Shots fired in digital distribution revolution

Representatives from GameTap, Microsoft, and Encore join designer Warren Spector to discuss the increasingly popular trend of getting games online; panelists take sides on the subject of micropayments.

AUSTIN, Texas--Digital distribution is not a new idea. It has been the focus of panel discussions at gaming conferences for years. The difference now is that instead of having panels packed with people interested in getting into digital distribution, the conferences can feature those who have found early success in the field. One of the final Austin Game Conference sessions on Friday afternoon covered the Digital Distribution Revolution and included the views of three people who fired some of the first shots and one renowned developer whose metaphorical rifle jammed.

As vice president of content for GameTap, Ricardo Sanchez is helping the Turner-owned game download service establish itself as a player in the market with a selection of retro titles complemented by temporary exclusives like Telltale Games' upcoming Sam & Max episodic games. Miguel Olivera is heading up Encore Inc.'s foray into the field as the director of its digital distribution program, which lets players download full-featured games and play them free for an hour. Up until a few weeks ago, David Edery researched the game industry for M.I.T.'s Comparative Media Studies program, and he has accepted a position with Microsoft to become the worldwide games portfolio planner for its surprise digital distribution hit, Xbox Live Arcade.

Rounding out the panel was Warren Spector, former Ion Storm designer who left the company specifically to found a new studio built on digitally distributed episodic content, a move he said didn't work out as planned.

"I think I was a little ahead of my time," Spector said, adding, "The money wasn't there and the resistance to this model at that time was huge. And venture capital guys scared me to death."

Spector has a traditional publishing deal at his current development house, Junction Point Studios. While he did mention in the panel that Junction Point had done some work with Valve Software and its Steam service, he said his company wouldn't get into digital distribution for a while. Despite that, he did express a strong desire to see digital distribution succeed and play a role in games becoming more mainstream.

"We are not [mainstream]," Spector said. "We're kind of a niche medium that overcharges for its product. And that generates a lot of revenue and makes it appear that we're mainstream."

According to Sanchez, the game industry's progression toward the mass market is being slowed by technological issues, including hurdles GameTap is dealing with regarding digital distribution.

"Consoles are great because they're simple," Sanchez said. "Any idiot can plug in a console. Not anybody can plug in a router. Not yet. Not anybody can configure their firewall so that the [digital rights management] we have to put in place to deliver these games can communicate with the server... Getting my mom to play Gametap was impossible, so she still has no idea what I do."

The discussion soon grew to aspects of digital distribution beyond simply getting new games to players, as the topic of Web phenomenon MySpace and digital distribution's implications on user-generated content were brought up.

Spector pointed to a current success story in the world of digital distribution, Valve's Steam. While Half-Life 2 might have been the flagship product for Steam, he noted that most of the content on the service isn't professionally generated.

"We've seen the mods community dominating the digital distribution space for years and years and years, and I don't see that changing," Spector said. "That's just going to get to be a much bigger part of our business. When you look at what Will Wright's doing on Spore, that's all built around players generating content and finding new ways to bring user-generated content to people who would find it interesting to get around some of the technological challenges we were talking about before."

Edery called the issue of user-generated content a favorite topic of his and something he studied quite a bit at M.I.T. And while there is an issue of quality control with user-generated content, Edery pointed to news aggregation site Digg.com as an example of a site that handles the abundance of content well with the help of the users themselves.

"If you ever look at what gets submitted, 99 percent of it is garbage," Edery said. "But there are a lot of people out there willing to take their time to go through that list of garbage and vote on what they think is useful, and eventually some of that stuff bubbles up, and the stuff that bubbles up is consumed by a much larger audience."

While that filtering of content works well for user-generated content, Spector said that such filtering actually works counter to some of the benefits of digital distribution in the first place. He pointed to something he was told by a friend who started up a now-defunct casual game studio.

"The thing he discovered was that the casual game space seems to have limited itself in virtual shelf space in the same way that retail has, which is appalling to me," Spector said, noting that a site with 50,000 games might only have 10 listed on its front page. "He was saying if you're not in the top 10 of user-rated games, no one ever sees your game... There's got to be a better way to filter and yet still give people access to content they might like."

While it's not always done, Olivera said it's entirely possible for user-generated content to be monetized, mentioning Reflexive Studios' Ricochet: Lost Worlds. The game came with a level editor, and some of the best user-created levels were compiled and released as Ricochet: Lost Worlds Recharged.

"It was exactly what we would hope it would be: a game fully developed by fans. It wasn't really crap. It was a really exciting game with sophisticated, nicely designed levels. And they charged exactly the same amount for that game as they did for the first game."

Edery slipped in the last word on user-generated content, saying, "I don't normally engage in hero worship, but I think it's telling that some of the people we regard as the smartest in our industry, people like Will Wright or Ray [Muzyka] and Greg [Zeschuk] from BioWare, are so excited about user-generated content. I think that really says something."

One of the more touchy issues surrounding digital distribution for gamers is the idea of micropayments, deriving additional income from games after the initial purchase by selling users add-ons or in-game items for small sums of money. Much to the audience's amusement, it was as contentious an issue for the panel as it was for gamers.

"I hate micropayments," Spector said blunty. "I don't know what else to say. Yeah, I want to pay $1.99 for a sword... 15 cents for a tunic? Give me a break."

"I think micropayments are awesome," Sanchez teased, before turning to the idea of free downloadable games entirely driven by micropayments. "It's an interesting model. I think because the ad market in the US is so strong that the in-game advertising business will eclipse micropayments, but I think you'll see them go hand in hand."

Olivera also came down on the side of micropayments, calling it a learning process that won't happen instantly.

"It's still evil," Spector said, drawing laughs. "Here, you can play this bad game for free, or pay us a little bit at a time to make it worthwhile? I just don't get it. And boy, somebody's going to tell me sometime in the next years that I gotta put an ad in a game and I'm going to just die."

"I actually don't think the models are mutually exclusive," Sanchez said, pointing out that in-game ads could be included in micropayment-driven titles as Spector pantomimed an apoplectic fit, banging his fist on the table and biting down on his cup of water.

When Sanchez had finished, Spector flatly stated, "There are some things you shouldn't do for money," to which Sanchez replied, "I completely agree, and I wish I hadn't."

After the audience laughter died down, Edery offered his own take on the subject.

"It's strange how in the US at least, micropayments in the eye of not only the consumer but also developers, has turned into 'How do we rip off the players?'" Edery said. "And it's completely unclear to me that it has to be thought of that way."

Edery pointed to The Vile Lair, an add-on pack for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion that includes content specifically tailored for players whose characters had become vampires in the game.

"In some ways, that's actually a really interesting way to make the market more efficient. Why should I pay for more vampire content? I don't want to be a vampire. This one does, and is going to pay $1.50 to get more vampire content. Great. So at least in that regard, micropayments could actually be quite useful and not at all in any shape or form a rip-off."

Edery also defended the free game micropayment model, saying it can work when it's a good game that is made even better with micropayments, pointing to the Korean shooter GunBound as an example. That was followed up by an audience member's point that arcades also work on a micropayment system. With both the panel and the audience coming to the defense of micropayments, or at least reserving judgment on them, Spector backed off slightly from his earlier statements.

"Listening to everyone talk, maybe I was a little hot-headed there," Spector admitted. "Certainly there are some games where micropayments make sense. In the case of Oblivion, that's a really good point... Maybe I'm paranoid, but having been in this business a very long time, what I've seen is once something works, that is the only thing we are allowed to do. I wasn't kidding before. I know for a fact that given the kind of games I make and the kind of intellectual property that I'm creating now that I can't talk about, I know someone's going to say, 'Let's put ads in this,' and I don't want to...no one's come to me and said, 'You must put an ad in this game.' And it's inevitable, because it's going to work. It's going to make somebody some money. And that's the only thing that matters...making money."

94 Comments

  • PiMacleod_basic

    Posted Sep 12, 2006 2:04 pm PT

    hmm, i don't mind having downloadable games. I already do have some on my 360.

    And to make it that much easier, if I'm scared about losing them, i can back them up to my Memory Unit.

    The Wii and the PS3 are said to use SD cards and the such...so backup will even be easier. Problem solved.

    And on a note about the last part of the article -- I totally agree with Spector. You shouldn't be forced to make microtransactions for a game, or include ads, or any extra content that inevitably make someone more money. Some people (actually, quite a few gamers!) believe that games are another form of art, just as people take movies and music as artforms as well. Adding ads, and using microtransactions, only delutes the product, changing the final form from its original intended masterpiece.

    It should be noted, however, that in the end, the consumers will benefit from microtransactions that are centered around upgrading our games, like in Oblivion's case. It's just unfortunate, because the main developer/designer might think of his/her game as a masterpiece, and not want to change it. It'd be like telling DaVinci to add another character in the background of the Mona Lisa -- it changes the entire painting....and even if it makes it better, the original conception is now flawed in the designer's eyes.

  • Chocolicious

    Posted Sep 12, 2006 11:20 am PT

    hemakm3
    I only want my games on discs.

    Agreed.

  • hemakm3

    Posted Sep 12, 2006 9:54 am PT

    I only want my games on discs.

  • Auron_X2099

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 7:32 pm PT

    I prefer going to the store and purchasing the physical disc, rather then digitaly downloading the game. I can see digital distribution being great method for older & hard to find releases and games we see via XBLA. But for current releases I rather see them still to be released on the physical disc format..

  • GoldenSurfer

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 7:24 pm PT

    P.S.

    riodejaneiro Wrote :
    "On-line purchases are just like DV-Ds and CDs. You scratch the DV-D/CD, you purchase another one. On-line purchase, your hard drive crashes and your screwed. No way to backup content. "

    I must agree.That's another problem/concern with on-line purchase. I hate to have to re-download all the games over again (especaily if each of games are 4.7 gb or more in space) , also if you don't have a very fast conection to the web it can be hassle. Just imagine downloading a game that takes full advantage of the space provided by the Blue Ray disc. Another issue is what if you wanted to trade in your old games(for what ever reason) or sell them through Ebay. Without a physical copy that would be impossible.

  • acatsmeow2003

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 6:20 pm PT

    mat2g wrote :
    "Yeah, that was a pretty windy article. I dont think I mind paying for things like GRAW Chpt. 2 and certain games on XBLA. But trying to buy a whole game via DD I don't know about that. I think I will still go to the store and get the box-n-cd. Call me old school. "

    I'm the same way. I like going to the store and buying the game. That current method is find with me. So I guest I'm old school too.

  • i_hate_pants

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 6:14 pm PT

    episodic and micropayments will be the final straw for PC gaming.

    PC gaming is already difficult and expensive enough to get into already! This will only cause more people to stay away from PC gaming and encourage current PC gamers to shift towards next gen consoles.

  • GoldenSurfer

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 6:14 pm PT

    Gruug wrote :
    "Micropayments and digital only deliverery of game content is going to mean the death of the gaming industry as it is today. Gaming has been a niche for so many years but had come of age the past several years because of shelf exposure. Now, we are going to have people that are expected to have access to the means and method of downloading games and content and it won't be as universially accessible as it is when you just run to your local store. Sure, it is a great method to deliver but how many new people or people that rarely get into games otherwise are even going to get exposure. As far as micropayements are concerned, it will only mean that the things that made one work harder for in a game by spending nothing but time will not cost real dollars and become less "fun". I for one will not ever buy into theidea that buying that super sword is going to be better then doing a fun and entertaining quest to get at it. " gameman888 wrote :
    "I am dismayed by any industrial trend that trades personal freedom for convenience. I may not be able to buy a particular game in a particular store, but when I do, I feel the reassuring weight of the CDs in my hands. No one can take it away from me. The law that protects my physical properties are far more developed than the scant and sometimes contradictory regulations for software distribution. "

    Both above statments I completely agree with. Yeah I like the feeling of having the actual disc as well in my hands. Nothing like having a displayable collection sitting on your shelves. I can't see having a big collection of downloadable games(4.7 gb or more in size) on a 20gb HDD space would be an issue and buying a multiple HDD to keep up with a big collection would be costly price wise. Downloadable games such as with PS1/N64 generation I'm find with especialy if you cannot find a physical copy of the game. But give me the current and next gen games through the disc format. I like to see a choice out there for both methods so that you can choose either one that is the best suited for your taste.

  • rusty_duck

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 5:49 pm PT

    i want the disk and package. thats what most gamers want. see most gamers don't even go online or come to these gaming sites.

    i want the disk so maybe i want to sell it later. or i just want to rent a game, play it and im done. these scamy add ons to the hard drive is crap.

    even with graw on xbox. just make a damn disk with more content and i'll buy just like i did with summit strike. i will not buy the d/l content. it just means more profits for the greedy developers. no bargin for the customer.

    i also never buy a new $60 game. i'll wait a few months and buy a used copy.

  • courtez2k4

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 4:40 pm PT

    I don't mind in game adverts as long as they blend into the game itself e.g. billboards in GTA or stadium-based ads in Madden. As for microtransactions, I'd pay for extra levels but I wouldn't pay for a costume or item.

  • crawfordmatt

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 12:36 pm PT

    I like digital distribution. I like casual games as well as the hard core games. But, I cannot stand having to pay for a game then having to pay to keep paying for that game. This is why I cannot play MMO's. I strongly believe that when we pay our hard earned $50 to play a game that should be it. IF, you want to add more content to the game have an expansion pack, like PC games, that can be downloaded.

  • jcloverboy

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 12:34 pm PT

    I don't hate microtransactions - there are somet things I buy (GRAW Chapter 2) and some things that had no appeal (Oblivion content).

    I like the option and if there is extra content available for a game I truly enjoy I'd be willing to pay the small fee for it.

  • UntoldDreams

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 11:26 am PT

    Supporting micropayments is digging your own grave in video gaming.

  • Murpheus007

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 10:57 am PT

    While I enjoy Gametap immensly I am insulted by a few of their comments. I understand that in order for their business to grow, it would be wise for them to knock the console industry. But to say something like, "any idiot can plug in a console. Not everyone can plug in a router..." That sort of statement makes me angry, and you don't like me any way I am, but you would like me least when I'm angry. There are alot of problems with Gametap, and for them to be so flippant about an established industry just because they have been MODERATELY successful in this fairly new field, just.... just.... irritates me.

  • Dmitheon

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 10:14 am PT

    Micro-payments are still in their infancy and will mature over time. I think people here are overreacting. If a game is great, and you love it, and then two months later you have the opportunity to buy more levels or characters for a small amount of money, wouldn't you like the option to do so? If a game is half-done and incomplete, are you going to buy it in the first place?And if you do, do you really think that an add-on to save that game from mediocrity? Please people, think for a few moments. These companies are out there to make money, absolutely, but they want OUR money. And last I checked they weren't exactly going around holding guns to our head to make us buy anything. They have to make a product good enough to earn our money.

  • DerSminky

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 9:34 am PT

    This is kind of ironic. Not too long ago, some companies were getting sued for look-a-like fake advertising logos in games. Like the "Cool-Soda" (looked exactly like the Coca-Cola logo, but blue instead of red) logo in Resident Evil 2 that got removed after the first pressing.

  • flintgijoe

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 9:26 am PT

    Companies need to make money. I would have gladly payed some micropayments to get more content for Beyond Good and Evil. Maybe then we would actually see a sequel to that excelent game. Same for Phychonaughts, or Psi Ops. It all depends on the quality of the content offered. 250 for horse armor? Nah...

    100 for more interesting quests with some cool rewards? Maybe... Once again, companies NEED to make money to survive. Microtransactions is just one more way to achieve that.

  • dwmorrow

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 9:02 am PT

    Warren shouldn't have backed off his "I hate micropayments" comments. They do suck. They're little more than a way to nickel-and-dime your customers to death. Same goes for "episodic content". Woot, I get to pay $20 for a couple of hours of entertainment. No thanks. I'd rather buy a DVD or a Player's Choice/Greatest Hits/Platinum game that's been marked down to 20 bucks but will actually offer me more than an hour or two of playtime.

    As far as in-game ads, I have no problem with them if they're used appropriately. I don't want to see ads in fantasy RPGs, but used in modern-day games like racing, sports, etc. they aren't too bad. As long as they're not overly obnoxious, they give a little added realism to the games. At the same time, if publishers are still going to charge $50+ for a game, why should I, as the customer, have to look at in-game ads? Digital distribution is great and all, but I hate services like Steam that basically treat you like a criminal and beat you over the head with DRM. I'd be happy if publishers would just release more PC games on DVD. Forget about digital distribution - I'm sick of having to install 5 or more CDs (World of Warcraft, I'm looking at you).

  • blueflamedino

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 8:51 am PT

    This is the evil of microsoft, face it. Crashing 360s, digital distribution, AIDS, ETC. is all the work of Microsoft. Well okay not aids but you get the picture. There are people out there that still love gamers, look at the creators of Ninja Gaiden. Not only we got one redo ne game for free, we received two hurricane packs, and then released the games and hurricane packs at a cheaper price. i THINK THE GUYS NAME IS iTAGI, THE GUY WHO MADE DEAD OR ALIVE.
    Then there will be those who will make extra content on purpose. Imagine Ovlivion now with this rip off mods. Later it might just be $50 just for the main quest. It will be 50 game gold plus 5 US dollars to join the theives guild. 100 gold plus 12 dollars for the Fighters guild. 3 dollars to save that damsel in distress. And there probably be mass riots and boycotts to thelder scrolls, possibly by 2013. Unless there is a apocalypse in which man fights evil sentient machines by 2010, then it all doesn't matter. But let's not assume this apocalypse yet.

  • maximo1

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 8:15 am PT

    Diggnation is awesome. lol

  • ConManWithGun

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 8:07 am PT

    yes interesting..

  • 3xthrtx3

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 8:04 am PT

    Whether or not the consumer is going to accept micro payments is entirely related to the quality of the initial game and the quality of that which is being offered for download. It is that simple. Halo 2 and GRAW are perfect examples in the console world and WoW for the PC world. They are high quality titles that stand alone as initial products but the add-ons extend the life of the title. People get really excited for the opportunity for more of what they like. However, a perfect example of crappy product and crappy dowload opportunity is Kameo. The initial game was so-so and the newest downloads are stupid main character outfit changes. Obviously, the Kameo download micro payment efforts was a failure and WoW, Halo 2 and GRAW a success. This no great philosophy requiring the research of MIT or the huge brain of Spector. The real issue is can these developers produce quality products on the time tables set by the publishers. Like one guy said: 99 percent of the user-created content (mods) is crap. However, the same goes for the A list developers: 99 percent of the offered downloads for micro payments is crap. For every one good GRAW or Halo 2 there are ten or more pieces of crap. Case in point: Rare.

  • starcutter20000

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 7:52 am PT

    well since it would cost me $500 for a 5 min black and white 35mm film to make a classic style movie they deserve to go out of buisness.

    Digital distribution will grow though I doubt it will replace retail selling considering they said the same for payperview, cable and internet replacing movie theaters. I prefer episodic entertainment because after playing half-life 2: episode 1 I found it better then half-life 2 because it focused on one event to another, nothing dragged on nothing was to long or to short, it just kept a strong focus on story and the action. Plus it's better waiting five months then five years for another sequel and only having to pay twenty dollars for it instead of 50-60 dollars.

    And because episodic content is short but sweet people will be more compelled to finish what they start

  • tcampbell76

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 6:42 am PT

    This article or that panel neglects to mention that digital distribution of games will also kill business for those that manufactuer their games onto CD's, DVD's, etc.

    Digital distribution is going to eventually happen if you like it or not, just it won't happen over night. For almost ten years the movie theater business has been talking and developing "digital projectors" that have yet to be widely adopted to this day due to it being slightly less than 35mm film quality.still. Very few theaters have digital proectors, a few big cities. Also it would completely elminate both companies that make 35mm prints for film theaters as well as the projectionists that run the projectors.

    While it sounds great to load up your console someday and buy the newest Final Fantasy online downloaded to your hard drive. The transition will not be smooth.

  • Hellisunreal

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 6:38 am PT

    agreed

  • _sean_05

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 6:16 am PT

    i like my games on discs, without downloadable rip-off content.

  • jakeboudville

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 6:13 am PT

    ..kinda interesting

  • wuzgar

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 3:27 am PT

    Screw the digital distribution, I love to have my bookshelves filled with shiny boxes

  • Sociologist

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 1:36 am PT

    aldrenar47, very well said. I couldn't have said it better myself! ;-) It's not often that somebody says something so incredibly insightful on these forums, and I whole heartedly agree with your premises, although I'm not so sure that I buy into your conclusion. Although it is true that gaming plays a substantial role in our lives, I doubt that certain segments of the consumer population will be willing to pay for games that have targeted ads or ones that thrive on micropayments. I, for one, will stop buying or playing games when your darkest fears, (and mine) come to pass. I love video games, but I suppose that I will find another hobby if the microtransaction and ads scenarios come to pass... After a hard day, (or an easy day), at a job, school, parole board hearing, whatever, many people play games to escape, (kind of like turning on the boob tube... only it's interactive). They don't want to have coroporate whores in their games; particularly when they thrive on network television. Anyway, I digress... What people who support micropayments don't realize is that if the industry continues to embrace this emerging model of revenue, consumers will begin to see games with significantly less content, but with the same ol' great price. Micropayments are simply a way to further milk the consumer, and anyone who is ponying up the money for micropayments now for any given game is either ignorant to this fact, or too rich to care. With gaming becoming accepted as a mainstream hobby within the last decade or so, we all must realize that our corporate masters will continue to do anything to increase their bottom line and to spur more growth in the overall industry to appease their shareholders and the power brokers in society. If you really do believe that it will stop with ads and micropayments, than you haven't seen anything yet...

  • ftjx

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 1:31 am PT

    "And that's the only thing that matters....making money"

    The games that will profit are allways the best. you know it like everything else here in life. So stop whinning and don't talk to me about madden, it's a popular sport and therefore a succesfull video game!

    And I think micropayments are awesome and if no one else does it won't work..............

  • ElectrolightSH

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 11:25 pm PT

    I don't know much about in game ads and as long as its non invasive and I don't have to deal with pop ups or see ads on loading screens I'm fine with it. I do think the ads should fit the game or content. I am all for user created content and think the industry would benefit a great deal from it. User created mods have been a part of PC games for a while but as a console gamer I would like to see a better system in place for this sort of thing over Xbox Live. I've been ranting on about how much I hate Bethesda for giving such a feature to the PC version and not the Xbox 360 version of Oblivion. Xbox Live is a great place for people to release their mods to the masses and even charge a small fee for them based on the size of the mod. As I've said I have been angry at developers for releasing multi-platform games and only supporting user created content on the PC, like Bethesda charging $60 for the Xbox 360 Oblivion and only $50 for the PC version which has more features such as user mods and cheat codes and saying that the higher price is because its next-gen and so it cost more to develop. If that is the case then why is the PC version cheaper, it's the same game aside from the PC versions extras. So they think they can rip people off just because it's on a console. I'm sorry I have obviously gotten off on another rant. I love user modding and would like to see it take advantage of a great system already in place for managing micropayments and user content, which would be Xbox Live.


    On a side note, I love Oblivion don't get me wrong but I hate the fact that Bethesda rips off 360 players with developer mods but wont allow the Elder Scrolls Construction Set to make mods for the Xbox 360. I downloaded the Mehrunes' Razor mod for the 360 but I was not able to use it because I did not have the update, in the mods description it did not say I had to have the update to use it and I was unable to get a refund for it. I did not want to download the update because it fixed the duplication glitch witch was unfair because it was the only extra feature as I looked at it that the Xbox 360 version had. I was mad that Bethesda fixed a glitch that only effected you, a glitch that let players duplicate an item but gave the PC version cheat codes one of witch lets players duplicate items. If you don't download the update it disconnects you from Xbox Live even if you a Gold subscriber and wont let you talk to your friends. So long story short, I paid for an item I can't use because I would not accept a mandatory update to a single player game that only I would play.

  • MetalliFreak

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 9:46 pm PT

    Digital Distribution sounds nice.... but I am still gonna go to the store to buy the games.... I still think it sucks that I have to pay two or three bucks for something in a game that won't affect gameplay that much.... X-box Live Arcade is still an amazing feature

  • XtremePhsyco

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 9:37 pm PT

    wow that was really good. it kind fo shows what mught be the next step for the video game industry

  • aldrenar47

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 8:01 pm PT

    Digital distribution is the future, but not the near future. For it to really work, games have to first reach a wide audience, and the majority of that audience has to have broadband internet (and know how to connect it to their consoles if that is what they are downloading games for). Once it becomes the standard though, developers won't have to rely on publishers so much.. which is a very good thing. They won't need to worry about getting shelf space. And customers won't need to worry about whether or not their local store carries it, or if it is in stock, or even if the store is open or not.

    But if developers and publishers decide to apply DRM, will hurt the growth of digital distribution a lot. The average person will think, "Why should I bother relying on my internet to download and play games when I can get one from the store and play regardless of whether or not my connection is working?".

    Also, I think that digital distribution will inspire shorter, cheaper games, most likely in the "episode" format. Right now, it's a bit pointless to box up and ship a short game to stores. This will be very good for games in general, though, because their production cost will be lower and therefore less risky to the developer and publisher. They will be able to use episodes as a way to test new and innovative gameplay styles that might never have seen the light of day before.

    So digital distribution is (mostly) a good thing. Or rather, will be a good thing. Just look at music and iTunes-- iTunes is like an enormous record store that is constantly getting bigger and carries everything from super-popular to super-underground music. And it is always open and never runs out of anything. On top of all that, everything is cheaper than what you find in a brick-and-morter store. Whats bad about that?

  • Terrenius

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 6:58 pm PT

    gameman888 is absolutely dead on. I agree wholeheartedly. I distrust any system where I have to rely upon the goodwill of any organization whose fundamental purpose is to make money. All such organizations are eventually perverted as the people who run them get older and more conservative. Valve is trustworthy NOW but they may not be in the future, and all those games you bought don't actually exist anywhere. They're just an impression on your HD.

    I agree with Spector as well. Games are not mainstream and ads and micropayments scare the crap out of me. Games are what "rock music" was in the 60's and 70's. Rock had a huge following, was vilified by the mainstream media and "family values organizations". It wasn't mainstream and it wasn't widely accepted. It is now, but it wasn't then.

    Prices ARE inflated and because the evil corporate masters care only about their own profits, they won't like it when the bubble bursts and they'll look to other ways fill the void. These aren't the people making your games, but they're the ones financing them. Game producers need to eat. Coders need to feed their kids. Thus they're slaves to the board. Someone will come to Spector and say "Let's put ads in this." He may be able to fend them off for a while, but eventually they'll write it into a contract and he'll have no choice. And who knows where this road leads? MMOGs where you pay per minute/per second played?

    I'd say we have hope because we can always vote with our wallets, but I don't think we really can. We want to play the games. Look at movies! We want to watch movies! Those used to be shown with only previews in the beginning. Now we're subject to five or more minutes of targeted advertising. I'll bet people older than me can remember even MORE innocent times. We'll pay to watch movies (that price keeps climbing) so we'll pay to play games. We'll pay through the nose and the companies know it.

    Boards don't believe in "sustainable profits". They believe only in "growth". The future of gaming will be like it's past. We'll be nickeled and dimed just like we were in arcades. And when we run out of cash all we'll see is "Game Over".

    The march of progress sounds like the tromp of jackboots to me and I just know that no matter how much I hate it, at some point I'll fall in and pony up the dough.

  • Maxor127

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 6:54 pm PT

    I hate micropayments. They are a ripoff and anyone who likes the idea should be beaten severely, especially if they're a "gamer." The game industry is turning into a leech and I think it's going to turn more people off than make people happy. For example the Oblivion official mods... I hear nothing but complaints about them. People want something that will really add to the game and instead they waste $2 on something completely frivilous and they're done with it after 10 minutes. And it ends up worse than the fan mods you can download for free. I'd rather see full expansion packs and free downloads than this crap. Just because you can charge for something doesn't mean you should. Maybe next, companies will start charging people to access their websites or to download patches and updates from them. They may as well because it's pretty much the same thing.

    If companies want to make little add-ons for their games, then they should show they appreciate the people who bought the game in the first place and release such content for free. Such a system is just going to divide players and piss more people off than make people happy. I'm boycotting any extra content I have to pay for outside a true meaningful expansion pack. And I just won't buy games at all if this becomes the norm and people are expected to pay for little extra add-ons.

  • guardianlegend7

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 6:33 pm PT

    Online distribution sucks.. can't sell used games on Ebay
    As for in-game ads.. I don't see what's wrong with that. Video games aren't exactly the Holy Bible or what not. They're just entertainment 99% of the time.

  • riodejaneiro

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 6:00 pm PT

    On-line purchases are just like DV-Ds and CDs. You scratch the DV-D/CD, you purchase another one. On-line purchase, your hard drive crashes and your screwed. No way to backup content.

  • Mechakucha

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 5:48 pm PT

    "We are not [mainstream]," Spector said. "We're kind of a niche medium that overcharges for its product. And that generates a lot of revenue and makes it appear that we're mainstream."

    Amen. At least someone on the content side gets it and isn't afraid to say it.

  • PossibleGamer

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 4:45 pm PT

    If microsoft is on board with this whole micro-transaction thing, what is the fate of our dearest halo? YOU MEAN I HAVE TO PAY MORE TO USE THE ROCKET LAUNCHER!!!!!!!

  • Sarxis

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 4:30 pm PT

    Seems like devolopers are 'talking' a lot this month. Talk about MMOs, Digital Distribution, whatever.

    Stop talking and make us some awesome games!!

  • Karjah

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 4:05 pm PT

    "We are not [mainstream]," Spector said. "We're kind of a niche medium that overcharges for its product. And that generates a lot of revenue and makes it appear that we're mainstream."

    Finally a developer besides nintendo who understands the idea of charging based on quality. Good to see.

    What im worried about is that developers are going to start putting out games with a lot less extra hidden content like hidden charactors and secret areas and instead start charging for those ares. With game prices going up and up that means we get even less content for our dollar. Peronsally I refuse to buy an xbox 360 and use xbox live while it's pulling this crap. I commend Valve for not ripping us off in small chunks. I do not mind losing my personal copy of a game for conveinence becuase I know valve is a company that listens to it's gamers. As long as I don't cheat in CS or try and download games for free I won't have my connection cut off.

    In a way that's a big advantage to steam, all those pirates and cheaters have something on the table to lose now if they go outside the box of what should not be done.

  • SilV3RSix

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 3:28 pm PT

    Certainly its easier to justify buying anything for $1, especially with the increase of next gen disk games generally starting at $60+. But this isn't really a new model in terms of episodic content. Look at Ghost Recon:Island Thunder and Rainbow Six: Black Arrow. Those are more or less the same games with slitghly different content (and maybe a few gameplay tweaks). However, the later game almost always makes the original game obsolete and irrelevant. The digitally distributed model has the advantage of being potentially smaller, more streamlined, cheaper, and actually result in a unified online community of players that share the same core game but can value different frill packages that help define their experience. I for one would rather spend $5 to make a great game go farther then take a chance on a $50 hype driven clunker. Rather then hinder the game industry, I think this model lowers the investment risk and potentially will free up some creative juices.

  • mat2g

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 2:43 pm PT

    Yeah, that was a pretty windy article. I dont think I mind paying for things like GRAW Chpt. 2 and certain games on XBLA. But trying to buy a whole game via DD I don't know about that. I think I will still go to the store and get the box-n-cd. Call me old school.

  • Spartan4001

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 2:31 pm PT

    gameman888, I must commend you on such an excellent post. I feel precisely the same way.

  • gizmo_logix

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 2:12 pm PT

    Digital distribution is the future. But don't let them charge you more! $$$$

    They will try and make you pay for things you used to get for free; but they will call it a "feature."

  • VegetaMaelstrom

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 1:30 pm PT

    gameman888 your post has made more sense than any post that I have read in weeks. You raise some very valid and well thought out points. I also take comfort in having a physical CD or DVD in my hands knowing that I can just reinstall that game on my computer or even a future computer whenever I want and on my terms, not some company's terms. To this day I have not bought Half-Life 2. I just don't like the system Valve has put in place that makes me activate what I have already bought at a retail outlet. I know they are upfront about it and that if I don't like it I don't have to buy it. So my only option is to not purchase it even though I would like to play the game. I won't compromise my morals and beliefs the way many of these developers and publishers seem to be doing these days with their shady and greedy microtransactions. Oblivion was and is a great game and I had a blast playing it but some of those "extras" that are for sale seem too small in file size to be something that the developers created after the fact. It reeks of something that is already in the game but is only unlocked when you pay the microtransaction price. If that is the case then they are trying to charge you again for something that you already paid for. A slippery slope indeed.

  • NinjaFoot

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 1:15 pm PT

    In-game ads = BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. At least for most games. I get enough crappy ads watching tv.

  • comthitnuong

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 12:39 pm PT

    if it wasnt aobut making money that what would it be about?

  • I-_-I

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 12:27 pm PT

    EA acquiring Valve is a scary thought.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs