Digital Distribution Is a Matter of Trust

[Susan Arendt]

Digital Distribution Is a Matter of Trust

In order for digital distribution to work, says GamersGate, companies are going to have to start trusting consumers.

Buying games online is a tantalizing prospect, but among its many catches are the limitations game publishers put on it. Security measures like DRM, requiring an online connection, or limiting the number of machines on which a game can be installed may help preserve a few sales here and there, but GamersGate CEO Theo Bergquist says it's ultimately driving away potential customers:

Unlike platforms like Steam, GamersGate allows players to transfer games between accounts at any point in time, ensuring that they always have access to the products they have purchased. "For us, it's all about anywhere, any time," Bergquist explains. "We want gamers to access the games wherever they are, and we trust them." Though this policy opens the door for unscrupulous players to abuse the system, it's a source of comfort for the service's customers.

Sounds wonderful, but the question remains as to how realistic a business plan it is. Publishers want to give their customers options, certainly, but not all of them are willing to sacrifice control of their products. To learn more about GamersGate's vision of the digital future, be sure to read Christos Reid's article, Gateway to Gaming [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_212/6304-Gateway-to-Gaming] in Issue 212 of The Escapist.



Permalink

 

[MorteSphere]

I doubt trust will work, I'd take advantage, provided I couldn't be caught.

 

[Salem_Wolf]

When you open yourself up to trust, people will abuse it heavily. I know many people on the PSN who open their usernames for others to download the bought games and patches, it's a problem, but then again I also see how trust is important to make a consumer feel like we're being given a special gift and not to take it for granted. After all, in the course of my PS2 lifetime I've had as many as 4. You can have five systems activated at a time, which is a problem. What if I keep needing new systems over the next 10-15 years? After the fifth, do I have to buy everything all over again?

Unfortunately, companies like Sony are perhaps thinking short term issues, not long-term like the one I just mentioned, which may not be problematic now, but in that 10-15 years, could become a hassle for the customer who had to go through 4-5 PlayStation 3s.

Sorry to use the PS3 as an example, I don't have an Xbox 360 so I don't know how they work. But perhaps it's finding a balance between the trust and mistrusting of the consumer that'll work. With the PS3 limited on how many systems can be active on an account, that raises a problem for the future, but with no limit, everyone can take one username and share the DLC and games they've bought, reducing profit for a specific company. But with Digital Distribution, it's not a simple answer, and if someone finds the answer that works, I applaud them.

 

[black lincon]

Okay, that may be nice and all, but what really got me was the CEO's last name, I have a friend with that last name, I mean, that can't be a common last name, maybe I can get some free stuff.

 

[mikecoulter]

I think that if consumers feel trusted, more will be inclined to go by the rules. Well done Gamersgate. The first step to causing me to consider digital distribution. Hard copy for now though.

 

[Salem_Wolf]

Okay, that may be nice and all, but what really got me was the CEO's last name, I have a friend with that last name, I mean, that can't be a common last name, maybe I can get some free stuff.

But if he was your friend, wouldn't you know he was the CEO of some company?

 

[Jumplion]

When you open yourself up to trust, people will abuse it heavily. I know many people on the PSN who open their usernames for others to download the bought games and patches, it's a problem, but then again I also see how trust is important to make a consumer feel like we're being given a special gift and not to take it for granted. After all, in the course of my PS2 lifetime I've had as many as 4. You can have five systems activated at a time, which is a problem. What if I keep needing new systems over the next 10-15 years? After the fifth, do I have to buy everything all over again?

Unfortunately, companies like Sony are perhaps thinking short term issues, not long-term like the one I just mentioned, which may not be problematic now, but in that 10-15 years, could become a hassle for the customer who had to go through 4-5 PlayStation 3s.

Sorry to use the PS3 as an example, I don't have an Xbox 360 so I don't know how they work. But perhaps it's finding a balance between the trust and mistrusting of the consumer that'll work. With the PS3 limited on how many systems can be active on an account, that raises a problem for the future, but with no limit, everyone can take one username and share the DLC and games they've bought, reducing profit for a specific company. But with Digital Distribution, it's not a simple answer, and if someone finds the answer that works, I applaud them.

You could probably put all your data on a backup drive, but I'm being nitpicky, I see your point regardless.

I still personally prefer a physical disk rather than digital distribution, and this is one of the various reasons why DD will never FULLY take over Physical Media, or if does it won't be for a helluvah long time. As I've said multiple times, Digital Distribution and Physical Media can never out-faze the other, they can only compliment each other.

 

[black lincon]

Okay, that may be nice and all, but what really got me was the CEO's last name, I have a friend with that last name, I mean, that can't be a common last name, maybe I can get some free stuff.

But if he was your friend, wouldn't you know he was the CEO of some company?

your right, I should have heard about him when we discussed our entire family trees'. Oh wait, we never did that. I know very little about my friends extended families, I doubt you could name your friends uncles, aunts or cousins without having to ask them.

 

[DamienHell]

HAHA! We've gained their trust. NOW is when we strike!

 

[Salem_Wolf]

Okay, that may be nice and all, but what really got me was the CEO's last name, I have a friend with that last name, I mean, that can't be a common last name, maybe I can get some free stuff.

But if he was your friend, wouldn't you know he was the CEO of some company?

your right, I should have heard about him when we discussed our entire family trees'. Oh wait, we never did that. I know very little about my friends extended families, I doubt you could name your friends uncles, aunts or cousins without having to ask them.

Eh, I was gonna say something that might get me on some mods bad list, but I'll not say anything instead.

-Snips my own quote-

You could probably put all your data on a backup drive, but I'm being nitpicky, I see your point regardless.

I still personally prefer a physical disk rather than digital distribution, and this is one of the various reasons why DD will never FULLY take over Physical Media, or if does it won't be for a helluvah long time. As I've said multiple times, Digital Distribution and Physical Media can never out-faze the other, they can only compliment each other.

When it comes between digital and hard copy, I prefer hard copy myself, even if the cost was a little more for a solid disc, I suppose I just dislike intense change like that.

 

[US Crash Fire]

man this would never work on xbox!
360 gamers are the most obnoxious, angry, hate filled, racist, punk, unethical, lying, cheating, hacking, stealing, foul mouthed little bastards to ever hold a controller and microsoft knows it!

 

[Mekado]

Okay, that may be nice and all, but what really got me was the CEO's last name, I have a friend with that last name, I mean, that can't be a common last name, maybe I can get some free stuff.

Gamersgate = distribution platform belonging to Paradox Interactive, a Swedish game maker (europa universalis/hearts of iron/etc)

Your friend's in Sweden ?

Edit : Also, it seems to work pretty well for them, they've rolled out Gamersgate a few years back and they've expanded their catalogue tenfold, i guess trust isn't all that bad

 

[Rigs83]

I would suggest installing some in game advertising to help recoup losses incurred by piracy.

 

[Deathsong17]

Why is The News Room now an advertisment for articles from the magasine it's based in?

 

[Nutcase]

LOL, yet another company that doesn't use DRM (that is, they call it with another name) and "trusts" its customers.

And the "journalists" lap it up.

 

[Royas]

Sounds wonderful, but the question remains as to how realistic a business plan it is. Publishers want to give their customers options, certainly, but not all of them are willing to sacrifice control of their products. To learn more about GamersGate's vision of the digital future, be sure to read Christos Reid's article, Gateway to Gaming [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_212/6304-Gateway-to-Gaming] in Issue 212 of The Escapist.



Permalink

They may not be willing to sacrifice their control, but I think the anti-DRM trend is going to reach a point where they can either do that, or lose out to the companies that are willing. In the end, it's the consumers who decide what the publishers are going to do, really. We pay them the money, we decide what our money is worth to us. All they get to do is live or die by our decisions, not the other way around.

Right now, people are getting fed up over DRM and artificial controls. They are starting to realize that the publishers really have no right to control their games after they've been sold. Consumers don't want to have to jump through a billion little hoops just to get a game running, and many won't put up with it any longer. It's a long process, but it's happening, and the publishers have brought it up on themselves.

 

[HobbesMkii]

It's funny how much more pessimistic the tone is these comments than in the actual article itself. These little blurbs are starting to worry me, because they pare the articles down into one highlighted little statement, that people then respond to without consulting the source of that statement, or reading it in context. And since it's a shorter read, they talk about it more. This news post already has significantly more comments than the article itself. I think rather than sending people to the articles, these blurbs are just helping enable people to ignore them completely.

The other point I'd like to make is how counter these comments deriding Paradox's willingness to trust the consumer seem to the whole concept of a consumer-based economy and capitalism as a whole. Here's a bunch of consumers, for whom it's in their best interest to get the most they possibly can out of a product, saying how stupid it is for a company to offer them that, because other consumers will just abuse it. Does anyone else see how counter productive that is? Once upon a time, people spoke about selling a product as putting the customer first. Then someone somewhere along the line said "what if we put profit first, and maybe make the customer third or fourth? Would they notice all that much?" The short answer is, we didn't. The long answer is that not only did we not notice, we now think that anyone who wants to return to that model of getting the most the market will give them is a shameless greedy huckster who bends whatever rules he does not break.

I mean, companies like Stardock and Paradox who do things without DRM seem to actually be relatively successful. Stardock had a sleeper hit with Sins of a Solar Empire and Paradox has a devoted following from it's Grand Strategy series as well as scoring another sleeper hit with publishing Mount & Blade. Sure, they're small, but they produce popular stuff. And the most "pirated" stuff is the popular stuff. But they ignore that facet, and they don't seem to be worse off for it. They're actually good businessmen, because they're returning to the basics of business. Like Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) explaining that you can't count pirates as potential customers, because they're not going to buy the game to begin with. You can't force someone to buy a product they don't want to buy. That sounds to me like pretty sound business sense.

 

[Andy_Panthro]

LOL, yet another company that doesn't use DRM (that is, they call it with another name) and "trusts" its customers.

And the "journalists" lap it up.

Gamersgate doesn't use any DRM, but any game you buy will have whatever DRM the game publisher put on there.

They just want things to move towards removing DRM for games, because they think it will get them more sales.

I know I would buy more games from digital outlets if I could guarantee there was no DRM on it (like Good Old Games for instance).

Also, for those mentioning trust - you are aware that if you want to be a pirate, you can download any game you want illegally from a variety of sources? Removing DRM wouldn't change anything for pirates, but would help all of us who hate intrusive DRM.

 

[Vern]

My problem with DD is the fact that you don't own a physical copy of the game. If for whatever reason the company you bought it from goes tits to the wall, you're out of luck. Their server goes down, you can't redownload the game you paid for and you're screwed. At least with a disc you can reinstall whenever you want, assuming the disc is in decent condition. The thing that pisses me off is games that you can't make backup copies of. I remember having that issue with IGI 2, I couldn't burn a back up because of the security on the disc. And lo and behold, the game disc got scratched and is now un installable. And if the game I bought gets scratched, I'm going to look online for a used copy; there's no way in hell I'll pay retail for a game I've already bought. Therefore the company doesn't get any money from a new sale and they've annoyed a legitimate customer.
It's a matter of trusting your consumer, yes it can be abused, but you run that risk when creating any product which can be copied. If they wanted to create a product that can't be reproduced once bought they should've sold produce. Digital media can, and will be copied, you can't stop it. Once you put any DRM on a product you'll have thousands of hackers figuring out how to crack the security. If people want to pirate a game, they will, and there will be plenty of workarounds to accommodate it. DRM only hurts legitimate consumers.
Kudos to a company that actually trusts their consumers, it's a very rare thing.