Industry Fails: Customer Piracy, Game Spam & more

With Spore's recent DRM snafu at the front of mind and numerous other gaming companies looking for any way to slow down the piracy of their games, the games industry is once again at a crossroads. On one hand, companies want to protect their million-dollar investments. On the other, paying customers, PC gamers especially, are unduly punished for buying games through a legal channel. We've arrived at a point where the PC gaming industry is in danger of creating a digital wasteland not seen since the RIAA killed the music industry.

On another front, game developers and publishers bemoan the used game sales channel, where retail doesn't share a slices of the resale pie. Not one to bring up problems without offering answers, here are just a few paths the game industry could follow to boost their revenues and solve these nagging issues -- WITHOUT turning away gamers.

1. Recognize that Piracy will always happen. Turn your attention to paying customers. The gamers that pirate software simply are not going to stop because of DRM. The scallywags have never paid for any piece of digital content - movie, mp3, game or otherwise - and they're not going to start because of your DRM. So realize that you will never earn a dollar from them and stop placing unnecessary hindrances on your paying customers. Treat them well and they might return (Note: I didn't have to go to business school to learn this).

Follow the example of Valve. When The Orange Box was released, gamers who had previously purchased Half Life 2 or Episode One (a ton of us), were able to gift a full copy of Half-Life 2 to a friend. Not only did it dispel one of the key arguments of "I've already bought that" but it also appealed to the altruistic side (yes, deep down we have one). Valve lost no money either way, so in the worst case they were able to expose new gamers to their game, while at the same time making gamers feel like their purchase was worth more. Sure, gamers did in fact buy the same game twice, a brilliant marketing move, but there weren't two empty boxes on the shelf.


^ DRM killed the evolutionary star

2. Co-op, co-op, co-op, co-op. The days where gamers are satisfied with a solo experience are waning quickly. Most games offer some form of multiplayer, however ill-conceived at times (read Metroid Prime). The more that your game encourages play with friends via online co-op, the more copies of a game you're going to sell. For example, I've long wanted to purchase Lego Indy to play co-op with my friend Fyno, but scheduling remains a constant obstacle. We can't seem to find a time to hang out, much less sit in a room for 10 hours since the game offers only shared-screen co-op. And here's the crux of it, LucasArts at best will make $60 between the two of us - we're going to be sitting on the same couch and don't need two games? Their half-baked answer to multiplayer has in fact cost them money. Had they invested to enable co-op over the nefarious interwebs, they would have effectively doubled their money as I would have either bullied my friend into a purchase, or simply bought it for him.

A shining example of this philosophy is the DS' ability to share games over a local connection, regardless of whether the second player has the game. Nintendo could have easily said that they want every customer to purchase a game, instead they offer free game demos to in-person friends and strangers alike, ultimately encouraging new purchases.



^ Indy running from a crappy game without co-op


3. Stop incrementally charging us for maps and downloads. While I completely understand that new content takes many development hours and ultimately extends the life of a game, the current implementation of such updates is a nuisance. Bungie, I'm looking at you. Yes, I want your new content, but i don't want to have to break out my credit card and weight the relative Gamerpoint value of each map (Why can't we just call them dollars?). You see, instead of simple yes/no decision of "do I want new maps in Halo 3?", you've now forced a complicated decision tree of a) Do I want to keep playing halo 3? b) If so, are new maps going to improve my halo 3 experience? And lastly c) Are these new maps worth X hundred gamer points, knowing they will eventually be free and that my friends may not have purchased them (see #2).

Instead of the incremental model, at the day of purchase, offer the ability to pre-purchase a lifetime of downloads, or "download insurance". For instance, make the price of Halo 4 with Future Downloads $69.99, a $10 increase over the typical price. This has a number of benefits for you. 1) Your company recognizes revenue immediately. 2) Any gamer that has been serious about Halo in the past is going to understand the value of paying up front and shell out an extra $10 on most sales, and importantly, don't have to make the decision to pull out the card again later. 3) You will then have a reasonable estimate of demand for new maps. For example, if 5 million gamers have shelled out an extra $10, not only did you make $50 million extra on the day of release, but you also know that you're on the hook for new content or else you're going to have 5 million pissed off gamers. 4) New content will no longer be a chore to keep up with and developers will have more gamers playing the newest content that they are excited about. Win/Win for everyone.

4. Stop yearly game release spam. The most blatant offenders of game spam are sports franchises like Madden, however the Burnout and Call of Duty series may also be called to the stand. The main problem of yearly releases is that anticipation wanes over the course of the year (e.g. Didn't I just buy this game?) and if I don't pick up the game on launch day, my $60 is worth less and less with each passing day. EA will surely be stomping down my door next year like clockwork for $60 more, so I'm driven to the resale channel for any game that wasn't just released, or I pass on the purchase altogether.

For example, why is Call of Duty 4 still $60 less than two months before CoD5 is scheduled to hit shelves? I joined the CoD4 party almost nine months after its release, due solely to the fact my brother loaned me his copy (See #2 again). After his CoD4 craving reached full force, he deviously repossessed the game. Left in my wanting to call in air strikes on hapless foes, I went to Amazon. Sixty dollars still?!?!?! Seriously??!?! The next installment hits in two months, so I'm either waiting for the new version, or I'm hitting eBay for a $30 used copy. While Gamestop is grateful, as game companies have noted, they will not see a dime from the eBay purchase.

The solution: If you insist on yearly releases, then the retail price should erode over time to pace the value of the buy to the gamer. I would much rather purchase an unused scratch-free copy instead of bidding, so why won't you let me without penalty?

For sports games: Instead of adding more realistic uniform wrinkles each year and updated rosters at a $60 price tag, offer live week-to-week season and roster updates during the NFL season. There are many hardcore fans that would pay for this option. For example, offer the '09 live season roster for $10 a season. Even better: offer a gameplay option where each week's games changes a player's inherent stats. Is Favre on a tear in real life? Then mimic it in the game. After six people have subscribed to this, guess what, you've sold a new copy of the game and didn't have to develop anything new. Push back the 2010 version and sell more copies.


^ Happy Customers


The under-lined conclusion. While I have just slightly oversimplified a number of the issues the industry deals with on a regular basis, all of these points can be distilled down to the mantra of: Treat your customers as if you want them to keep playing.

What other game industry annoyances would you like to see fixed? Post a comment, or send a note to feedback@pwnology.com .