Interesting article.

While I do agree that those four things (Internet requirements, microtransactions, wait gaming, and DRM) can be annoying when implemented badly, the will not "kill the industry".

In fact, when I really think about them, each one has been a part of gaming for decades.

#4: Internet requirements on games are nothing new. In fact, connectivity requirements existed in the 1980's with games that relied on then-popular systems. BBS's and service providers like Prodigy and AOL had many popular games requiring connectivity. They offered features people were willing to connect for, such as multiplayer support either through concurrent play or through turn-based play, score boards, and social aspects. Many games do not need it, but some games leverage it to the benefit of the player. The article author makes a point that when the servers are retired, the game dies with it. So what? In the 1980s I played games on Prodigy, back on my 1200 baud modem; they were fun and I invested a lot of time, but they are long gone. I remember spending months in the 1990's playing Trade Wars, Space Dynasty, and Legend of the Red Dragon (LORD). Online connectivity has been a part of the industry for nearly 30 years, it will not "kill the industry".

#3: Microtransactions are not a new model. They have recently become very popular, but they are not new, and they have helped the industry. Free to play with microtransactions has enabled the hobby and independent markets to grow to record highs. This has been an enabler. It doesn't work with all games, and games that rely on it too much can suffer. To cite that it has always been with online games, Prodigy and AOL games would bill you for some in-game features. Many BBS systems were free and the games were free to play; the BBS games could give you more time if you paid to subscribe to the system but more on that in #2. There is little difference between the "15 daily moves for free, plus 10 extra moves for subscribers" vs. today's free to play. The existence of the 30-year-old business model will not "kill the industry".

#2: wait gaming. The article's author must be too young to remember the BBS era. All the popular "door" games of the era had a common theme: encourage people to connect to the BBS, play a selection of 5-10 games, and then log off within 30 minutes before the BBS system automatically disconnected you. Games would limit you to 10 or 20 moves, or would limit you to five battles, or limit you in some other way per day. This is exactly the definition of wait gaming. Games let you buy more time per day, or allowed subscribers to the BBS to take additional moves. This thing that is over 30 years old will not "kill the industry".

#1: DRM. Games that shipped in cartridges had their own forms of DRM. There were lawsuits in the early 80's by Nintendo to protect the DRM in NES cartridges. I also remember in the 1980's where games shipped with codebooks, or when you had to search the game manual for page 7 keyword 3. Many of these were printed in a light blue ink that would not photocopy. It was typically only the big games (equivalent of today's AAA titles) that used it. Yes there were cracks, but the very fact that these security measures existed means that it is a cat-and-mouse game that has been going on for over 30 years. The fact that only the major titles use it, and that this has been the case for 30 years, means it will not "kill the industry".

These things are not new. The industry is always evolving and changing, but these four items have been a part of the game industry for over 30 years. To claim that the latest evolution will "kill the industry" is an overreaction to somebody who isn't taking the long view.

It may be pointless nostalgia, but I miss the days when gaming was a niche hobby. I feel like companies were more focused on games and gamers then, and worked harder to deliver creative, great experiences and good value.

Me too.

<sarcasm> The arcades of the 1970's were wonderful. Game consoles in the home with infinite lives and lazy design stink. The game developers worked hard to deliver creative, great experiences. Those home game consoles ruined everything with their pixelated graphics (it takes skill to develop good vector art) and a complete lack of compelling input devices like steering wheels and trackballs. </sarcasm>

Having enjoyed nearly 40 years of video games, I agree that there is certainly a good nostalgia factor. The things I remember when I was young will always be precious memories simply because they are the memories of my youth. Usually they are seen through a child's eyes of wonder and amazement.

The thing is, I've heard this exact same story that some advancement will kill the games industry MANY times. Home consoles will kill the games industry. Online games will kill the industry. A heavy focus on 3D graphics will kill the industry. DRM will kill the industry. Social media games will kill the industry. Free-To-Play will kill the industry.

When something is added to the game industry it does not shrink the industry. This is not a zero-sum game. When people buy a new product it does not mean that they abandon everything else.

People still create (and people still buy) clones of Pong (1972) Breakout (1976) Space Invaders (1978) Asteroids (1979) Pac Man (1980), and other great games. People are still creating and selling side scrollers and top-down shooters. People are still creating and selling tile-based JRPGs. New technology and new ideas expand the field. The overall field is bigger, so the existing games represent a smaller portion. The older genres get diluted but that does not kill them. They are still alive and well.

It is much the way that talkies ruined the movie industry. Then color movies ruined the movie industry. Today all the gratuitous explosions have ruined the movie industry. Yet somehow the industry is more profitable than ever.

Whatever is coming up next, perhaps THAT technology will be the one that kills the industry. But given the nature of the industry that covers the globe and nearly every demographic, I'm pretty sure it will find a way to survive.

These industries seem to be turning away from real fans and turning towards the casual "I go to watch a movie because I'm bored" masses. They not dying, they are only turning into zombies.

Just a hunch, but you probably didn't spend much of your youth waiting in line just to drop quarters into a (usually really crappy) game at the arcade. You went to a mall, watched a cheap stupid movie, and hung out at the arcade because you were bored.

I think it is just as hard to find "good" music and "good" movies as it is to find "good" games. Unsurprisingly they are almost never found in the mainstream. This has been true of games for decades. The "good" games are usually not the AAA titles, just as the "good" movies are usually not the summer blockbusters with gaping plot holes.

#4: Internet requirements on games are nothing new. In fact, connectivity requirements existed in the 1980's with games that relied on then-popular systems. BBS's and service providers like Prodigy and AOL had many popular games requiring connectivity. They offered features people were willing to connect for, such as multiplayer support either through concurrent play or through turn-based play, score boards, and social aspects. Many games do not need it, but some games leverage it to the benefit of the player. The article author makes a point that when the servers are retired, the game dies with it. So what? In the 1980s I played games on Prodigy, back on my 1200 baud modem; they were fun and I invested a lot of time, but they are long gone. I remember spending months in the 1990's playing Trade Wars, Space Dynasty, and Legend of the Red Dragon (LORD). Online connectivity has been a part of the industry for nearly 30 years, it will not "kill the industry".

were these stand alone games, that you installed on your pc(but required internet to connect to the servers), or were they games that you could only play through the browser? similar to many modern flash games, that are effectively found only online(of course you could dl them, but meh). because this is a good bit before my era of gaming(90's-present). you make the point about not caring about if the servers are retired. this might be fine for games of that era. but take sim city 4, diablo 3, or starcraft 2 for example, i know plenty of people that go back, and play the older sim's/diablo's/starcraft because they were fun, and engaging. now when the servers go down(and it will one day), those games will be utterly useless. perfectly fine, and fun games, games that could be played for decades after the servers go offline. are effectively dead simply because the company either doesn't want to support them, or goes under.

Both.

It still happens all the time today. Do you care that you cannot play Madden 2010 online today? The annual sports titles can still be played standalone, but it is well established that the servers will only last until the next annual update.

Many Facebook games have come and gone, and they are fairly similar to the Prodigy and AOL games. A few people care when a game gets retired, but generally at that point the DAU count is low and the game is operating at or near a loss, so the few people who actually care don't make a critical mass to do anything.

Even the big MMOs will be shut down when they cease to be profitable. A few older MMOs and virtual worlds have already done so. The thing is that by the time they reach that point, there will be few enough users that those who remain will be unable to financially support it.

Those who were not playing the games have already moved on. An Everquest addict today may very well leave it a few years from now, then in ten years learn the servers are gone. He may want the nostalgia, but you are right. It will be gone. The Everquest client may still run, but without the servers the game is useless. The same is exactly true of many old games from the 1980's, no matter how nostalgic I feel I cannot go back and play them because the online component is gone.

But that is always true in real life. The grocery store I shopped at as a kid, where I would see how many candies I could buy for fifty cents, the store is gone and has been gone for years. There is some nostalgia, but that is how life works.

#3: Microtransactions are not a new model. They have recently become very popular, but they are not new, and they have helped the industry. Free to play with microtransactions has enabled the hobby and independent markets to grow to record highs. This has been an enabler. It doesn't work with all games, and games that rely on it too much can suffer. To cite that it has always been with online games, Prodigy and AOL games would bill you for some in-game features. Many BBS systems were free and the games were free to play; the BBS games could give you more time if you paid to subscribe to the system but more on that in #2. There is little difference between the "15 daily moves for free, plus 10 extra moves for subscribers" vs. today's free to play. The existence of the 30-year-old business model will not "kill the industry".

I do agree that microtransactions can work, but they can also be over-used to try and pry as much money out of a user as possible. if it's things as simple as "change the color of your vehicle", then it's kindof meh, and if you really enjoy the game, fine. but if it's something along the lines of gamebreaking, i think that's taking it too far. however at the same time some customers don't really care, and just want to enjoy the ride in the easiest route possible(one of my friends is effectively like this).

They can work. And in practice they can work really, really, really well.

Look at League of Legends and it's 1.5 billion dollars. Look at the thousands of apps on cell phones and tablets that embraced free-to-play models and are both fun and profitable.

Sometimes they are implemented well but players still object. Is it appropriate to have launch day DLC? In some people's mind that is unacceptable, but most of the industry finds it perfectly acceptable. Buy a Monopoly game; it comes will all the traditional game tokens and the modern game tokens. Discover you can get additional themed tokens (the ones Hasbro rejected and blocked from the game because they were not official Monopoly tokens) through DLC on launch day, and that DLC is immediately derided as profiteering.

Then there is the DLC and microtransactions that is just implemented badly. Maybe it is profiteering. Maybe it is bad design. Maybe the game just sucks.

This will be true of all games forever. Sometimes something works well. Sometimes it gets player hatred for undeserved reasons. Sometimes it is implemented badly and deserves hate. I don't blame the feature (in this case microtransactions, but it applies to many others), instead I blame the game designers and developers.

#2: wait gaming. The article's author must be too young to remember the BBS era. All the popular "door" games of the era had a common theme: encourage people to connect to the BBS, play a selection of 5-10 games, and then log off within 30 minutes before the BBS system automatically disconnected you. Games would limit you to 10 or 20 moves, or would limit you to five battles, or limit you in some other way per day. This is exactly the definition of wait gaming. Games let you buy more time per day, or allowed subscribers to the BBS to take additional moves. This thing that is over 30 years old will not "kill the industry".

and wasn't this an absolutely horrid system? forcing people to only play for short-intevals(even for subscribers). Personally the entire concept sickens me. To design a game that can only be played in short lived increments, what's the point of making a game? If all you're going to do is ask people to leave after x amount of time. now then, don't get me wrong, i do understand it's use in games like city-builders, or space sims(ogame being a prime example), i'm more referring to the games that completely lock you out of gameplay until the allocated time has passed.

No, actually, it was not. The games were essentially turn based. On your turn you could take N actions. Then everybody else got a turn. This was the design. The fact that you only had a limited number of turns was an integral part of the game. An ecosystem of discussions and tools evolved to help you maximize those few moves.

Good game designers know that limitations are part of the fun. A game with no limitations, a game with no rules, is not a game at all. There must be rules, there must be constraints.

Those games were extremely popular in part because they leveraged the constraints. People needed to tie up their only telephone line to call the BBS so they wanted it to be quick. The BBS wanted short calls so they didn't need to buy as many phone banks. The frustration of having only a few moves per day was the same as the frustration of drawing a Q or Z in scrabble. That is part of the fun, and the design of the game is such that the bad parts are balanced with the good parts -- turning that 'z' into 60 points by spanning two words. Similarly, somebody who was really skilled at Trade Wars could take those few turns per day could leverage them to build ports at ideal locations, so they get massive benefits but other players did not. The games were balanced such that it did not get out of hand, and the daily moves were a key part of the strategy.

Again, some games do it really really well. Some games do a moderate job, and other games implement features in ways that serve as a warning to others. That is not due to the nature of the feature -- in this case waiting -- but a part of the design and implementation. Do it well and people focus on the fun part of having a single attempt every day. Do it bad and people see it as an inappropriate monetization strategy.

#1: DRM. Games that shipped in cartridges had their own forms of DRM. There were lawsuits in the early 80's by Nintendo to protect the DRM in NES cartridges. I also remember in the 1980's where games shipped with codebooks, or when you had to search the game manual for page 7 keyword 3. Many of these were printed in a light blue ink that would not photocopy. It was typically only the big games (equivalent of today's AAA titles) that used it. Yes there were cracks, but the very fact that these security measures existed means that it is a cat-and-mouse game that has been going on for over 30 years. The fact that only the major titles use it, and that this has been the case for 30 years, means it will not "kill the industry".

I think the point of the author wasn't that drm exists, it's that it's now getting to the point where we have drm schemes that use other drm schemes. it's becoming absolutely insane to jump through these hoops as a consumer.

It is only in some games. The number of games that do it is very small; really it is around 50-100 per year which is small compared to the thousands of new games that come out every year.

It is generally not in the "good" games, but mainly in the expensive, less fun, AAA blockbusters. Much like the "good" music and "good" movie discussion elsewhere.

#4: Internet requirements on games are nothing new. In fact, connectivity requirements existed in the 1980's with games that relied on then-popular systems. BBS's and service providers like Prodigy and AOL had many popular games requiring connectivity. They offered features people were willing to connect for, such as multiplayer support either through concurrent play or through turn-based play, score boards, and social aspects. Many games do not need it, but some games leverage it to the benefit of the player. The article author makes a point that when the servers are retired, the game dies with it. So what? In the 1980s I played games on Prodigy, back on my 1200 baud modem; they were fun and I invested a lot of time, but they are long gone. I remember spending months in the 1990's playing Trade Wars, Space Dynasty, and Legend of the Red Dragon (LORD). Online connectivity has been a part of the industry for nearly 30 years, it will not "kill the industry".

This is a trend that I find particularly troubling. I understand the need for internet access for multiplayer games, but this is being as DRM for single player games and it breaks game play. I spent $60 for Skyrim. I need Steam to play Skyrim, but Skyrim is not multiplayer. While Steam can be accessed offline, it "phones home" about once every two weeks, and if there is not internet connection, it invalidates the saved log-in information on the computer. I have very limited internet access right now after being out of work for six months. I have to lug my computer over to my sister's house every two weeks to reestablish the connection on Steam just so that I can continue to play. After doing this several times, I just quit playing. It wasn't worth the trouble.

Not everyone has or even wants internet access. Not everyone can afford it. It shouldn't be a requirement for games that do not use internet access. Although I guess this point is a combination of points #1 and #4.

What I am also finding really scary is the push to ban used game sales. If I buy a copy of a game, that copy is mine to do with as I please, so long as I do not make any copies of it. I can legally sell it, so long as I delete the copy I have on my system. Only recently have consoles been copying the game to the internal hard drive. This makes it tricky, if not outright illegal to sell the game. And this is unnecessary. While Sony and Microsoft will give reasons for installing the game on the hard drive, the real reason is that if they do so, they can fight used games sales in court.

The problem with this is that once the game has been purchased at full retail, they have made their money on that copy of the game. At that point, they are not entitled to any money from a sale of the used game and this infuriates them. Imagine if car manufactures locked the functionality of your car to your driver's license and prohibited you from selling the car without paying them part of the proceeds, or worse yet, just simply prohibited the sale of the car at all. There are legal prohibitions from selling a copy of a copyrighted work, but the copyright law allows for the sale of the original work. If the game requires the CD/DVD/bluray to function, there should be no restrictions on the sale, renting or lending of the game. This isn't a piracy issue, it is one of pure greed.

The fact of the matter is that new games are very expensive and cannot be returned to the store once opened. Moreover, most released games really, truly, suck. If I cannot rent or borrow the game to try it out, I'll simply not buy it.

MarkS - listen to this discussion by TotalBiscuit

. I agree with him, the used game market benefits people other than the game devs/pubs. I want the 2nd hand market shut-down, we don't need it. And the industry is better off without it.

This isn't a piracy issue, it is one of pure greed.

Who's greed ? You are implying the publishers are greedy because they want to make money on someone buying the game, yet you are arguing that you should make money on that purchase... you ! Isn't it then your greed, not theirs ? Greed being the desire for making money, you think it's preferable that you make money rather than the devs/pubs ?

The fact of the matter is that new games are very expensive and cannot be returned to the store once opened.

So don't buy the game, if you don't think you'll like it. Not hard. Read reviews, ask your friends who can afford to try out games etc.

Moreover, most released games really, truly, suck. If I cannot rent or borrow the game to try it out, I'll simply not buy it.

Most games ? Dude, it sounds like you need to change the way you find entertainment, it's probably better if you don't buy games at all if it's a mostly disappointing experience for you.