The link to my last article: The Violence in and around Gaming Issue. (And to a lesser extent: Sex)

I'll get one thing out in the open; I believe we will see a digital distribution only marketplace in the world of games; the caveat to this being only if developers and publishers alike see their customers as people, as opposed to wads of money to which to attach leeches.

1) Imagine walking into a coffee shop and purchasing a beverage. Just before you receive your drink the clerk asks you "Are you sitting in?" to which you reply "No".
This in turn results in the clerk pouring away a quarter of the purchase before handing it over. Whether you smash the shop up after this is up to you.

Replace this scenario with walking into Game (Gamestation, Gamestop, etc) and purchasing Forza 3. You return home, only to find that a quarter of the game is unavailable to you because your Xbox is not connected to the internet and one time only codes sit there mocking you.

A bit of a double edged sword I feel. It can be seen as an incentive to promote initial purchase sales, and it can also be seen as a deterrent as a lot of your game is missing.

2) Imagine walking into a fast food outlet and purchasing a burger. You've been to this outlet before, and have always purchased the same burger. Complete with lettuce, tomato and all the trimmings. However, this time around you have to pay for them. You can see the lettuce and tomatoes dangling over the bin. If you don't pay for them, they'll just throw them away.

Replace this scenario with purchasing Street Fighter IV. The online marketplace heralds some new costumes for your characters. A look at the file size indicates that this is a "key unlock", a 128.00 KB file that unbars content on the disc. Information that has already been printed, you're just paying extra for the privilege of its use.

3) Imagine buying a film, going home and placing said film into your DVD player to enjoy a quiet night with a steamy romance, or a depressing tear jerker. Twenty minutes in it cuts five minutes of a sex scene, later another five minutes of a boy saying his final farewell to his mother. Those scenes are only available via download.

Doesn't take much imagination to replace film with game, and scenes with side quests.

It is no wonder that DLC is creating a bad name for itself. Actions that we would never accept in any other medium have grown to full fruition in the gaming marketplace; parts of games locked away to drain more money from the consumers. Sure costumes are in no way essential to enjoy the core a beat 'em up, in the same way gherkins, sauce etc is not essential to enjoy the meat in a burger. It does not stop this from tarnishing the entire experience however, and therefore your view of the process.

Developers/publishers are using DLC as a weapon; believing it will slay the almighty evil of the trade in market. Sure there are pockets where expansions are made genuinely as expansions. Today's GTAIV Gay Tony immediately springs to mind. But I shouldn't have to provide an example of good - the whole system should be good with examples of bad.

The second hand market is a solution to a problem that the gaming industry has created, not a problem that the gaming industry needs to find a solution for. Diminishing value of their products has resulted in the accelerated growth of "temporary ownership". Your options such as renting, trading in, Lovefilming (Gameflying) have flourished because these products no longer have the solidity to warrant such a plunge of money. As soon as this is seen we can begin to see an improvement in the industry. Consumers will tolerate a level of "mickey-takery", but place too many straws on Humpfrey's back and it back shall break. (Humpfrey is a camel.)

This is what I believe the industry should do (now referred to in the royal you);

1) Abolish tacked on DLC. No Key unlocks, no download cards inside the game box, no missions on the marketplace within a month of release. You do not gain brand new buyers with this; only add more to the ranks of people renting your games. If I am unprepared to pay £40 for your tat, I will not pay £60 to get the full version. If I am debating purchasing your game, adding more money to the price will only put me off completely. All that's being achieved is the annoyance of your loyal customers with the potential of turning them to "the Dark Side".

I appreciate in some instances you'll get money for the content that you wouldn't otherwise, but surely this is damage control after convincing more people to wait for your game to become cheaper.

2) Do not overprice the content. Xbox's Games on Demand in theory is a smart idea. The stupid part is charging me more for something that is cheaper to supply. And I'm receiving less product. This brings me to;

3) Allow me to burn onto a disc, of course once only. Half of the battle in replacing "brick and mortar" with the "digital highway" is weight to your purchase. If something doesn't have a physical presence it doesn't carry the sway as a holdable item.

4) Allow rentals. Allow code surrenders (i.e. part exchange of your right for a game against another.). Allow loyalty bonuses in the form of discounts NOT crappy game content.

Instead of trying to prevent these actions, create an alternative. If you've got the infrastructure to provide rentals, you can provide demos as well. This all goes towards more revenue and allowing people to make up their own mind. With this in place, no longer will you need to advertise as much (or buy reviews) or concern yourself with shelf space in stores. You have your own virtual market front which you can mould to peddle your wares how you see fit.

The way to replace something is to offer something of comparable (or hopefully more) convenience and value to the customer. Developers/Publishers have their blinkers on, they see only the revenue. If they take a step outside and focus on the comfort of the customer, the revenue will naturally follow.

Only when the tarnished name of DLC is repaired will the true rewards be reaped. Only when someone in the industry thinks as a consumer and not as a shareholder will a step forward be taken once more.

iTunes would not work if you purchased songs in multiple parts. Netflix/Sky Movies would not work if you purchased programming in multiple parts.

Textbook Bobcat:

1) Abolish tacked on DLC.

What about "tacked on DLC" such as Dragon Age's DLC and the Gears Of War 2 Golden Lancer?

This stuff serves only to reward people who purchase instead of renting, what's the problem with that?

2) Do not overprice the content. Xbox's Games on Demand in theory is a smart idea. The stupid part is charging me more for something that is cheaper to supply. And I'm receiving less product. This brings me to;

An entirely reasonable demand, I suppose...

3) Allow me to burn onto a disc, of course once only. Half of the battle in replacing "brick and mortar" with the "digital highway" is weight to your purchase. If something doesn't have a physical presence it doesn't carry the sway as a holdable item.

Then why should they lower the price? What's the difference between this and an actual retail disc?

4) Allow rentals. Allow code surrenders (i.e. part exchange of your right for a game against another.). Allow loyalty bonuses in the form of discounts NOT crappy game content.

What determines loyalty these days, when hundreds of consumers are willing to boycott a game based of off a single announcement?

iTunes would not work if you purchased songs in multiple parts. Netflix/Sky Movies would not work if you purchased programming in multiple parts.

A flawed example. Proper DLC is akin to buying extra features for an already finished product, not buying a product in pieces (aka episodic gaming.)

scotth266:

What about "tacked on DLC" such as Dragon Age's DLC and the Gears Of War 2 Golden Lancer?

This stuff serves only to reward people who purchase instead of renting, what's the problem with that?

I cannot cast judgment on something that hasn't been released, nor do I feel judgment is needed on a reskin of a gun. However I can comment on the fact Golden Lancer was a reward for LE purchase, not merely purchasing new. (And is the very definition of tacked on)

But the boom of LEs is another topic entirely. Forgive me for my assumptions, but I feel you've missed my point. Instead of holding parts of the game back to "reward" people for buying it, make the whole game of enough quality to not need such a clandestine method.

Then why should they lower the price? What's the difference between this and an actual retail disc?

Really?

They haven't manufactured, packaged and distributed the game. You've taken a copy for yourself. Therefore you have incurred the cost of production.

What determines loyalty these days, when hundreds of consumers are willing to boycott a game based of off a single announcement?

I mean loyalty in the sense that you have a reward card feature. The more you purchase, the more you get back.

Boycotts are usually run by people that will purchase the game anyway. You place enough effort into publicly displaying your "distaste" and chances you're more entangled in the item than anyway else.

A flawed example. Proper DLC is akin to buying extra features for an already finished product, not buying a product in pieces (aka episodic gaming.)

"Proper" DLC as I mentioned is the diamond in the rough. If DLC is to be the future then it should be rough amongst the diamonds.

Applying subjectivity to my example however, the two storefronts show that people can get over not having a physical item, providing they have a service that is the same if not better than the existing model.

Textbook Bobcat:

But the boom of LEs is another topic entirely. Forgive me for my assumptions, but I feel you've missed my point. Instead of holding parts of the game back to "reward" people for buying it, make the whole game of enough quality to not need such a clandestine method.

I feel that you've missed MY point: that the whole idea behind these promotional goodies is to reward the players that purchase the game: giving them bragging rights (the Golden Lancer), or the extra content (a thank-you for giving money to the people who made the game instead of Gamestop.) It's going the extra mile for those "loyal consumers" that you mentioned later, not a clandestine sales pitch.

Really?

They haven't manufactured, packaged and distributed the game. You've taken a copy for yourself. Therefore you have incurred the cost of production.

Yes, but doesn't that mean that you've essentially purchased the same thing, and given the same people the same amounts of money? Distribution costs (maintaining servers) is still there, as is the purchase of the physical disc...

The only cost you're cutting out of the equation (the actual transcription of the game to the disc), would still even be present, because the company that made the console would have to put special machinery in the console to allow such a function: and they would pass this cost onto the consumer, or to the developers. The only thing this would work for would be computers, and even then, what's the point?

All you're doing is opening the scene up to even easier piracy.

I mean loyalty in the sense that you have a reward card feature. The more you purchase, the more you get back.

This has too many problems with quantification. Sure, it's nice to imagine a system that allows the consumer to get discounts for buying many games, but in the end the profit margins on games are extremely thin.

"Proper" DLC as I mentioned is the diamond in the rough. If DLC is to be the future then it should be rough amongst the diamonds.

Then just buy the proper DLC. Speak with your wallet. Problem solved.

scotth266:
Yes, but doesn't that mean that you've essentially purchased the same thing, and given the same people the same amounts of money? Distribution costs (maintaining servers) is still there, as is the purchase of the physical disc...

The only cost you're cutting out of the equation (the actual transcription of the game to the disc), would still even be present, because the company that made the console would have to put special machinery in the console to allow such a function: and they would pass this cost onto the consumer, or to the developers. The only thing this would work for would be computers, and even then, what's the point?

All you're doing is opening the scene up to even easier piracy.

Actually, not having to produce cases, box art, insert sleeves as game manuals and security devices on the cases themselves, not to mention saving on delivering all of the titles to all of the stores would be a significant reduction in production costs.

It's not like when you get a game from the store you see a burnt CD in a case. digital distribution SHOULD be cheaper, period.

TPiddy:

Actually, not having to produce cases, box art, insert sleeves as game manuals and security devices on the cases themselves, not to mention saving on delivering all of the titles to all of the stores would be a significant reduction in production costs.

It's not like when you get a game from the store you see a burnt CD in a case. digital distribution SHOULD be cheaper, period.

I wasn't arguing against that. I was arguing against the idea that being able to purchase a digital copy and then burn it to a disc should be cheaper.

Otherwise, what's the point of buying a retail copy?

scotth266:

TPiddy:

Actually, not having to produce cases, box art, insert sleeves as game manuals and security devices on the cases themselves, not to mention saving on delivering all of the titles to all of the stores would be a significant reduction in production costs.

It's not like when you get a game from the store you see a burnt CD in a case. digital distribution SHOULD be cheaper, period.

I wasn't arguing against that. I was arguing against the idea that being able to purchase a digital copy and then burn it to a disc should be cheaper.

Otherwise, what's the point of buying a retail copy?

Well, I believe the OP was speaking about a theoretical and probably impending situation where digital distribution becomes the norm, but you can't give digital distribution as a gift, you wouldn't get a manual, cover art, or any of the other stuff that comes with game packages.

People still buy physical music CD's you know.

But look at it the other way around, if the developer is saving all of that money through DLC and digital distribution, should it not be cheaper? Would you not feel ripped off if you paid the same price as the guy who got it at the store?

TPiddy:

Well, I believe the OP was speaking about a theoretical and probably impending situation where digital distribution becomes the norm

Then why is the thread about DLC? Just saying, the two things are entirely unrelated >_>

Sorry, was a bit woozy when I wrote that. To clarify what I meant, digital distribution will probably never become the norm. Also, combining a thread about DLC with a thread about digital distribution is confusing both of the issues.

I wouldn't actually feel ripped off for paying the same price: because the ratio of money that I'm paying to the actual makers of the game (as opposed to paying off those manufacturing costs) goes up.

scotth266:

I feel that you've missed MY point: that the whole idea behind these promotional goodies is to reward the players that purchase the game: giving them bragging rights (the Golden Lancer), or the extra content (a thank-you for giving money to the people who made the game instead of Gamestop.) It's going the extra mile for those "loyal consumers" that you mentioned later, not a clandestine sales pitch.

So you did miss it. Games never used to have to do this, DLC has come about as I said, because the industry is blaming something that exists due to its own laziness.

If they focused more on the quality, not gimmicks, then the gimmicks would not need to exist.

I used to buy brand new all the time (when I had much less disposable income), now I don't. I turn to the other avenues as the experience doesn't equal as much value as it used to. A golden gun will not change my mind on this.

Anyone who pays the extra £20+ over pre-owned for a reskinned gun needs to rethink their priorities.

Yes, but doesn't that mean that you've essentially purchased the same thing, and given the same people the same amounts of money? Distribution costs (maintaining servers) is still there, as is the purchase of the physical disc...

I didn't say you were purchasing the same thing.

Seeing as it has now been proven that distribution via download is fully plausible (Steam, Games on Demand).

The purchase of the physical has been replaced - I really am beginning to think you're being deliberately stupid. You (as in not the developer) buy a blank disc to burn the game onto - I don't know how to make it clearer.

Retail = No DLC = Yes

The only cost involved is the production, storing and digital distribution of the data.

The only cost you're cutting out of the equation (the actual transcription of the game to the disc), would still even be present, because the company that made the console would have to put special machinery in the console to allow such a function: and they would pass this cost onto the consumer, or to the developers. The only thing this would work for would be computers, and even then, what's the point?

The companies that produce the consoles take royalties from every sale made; seeing as first hand purchases will have then increased, there would be no reason to increase the charge per capita - as there is a higher turnover than before.

And what special machinery are you referring to? The machinery available in the Xbox, PS3 and Wii at the moment? Curious

All you're doing is opening the scene up to even easier piracy.

I fail to see how.

This has too many problems with quantification. Sure, it's nice to imagine a system that allows the consumer to get discounts for buying many games, but in the end the profit margins on games are extremely thin.

Exactly why the developer will want to cut as many middle men out as possible. No manufacturing contracts, no transportation contracts, no retail contracts, no overheads associated with all the above.

And if Game online, Sainsbury's etc can all manage this "quantification" I'm sure download tickets can be tracked.

I seem to get the feeling that your mind is stuck in the 1990s, and I will ignore your reply to this if you can't post something that isn't so... backwards, for want of a better word.

I could spend all day trying to convince a wall to move...

In short: Industry fixes the quality, will then alleviate the bad name of DLC, provide equal (or better) worth over retail (as in game download), it will get the solely digital market place it so craves and with it the lion's share of profits.

scotth266:

Then why is the thread about DLC? Just saying, the two things are entirely unrelated >_>

Read my first sentence - better still read my entire original post. You are striking me more and more as someone just jumping on certain points and not reading the full story.

Again, very well written and thought out.

The new GTA4 DLC is the prime example of how to make DLCs. Here's my opinions to your suggestions:

1) Absolutely! Especially the stuff that just unlocks stuff on the disk. These things essentially inflate the games from the $60~70 tag to a $100 game. You could make the arguement that as a consumer, I don't have to buy them. I can make the counter arguement that I already did buy them, but they're basically holding the content hostage by locking it, and forcing me to pay more to get the full usage of something I already own.

2) I call this the Sony Syndrome. PSPGo releases, with a bunch of games avaiable for download. Result? A bunch of games that are actually cheaper to buy UMDs for than to download. You've cut down costs by a good margin (shelf space, distribution, disk production aren't cheap) and you charge us more?

3) YES YES YES! This is another reason why I love PC gaming. I'm not sure about Steam, but D2D gives me the download, which I can then burn as many copies as I want. There's a code on the installation that's tied to my account to prevent piracy. I can't see any reason that the consoles can't do this. The PS3 already lets you download to other consoles using your PSN, and to prevent piracy they can simply tie the burnt disk's content to your PSN/XBL account.

4) I'm not a huge rental guy, but this is actually a really smart business decision. Why let Blockbuster steal your business when you can do it yourself? With the online infrastructure and the storage capabilities of the current consoles, it shouldn't be a problem for the publishers to provide online rentals. It's not like this is a difficult thing to do. You've already got the game codes, you already have a payment and delivery system, all you need to do now is to come up with an acceptable policy and throw some timing tags onto the game files so that it locks after however many days the customer paid for.

Textbook Bobcat:

snip

I'm glad to see you stayed true to your convictions, and kept on writing these articles. I suppose it's fair to call them articles.

Now while I entirely agreed with your first article, this time I feel I must disagree slightly. Again, feel free to mutter something about my mother under your breath if you've already spoken opposed to the following. I'm distracted by a lecture I should be listening to.

While I do agree that it's absolutely god awful to get home, crack open your GOTY _______, just to find the extra expansions are all "free" online downloads, is like opening the box to find the disk covered in pubes with a post-it note reading, "You just got f***ed. Enjoy." However, take an instance such as rewards. From my own personal experience, I lined up at 10:00pm the night of the Gears of War 2 release, and got rewarded with a poster and a little card. The little card, of which only five existed at my town's EB Games, contained a code to redeem a Golden Hammerburst for Gears of War 2 multi player. Certainly a justified reward, and justified download, for obvious reasons. (Read: those who'd crack the game to receive these items.)

In fact, you can translate this over to many different examples of DLC. If many of the extra content came loaded on the disk, or perhaps, loaded on a separate disk, you'd suddenly see much more piracy of this extra content. Making extra content down loadable, and therefore, requiring a code, it becomes much more difficult for pirates to illegally distribute content that the common gamer fairly purchased or earned.

Take a look at the PC. If you can name it, it's probably on Pirate Bay waiting for you to torrent it. Hell, my friend is currently torrenting Borderlands, which just came out. Adding the online download requirements is something that adds an extra layer of difficulty to a would be "cracker." Anything to deter piracy. Sure, you could argue that console piracy isn't as robust a community as the PC market, but you can't deny that it doesn't exist.

Hell, I remember when I was a young boy, just ten years old I believe, living in Nova Scotia. My friend just five minutes down the street had a PS2, which he owned a massive library of games for. And when I say he owned these games, I mean to say his dad had stole them. He'd rent the games, then burn them straight to a cd. By the time I moved back to Ontario, he must have had a library of roughly fifty stolen games.

Other than the above however, I do agree with your article. DLC is way over-priced, and in many cases not even worth the time of purchasing online. For example there was the complaints made to Epic Games regarding the release of their new GOW 2 package including the game, deleted level, and all the DLC multi player packs. This package was offered at a price lower that that of the cost of systematically purchasing each DLC item one-by-one. This outraged many long time fans of the series, including myself, until the price of the new DLC was dropped to address the issue.

---------

Keep up the good work mate, looking forward to article number three.

The gaming industry is just that, an industry. People want to make money, so they started charging for DLC. The DLC you can currently get are just fun extras that aren't really necessary for the game at all. If they didn't start this DLC market, I bet all those extras wouldn't exist, maybe some developers are making extra content solely for DLC?

It's like this.The gaming industry will have to change as an entire institution before I can see anyone embracing DLC more willingly. The big problem is that the gaming industry is now extremely corrupt, and power mad over the fact that the US goverment won't even enforce the existing laws on them within the US. Specifically I'm referring to the fact that they coordinated a price hike within the industy of the same sort that the gas industry was engineering that lead to federal investigation merely on suspician.

What's more the game industry already lied about DLC. I mean to begin with it was a nice idea, the abillity to release more content, faster, at a cheaper price. In reality all the money the industry saves from digital downloads goes directly into it's coffers. They don't even make pretensions otherwise. What's more they obviously think we're stupid because they decide to slap us in the face by doing things like releasing the SAME DLC on physical media for the same exact price... like with the Fallout Expansions. Making some of us who went scrambling to get Microsoft points and download the stuff feel stupid because we wound up not getting our disc and becoming totally dependant on being able to DL the content again if we feel the need to re-instally at some later date.

Part of the issue here is trust, and honestly I do not trust the games industry, and will not do so unless I see long-term change before any kind of massive "digital changeover". Heck, chances are even then I'm probably not going to support it simply because of the potential for abuse.

As far as "key unlocks" and such goes, yeah... that's dead wrong. But again, who is going to call the gaming industry on this?

See, the problem is that a resteraunt or a coffee shop won't act the way in the OP because they are competing with other similar businesses. You'll just go to another burger joint that doesn't charge you for the fixings, and they'll lose your long term patronage. However the gaming industry has effectively formed a cartel/monopoly in defiance of American law, and are doing things like this because they are coordinating to do them. The problem is that unlike Microsoft controlling all Operating Systems, or Ted Turner controlling all Media, the goverment hasn't chosen to get involved. Albeit in this case it is a bit more tricky because your dealing with a concerted effort (like with gas companies) rather than being able to point at one company or person as being responsible. The bottom line is they don't care though.

The thing is also that with a physical business messing with you, or even a chain, if they irritate enough people badly enough, someone is eventually going to start busting the windows at night, writing graffiti on the walls, or just take a couple of molotovs to it. It happens more commonly than you might think (albeit oftentimes not for this reason). The problem with Digital Downloads is all about where you go, and who you even go after. Being a cartel/alliance the most you could do is pick a name out of a hat and show up at their doorstep while everyone else involved in the thing laughs, while lighting up to smoke cuban tobacco out of rolled $100 bills.

At any rate, I see this whole trend as a problem, I think a lot of people do. I personally advise people to buy as little in the way of digitally distributed content and games as they possibly can to prevent a switch to the "digital highway" so to speak which is just going to make things worse since you'll have less alternatives in dealing with the industry than ever before.

Pingieking:

1)

Key unlocks are my biggest gripe, along with DLC like Vesperia, Dirt 2, Skate 2 etc where you pay extra to not play the game in essence.

2)

Plus the whole way in which the PSPGo came about, basically marketed as a method of punishing retailers for selling it. This in turn equalled none being shown in any of my local games retailers, nor on the online stockers that I frequent.

Goes to show if done incorrectly you'll make a lot of enemies (not neccessarily just consumers)- and making an enemy with who decides how much shelf space you get is a bit foolish

3)

The way I see it is it becoming a reverse engineered "Install game to HD", you'll always need the online "ticket" to enable you to play it, much in the sense of needing the disk to play at the moment.

4)

Movies already handle this perfectly, and whilst games are bigger and will undoubtedly put greater strains on ISPs the technology has made massive jumps in only the last few years.

KhaineII:

While I do... ...items.)

But would you have cared should the Golden Hammerburst never existed? Would you have still queued for the game? It's probably a yes - and whilst to an extent I agree "loyal" fans should be rewarded this isn't the intention. It's to bleed your money.

If you were "loyal" with their map packs you got shafted for example.

In fact,... ...earned.

As long as the strength of the hardware is there (and it has improved massively since PS1 era) then this problem will(/should) not rise

Take a... ...exist.

This in part is due to how the PC is built - its very design allows things like this to occur with toolsets and the like. With the lack of such luxuries (and distribution methods like PirateBay) on consoles they aren't naturally built for "theft" as a PC.

I may be being naive at this stage - and apologise if so.

Hell, I... ...stolen games.

Whereas that is quite an impressive, in terms of the market it is relatively low threat - and existed in a different "era".

Obviously the 360 had its piracy at the beginning of its generation and you can still get copied versions of first generation releases - but I'm yet to see the latest generation or PS3 (even Wii) having copied products available.

Again I may be naive - but as far as I can see its been nullified.

Keep up the good work mate, looking forward to article number three.

Thank you, its good to have some appreciation (or even understanding, I was a little disheartened with Scott if I'm honest)

[/quote]

Mr.Black:
The gaming... ... DLC?

Definitely. It's well known now that "DLC potential" has increased in importance next to "Sequel Potential" when discussing an IP.

While I agree with you to an extent regarding DLC never being necessary, I have to disagree on a whole.

It's like saying the swordplay in Fable isn't necessary, or the handbrake in any racing game isn't necessary - you can get by without out it but the absence will annoy you.

Therumancer:
It's like... ...on suspician.

Agree whole-heartedly. EA's spate of shovelware and the reputation they created for themselves is evidence of how easy it can be to sully your name and how difficult to repair it.

There are still many mis-informed opinions regarding EA (who I now believe are pioneers), just because of their flash in the pan poor decisions.

The same I will say regarding DLC, it will go through a wave of ripping people off while its fresh - only to find it extremely difficuly to sell gold for the price of silver when the honeymoon period.

So when the market is ready for digital distribution only, the consumers will not be.

What's more... ...later date.

I think part of this is "consumer moulding", in that DLC will be released first but physical media will be delayed. Many of the gaming circle look forward to a release and as such will not wait for a second "release date".

This will be the middle ground before digital distribution swallows the market entirely, "forcing" people to download to keep in with the current trend - a desire that drives most industries.

Part of... ...abuse.

Quite right, as mentioned above with EA.

See,... ...care though.

The installation of digital only will probably not take place on the structure of the gaming industry we have now.

Massive companies like EA, Activision, Sega, Square, Capcom (the list goes on) will be able to create their own "platforms" in which to distribute the games themselves.

There is every incentive to do so - console royalties are a ridiculously large charge developers/publishers have to incur, maybe even more unwelcome than the second hand market itself.

And with this will come the competition OR a tighter "cartel". At present games are naturally slightly regulated by the platforms they sit on. The gaming industry doesn't behave much like other estabished mediums. In that developers can often be "bought" by multiple publishers in their life spans, and therefore making it extremely complicated to impose rules - but when developers are enabled to distribute their product on their own I feel it will be a different story.

There's not really much a governing body in the vain of OFT could attain - but an evolution of the market will most likely provoke it however.

The thing... ...$100 bills.

They'll always house the servers somewhere - most likely server companies - much how Steam is used by many a company now

At any rate, I see this whole trend as a problem, I think a lot of people do. I personally advise people to buy as little in the way of digitally distributed content and games as they possibly can to prevent a switch to the "digital highway" so to speak which is just going to make things worse since you'll have less alternatives in dealing with the industry than ever before.

I too really hope the market can hold steadfast and stay as retail primarily, but I recognise how well suited the gaming market is to digital only and can hope that when it happens quality shall be prevail.

KhaineII:
*snip*

Hey, a former Nova Scotian comrad :D

Just a point on the pirating stuff. The current gen consoles are very difficult to pirate, and they are also very much tied to the internet. The next gen console will likely be even more so, and this will be the ultimate solution to the piracy problem. The publishers can simply make their console a kind of MMO machine, where any game you play has to pass through their security mechanisms to make sure that you're not playing a illigitimate copy of the game.
Such a thing has been tried on the PC, to a lot of fan backlash, but I think it is totally achievable on consoles. This is because the two main problems with the PC backlash is that 1) This is an extra system that clogs up the amount of stuff the PC users have to wade through to simply play the game. Not going to be a problem for the console, since all the necessary mechanisms can occur in the background without much user input. 2) There are many gaming laptops, which have the ability to travel to places with no internet connection. Again, not a huge issue for next gen consoles, since an overwhelming majority of their user base is permanently connected to the net.
Add that to the fact that even now, 3 years after their release, the PS3 and Wii have still not been hacked. The X360 was hacked, but it was rushed out and I think that it has some console design flaws which includes the possibility to be hacked. I think that if the hardware team was given an extra 6~9 months prior to release, the X360 would be just as un-hackable as the PS3 (and the RROD might have never existed).

Textbook Bobcat:

Take a... ...exist.

This in part is due to how the PC is built - its very design allows things like this to occur with toolsets and the like. With the lack of such luxuries (and distribution methods like PirateBay) on consoles they aren't naturally built for "theft" as a PC.

I may be being naive at this stage - and apologise if so.

Hell, I... ...stolen games.

Whereas that is quite an impressive, in terms of the market it is relatively low threat - and existed in a different "era".

Obviously the 360 had its piracy at the beginning of its generation and you can still get copied versions of first generation releases - but I'm yet to see the latest generation or PS3 (even Wii) having copied products available.

Again I may be naive - but as far as I can see its been nullified.

I'd have to again disagree with you.

As the popularity of console gaming grows (Read: XBox 360, Wii, PS3), the ammount of piracy tends to often grow with it. While examples of console piracy are a rare topic of discussion, it does indeed exist. I feel due to the large lashback from developers against PC owners regarding piracy, few people pay attention to what takes place in the realm of consoles, allowing such mistakes as the following:

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_enCA344CA344&q=Modern+Warfare+2+Xbox+360+download

Look at the fourth and so on returns on the page. Torrent downloads for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a game still ten days from release.

Should the link not work at some point, for some reason, googling "Modern Warfare 2 Xbox 360 download" achived the desired results.

KhaineII:
*snip*

We're getting a bit off the original topic here. We've moved from game pirating to console pirating, which are actually two very different, yet related, subjects.

The problem with the PC in this case is that you can't control PCs. They're all built differently, and the owners of the machine decides what the machine can or cannot do. The console is different in that the console makers are in complete control of what the consoles can or cannot do. If they want to stop piracy, then force every console to link online to play their downloaded games. This is not a harsh or unreasonable demand, and would effectively end piracy in that marketplace.

As for torrenting games, that's another matter entirely and is not really related to the original discussion, since it involves the modification of a console. This is more along the lines of a legal battle against the production of the mod chips and installers, since cracking down using game protection is ineffective. As long as your game is a program, and your console is hack-able using mod chips, then this kind of piracy will occur. Digital distrubution will not affect this kind of piracy in any way.