I have just heard Mark Gatiss talking about continuity on the Utter Shambles podcast with Josie Long and Robin Ince (I know, I know, slightly out of date - I have just discovered it and am catching up with the backlog).
Anyway, in the podcast Mark Gatiss (who has written scripts for Doctor Who), refers to continuity and says that in his opinion, "if continuity gets in the way of the plot, f*ck it".
I can't really agree with this sentiment and to hear it from a long-standing fan of Doctor Who and (now) writer on the show, is a bit disappointing.
The one thing that annoys me about watching films and television programmes is where things happen that aren't logical or don't make sense and therefore break the suspension of disbelief, even if only for a second. Sometimes this is down to unfortunate editing but sometimes it is down to sloppiness within the script.
This is especially true of long running series and particularly with science fiction series, where huge amounts of facts have to be invented from scratch to explain how the fictional universe works.
I have a great deal of respect for Mark Gatiss as a writer and for the ideas that Russell T. Davies had when he was a writer for the show, but one thing that spoils the magic for me is when credibility is stretched to breaking point or when logic is thrown out of the window for the sake of following their vision.
A good example of this (and an example of why it was right for Russell T. Davies to leave Doctor Who) was the comment made by him in a commentary for the Waters of Mars special. Ignoring the incredibly silly and logic-defying ending for a moment (which merits another article on its own), the comment he made referred to the scene where the Doctor has suited up and left the base, but decides to go back and walks back through the debris of the recently exploded escape shuttle, complete with fires.
The comment was that the script editor (Gary Russell) had pointed out that Mars has no atmosphere, therefore you wouldn't have any fires on the surface. Rather than correcting his script or coming up with a justification that would allow a fire, Russell just over-ruled his own script editor because that was what he wanted to see.
If writers are happy to ignore even scientific facts then it isn't surprising that they are also happy to ignore fictitious facts.
However, this attitude does them no credit because it breaks the spell for any viewer who is aware of the inconsistency and makes the writer look ignorant for not being aware of the mistake or lazy for not trying write around it.
In the case of a fictitious universe (such as Doctor Who), established facts (either based upon our own current scientific facts or upon statements made as facts in earlier stories), should be treated the same - as an established truth like gravity.
Of course this doesn't mean that writers can never do anything that would result in someone or something defying gravity, but anyone writing for anything other than a programme aimed at young children should at the very least come up with a justification for it when they do.
Getting back to the Mark Gatiss Interview, he cited that there was recently (over a year ago now) a furore over the a line that Russell T. Davies added to one of the Sarah Jane Adventures, in which Matt Smith made a guest appearance as the Eleventh Doctor. The line related to the maximum number of times Time Lords can regenerate and contradicted a statement made in a 1976 story that said Time Lords can only regenerate Twelve times.
(By the way Mark if you read this - the reason The Master was able to regenerate again after reaching this limitation was given in the Peter Davison story The Keeper of Traken. The later incarnations of the Master were all written without any reference to previous versions for no very good reason and probably for the same reasons that different versions of the fall of Atlantis has been depicted in the programme - sloppy writing.)
The issue of the maximum number of regenerations is a thorny one, especially as we are not that far off having a twelfth Doctor , so it is entirely natural that the program makers should look for some way to remove that particular hurdle.
But rather than just pretending it never existed, how difficult would it have been to think up a reason for it no longer applying?
For example, it could have been stated that "Regeneration taps into the energy of the time/space vortex and that the Time Lords were able to restrict this beyond the twelfth regeneration to discourage people with potentially unlimited regenerations from behaving recklessly with their bodies, but with the Time Lords gone, who knows what the actual limit is?"
A more extravagant option would have been to write in a specific plot point that allows the extension of his regenerations.
Of course writers shouldn't be slaves to previously established facts, but neither should they weaken the narrative credibility of the setting they have created by blatantly ignoring them.
Writers (especially those who are self-proclaimed fans of the shows), should be aspiring to a higher standard than that.
Monday, 5 March 2012
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Scottish Independence - the thorny question
The debate about possible independence for Scotland appears to be kicking off in a big way, since the SNP announced the date it wanted to hold the referendum (Autumn 2014).
Personally, I would hate to see an independent Scotland because one of the attractive things about the U.K. in my opinion is the way that different cultures live together and work together and come together in times of need.
As a nation, the British are made up of very different peoples and that has been one of our great strengths over the years.
It also seems rather counter-intuitive. When many communities and countries are uniting to provide them with greater power and a greater say in the world, the idea of splitting nations down into smaller parts is ridiculous. The U.K. has a great deal of influence within Europe and the Commonwealth. If Scotland broke away, it certainly wouldn't enjoy anywhere near that level of influence.
So what is the solution? Apparently most Scots do not want complete independence (which is one suggested reason for SNP placing the referendum so far in the future), but I think a much larger proportion would like greater powers of autonomy.
I have a solution, a possible idea that should appeal to everyone within the U.K. and would enable everyone to remain part of the U.K. itself:
A Federal United Kingdom
I think the solution should be a more federal set-up where each of the nation states has an assembly (or parliament) that has complete autonomy *apart* from those issues that are identified as requiring federal rather than national jurisdiction - such as defence, foreign policy and issues around our currency for example. In this case each nation's government would contribute to the costs, administration and running of those federal bodies.
The Parliaments (Lower Chambers)
Each parliament would have primary responsibility for governing its nation. In England this would be the House of Commons at Westminster. Each leader of the elected goverment would be the First Minister
It would also oversee any federal legislation passed by the Upper Chamber.
The House of Lords (Upper Chamber)
In its current form this would be scrapped and would become the Federal governing body, with distinct purposes -
- To pass legislation on and management of federal concerns and to provide the UK government based upon the largest number of elected representatives as the House of Commons currently does. The leader of the largest elected party would remain the Prime Minister and the cabinet would have to include the First Ministers of each of the national parliaments.
- To oversee legislation passed in the national parliaments.
This "oversight" function would be used as a safety net in the way the House of Lords currently does. If one of the Lower Chambers created the legislation it would then go to the Upper Chamber for oversight.
if the Upper Chamber was the source, it would need to go to each of the Lower Chambers for oversight.
The source chamber of the legislation would need to win the vote by a simple majority to pass it.
However the Overseeing chamber would effectively then vote to block (reject) it. But in this case a larger majority (e.g. two-thirds) would be required for it to be rejected.
Personally, I would hate to see an independent Scotland because one of the attractive things about the U.K. in my opinion is the way that different cultures live together and work together and come together in times of need.
As a nation, the British are made up of very different peoples and that has been one of our great strengths over the years.
It also seems rather counter-intuitive. When many communities and countries are uniting to provide them with greater power and a greater say in the world, the idea of splitting nations down into smaller parts is ridiculous. The U.K. has a great deal of influence within Europe and the Commonwealth. If Scotland broke away, it certainly wouldn't enjoy anywhere near that level of influence.
So what is the solution? Apparently most Scots do not want complete independence (which is one suggested reason for SNP placing the referendum so far in the future), but I think a much larger proportion would like greater powers of autonomy.
I have a solution, a possible idea that should appeal to everyone within the U.K. and would enable everyone to remain part of the U.K. itself:
A Federal United Kingdom
I think the solution should be a more federal set-up where each of the nation states has an assembly (or parliament) that has complete autonomy *apart* from those issues that are identified as requiring federal rather than national jurisdiction - such as defence, foreign policy and issues around our currency for example. In this case each nation's government would contribute to the costs, administration and running of those federal bodies.
The Parliaments (Lower Chambers)
Each parliament would have primary responsibility for governing its nation. In England this would be the House of Commons at Westminster. Each leader of the elected goverment would be the First Minister
It would also oversee any federal legislation passed by the Upper Chamber.
The House of Lords (Upper Chamber)
In its current form this would be scrapped and would become the Federal governing body, with distinct purposes -
- To pass legislation on and management of federal concerns and to provide the UK government based upon the largest number of elected representatives as the House of Commons currently does. The leader of the largest elected party would remain the Prime Minister and the cabinet would have to include the First Ministers of each of the national parliaments.
- To oversee legislation passed in the national parliaments.
This "oversight" function would be used as a safety net in the way the House of Lords currently does. If one of the Lower Chambers created the legislation it would then go to the Upper Chamber for oversight.
if the Upper Chamber was the source, it would need to go to each of the Lower Chambers for oversight.
The source chamber of the legislation would need to win the vote by a simple majority to pass it.
However the Overseeing chamber would effectively then vote to block (reject) it. But in this case a larger majority (e.g. two-thirds) would be required for it to be rejected.
Monday, 2 January 2012
As we wave goodbye to 2011 we also have to wave goodbye to a fair few iconic actors, people I have adored or lusted after from my formative years.
It has been a bad year for Doctor Who. Not only have we lost Roy Skelton (voice of many old Who monsters and other shows such as Rainbow), but we also lost the dearly loved Nicholas Courtney, who so brilliantly portrayed Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart. Even more shocking was the sudden death of Elisabeth Sladen, whose portrayal of Sarah Jane Smith made for one of the finest companions in the series. The fact she had been able to return to the character both in the new version of the series and in The Sarah Jane Adventures, gave her a fantastic (and deserved) second burst of success, only to be cut short by her sudden death.
Another beautiful actress in the form of Suzannah York died unexpectedly last year, another icon from my youth.
Science Fiction suffered another loss from the Babylon 5 cast, with Jeff Conaway (Zack Allen from the show) going beyond the rim to join Andreas Katsulas and Richard Biggs.
It has been a bad year for Doctor Who. Not only have we lost Roy Skelton (voice of many old Who monsters and other shows such as Rainbow), but we also lost the dearly loved Nicholas Courtney, who so brilliantly portrayed Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart. Even more shocking was the sudden death of Elisabeth Sladen, whose portrayal of Sarah Jane Smith made for one of the finest companions in the series. The fact she had been able to return to the character both in the new version of the series and in The Sarah Jane Adventures, gave her a fantastic (and deserved) second burst of success, only to be cut short by her sudden death.
Another beautiful actress in the form of Suzannah York died unexpectedly last year, another icon from my youth.
Science Fiction suffered another loss from the Babylon 5 cast, with Jeff Conaway (Zack Allen from the show) going beyond the rim to join Andreas Katsulas and Richard Biggs.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
The Clue Bible
While sauntering past one of my favourite I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue websites (http://www.isihac.co.uk/), I came across a link to a series of webcasts from an Australian Goodies fan site (I had forgotten how big The Goodies are down under!). These particular podcasts were of interest to Clue fans because they contained a long interview with Gem Roberts, author of The Clue Bible.
A couple of things struck me about the comments he made. One of them was that people (Clue fans presumably), had complained about the about of space allocated to pre-Clue history and the fact that Clue itself only appears half way through the book.
Now I am a big Clue fan and have been since I first heard one of their Christmas specials way back in 1986. I am also a Goodies fan because I grew up with it* (indeed this is why I made a point of listening to Clue that Christmas day, because The Radio Times listed Graeme Garden and Tim Brooke-Taylor as panelists).
But I just don't understand the mentality of people who complain about a book that clearly sets itself out to be an authoritative guide to Clue, including both I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again and I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue.
Indeed the byline of the book is "From Footlights to Mornington Crescent". As much as I am interested in history, what interests me is why things happened. What were the reasons behind the various events and how did the participants get there. The history of Clue is no different - you have to understand the progression of the main players and how they came together in that dizzy period, riding the wave that had started with Beyond The Fringe and how the various players interacted, to understand not only how we arrived at ISIRTA and ISIHAC, but also Monty Python's Flying Circus and The Goodies.
I have nothing but respect for the author of The Clue Bible, who has managed to weave together all of this information spanning fifty years of comedy, while at the same time ensuring that the people involved behind the scenes (notably Humphrey Barclay, David Hatch and Geoffrey Perkins), get the respect they deserve for their contribution to British comedy.
The second thing that struck me was his comments about the successor to Humphrey Littleton. I can kind of agree that it would have been nice to try out a few more guest hosts before deciding on a permanent choice (Alison Steadman would have been a really interesting one - I'm not so sure about Jarvis Cocker), but I can't fault the choice of Jack Dee out of the people they did try in the chair. Yes, he is a comedian, but his deadpan style follows on nicely from Humph's and is far more suited to the show than anything brasher.
I also agree with Gem that the show is at its strongest when the panelists are ad-libbing and often at its weakest when it is clearly scripted.
And while I enjoy the prospect of the Clue tours, I wish they would include new material - or at least not include material that does not logically work when performed more than once - such as sound charades, where the show they are "guessing" is one they have previously done.
However, even at its weakest, it is still innovative, funny and endearing - more so than most other shows, so long may it continue.
* being somewhat older than Gem, I grew up with watching The Goodies in the mid to late seventies and fondly remember the classic shows and what (at the time) was the strange disappearance from the BBC and the all too brief reappearance of them on ITV.
Repeats of The Goodies (and Doctor Who) were one of the reasons I signed up to British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB), the superior but less powerful competitor to SKY in the days before it was consumed by Murdoch's media monster. In those days The Goodies was shown on the Galaxy Channel in their slot aimed at younger viewers (called Galaxy Club), notable because some of the idents that preceded the show were funnier than a typical sitcom.
When BSB "merged" to form BSkyB, The Goodies moved over to UK Gold, as Gem mentioned.
A couple of things struck me about the comments he made. One of them was that people (Clue fans presumably), had complained about the about of space allocated to pre-Clue history and the fact that Clue itself only appears half way through the book.
Now I am a big Clue fan and have been since I first heard one of their Christmas specials way back in 1986. I am also a Goodies fan because I grew up with it* (indeed this is why I made a point of listening to Clue that Christmas day, because The Radio Times listed Graeme Garden and Tim Brooke-Taylor as panelists).
But I just don't understand the mentality of people who complain about a book that clearly sets itself out to be an authoritative guide to Clue, including both I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again and I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue.
Indeed the byline of the book is "From Footlights to Mornington Crescent". As much as I am interested in history, what interests me is why things happened. What were the reasons behind the various events and how did the participants get there. The history of Clue is no different - you have to understand the progression of the main players and how they came together in that dizzy period, riding the wave that had started with Beyond The Fringe and how the various players interacted, to understand not only how we arrived at ISIRTA and ISIHAC, but also Monty Python's Flying Circus and The Goodies.
I have nothing but respect for the author of The Clue Bible, who has managed to weave together all of this information spanning fifty years of comedy, while at the same time ensuring that the people involved behind the scenes (notably Humphrey Barclay, David Hatch and Geoffrey Perkins), get the respect they deserve for their contribution to British comedy.
The second thing that struck me was his comments about the successor to Humphrey Littleton. I can kind of agree that it would have been nice to try out a few more guest hosts before deciding on a permanent choice (Alison Steadman would have been a really interesting one - I'm not so sure about Jarvis Cocker), but I can't fault the choice of Jack Dee out of the people they did try in the chair. Yes, he is a comedian, but his deadpan style follows on nicely from Humph's and is far more suited to the show than anything brasher.
I also agree with Gem that the show is at its strongest when the panelists are ad-libbing and often at its weakest when it is clearly scripted.
And while I enjoy the prospect of the Clue tours, I wish they would include new material - or at least not include material that does not logically work when performed more than once - such as sound charades, where the show they are "guessing" is one they have previously done.
However, even at its weakest, it is still innovative, funny and endearing - more so than most other shows, so long may it continue.
* being somewhat older than Gem, I grew up with watching The Goodies in the mid to late seventies and fondly remember the classic shows and what (at the time) was the strange disappearance from the BBC and the all too brief reappearance of them on ITV.
Repeats of The Goodies (and Doctor Who) were one of the reasons I signed up to British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB), the superior but less powerful competitor to SKY in the days before it was consumed by Murdoch's media monster. In those days The Goodies was shown on the Galaxy Channel in their slot aimed at younger viewers (called Galaxy Club), notable because some of the idents that preceded the show were funnier than a typical sitcom.
When BSB "merged" to form BSkyB, The Goodies moved over to UK Gold, as Gem mentioned.
Saturday, 8 May 2010
A time of sadness
Well, the time has come. In preparation for my move to Wales tomorrow, we had a farewell meal with my friends on Thursday. Some of them I have known for over 27 years and it still feels odd thinking that they will be far enough away that I will only see them a few times a year and not for our regular social evenings.
Most of them are on Facebook but that just isn't the same.
It can't be helped of course and it may indeed not be permanent - after a few years we may be able to move back down, but at the moment it seems like it. I also effectively said goodbye to my parents as well. Of course we will still keep in touch but I won't be able to pop over to help them out with something any more.
I'll also be saying goodbye to Poole and Bournemouth - something my wife is used to because she has always moved around with her family, but I have been here since I was born and it is going to be odd losing my old stomping grounds.
For a few weeks I'll be in Wales during the week and travelling back at weekends. My daughter is already upset that I won't be there to say goodnight to her tomorrow, but hopefully it won't be for long.
Time to move on ...
Most of them are on Facebook but that just isn't the same.
It can't be helped of course and it may indeed not be permanent - after a few years we may be able to move back down, but at the moment it seems like it. I also effectively said goodbye to my parents as well. Of course we will still keep in touch but I won't be able to pop over to help them out with something any more.
I'll also be saying goodbye to Poole and Bournemouth - something my wife is used to because she has always moved around with her family, but I have been here since I was born and it is going to be odd losing my old stomping grounds.
For a few weeks I'll be in Wales during the week and travelling back at weekends. My daughter is already upset that I won't be there to say goodnight to her tomorrow, but hopefully it won't be for long.
Time to move on ...
Sunday, 4 April 2010
RANT BOX: Regional Distribution.
One thing that has always bugged me about the media industry's call for reducing piracy, is the fact that they still haven't woken up to one simple truth; namely that if you stop someone from being able to legally purchase something, there is a faint chance that they might just look for it illegally, because they want it.
In the days of a global economy, global industries and global downloads, there is absolutely no excuse for releasing media (music, films, DVDs and games) at different times - or indeed not at all.
Example 1: Films. Sometimes films are released in the U.S. anything up to three months before they are released elsewhere in the world. This means that anyone not in the U.S. knows it is available but can't get it legally. Why do they do this?
Example 2: Games. It isn't uncommon for games to be released in the U.S. a month before they are released globally, or even a few days before. Freelancer 2 was a month late in the U.K. (frustrating) and Battlefield Bad Company 2 was released three days later because traditionally U.S. retailers release games on a Tuesday and UK retailers on a Friday. Sorry? It is 2010 for crying out loud!
Example 3: I decided I wanted to obtain a music track. I searched for it online and found (along with the usual bit torrent sites) that it was available in Amazon.com (U.S.) as a download, but not in Amazon.co.uk. And because of whatever bizarre rules the media industry have in place about purchasing MP3s, I can't buy the MP3 from their U.S. site. Of course, if they actually had it on a CD, I could quite happily purchase the CD, but not the MP3.
Worse yet, another international download site (7 digital) has it for sale in the American, Swedish, Norwegian, Canadian and Finnish versions of their site, but I can't purchase it from them. Oh no, I have to purchase from their UK site - which of course doesn't have it.
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH.
I want to buy it! Please let me buy it! Don't force me to break the law by putting in completely unwarranted restrictions on digital downloads!
On a sadly related matter, Lord VoldeMandelsson is currently trying to push through a bill about digital distribution that he dreamt up with his media buddy, billionaire Mr Geffon. The bill is wrong. It has not been properly debated and common sense has not been applied to it. For instance, if it is believed that you are downloading illegally, the bill will allow your broadband to be disconnected without requiring any proof. It doesn't stop there though.
Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/mar/17/digital-economy-bill-twitter-outcry
One thing that has always bugged me about the media industry's call for reducing piracy, is the fact that they still haven't woken up to one simple truth; namely that if you stop someone from being able to legally purchase something, there is a faint chance that they might just look for it illegally, because they want it.
In the days of a global economy, global industries and global downloads, there is absolutely no excuse for releasing media (music, films, DVDs and games) at different times - or indeed not at all.
Example 1: Films. Sometimes films are released in the U.S. anything up to three months before they are released elsewhere in the world. This means that anyone not in the U.S. knows it is available but can't get it legally. Why do they do this?
Example 2: Games. It isn't uncommon for games to be released in the U.S. a month before they are released globally, or even a few days before. Freelancer 2 was a month late in the U.K. (frustrating) and Battlefield Bad Company 2 was released three days later because traditionally U.S. retailers release games on a Tuesday and UK retailers on a Friday. Sorry? It is 2010 for crying out loud!
Example 3: I decided I wanted to obtain a music track. I searched for it online and found (along with the usual bit torrent sites) that it was available in Amazon.com (U.S.) as a download, but not in Amazon.co.uk. And because of whatever bizarre rules the media industry have in place about purchasing MP3s, I can't buy the MP3 from their U.S. site. Of course, if they actually had it on a CD, I could quite happily purchase the CD, but not the MP3.
Worse yet, another international download site (7 digital) has it for sale in the American, Swedish, Norwegian, Canadian and Finnish versions of their site, but I can't purchase it from them. Oh no, I have to purchase from their UK site - which of course doesn't have it.
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH.
I want to buy it! Please let me buy it! Don't force me to break the law by putting in completely unwarranted restrictions on digital downloads!
On a sadly related matter, Lord VoldeMandelsson is currently trying to push through a bill about digital distribution that he dreamt up with his media buddy, billionaire Mr Geffon. The bill is wrong. It has not been properly debated and common sense has not been applied to it. For instance, if it is believed that you are downloading illegally, the bill will allow your broadband to be disconnected without requiring any proof. It doesn't stop there though.
Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/mar/17/digital-economy-bill-twitter-outcry
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Video Games and DRM: Carrot or Stick?
Anyone vaguely aware of video games will also be aware of the constant threat of piracy.
Far from being the elephant in the room, piracy is more like the scapegoat in the room. Games developers and publishers are rightly fed up with the amount of pirated versions of their games being produced. However, while this annoyance is fair, the amount of difference it actually makes to game sales is not so clear. Indeed even amongst game developers, the way to deal with piracy is not clear. Most favour DRM methods, but not all of them. Brad Wardell (CEO, Stardock) believes that looking at sales figures over the past ten years shows a consistent level of sales irrespective of how much piracy there is - in other words, that in general the sort of people who regularly pirate software would probably never have (and never will) pay for the game in any case, so they can't be considered a "lost sale".
If any of you have never heard of DRM, it means Digital Rights Management, or copy protection. Various solutions have been tried in the past, from the system of finding a certain word in the manual (in the days when manuals were more than a list of key kindings), to CD keys, to online activation or linking with online accounts (as we have now).
Brad Wardell believes that DRM affects paying customers far more than pirates, who will just strip out the DRM and distribute DRM-free versions of the game. The only difference DRM makes is how much effort the pirates have to go to initially to break it, but after that initial period (normally of days), the only people that are inconvenienced by DRM are those that actually bought the legitimate version of the game, who have to load CDs into drives and have them verified, log on to online accounts or worse.
Infinity Ward recently released Modern Warfare 2 with the PC version being nothing more than a direct console port. Worse than that, many of the features people expect in PC games had been deliberately stripped out. No dedicated servers, no ability to modify the game, make new content, new maps, it was all completely locked down by their IW.net. One reason given for this was the old piracy excuse - they want to avoid hacked servers therefore, no server code was released.
Even DICE, who came to the defence of PC gamers with their soon to be released Battlefield: Bad Company 2, claiming that they would support the PC community, will not be releasing their dedicated server code, so no LAN gaming, no mods and access to dedicated servers for rental will only be from their trusted suppliers. Presumably this is also a response to piracy.
The latest blow for common sense has been recently announced by Ubisoft. All their future PC games will require a constant internet connection, otherwise you will be thrown out of the game and any progress since the last checkpoint will be lost. So this means if their master servers suffer a temporary outage, you as the paying customer get thrown out of your game and lose your recent progress. This even applies to purely single-player games such as Assassin's Creed 2.
You won't be able to play their games on the move, something which seems to fly in the face of the current technology trend (such as the ipad). Forget laptop or netbook gaming when on the move or at your grandparents' house.
So, you can see that DRM basically offers a wide variety of sticks with which to beat everyone up, irrespective of whether they are pirates or paying customers. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the paying customers suffer more.
Digital distribution (such as Steam, Impulse and Direct2Drive) offer other authentication methods that aren't so intrusive, by linking the purchase to a Steam account.
So what about carrots then? Is it so much of a leap to reward paying customers by giving them access to better things and extra goodies? Some companies already do. The following already existing "carrots" are designed to address different issues (not just piracy) but all can be used to reward paying customers and to give them a better experience than the pirates.
- "Veteran" programs; registration of previous titles gives bonus content to current ones.
- Day One free DLC; additional items, maps etc. available only to primary customers (not second-hand customers)
- Additional free DLC; further bonus content throughout the life of the game.
- Patch Support; patches that are tied in with validated versions of the game.
Far from being the elephant in the room, piracy is more like the scapegoat in the room. Games developers and publishers are rightly fed up with the amount of pirated versions of their games being produced. However, while this annoyance is fair, the amount of difference it actually makes to game sales is not so clear. Indeed even amongst game developers, the way to deal with piracy is not clear. Most favour DRM methods, but not all of them. Brad Wardell (CEO, Stardock) believes that looking at sales figures over the past ten years shows a consistent level of sales irrespective of how much piracy there is - in other words, that in general the sort of people who regularly pirate software would probably never have (and never will) pay for the game in any case, so they can't be considered a "lost sale".
If any of you have never heard of DRM, it means Digital Rights Management, or copy protection. Various solutions have been tried in the past, from the system of finding a certain word in the manual (in the days when manuals were more than a list of key kindings), to CD keys, to online activation or linking with online accounts (as we have now).
Brad Wardell believes that DRM affects paying customers far more than pirates, who will just strip out the DRM and distribute DRM-free versions of the game. The only difference DRM makes is how much effort the pirates have to go to initially to break it, but after that initial period (normally of days), the only people that are inconvenienced by DRM are those that actually bought the legitimate version of the game, who have to load CDs into drives and have them verified, log on to online accounts or worse.
Infinity Ward recently released Modern Warfare 2 with the PC version being nothing more than a direct console port. Worse than that, many of the features people expect in PC games had been deliberately stripped out. No dedicated servers, no ability to modify the game, make new content, new maps, it was all completely locked down by their IW.net. One reason given for this was the old piracy excuse - they want to avoid hacked servers therefore, no server code was released.
Even DICE, who came to the defence of PC gamers with their soon to be released Battlefield: Bad Company 2, claiming that they would support the PC community, will not be releasing their dedicated server code, so no LAN gaming, no mods and access to dedicated servers for rental will only be from their trusted suppliers. Presumably this is also a response to piracy.
The latest blow for common sense has been recently announced by Ubisoft. All their future PC games will require a constant internet connection, otherwise you will be thrown out of the game and any progress since the last checkpoint will be lost. So this means if their master servers suffer a temporary outage, you as the paying customer get thrown out of your game and lose your recent progress. This even applies to purely single-player games such as Assassin's Creed 2.
You won't be able to play their games on the move, something which seems to fly in the face of the current technology trend (such as the ipad). Forget laptop or netbook gaming when on the move or at your grandparents' house.
So, you can see that DRM basically offers a wide variety of sticks with which to beat everyone up, irrespective of whether they are pirates or paying customers. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the paying customers suffer more.
Digital distribution (such as Steam, Impulse and Direct2Drive) offer other authentication methods that aren't so intrusive, by linking the purchase to a Steam account.
So what about carrots then? Is it so much of a leap to reward paying customers by giving them access to better things and extra goodies? Some companies already do. The following already existing "carrots" are designed to address different issues (not just piracy) but all can be used to reward paying customers and to give them a better experience than the pirates.
- "Veteran" programs; registration of previous titles gives bonus content to current ones.
- Day One free DLC; additional items, maps etc. available only to primary customers (not second-hand customers)
- Additional free DLC; further bonus content throughout the life of the game.
- Patch Support; patches that are tied in with validated versions of the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)