Not Greedy, Just Clueless

[lacktheknack]

Reading this made a whole bunch of stuff click in my brain. Thanks, Shamus!

This is exactly how I feel.

I feel like I knew this all along, but I couldn't put the words into place.

Thank you, Shamus. This is why I named my dog after you

You know what's really creepy? My dog's name is Seamus (pronounced the same way).

I detect conspiracy.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, you did make me interested... But the fact that steam is easily put up with by most people is probably telling enough.

Still, I'd kind of like to hear a bit more about how 'consumers have been ceding control (both practically and legally) to publishers in the last decade.'

I did have a much larger post typed up, but opted for a summary-comment when I realized how long it was.
(That, and most of it was rather tangential to the topic at hand anyway.)

This isn't the first time AAA Publishers have had to train the market to accept something that isn't necessarily beneficial (or in some cases, malevolent) to consumers.

Spoiler: DLC

-DLC for example. Remember Horse Armor? Bethesda took a lot of flak over that, even though it was actually well within their rights to sell access to content already on a purchased disc. We don't seem to have as much issue with the concept of DLC today. Even though on-disc DLC and Day 1 DLC remain contested, they're obviously successful enough to warrant continued usage.

The point to take from this: "DLC" was a dirty word once, and consumers HAD to be eased into the concept over time. Digital distribution is so important, it leads into my point...

Spoiler: Steam and Online DRM

Steam has eased a substantial chunk of the PC market into accepting Online-DRM.
I hopefully shouldn't have to elaborate on that accomplishment much; Steam's success speaks for itself.
But Steam started out as a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE service with a very bad rap. The only people I knew who used it, did so because they had to for Half-Life 2 and Counterstrike Source. (In fact, I only started using Steam because my retail copy of Left4Dead required it)

Today, some companies (EA, Blizzard, perhaps Ubisoft) see the next logical step is going from "Periodic DRM" to "Always-Online DRM", and whoever can manage to train the market to accept this first will be in a powerful position indeed.
Once that happens, you can bet others will eventually adopt the same model, if only to compete.
(just as Origin is aping Steam)

Spoiler: Threats with Consequences

Steam has also introduced a powerful concept previously rejected by the gaming public: The threat of loss.
If you violate, nay, if you even CONTEST the rules of the service, you risk being banned, and losing your purchases.

In the US, there are no securities for when a digital distribution system fails, save market reaction.
It's not hard to see how powerful this threat is: An EULA carries real weight when there's a banhammer hanging over the user's entire library; the threat increasing proportional to the user's investment/library size.
(and with Steam sales encouraging users to expand their libraries...it's insidiously genius)

Spoiler: Legal Monoliths and Enforcement

There are a few legal landmark cases over the point of demarcation.
That is, where ownership and rights of data begins/ends (Blizzard vs Glider, Autodesk vs Vernor) and it's partly on these rulings that lends incredible legal power to Publishers.

But only if they have the proper environment to wield such power.

Always Online DRM systems provide that environment; since everything in the game is run and monitored through their system, there is no loophole, or practical hurdle standing the way of enforcement.

In simpler terms: Legally, (as a result of those rulings) the publisher has total power over the consumer's experiences and "rights" (an inaccurate word, but I for better) so long as a game is, IN PRACTICE, sold as a service, rather than a product.

I cannot overstate the enormity of this. It changes EVERYTHING. This is the "Holy Grail" for AAA Publishers.
Previous business models had to rely on pleasing the customer more since there was no way to enforce those silly shrink-wrap licenses on physical goods.
They were essentially products in practice, even if they were legally licenses and thus services.

Always Online DRM not only provides practical security for Publishers, but Legal security as well.
It completes the puzzle; answers the question publishers have been poised with for decades: "How do we enforce our EULAs?"

While this is great news for publishers, it also polarizes the relationship between customer and publisher even further, but I'm getting to that.

Given the lack of pro-consumer interest for gaming by the US government, this basically gives Publishers total control over the relationship, once initiated. With the relatively recent addition of the ability for such companies to remove the end user's right to class-action-suits, and forcing the matter through arbitration, the very concept of even the simplest securities for the consumer in the US is an utter joke.

Result: The consumer's only decision in all of this is to accept or reject the Publisher's offer entirely; there is no middle ground unless the publisher wills it. Anyone can see how this fosters distrust.

That's my take on the subject as I understand it, and why I don't see as the result of mere cluelessness, but a lengthy plan with great risk involved.

I think that if the market becomes too polarized in Supply or Demand's favor, it destabilizes on account of trust (or lack thereof) and collapses. I am not a devout doomsayer predicting the next "Gaming Crash", but if there were a reason for such a thing to occur again, it will unquestionably be due to distrust causing the collapse of the AAA publishers.

Right now, as a paying customer who does not pirate, I find it increasingly difficult to trust these companies at all.

AAA publishers are pushing ahead, trying to reach that "holy grail" of service-centrality before the rest of the market starts (rightly) rejecting them outright.

This is admittedly a shot in the dark, but I think that's their real motivator, and why we keep seeing these head-slappingly stupid money-grabs and control-schemes being established DESPITE these same companies losing ground year after year.

 

[Bad Jim]

Games generally cost less than movies to make, so WHY DO PUBLISHERS WANT TO CHARGE x15 AS MUCH!!?!?

It's about how the cost of production is covered by the consumer. Not only are there more people who enjoy movies, but it's possible to see a lot more of them. You can watch hundreds of movies a year, so they can make a lot of money at low prices. But games, even today, take more time to get through, so you can only really justify a couple of dozen purchases a year, so the games industry must charge more per purchase. Steam sales trick people into buying games they'll rarely/never play, but even then I doubt many people buy a game a day, while it's quite possible to see a movie every day.

 

[Otaku World Order]

The more I think about it, the more this makes sense. I seriously doubt that EA was MWAHAHA-ing in some Bond villain lair, plotting to pull the rug out from under us with SimCity's launch. Why would they? They've had so many PR nightmares in the last year, I've lost count. It feels like some bean counters decided to take a chance and save money on servers rather then make sure they had plenty of extra server space, just in case.

Too much focus on quick results for the shareholders and not enough on building a loyal customer base.

 

[Treblaine]

Games generally cost less than movies to make, so WHY DO PUBLISHERS WANT TO CHARGE x15 AS MUCH!!?!?

It's about how the cost of production is covered by the consumer. Not only are there more people who enjoy movies, but it's possible to see a lot more of them. You can watch hundreds of movies a year, so they can make a lot of money at low prices. But games, even today, take more time to get through, so you can only really justify a couple of dozen purchases a year, so the games industry must charge more per purchase. Steam sales trick people into buying games they'll rarely/never play, but even then I doubt many people buy a game a day, while it's quite possible to see a movie every day.

Oooh, so you are saying games simply won't sell in higher numbers and they HAVE to go for $60... hmm. That's obviously wrong and I can't possibly see how you'd think that, or even if you really do think that but you are saying that just to fool others.


It's obvious this isn't the case looking at the "tie-ratio" for consoles and how pathetically low. Tie ratio is how many games are bought on average for each console. Guess how many? For Xbox 360... Ten. The Xbox 360 has been on sale for almost 8 years and on average each console owner has on average bought only 10 new games. TEN! In 8 years!

http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/Global/

There are 52 weeks in the year, all but the longest games can be played through in a week. The few that take longer are offset by those that can be completed on a Sunday afternoon. The average Xbox 360 user has not been limited to only 10 games by not having the time in the day to play more, they have been limited by the price.

One thing you VERY RARELY hear is:

"no I'm not going to get this awesome new game that I can easily afford, as I still am swamped from all the other $60 games I've bought". ​

Never heard that. What I hear over and over again is:

"Yeah it looks interesting and I'd play it, but I'm going to wait till it's cheaper, pre-owned or something. Or till I have some money."​

I didn't make this, I found it.

You don't find memes complaining about how games are too long and they are limited from playing more games from how long each one is.

How many people do you know visit the cinema more often than they go home?

Their PC or games console is in their home and they can play it any time. Games may be longer but it's far more convenient to get through the hours in a game on a home console or PC than at the movies, and this is for new releases, new games you can play at home right away, cinema releases take many months to get a home release.

Steam sales trick people into buying games they'll rarely/never play

Trick?!?! I'm fed up of people posting such blatantly derailing nonsense, it should be a bannable offence.

There is not trickery at all, and you know that, everything is clear and there are no illusions and you know that full well and said it anyway.

For one, I will always have these games, I don't have to play them now. And I almost certainly won't play them if I have not yet finished prequels in the series. There is satisfaction alone in owning these games free to play them any time I want and that "voted with my wallet" on that game. That I will pay for it, but pay a fair price.

 

[Therumancer]

I tend to disagree because what EA is doing is removing things from products, or using the products themselves as platforms to sell you things. The microtransaction system added into Dead Space for example wasn't the equivilent of just adding another charge, it was creating an entire game mechanic based around making the experience less ideal
unless you paid them additional money. If your a really good gamer, you might be able to get by without paying EA a dime, but for a lot of gamers they will wind up being undergeared or suffering from bad desicians in choosing what to make and upgrade, unless they exploit a glitch to "grind" money amounting to potentially hours of wasted busywork to progress, or pay EA to move on. The idea being that someone who already paid $60 is going to want to finish the game they already paid for (especially since they can't get a refund) and doesn't want to spend hours grinding, so they will pay money in order to progress in the game. EA's own people "slipped" recently in flat out saying that they intended to put these kinds of microtransactions into all of their games, to keep people paying for a product they already bought. EA backpedaled on this (not that anyone was buying it) but the damage was done, and we peaked behind the curtain.

See, with Valve it can be argued they are "Greedy" as well, but at the end of the day they are giving you complete products for less money than you would pay otherwise. Sure they are exploiting impulse buyers, but they aren't selling you a product that is simply a gateway to try and get you to pay more money for what should be basic functionality.

Also, the thing is with EA's "problems" is that they do not seem to be genuinely failing so much as not being able to meet their own self-imposed expectations for success. Like most big corperations they engage in layoffs and other behaviors rather than actually dealing with lower profits. What's more a lot of their failures are the direct result of some of their greedier plans backfiring on them, mismanaging their brands, or just flat out creating crappy products.

To be honest I think a lot of EA's problems are also that it just flat out upset too many of it's customers, especially the "core gamers" they were reliant on, whom they figured were so game obsessed they would tolerate anything they did in pursueing the casual audience and still be there as a safety net. It's just your seeing the effects of this over time as people drop away a few at a time and it adds up, rather than due to some great boycott happening all at once.

I'll also say that EA's problems have also been customer service related, EA simply treats people like crap at the best of times, and then wonders why people hate them. It's a big part of why when someone "slips" and makes an annoucement to the public that should have only been made to people in the industry, it's hammered even worse than usual, because not only does it reinforce the worst sentimnents about EA, but because they have genuinely POed people to want to jump on them for how they were treated.

Add to this EA's somewhat deceptive marketing techniques, and there are other issues as well. To give one example, I recently got talked into trying ToR again recently due to some of the things I said about it. I figured since they went FTP I'd pay to unlock the account features once with a big pile of cash and get the equivilent of a lifetime subscription (which I have for other games) and bounce in and out because I figure with the upcoming Star Wars movies and such the game isn't going to be going anywhere despite it's lukewarm reception. I spent a fairly generous sum of money, only to actually start playing the game and learn that what I set out to do isn't possible because of the things you simply can't pay to unlock, and that even after paying a decent chunk of change you basically run around and have the game periodically say "hahaha, you freeloader scumbag, we're not going to give you full exps, or let you select all the quest rewards because you don't pay a monthly fee" which is ironic because after what I paid there really aren't many benefits left to subscribing other than that.... but really that isn't the point, so much as the constant attempts to remind me that despite the money I sunk into the game they don't give a crap, they still demand moar money, and can't even have the courtasy to shut the hell up in reminding me that I'm not a subscriber. Other games might still try and sell you things, but really ToR is the only one I've personally played that literally intergrates reminders about how much you suck into their central game engine.

Not to mention in doing unlocks I wasted money because for some reason the option to do "global account wide unlock" didn't show up at first (honestly) sound I wound up paying for a single character, and then for an account-wide unlock at a higher price at least once. Error, or intentional, I have no idea. But I'll tell you EA's game is the only one I've ever had an issue like that with.

That said, I will say that they did clean up the game nicely since when I played after launch, it runs much better now and some of the little tweaks and additions do show.

... also as a side note for anyone still developing MMOs, I'm a big fan of lifetime subscriptions when availible. I get that $60 isn't enough to maintain a game infrastructure and additions for years on end. However I vastly prefer to drop one big allotment of money all at once and then not worry about it, to either a subscription model or a forced "piecemeal" microtransaction system. I'm just saying.

 

[JEBWrench]

My God. I can't believe I'm actually typing this but.

I kinda agree with something Shamus Young wrote.

*shudder* I feel dirty.

 

[thehorror2]

I agree with your argument, it is definitely (also) about that.

But as always I have to take issue for comparing an entertainment industry product with comestible goods like food, because the two don't compare in many ways.
You should compare an entertainment industry product with other entertainment industry products like books, music or movies at least.

And NONE of these industries have as egregious practices as the gaming industry does. None of them could even measure up to the level of DRM and possible inconvenience that even the beloved Steam offers, less so other more hated services like Origin and Always-Online DRM. The music industry tried going against the consumer with all their might, but they lost big and are now dependent on the tech industry for sales and offer their music without DRM.
You don't see books (even Online books) selling separate chapters trying to argue something entirely daft like "this chapter wasn't part of the main story, it's extra, honest!" and movies do have Director's Cuts and Extras, but those usually come out a lot later on DVD/Blu-Ray and the Theatrical release is mostly the same everywhere you can go and watch a movie.

The problem with comparing the game industry to literally ANY other entertainment industry is that games are (or have the potential to be) completely nonlinear. Of course we don't see people releasing DLC for books, books are a linear medium! Shoving a random chapter into A Game of Thrones where Ned Stark goes off to fight the Targaryens can't work because each chapter of a book builds on the previous in a way that games often do, but don't have to. Games can be expanded upon, even when the game has a definite ending (See also: the Mass Effect 3 DLC. That game sure as hell ends, but there's still room to explore the universe the dev team crafted before it does.)

 

[irishda]

I actually really like the new season pass model.

But then it's painfully obvious that the whole game is going to cost you $120 ($60 + $60) and the last half is for the smallest little things.

Games generally cost less than movies to make, so WHY DO PUBLISHERS WANT TO CHARGE x15 AS MUCH!!?!?

It's like a person who sells water from a well trying to convince ten-in-a-thousand to pay $100 for a measly glass of water while another 1000 go thirsty, rather than just charging $1 each to the 1100.

It's madness when Publishers have an infinite supply of product, they can make as many copies of their game as they like.

$60 base price may not have increased much over the years. But when you got a $60 game it was expected to be a major purchase, now single-player games are usually so short with little to no replay value. Very few have any multiplayer that will hold the critical number of people to have a sustainable community. Once the number of players dips below a certain level, then those who are still playing find it harder and harder to get a match... so less play it... making it harder to get a match.

The price is wrong. Steam sale prices, those are right. Gog's multibuy deals, those are right.

Guess which ones have a larger fan base, take longer to produce, which ones last longer, and which ones require more work from the producer's end even after a release; movies or games?

As for the $60, I never found games to be exceptionally major in terms of longevity, unless you cut yourself off from new ones, beyond a month or so; maybe more if it has good multi-player. I never did mind the price though, if only because I rarely bought NEW games. I mostly went through the older, cheaper sections as a kid. Even today, $60 seems fair for an unparalleled interactive experience that no other medium of entertainment can reproduce.

 

[the_green_dragon]

Could not agree more with the original article. Bravo

 

[hickwarrior]

and a snip it is!

I see. That does make a lot of sense of why we see these practices. I would never play always-online games, unless they are free to play.

The best example of that is dota 2. And yes, I do purchase things for it, but that's because I'm an idiot when it comes to playing dress up.

However, it's also why I don't only use steam, but gamersgate and good old games as well. Just to make sure I don't have every PC game under the sun on steam.

Like TB said, it's a good thing that steam has competition somewhere.

 

[Amaror]

I actually really like the new season pass model.

But then it's painfully obvious that the whole game is going to cost you $120 ($60 + $60) and the last half is for the smallest little things.

Games generally cost less than movies to make, so WHY DO PUBLISHERS WANT TO CHARGE x15 AS MUCH!!?!?

It's like a person who sells water from a well trying to convince ten-in-a-thousand to pay $100 for a measly glass of water while another 1000 go thirsty, rather than just charging $1 each to the 1100.

It's madness when Publishers have an infinite supply of product, they can make as many copies of their game as they like.

$60 base price may not have increased much over the years. But when you got a $60 game it was expected to be a major purchase, now single-player games are usually so short with little to no replay value. Very few have any multiplayer that will hold the critical number of people to have a sustainable community. Once the number of players dips below a certain level, then those who are still playing find it harder and harder to get a match... so less play it... making it harder to get a match.

The price is wrong. Steam sale prices, those are right. Gog's multibuy deals, those are right.

ok, i meant more the kind of season pass that costs 10 to 15 dollars.
Then again i never buy AAA on launch date anymore, so for me it's usually 20 + 10 dollars.

 

[rayen020]

A huge difference is that Valve is a private company and EA is public.

Public companies only care about major shareholders, employees and customers are far down the list of concern. In an ideal world decisions that harm customers and employees would punish the shareholders by decreasing the stock price. In reality stock price is mostly coupled to quarterly earning reports so anything that increases the number on the reports is fair game regardless of the long term consequences.

With a private company usually the founder is in charge and it is "his baby". Until the dollar signs take over his brain he actually has some integrity about his decisions and cares about his reputation.

About the only "good" public company I can think of is Costco but that will probably change now that the founder retired from CEO. Hopefully he will keep tabs on his successor and has influence over policy decisions.

Really, lets examine this closely. TF2 has microtransactions and did so before it went F2P. Even after TF2 went F2P valve does not provide servers, what do you think their margins are on those microtransactions? Valve is just as ruthless but less transparent.

Really, lets examine this more closely. name another Valve game that has microtransactions. Microtransactions in TF2 are completely optional, I can buy a weapon/hat/accessory, or i can craft it. For Valve it's a spice, for EA they just announced it's their new favorite plate. Also since when does valve not provide servers? what are all those Valve servers i play on?

 

[Albino Boo]

A huge difference is that Valve is a private company and EA is public.

Public companies only care about major shareholders, employees and customers are far down the list of concern. In an ideal world decisions that harm customers and employees would punish the shareholders by decreasing the stock price. In reality stock price is mostly coupled to quarterly earning reports so anything that increases the number on the reports is fair game regardless of the long term consequences.

With a private company usually the founder is in charge and it is "his baby". Until the dollar signs take over his brain he actually has some integrity about his decisions and cares about his reputation.

About the only "good" public company I can think of is Costco but that will probably change now that the founder retired from CEO. Hopefully he will keep tabs on his successor and has influence over policy decisions.

Really, lets examine this closely. TF2 has microtransactions and did so before it went F2P. Even after TF2 went F2P valve does not provide servers, what do you think their margins are on those microtransactions? Valve is just as ruthless but less transparent.

Really, lets examine this more closely. name another Valve game that has microtransactions. Microtransactions in TF2 are completely optional, I can buy a weapon/hat/accessory, or i can craft it. For Valve it's a spice, for EA they just announced it's their new favorite plate. Also since when does valve not provide servers? what are all those Valve servers i play on?

Small but rather important point, is optional in Deadspace too. You can spend the time collecting resources and crafting the items just like TF2. Also the only game that Valve has porduced since TF2 microtransactions also has microtransactions.

 

[Kargathia]

A huge difference is that Valve is a private company and EA is public.

Public companies only care about major shareholders, employees and customers are far down the list of concern. In an ideal world decisions that harm customers and employees would punish the shareholders by decreasing the stock price. In reality stock price is mostly coupled to quarterly earning reports so anything that increases the number on the reports is fair game regardless of the long term consequences.

With a private company usually the founder is in charge and it is "his baby". Until the dollar signs take over his brain he actually has some integrity about his decisions and cares about his reputation.

About the only "good" public company I can think of is Costco but that will probably change now that the founder retired from CEO. Hopefully he will keep tabs on his successor and has influence over policy decisions.

Really, lets examine this closely. TF2 has microtransactions and did so before it went F2P. Even after TF2 went F2P valve does not provide servers, what do you think their margins are on those microtransactions? Valve is just as ruthless but less transparent.

Caring about your reputation does not impede making mad, mad money. In this case it means nothing more than that Valve is better at being greedy than EA - TF2 hats are a perfect example of this. They've managed to create microtransactions for items that people love to buy, nobody feels left out on when not paying, and have zero influence on game balance. Win-win-win.

He also is certainly right in that Valve being a private company is probably the single largest difference between them and EA - it enables them to plan long-term, and prioritise customer experience above quarterly earnings.
EA would never have been able to decide that the first iteration of Half-Life wasn't up to scratch, and completely re-do the entire game pre-launch. It would have tanked their stock prices.

Valve caring about their reputation and integrity has nothing to do with the goodness of their heart - they merely know that these things are crucial for getting your customers to throw buckets of money at you, and thank you for it afterwards.

 

[Doug]

A huge difference is that Valve is a private company and EA is public.

Public companies only care about major shareholders, employees and customers are far down the list of concern. In an ideal world decisions that harm customers and employees would punish the shareholders by decreasing the stock price. In reality stock price is mostly coupled to quarterly earning reports so anything that increases the number on the reports is fair game regardless of the long term consequences.

With a private company usually the founder is in charge and it is "his baby". Until the dollar signs take over his brain he actually has some integrity about his decisions and cares about his reputation.

About the only "good" public company I can think of is Costco but that will probably change now that the founder retired from CEO. Hopefully he will keep tabs on his successor and has influence over policy decisions.

But if the business model is poor and sales are hurt (i.e. because the customers have been driven off by awful business practices) then the shareholders won't be happy either - Valve encourages customers, EA is pushing them away.

Again, its not about greed, its about smart business and stupid, self-destructive business.

 

[Zeckt]

You know what? it was like you were speaking directly to me when you said valve makes you feel like a winner as opposed to being hassled. I never thought about it that way and appreciate the insight. I buy very compulsively from both steam and GoG with no regrets and actually feel like I come out on top. It definitely works on me as evidence by my massive steam library I cannot possibly play in one lifetime!