only buy games you knew you'd want.

Another thing, how do they judge how to pay a developer for gameplay? If I was paying by the hour for a game, would Portal have ever gotten to the market? A 2 hour game for $30? Surely the service wouldn't pay $10/hour to developers. And would FFVII have made more than $60? So there's the question of how long a gamer has to play the game in order to make the price of game up for the developer.

So many issues.

Perhaps one day, technology and graphical beauty will be much less an issue, engines will be commodities, and such a system can work, but I don't think it will be today.

[gzsfrk]

lots of great points

I think you're spot in most of what you're saying, especially as it applies to current/new games. However, I think the subscription model works great (as you noted in your example of a potential Nintendo subscription service) for old to less-than-new games which have mostly exhausted their revenue generating potential. And indeed, this is the basis for services like GameTap. What's a publisher got to lose? They can let their back-catalog turn some coin for them with little to no expenditure of capital or effort.

But yeah--the model doesn't work at all for new games development. For now, I think we're pretty much stuck with the model we currently enjoy.