Thieves Guild

Internet piracy may not exactly be legal,
but it is paradoxically non-profit

In theory Steam keys are a useful way for developers and publishers to promote games.  By sending out these strings of letters and numbers they can offer prominent Youtubers, Twitch streamers and assorted review outlets free copies of a game they're looking to raise awareness for.  Just punch in the code, download the game, and you're good to go.  The thing is there's a dark underbelly to Steam keys when it comes to resale.

"What's the big deal?" you might be wondering.  People sell used games all the time through E-bay or upscale pawnshops (usually referred to as "Gamestop").  True, but I'd argue that the majority of the games you see for sale at those stores were trade-ins or simply the result of people getting rid of stuff they're never going to play again.  Steam codes being sold on websites such as G2A though are more often than not an online fence for scammers and thieves.

Steam trading cards?  CS:GO cosmetics?
DoTA hats?
It's all bitcoins to me...

In case you don't know how this grey market works, let me give you a pair of typical scenarios.  Developers, particularly from smaller studios, will sometimes receive E-mails from high-traffic video game websites (such as Giant Bomb) claiming they want to hold some kind of event based around a game made by said developer.  "Please send us promo codes."  Of course, it turns out that the message is a complete fake and just an attempt to swindle a few downloadable copies of the game for resale on G2A.  Because these stolen keys go for cheap, they get remedied before the developer even figures out what really happened.  It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but the second example is far more egregious.

Online credit card theft is a serious problem, but the thing is once the thieves get the info they need they have to find a way to turn it into a quick profit (before the owner figures out what's up).  One way to go about it is to hit up an online retailer and purchase digital copies of video games in the form of download keys.  Then quickly put them up on G2A for cheap.  By the time the credit card owner blocks the charges the thieves have already laundered their ill-gotten gains...hang on though, it gets worse.

Whenever a credit card is frozen, or has its charges blocked, the retail outlet in which it was used has to pay a fine.  This has led some developers such as the makers of Factorio (who allow customers to purchase digital copies of their game directly from them) to come out and publically ask people to pirate their game rather than purchase it with stolen credit card information.  Their reasoning being at least piracy doesn't cost them anything directly out-of-pocket.  Now, I'm sure there's a minority of gamers who end up with duplicate copies of a game for legitimate reasons.  Here's the thing, you should give those extra codes away to your friends not try to sell them for a quick buck (actually less after G2A takes their cut).  Shady websites like this should not be allowed to thrive because none of that money ever finds its way to the people who actually deserve it.  At least with used game sales the developer got their money from the initial purchase, but here it's all hot goods and greedy parasites.    

Bad Blood

Antagonism is nothing new in to the world of video games. There's been plenty of rivalries over the years. Not just between leader board high scores or companies like Sega and Nintendo, but also between fanboys. Even iconic talking heads go at it from time to time. Most recently Annoyed Gamer (GT) and HipHop Gamer (EGM) have been doing a bit of tit-for-tat. What I haven't really seen though in the last couple decades is the level hostility we're experiencing now between the people who buy games and the people who sell them.

Sure, there has always been some degree of conflict when it comes to internet piracy. What's really getting out of control is the antagonistic nature of publishers. Granted gamers can bitch about anything and everything, but that doesn't mean all complaints are equally (in)valid. Word spreads fast now via twitter, youtube, facebook and various forums allowing a greater degree of communication that ever before. Gamers, if they really want, can put pressure on companies that rub them the wrong way. So to counter this publishers have been engaging in a number of tactics.

For one they have tried to cozy up to media outlets as well as restricting their voices by way of NDAs. At the same time they push for pre-orders which is a great way to ensure bad games still sell well out of the gate. Another trick is to take a beloved franchise "hostage", claiming that if it sells bellow a certain target no sequels will be made. Thus putting boycotting prone gamers in a major imposition. Speaking with the wallet is a gamers best voice, but "hostage taking" tends to misdirect that voice.

DLC sales also drop off the longer a game is out, but rather than making better DLC many companies deiced to simply make it day one.  Or else have a "season pass" which allow them to pre-sell content. That way they get gamer dollars regardless of the quality of the final product. Marketing deception is an issue too. How many games came out last year that were trying to copy Call of Duty? I guarantee it was a double (if not triple) digit figure. Ads also have increasingly focused on the lowest common denominator, obfuscating genres and aiming for the least industry savvy demographics.

Lastly, and this is the one that irks me the most, is front-loading. Supposedly there are statistics out there that show only a small percent of games sold are actually played to their finish. So, somebody got the bright idea that the solution is to cram all the good stuff in the beginning and pad out the end. Dead Space 3 is probably the most recent example, but even games I personally like (such as the Witcher 2) suffer from this. It's nothing new. Dark Forces had this problem at it came out in 1995, not to mention a myriad of JRPGs. That said, it still sucks that we haven't moved beyond this.

So, where are we headed? I'm not sure, but the ball is in Sony and Microsoft's court.  For everyone's sake let's hope they make it a good serve.

Beware of Deception

Pirates stealing from publishers is a regrettably common occurrence in the video game industry, but something many people don't realize is theft can be a two way street.  I'm not talking about pay-to-playtest-online schemes, nor simple MMO gold farming.  "Creating confusion in the market place" is a polite way to put it.  Regardless of the choice of words "game developers" do engage scams from time to time.  Let's check out a few examples that happened in 2012, shall we?

Back in February there were a pair of Pokemon apps on the Apple store.  Pokemon Yellow in particular billed itself as a port of the famous handheld game by the same name.  In actuality all it consisted of was a title screen.  Another app called Pokemon - Pocket Edition claimed an enticing number of features, but then in small print admitted to being nothing more than a gallery of pictures from real Pokemon games.  Gotta Catch'em All?  No thanks.

Kickstarter has had a few suspects crop up this year, most notably a title called Mythic: The Story of Gods and Men.  Supposedly this project was being created by a team of ex-Activision/Blizzard employees with motion capture done by Disney/Pixar. If that doesn't sound suspicious enough it turned out that all the artwork, screenshots and pictures of pledge rewards were pilfered from various existing sources. You can read about more details here. Sufficed to say the project was canceled at the end of April after only reaching a little under $5k of it's $80k goal. I personally suspect that at least the one $2,500 backer was probably in on the con as well.

Sometimes advertising can take a turn into sham territory too.  How many game titles have you seen with the words "storm" or "requiem" in them?  War Z is an example of this kind of abusive labeling.  It was pulled down in December after being out on Steam for less than a week.  The game is basically guilty of false claims and only saw strong initial sales because a number of buyers were duped into thinking it was the highly anticipated standalone release of DayZ (a popular zombie survival game currently available only as an Arma II mod).  According to the fine legal print refunds for the game are not possible, but Valve is exercising common sense and has offered purchasers their $15 back assuming they're willing to submit the online request form.

Sometimes the cover itself is another trick meant to exploit customers who are not exercising proper caution when deciding what prodocts to buy.  Take a look at this example book cover on the right.  Look vaguely familiar?  The choice of font and background colors look awfully reminiscent to Mass Effect, don't you think?  It doesn't help that this novel has nothing to do with the Mass Effect universe either.  Personally, I can't understand why you would want to create this kind of false association.  It's not like the Mass Effect novels themselves were particularly good to begin with.   Especially the aptly titled Mass Effect: Deception, an entry in the series so poorly received by fans that Bioware and Del Rey (the book publisher) made an official apology to readers everywhere.  Oh well...in this case perhaps justice has ultimately been served.

Don't Feed the Dog that Bites You

Non-Disclosure Agreements (or NDAs for short) are a common form of contract used in the video game industry today. Originally the purpose of these things was to prevent bug testers from giving out inaccurate, misleading or spoiler filled information about a game still under development. However, in recent years NDAs have been playing a larger and larger role in marketing. I would say it's no big deal except that some of these publisher/journalist deals are allowing unlawful websites to get the scoop.

Compounding this problem is the tendency for there to be a big buildup to launch. Followed by an intense rush of attention which rapidly declines over the next several days. So, why does it matter?   Well...I'm not a fan of most big gaming websites, but I do feel it's generally unfair when respectful outlets are forced to wait on fully covering major releases while at the same time hackers and pirates get free reign over the flow of information.  It's not good for the reviewers and it doesn't do developers any favors either.  Then again maybe PR firms are more interested in keeping the media providers on a tight leash regardless of the actual benefits (or lack there of).

"Control over Reason," has long been the unsung creed of DRM, so it saddens me to see that NDAs are taking up a similar slogan. I think that publishers and marketing departments need to seriously reconsider the strategies they are employing here. What's the point of having these kind of legal agreements when they really only punish the just?

Software ≠ Automobiles

Time and time again I keep hearing the argument that video game piracy is evil because it's stealing.  Then almost without fail the comparison to automobile theft is brought up.  Developers, producers, heck even website reviewers do this.  Not to mention there's always a few people on any given internet forum who say this whenever the topic is brought up.  Well, I'm here to tell you that, yes, stealing another person's car is wrong.  But that's not the same thing is as pirating a piece of software.

Let's break this down into three main differences:

First, an illegally downloaded copy of a game does not equate to a lost sale.  When a thief steals something off a store shelf it's commonly refereed to as "shrinkage" and it is lost revenue since the item that was taken can no longer be sold.  This applies to pretty much any form of physical goods, including video games sitting in boxes at your local gaming outlet.  But it's somewhat different with digital software.  Since, there is no way to definitively prove that the person who acquired the game via torrent would have paid money for it to begin with.  This holds especially true when you consider that many pirates don't necessarily have the funds or earnest desire to purchase what they download unlawfully.  So, when companies like Ubisoft claim that they lose more than half their game sales do to pirates I gotta to cry "bullshit!" because there is no way they can know for certain that any of those people would have purchased their game otherwise.  Sometimes this is referred to as victimless crime.

Second, a car costs a considerable amount of resources to make even once schematics have been drawn up and a prototype has been manufactured.  In contrast any piece of software can be duplicated pretty much cost free after it's written.  Yes, developers incur costs during programming because coders have to eat, and for that reason there is need of financial reimbursement for services rendered.  But let me ask you this; if I were to delete a piece of software would that constitute a loss of materials?  Obviously with cars it is, driving your automobile into an active volcano is a sure fire way to lose a big chunk of metal.  It's not easy to replace since more ore will have to mined and processed to make another one.  But with data it's no big deal because it's just a bunch of strings of 0's and 1's which can be replicated with the click of a button.  What I'm getting at here is the concept of digital verses physical.  A lot of people have a hard time wrapping their head around this idea.  Simply put we live in a post information scarcity world, and people who grew up before that time often don't really understand it.

Third, I know for a fact that there are people out there who enjoy driving.  Personally, I was more of a dirt bike kind of guy than a sports car enthusiast.  So, I never really saw the appeal while growing up, but I'll accept that there are people out there who think of cars as a form of entertainment.  For the vast majority of us though I'm pretty sure that automobiles serve primarily as tools to get us (and any stuff we throw in the back) from point A to point B.  Cars are a transportation devices, meant to make our lives easier.  When one of us is the target of automobile theft it's a big deal because that's a very important utility of our daily lives lost.  Video games on the other hand are really just entertainment.  I don't know anyone outside the industry who would get fired from their job if they could no longer play video games.  Yes, it would suck if someone stole your compete collection of Mario Party titles, but lets face it, compared to cars video games are hardly a necessity of life.

So in conclusion apples and oranges.  Anyone who gives you the whole piracy is straight up robbery doesn't really understand the issue and as such has taken an oversimplified view...possibly because they aren't comfortable with the complexities of the modern day world.  Now, let me end this by saying I'm not saying piracy is okay.  What I am saying is there are major fundamental differences between stealing software online and stealing physical products, which muddle the ethics of it all considerably.  Morality aside, people who completely take a pro or anti stance on this issue are really only saying one thing about themselves, namely "I haven't though deeply enough about this."  

Unwelcome to GameStop

http://youtu.be/onEfmC6HRF4

As a kind of social experiment awhile back I actually hung out in a Gamespot one weekend, just to see the types of customers that frequented it.  One of the employees was a college buddy of mine so he didn't mind me sitting off to the side of counter area chatting it up with the staff when they weren't busy.  Ironically he looked a lot like the person in the image to the left.  Something that surprised me while eavesdropping was just how stereotypical the customers were; the spoiled kid and his mom, the clueless grandma, the sports game jock, the token girl gamer (who loved Katamari), the anti-social snob and just about every other generic template of gamer came through that door during the hour or so I was there.  What surprised me more than the customers though was the amount of info dumping, sales pitching, and general transaction talk that Gamespot employees were required to do.   So much so a significant amount people were getting mildly annoyed with the whole process.

From GameSpot's perspective this is just a way for them to increase revenue, but I can't help thinking that their choice of tactics is loosing more money than it's gaining.  For ever person who makes additional purchases how many are turned off by the aggressive sales strategy and decides to take their business elsewhere?  I have a feeling for a lot of people, one of the main advantages of buying games at other retail outlets is the benefit of not having to deal with GameStop's video game equivalent of used car salesmen.  I'm not really blaming the employees themselves.  They're practically forced to do the whole complement the customer on his purchase - ask if he wants a magazine subscription - used game trade ins - members reward program - insurance thing.  That said it still gets old really fast for everyone.  Just to bring up a quick comparison, Japanese used game stores tend to make it a much quicker and smoother transaction with the most your likely to hear being if you have a members card (and if whether you would like to sign up for one or not).  That's it.  Personally, I think this a much better system.  It doesn't hurt either that they give you about 60% of the value of your original game purchase on trade ins as opposed to GameStop's 30% ripoff.  The truth is though this doesn't matter so much to me since I prefer to swap games with friends or simply give them away.

Another thing that strikes me as odd is the constant crusade developers and publishers wage against used game sales.  Especially since only about 5% of total video game profits are made up of reselling used titles.  The amount of resources put into trying to capture that small piece of pie is pretty ridiculous.  Especially when all that effort could be better spent on the actual game.  Then again these are the same guys that will waste huge amounts of energy just to slightly inconvenience pirates at the expense of their honest customers.  Remember just because they stole your games doesn't mean they would have paid you for it otherwise.  But I'm getting off topic.  So to conclude I don't think GameStop deserves the flack it gets from the guys who make games.  At the same time though I really wish customers would get treated with more respect.

Decimation is Coming

 BioWare, Square-Enix, Sega, ID Software, Ubisoft, Capcom, Pandemic, Rare, Konami, THQ, Team Ninja...All once great developers who have declined considerably this console generation. I'm sure they would blame their failings on the usual suspects; online piracy, used game sales, cost of development, etc. However, I think it really does come down to them not making good games. That may sound like an over-simplification, but hang in there I'll try to explain.

Taking about gamers in general, lets consider this; people who grew up playing Atari 2600 are now in their 30s, while people who started with NES are in their 20s. Gamers are getting older. Of course that doesn't mean gaming has to grow up (in fact I'd argue that a lot of people play games to remember what it was like being a kid again) rather I think it has to do with adults having less tolerance for needless complexity and design bullshit than children. When your young you have a lot of time, but very little money. When your an adult you have more disposable income, but less time to enjoy it. A lot of the game companies I mentioned in the beginning really fail to grasp this. They're still doing things the way they did a decade or more ago. Times have changed.

Looking to history it's easy to notice a pattern with the rise and fall of dynasties. Always the end of a line of Chinese Emperors or Egyptian Pharaohs were brought about by natural disasters. In the case of the gaming industry it economic recession, but for all intents and purposes the effect is the same. The big developers mentioned above chose to bunker down and stick to what they knew while companies such as From Software, CD Projekt RED and That Game Company chose to engage in a more flexible approach seizing opportunities where they found them. Unsurprisingly, in the dynamic world of electronic entertainment the latter not the former is the more successful. Sadly, most game companies are still staring at their feet fussing over sales from a purely business perspective. What they should be doing is looking to the horizon where new, exciting and highly profitable gaming experiences can be found.

I've seen this sort of thing happen before with Sierra Entertainment Inc. "Quest" titled adventure games are what brought them to the limelight, but the sequels kept coming and while graphics improved gameplay remained largely stagnant (and in some cases was downright reductive). So, eventually the company perished. The good news is in their final years they had what I like to think of as the "last hurrah!" with titles like Half-Life and Homeworld. Perhaps Capcom is doing the same with Dragon's Dogma? Only time will tell. What is certain though is some of the industry giants mentioned above will not be around much longer. Sad? Hmmm...not sure, but as a gamer I hope that they go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

Trust is a Finite Resource

I recently heard a claim that humans invented language out of a deep and profound need to complain about things. This is no more apparent than on the internet and on the message boards of video games. "People can bitch about anything and everything!" and while that's true more often than not the seed that births ill will comes from without not from within.

The issue I'm getting at here could be applied to a wide variety of topics ranging from political and economic to religious and ethnic, but this blog is about video games (and to a lesser extent internet piracy) so I'm going to try and frame it in those terms using a recent release as an example namely Mass Effect 3.

Day one DLC is generally a big no-no since it raises the obvious question of why it couldn't simply have been included with the final release product. I've mentioned in the past that DLC needs to be modular and focused on divisive fiddly bits in order to avoid controversy. Releasing DLC which is integral to the story and can only be enjoyed as part of the main story (as opposed to a mini-prequel/sequel) is bound to piss a lot of gamers off. Compounding this is some half hearted attempts to please hardcore fans by throwing in photoshopped stock images. I understand that developers have limited assets to work with, but if you can't do something well then don't do it at all especially when it comes to a big budget series like Mass Effect. Other minor slights against fans include redraws of characters to increase sex appeal, hackney writing and a marketing campaign that panders to non-fans.

Now, from a business perspective these seem like good moves to increase revenue. The problem is all these decisions also alienate the core audience. Granted hardcore fans tend to play passive-aggressive a lot, complaining incessantly only to stand outside their local store for a midnight release purchase. Calling those types hypocrites would be an understatement. However, the fact remains that there are always other new releases that don't resort to clumsy cash grabs. How many would-be-buyers loose interest? Not enough unfortunately, but if you look at the success of recent video game fundraising campaigns I think there is a substantial number of gamers out there that are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

People are dumb, but an individual can and often will be smart. Once they find out they've been slighted they'll go online and let their voice be heard. A developer's integrity might suffer for it though it's hard to judge by how much. Counting how many people turn to piracy or simply refuse to buy involves gathering metrics based on human psychology - a soft science at best. Regardless, one thing is clear; while consumer trust may ultimately be an uncalculable resource it is finite and once exhausted it will affect the bottom line of publishers in the long run.

EULA

Sounds like it has something to do with the city of Los Angeles and the European Union, but that's not actually what it stands for (just my uninformed guess). Apparently it means "End User Licence Agreement" or to put it more simply a software licence agreement. It's that legal crap you have to read whenever you install a piece of software on your PC. Although for some reason most console games make no mention of it. Not that it would be understood by most gamers.

I recently had to install the latest firmware update on my PS3 to go online. A rather tedious process which started off mildly amusing when I read the version number (3.60). Dumb number joke aside once the installation was finished the EULA came up and...seriously...the thing was a massive amount of text. I think it would have taken me an hour more to read and understand everything, let alone remember it all. I can't imagine most gamers in their teens able to make much sense out of all the legal terminology. They really need to break these things down into a short list of easy to understand bullet points. Worse yet it seems like the PS3 operating system coders realized that no one would actually take the time to read an EULA and conveniently made it possible to skip it without even having to scroll through the text. Just click "Accept" to move on. Yet we're supposed to be held accountable for all that?

Here in lies the problem. When you consider that even United States judges don't bother to look over an EULA then why should anyone else? These documents aren't exactly quick reads that are easy to fully grasp. Even someone with a profession background in law would probably want to ask a corporate representative about the fine print. Not that you can request for any of it to be changed. Worse yet most companies reserves the right to alter any part of the agreement without your consent or even a warning. Not surprising the entire legality of an EULA is debatable, partly because no United States court has ruled on the validity of an EULA. None-the-less big game publishers like Electronic Arts and Activision can and do use the EULA to enforce their will.

Time to start pirating, you might say? Time to not buy any EA or Activision games, you might also say. I've heard that some gamers even buy legit copies of games like Dragon Age 2, but then never open them. Instead they play a pirated copy of the game so they don't have to deal with the EULA. I can't say any of these strategies are bad. But what really needs to happen here is the writing of some new ground rules by gamers and developers (not publishers though because they're just parasites) as to how things are done in the game industry. Maybe everyone won't get exactly what they want, but then again neither did everyone at the signing of the Constitutional Convention.

PC Gaming

I think it’s safe to say that PC gaming is in a state of decline. Not a particularly shocking revelation, but what never fails to surprise me is how many people have an oversimplified view on the matter. Probably the most common reason I hear for the slow death of gaming on the PC is “Pirates (Yarr!).” While there is some validity to this point there are a significant number of other reasons. Allow me to present six other causes, and please note that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list:

#1 DRM. I know what your probably thinking. Isn’t DRM the result of piracy? Well…yes and no. It’s true that DRM is a means in which to fight piracy but it does a lot more to hurt PC gaming that you might initially think. I won’t bother talking about how DRM schemes tend to screw with your computer or the fact that they’re (in some cases) a violation of consumer privacy. Instead let’s just break this down into three key points; trade, borrow, resell. Say I buy a game for the PS3. If I want I can lend it to a friend, or trade games with said friend. Plus, I can resell the game and recoup some of the cost of my initial purchase. All of these things would be very difficult, or down right impossible to do, if I had bought the same title for the PC thanks to DRM.

#2 Non-standard Hardware and Software. I’ll lump these two together simply because they’re kind of the same problem. PC’s can come with a variety of motherboards, CPUs, graphics cards, hard drives, etc. all of which have their own operating specs. Trying to make a game on the PC that is compatible with all these types of hardware configurations is a real pain for game developers. It’s also a headache for people who play because every time they install a game on their computer and try to run it they have to cross their fingers and hope that it doesn’t crash right back to the desktop because of some incompatibility. Couple this with having to hunt around on-line for troubleshooting guides or driver updates. Then top it off with the fact that operating systems ranging anywhere from Linux to Windows 95 all the way up to Windows 7 (not to mention all the versions of Mac OS) and you got yourself some serious range to cover.

#3 Higher Cost. At the time I’m writing this article the PS3 and Xbox360 are going for $300 a unit. I think it’s safe to say that an up to date gaming PC is going to cost two to three times that amount. Granted PCs can do more, but I think not unreasonable to point out that a lot of people don’t feel the need use their computer for anything more than Facebook and Email.

#4 Lack of Support. Let’s face it. Up until very recently Apple has done their best to not support gaming on the Mac and since the arrival of the Xbox360 Microsoft has done their best to kill gaming on the PC in an attempt to sell more consoles. Maybe that will change when Google releases their new OS, but for now the big two providers of computer operating systems are basically against gaming on the PC. Oh well…we still got Flash Media games to count on…I guess.

#5 Laptops. Let me start by saying that I don’t have anything personally against laptops. I use one regularly and I can see why many people would consider their compact and portable design a key factor in purchasing one over a desktop. That said they’re not a very good platform when it comes to gaming. I’m not entirely sure why this is, but I am entirely sure that a lot of PC owners out there have a laptop and not a desktop.

#6 On-Line Gaming. This used to be a PC exclusive. If you wanted to play on-line games you had to do it on your PC. But since the introduction of services such as Xbox Live and PSN it has become possible to enjoy on-line gaming on non-PC platforms. Hence PC gaming has lost one of its big advantages over the competition. One wonders what would happen if they introduced keyboard and mouse support to the PS3 and Xbox360.

All the points I have mentioned above interrelate to some degree. In fact I would go so far as to say they interweave to create a tapestry enveloping and slowly smothering PC gaming to death. Some cling to the hope that digital distribution will somehow save PC gaming industry (which I might add pioneered the kinds of games we enjoy today). Frankly though, I don’t see it. As long as the trend of “pay more, get less” continues it will just be one nail in the coffin after another.

Steam isn't the Answer

Don't take this the wrong way, I actually think Steam is trying to innovate the game industry. If nothing else making digital distribution quick and easy is a big help to all the little developers out there. My problem is that when you look closely Steam isn't much of a solution in the grand scheme of things.

First off Steam doesn't stop piracy because hackers know ways to "un-steam" games and put them up on torrent sites. Plus, if Valve (the owner of Steam) decides they don't like you for some reason they can ban your account at which point all the games you've purchased and downloaded no longer work. Not to mention steam requires you to install intrusive DRM software on your computer which leads to another bunch of potential problems which I won't bother going into right now.

Then of course we have the big question of what happens if Steam goes out of business? And there are a significant number people out there that don't have access to broadband internet especially in rural areas....

So, take a step back and look at what we have here. Steam does a lot to protect publisher profits but what about the consumer? No trading games with your friends or selling used games is great for developers, but what about people who buy the games? Back before the days of Half-Life 2 you could lend some game that you weren't playing anymore to a friend living down the street. You can't do that with games purchased through Steam. Thus, what your left with is a system that is constantly trying to find new ways to weasel gamers out of there money. Naturally, a lot of consumers feel like there getting swindled so they increasingly turn to piracy as a way of retaliating against what they see as less than fair business practices.

What we need is a system that shrinks the gap between consumers and the industry. There has become too much hostility between these two groups and until both sides step down and start considering diplomatic solutions the conflict will just get more and more messy. Steam doesn't provide a negotiation table or even a bridge between these bitter rivals, rather it's a barbwire fence with a gate for those willing to agree to Valve's demands.

The Ransoming System (Revised V1.0)

The Ransoming System - A Possible Solution to Internet Piracy

Proposed by

Casey Goddard

In this modern era of P2P file sharing, DRM schemes and the slow death of PC gaming it has become apparent to me that a radical new method of game distribution is necessary for designers, publishers and players to truly enjoy all that can be offered by video games as a medium of entertainment.

Therefore I submit to you a proposed revenue system whereby games can be distributed; The Ransoming System. Rather than the traditional method of charging individuals a set price for a copy of a particular game, consumers would instead “ransom” the game by giving money to the publisher until a target amount of revenue has been reached. Once this amount has been obtained (sort of like a donation fund drive) the game will become freely available to the general public. A possible example of this method might have several ransom donation levels which consumers can choose from. The premium level might include extra goodies such as an art book, collectible figurine, a “special thanks to….” entry in the credits and so on. Think of it like an airplane. Regardless if it's economy or first class seating everyone gets to fly (play the game). It's just some people get to do it with extra service.

Donations to the ransom system can be made via credit card, pay-pall over the internet, or even at a physical location such as a video game store in the form of electronic cash transfer (along similar lines of cash card or pre-order). If customers have no broadband connection physical copies of the game can be made available at game stores for acquisition once the ransom has been accumulated or mailed directly to a given address. Ideally people who pay more for the product would be the first to receive the game.

Of course companies would be required to be very public about who donated to the ransom and how much they gave in order to prevent fraud. Marketing would also remain crucial in order to raise awareness of up-coming games. Downloadable video trailers, demos, promotional events and general advertising must be carried out efficiently in order to generate enough consumer demand to ransom the game. Consistency from developers is also a must to help ensure the ransom of additional content and future games.

In order for The Ransoming System to work as an effective method of gathering revenue the way games are developed must also be changed somewhat. Games would probably have to be shorter and cheaper than what is considered the current norm. Episodic content, expansions or DLC implementing feedback from the consumers is very important to maximize revenue. Of course new content would be ransomed as well. Community would also be essential since fans are more likely raise awareness and contribute to the ransom than newcomers.

So, in conclusion allow me to summarize the advantages of The Ransoming System:

• Neutralizes the threat of Internet piracy
• Eliminates the need for any kind of DRM software
• Utilizes exiting techniques employ in sales and distribution
• Reduces production costs
• Encourages growth of gaming communities

There are a few potential disadvantages however:

• Profits for games will be somewhat normalized
• Games will be shorter, with room made for additional content
• MMOs or games which gather revenue based on subscription fees would not benefit from using the ransom system

I’d like to note that The Ransoming System has already been employed successfully on a limited scale for a number of PDF supplements to the table-top RPG Reign. I believe that the system can also be applied effectively to the video game industry provided major developers are willing to give it a try on popular existing franchises.