It’s a good thing I don’t even like the games these guys put out:
Take Two wants to suck your blood
The current market trends are making the retro gamer in me happy that I didn’t sell all of my old games. I can still play those ones, whether or not the company approves, and without surcharges.
Tish Tosh Tesh 
I promise you Tesh, I had nothing to do with this!
Another sad day in the history of gaming. One day they will get it… sadly it will be too late.
Aye, CS, this sort of “me too” business is one hallmark of a poor business strategy.
Chris, there’s no way I can blame you for astute observation and prediction. That’s to your credit. The companies, however, them I blame for stupidity.
More food for thought:
Used Games
Stardock
I would argue it *could* be a good move. Notice the emphasis. DRM doesn’t work. Any DRM any company tries, fails, and is met with extreme anger and customer dissatisfaction.
Simply making a great game doesn’t curb piracy either. Look at Bioshock. 1000 people are downloading it RIGHT NOW on a pirate site. How many pirate sites out there? Remember my post where people will “steal” if they know they won’t get caught? Welcome to the anonymous internet. The Pirate Bay is going for the Guiness Book of world records with 22 million users. I work with a guy who downloads all of his movies and games. He downloaded Bioshock last night and played it all night. Loves the game. Thinks it is awesome. Won’t pay a dime for it, because hell, its free. While I believe there are some people that will torrent to try, pay if they like it, I would be an overestimation if it was 1 out of every 100 people.
All PC developers have left is the subscription model. Users have proven them otherwise – unless you have a great DRM model (which I suspect you have brewing in your brain!) This is a reality that we are going to have forced down our throat – and to be fair, WE the PC gamer, created it and now have to deal with it. And by WE, I don’t mean us, I mean the freeloaders who masquerade as PC gaming enthusiasts.
Now, how can this possibly be a benefit? A very naive thought. The thought that with all titles being legitimately purchased that smart companies will lower prices – it isn’t a commodity anymore, it is a service. Yes, you won’t be able to resell. But what if you got the $50 title for $25 dollars? Since when could you sell your old software for the difference anyway?
Of course, you know how I feel about these companies. Prices probably won’t drop because those same companies are spending more and more to produce the titles. Worst yet, they will want to make up for past perceived losses with locked down authentication models.
I have mixed emotions. Will this kill PC gaming, or save it? You could make a fair argument either way. Some companies are already moving big name titles to console only where they feel like their investment is protected. EA is starting console only sports titles in 2009. I always bought and played Madden on my PC – now I can’t – and their argument is they can’t protect their investment. (Which I agree with). Even if people ‘wouldnt buy the game anyway so they download it’, at least those people wont skew the numbers in bean counters head and a fair consumption market in PC gaming will finally be created. Pay to play. Not free to play.
Final thought: this doesn’t effect me personally one bit. I have a super fast cable internet connection (always on). I buy 75% of my titles through digital distribution already. I love Steam, I use EA link, things like that. I know you are a bit on the other side, and trust me, I DO see how this is bad – but whether it helps or hinders remains to be seen.
Indeed, there’s not a clear trend one way or the other. I can only speak from experience; I will not spend money on a pay to play service. I can live with the Guild Wars model, but that’s mostly because I have internet access for other things, and it’s an incidental cost for that model. I certainly don’t begrudge devs their pay; I work in the industry myself, for crying out loud.
Did you read the Stardock link, Chris? Their mentality of “building for the audience” is intelligent business. There will always be pirates. Build your business around the customers who will pay for your game, and build your games around that crowd. There will always be a market for non-subscription games (I’m in that market), and there will always be honest people willing to pay for those products. Yes, that means scaling back ambitions of making the next WoW, or even the next Spore wannabe. Even so, Stardock has proven to be profitable. Sins of a Solar Empire has sold very well, completely DRM free. (Tangentially, and perhaps vitally, Stardock is a private company. Public companies trading on the market have a very different set of priorities.)
Then again, even Stardock is angling for a Steam-like service. Perhaps digital distribution is inevitable. As a dinosaur, I can only say that I won’t be giving my hard earned money to companies who don’t produce games that I value sufficiently to pay for. Invasion of my privacy, tethering me to the internet, and subscriptions are too steep a price for me to buy into the games. I don’t even mind digital distribution itself for some games, I just resent the game needing to check with the nanny server before giving me the chance to play. It rankles at some level, mostly because I’m giving the company the opportunity to completely cut me off for any reason they feel like, despite having spent my money on the game. Games like Puzzle Pirates or Guild Wars, where the play requires the internet, don’t bother me. I just can’t see a good reason for something like Titan Quest to care whether or not I’m connected and whether or not the nanny approves.
I don’t disagree that the market winds are blowing in the subscription direction. I’m just a contrarian, content to march to the beat of a different harpsichordist. Time will tell what sort of market there is for weirdos like me.
Oh, one more thing: Pirates will go where the business goes. Consoles aren’t immune. The cracking of Gears of War 2 illustrates that quite well. You’re right, companies are angling that way too, but I don’t see consoles as a panacea for pirating. I’m not saying to capitulate to the pirates, either, but at some point, it’s more expensive to fight an ever increasingly uphill battle than it is to just factor some human greed and illegality into your business projections. Taking the moral stance is great, but companies have crossed the line into punishing paying customers more than pirates (cracked Spore is much easier to use and enjoy), and they are spending a TON doing so. Once again, it’s the paying customer who shoulders that cost.
I am going to tangent off of games for a moment to draw a real life comparison – it may seem like a bit of a stretch so just bear with me a bit but I am sure you will draw the connection.
Legitimate customers are indeed bearing the cost, and quite possibly an authentication service would alleviate some of those costs – it is far cheaper to use a proven system then constantly try to battle a much smarter and better equipped ‘pirate’ core. That much has been proven time and time again.
Shouldering the cost is no different than in real life, those of us who have legitimate jobs, pay our taxes, and contribute meaningfully to society shoulder the costs for those who dabble in the black market – drug dealers, thieves (our insurance payments end up paying those who get robbed to replace their possessions), and the like. Personally I favor getting rid of income taxes altogether and increasing sales and retail taxes – the “underground” in our society still buys food, luxury items, and participate as consumers. While we will never truly get rid of the black market component in society, much as pirating games, if we can *force* them to participate in some level it lessens the pressure on the legitimate. For example, instead of a 25% income tax (I pay closer to 40%, yay CANADA! I have, however, never in my life paid for a hospital visit so I still think money well spent). Imagine if goods and items were taxed much higher – 30% – but I got to keep my entire paycheck. It would allow for people to save their money, yet contribute to the system through consumerism. Regardless on what side of the fence they are on. (numbers are arbitrary).
While I am getting taxed, and it pays for my hospital bills, safe roads, etc, the drug dealer doesn’t pay those taxes yet still uses those same services. So I am shouldering his portion of the build. That drug dealer probably has a nicer car and watch than I do, because he can afford it – because he isn’t participating in society.
While I would rather the police find and arrest him, we all know that it is impossible to stop the black market economy. So while we make strides to stop them, might as well have them participate. The black market in Canada alone, 10 years ago, was estimated to be worth 40 billion dollars. I am certain it is much higher in the USA, and much larger in Canada now. That is a lot of non-participatory dollars in the system we are shouldering.
Theoretically I am sure you can see how this transposes into gaming. Even if you get some of those pirates purchasing games they want to play and can’t crack – it moves them into the system instead of operating outside of it. Even if only a little.
Sins of a Solar empire did do great. I was very surprised that they had full page ads in gaming magazines 12 months after being released. They combatted their losses with marketing to legitimate people a bit, and realized they couldn’t do anything about pirates. Because they did “good” with sales, doesn’t mean that philosophically pirating is okay. Hey, we sold 2 million copies, awesome! How many would we have sold without pirating? That unknown figure means jobs in the industry. Means better, more timely expansion packs, means people like you, in the industry, being able to support their families.
I don’t disagree fundamentally with the drawbacks of the internet tether, the privacy issues, or the problem with moving our purchases from commodities to a “service”. I would rather there be a better encompassing solution but until a DRM is created that actually *works* without compromising the legitmate user an authentication model is the only one I see having a positive impact on the industry right now. And that is, to be fair, a shame.
Aye. I’m completely against pirating, but since it really isn’t possible to completely eradicate, fighting it runs into the law of diminishing returns at some point. Taking that into account in your business plans, instead of continuing to beat your head against the wall, especially for PR reasons, is smart business.
To that end, the authentication model is one viable solution. It’s not ideal for all market segments, but for those who it applies to, it’s actually pretty effective. It doesn’t bother me at all with something like Puzzle Pirates, or even WoW, since I’m expecting to play online.
What bothers me are the companies that try to take an antipirate stance publicly, but whose business practices wind up punishing valid customers while being completely ineffective against piracy. *coughSporecough*
Well, that, and the insane expense of the buffet subscription model. It’s good for some customers, but not all of them, and companies who focus only on the sub market are cutting off potential customers.
Authorization and subscription are two different things. Guild Wars requires authorization, but doesn’t go the sub route. I can swallow some authorization in certain cases, but to make the leap to the sub model isn’t intellectually honest or necessarily even smart business.
Yeah, I always confuse the subscription vs authentication. I consider myself a subscriber to Steam, although I don’t pay for it. Subscriptions can be free too! (It is my own skewed perspective, so when I read ‘sub’ models I often think of all the things I am subbed to, don’t pay for, yet have to login and pw verify).
My bad =)
“Subscriptions can be free too!”
Very true. I could consider myself a “subscriber” to Guild Wars or Puzzle Pirates, even though I don’t pay a recurring subscription fee like WoW. (I don’t think in those terms, but it would make sense to do so… I just think of myself as a customer who has purchased their product.) It’s good to clear up how we’re using the terminology, so thanks for your patience with me. 😉
There’s a good article over here that touches on this, via the SWTOR design. I’ve linked him into your “PC as a subscription platform” article, as well as a pair of my articles here.
I think that as the PC platform does indeed move to a subscription/verification model to combat piracy (without the crutch of onerous DRM), single player games will inevitably make the move as well. To my mind, they will have to give me some extra value for making me play online. Guild Wars does that well, as it’s largely a single player or small group game (it’s heavily instanced, with a strong storyline), requiring online play. Since I’m “paying” for that antipiracy function, they give me some “MMO-light” functions like chat and trade channels. (But no auction house, unfortunately.) These functions aren’t really necessary to play the game, but they give some justification for being required to play online.
I actually prefer that games go that route over stupid DRM schemes. (I prefer the days of old, or the Stardock way, but if I’m going to turn my head and cough to accept some antipiracy tactics, GW does it right.)
Nice blog!
The way I see it, subscriptions for games are not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there’s a choice. The way I see it, a good compromise would be to have a base game that does not have any subscription, but with the option to pay a fee for additional DLC on top of the base game. This would let people still buy retail in the traditional model and only be required to pay extra if they want to subscribe to regular extra DLC or episodic content.
Providing the extra content was substantial, of course…