Dead Pixels has 41 chronicles

1. The Great Gaming Culture War: The Digital Age Cometh
   

   Player Chronicle -- Posted on Sep 28 2009

   Dead Pixels
   9-28-09
   By Ryan M. Eft
   
   For almost as long as gaming has been around (has it really been close to four decades now?), distribution has been the most contentious portion of the industry. Almost everyone can agree that a higher level of technology being made available to developers is a good thing; after all, who can really say they’d rather go back to having to get four people in the same room at the same time to play Goldeneye? I, for one, don’t know how I got by as a gamer before downloadable content. Everyone can think of ways that an increase in technology has given them new options, no matter which side of the maker/player tracks you’re on.
   
   Similarly, I don’t think a lot of people disagree that the maturation of games is a good thing. Storytelling and presentation are areas that improve in gaming in a more ethereal manner, dependant on the individual ambition and skill of the people involved. It is arguable, though, that they are second in importance only to pure technological improvement. In our lifetimes, maybe they’ll become even more important.
   
   Either way, the amount of people who no longer play games with immerse storytelling dwindles by the day (even if not everyone realizes they are into that, the fact is most are).
   
   So while non-gamers debate the cultural impact and social naysayers debate the violence, it seems there’s really one major source of disagreement within the gaming community itself, and I’m not referring to Peter Molyneux. Everyone has a view on this, and everyone in the great gaming food chain impacts it, even (especially) if they don’t know it. How to distribute games, and exactly what the rights of each party are, has been boiling under the surface for years, and with the advent of digital distribution, it is about to spill over onto the front lines.
   
   The gaming food chain is a pretty simple one, at least in theory. Developers make a game, publishers put a game out, retailers sell the game, players play the game, while almost everyone tries to one-up everyone else. If you think this can’t possibly affect you, sitting there chilling after work with a game of Gears of War, you might want to open up those eyes.
   
   Publishers and developers have long felt screwed by the prevalence of used game sales, which of course means they receive no money for their own games. It’s difficult to track the exact impact of this on a bottom line, but that the impact is present is beyond doubt. Unfortunately, with the low profit margin on new games, the only way to make money on them is to have them as part of a larger market, the way Target or Best Buy do. Game-specific retail chains have no way to survive without selling used games. And of course people have a right to sell things they have bought, and stores have a right to buy them.
   
   Somewhere in this mix developers also feel screwed by publishers, who too often favor sticking with what is proven, over what is good or innovative. The industry’s poster boy for this, is currently Activision, who openly practices this to such a degree that in a few years we might forget the spot was once claimed by EA. Take it from a guy whose creative visions are a driving force in his life; creative people denied the right or resources to be creative get pissy about it pretty quick.
   
   You might have noticed I didn’t pick on the players much there. Well, I’m saving us for last because we may very well be the biggest problem. Generally and on balance, we’re not a problem out of malice; we don’t sit around thinking, “I’m going to screw as many publishers and developers as is possible for me to screw”. What we do sit around thinking is “how can I get what I want at a minimum of cost to me?” In the years I’ve worked behind a retail counter, I’ve lost count of how many times I have heard something like this: “I love that they makes games like that, but I’ll wait for it to come in used”.
   
   Now, I understand that to most people, it never occurs that by doing this they are increasing the chances that fewer games like the ones they like will ever get made.
   
   Sure, they get the game for cheaper, but the guys who made that game don’t see a cent, and the bottom line is ultimately what decides which games get made.
   
   Whether or not saving money on a used game is worth the toll it takes on a game maker is entirely a value decision; I typically choose not to buy used, but that’s me. However, where we really stick it to the people who work so hard to entertain us is when we steal their games. Yeah, I know: I’m not using the happy-sappy terms for it. Sharing, or emulator, or whatever the hell we call it to make ourselves feel less like thieves. There’s really no debate when it comes to this issue; and in fact, this last piece of the puzzle is the one that might get us, as players, in trouble down the line.
   
   Lately, retailers, publishers and players are more in the firing line than they have been before. The advent of digital distribution is, of course, something I’ve discussed before. But here is where it is most important. Whenever you read an honest interview with a developer these days, you usually come away with the impression that they are tired of having to fight publishers for their visions, retailers for their rightfully-earned money and players for their respect.
   
   Digital Distribution can be one of two things.
   
   It can be a venue through which players and developers can connect more directly. It can be used to open up new avenues of thought and agreement in an industry that is by the most innovative in entertainment.
   
   Or, it can became the tool developers use to grab a march on an ungrateful consumer world. It can be used to bypass player’s rights. After all, who can say you own a game you’ve downloaded? You have nothing physical in hand, nothing you could resell if you wanted to. If a developer wants to say you have simply leased the game to play, what’s stopping the? And the big question: what have we done to ensure they don’t find such steps necessary?
   
   I answer myself: not much, from where I’m sitting. We don’t much think about their rights, and too many of us circumvent them or disrespect them in some way. I know this is not all of us. But surely you know what they say about bad apples. I’m going to put my foot down: if you don’t at least give some thought to the impact of your actions as a gamer, you’re impacting the future landscape of games in a negative way.
   
   I’m split on all this. I want developers to keep providing with games I don’t want to play, but that I need to play. Things that really push what can be done with a game. Most people want this, but few are those who take active measures to ensure it happens. I’m a gamer, yes, but I’m also a writer. I’ve been on the other side, to a degree. I know how frustrating it is to actually have someone tell you point blank they “might download” the thing you’re pouring blood and sweat into. Most of them just don’t get it.
   
   We have to get it, of course. We have to learn. Because we’re either looking at a future where all aspects of gaming are of one mind, or where quality is hard to find because everyone is trying to score points on everyone else.
   
   It’s entirely up to us, folks.

   
   

   ---

   Send To A Friend

Dead Pixels has 4 comment s on this chronicle.

1. Dynafire
   Posted On Sep 30 2009

   But it really is up to us. Imagine how much the gaming landscape and business models would be effected if nobody cared about the meager $5 discount on used games and bought new.
   
   Ultimately, digital distribution is the best way to give developers the money they deserve. They wouldn't need to find a publisher, since no physical media would exist. Activision and EA would wither and die, but no longer would developers have to remained shackled by their tyranny. That would be a bummer to everyone who would lose their jobs in the process, but like the old saying goes, "if you want to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs".
   
   The move to digital distribution is theoretically the best outcome for us gamers. Tons of costs would be able to get cut to get our games to us. Say goodbye to packaging, media, shipping, etc.
   
   (For the record, I would love to get 4 people in one room for Goldeneye, too.)

2. BEN
   Posted On Sep 30 2009

   I think going and buying a physical game is part of the fun. Having a large game collection is neat and if you look at the NES emulator situation, it's just not as cool having a large file with a bunch of games, haha.
   
   I realize this doesn't get too in-depth on this topic, but without a strong opinion on the subject, I suppose I'm able to keep it light.
   
   Your last line about it's up to us, is the only thing I feel is misguiding. I'd say it's up to the governing bodies that decide things for the industry, and they seem to do whatever is best for financial opportunities of business. Just my ranting 2 cents there
   
   I also enjoyed Silent Bob's response and the conversation over in the GoG Forum, so I look forward to the next stop in this interesting and important series!

3. Silent Bob
   Posted On Sep 29 2009

   If I worked in your industry, I wouldn't wave the digital distribution flag too much.
   
   According to the EULAs in most games out there, you (the game buyer/player) don't own the very thing you plopped down $60 + tax for in the first place, you simply own a license to play said game. Even better, the license is non-transferable, meaning you cannot, by accepting their EULA (which you do the nanosecond you rip open the cellophane whether you like it or not) , trade in said game at a place like GameStop, even if that means buying another game with your proceeds. It also does not allow the license to be shared, so if you and your brother or friend want to play a game of, say, Madden 10 against each other, you must each own a license for the game. Never mind you end up with two physical copies. You can't do anything with that 2nd copy because you don't legally own it. The physical media games are distributed upon is owned by the publisher and is their exclusive property. The fact that you need the media to affect your license is inconsequential to the publisher with these ridiculous EULAs.
   
   There are other asinine clauses in most of the EULAs that I won't go into detail here about, but long story short, while digital distribution may seem like the wave of the future and a great convenience to gamers, you're essentially being stripped of ownership. I don't like it one bit. I don't care what the EULA says - if I paid $60 for this physical thing (disc, case, artwork, etc), it's MINE. And EA, Activision or any of the other Ferengi of the game world can just try to come and get it.

4. Dead Pixels
   Posted On Sep 28 2009

   [This chronicle comment has been deleted by the chronicle owner]