Everyone wants a piece of the direct-download pie. With apologies to Mr. Grayson for inching onto his beat just a tad, I think that some intrepid gamer - or, better, an intrepid gamer-businessman - needs to put his finger in the swelling dike of direct download services before it bursts all over the Web and ruins us all.
Dramatic? Perhaps. The description is no less dramatic than my growing frustration at the inability to manage my downloads, multiplayer experience, and cash across the many platforms that exist on the modern-day "Gamer's Internet." In a perfect world, the various game publishers would band together and come up with a common solution-a universal iTunes, if you will-by which all could contribute core content, extras, add-ons, and share the costs of bandwidth, UI development, and communal matchmaking.
This dream of an open framework is made of pipes because everyone, in a word, is greedy. Or lazy. Some companies are worse than others, some companies are better. But when I ask, "Why must it be this way," I don't say that expecting any kind of change in the way this evolution is progressing. The gaming companies just aren't doing enough to talk to each other. And with every company seemingly having its own independent distribution platform, the question becomes all too clear: Why would I optimize my product for that guy's service?
It's nice to see publishers, for the most part, sticking to Valve's Steam as the service-of-choice for digital distribution of gaming titles. And to Valve's credit, Steam isn't just a run-of-the-mill download manager. When you purchase a game, you purchase the full rights to install that game on as many platforms as you see fit.
The problem therein is that Valve might be the Tyrannosaurus Rex, but that doesn't mean that it's the only dinosaur in the theme park. Suppose I like downloading games from Good Old Games because I appreciate being able to play classic titles on a modern machine sans problems (if you're reading this, Gog, I will pay you 30 hamburgers to bring TIE Fighter to your service). If I pick up Unreal Tournament because it's on sale, that's great and all... but I'm locked into using that service (or in the case of GoG, the lack thereof).
You can replace Good Old Games with any gaming platform on the Web - the EA store, Gamersgate, Direct2Drive, Stardock's Impulse, et cetera. Purchasing a game on one doesn't extend you the right to activate the game on others. Nor can you often take a box copy of a game from a retail store and unlock a direct-download version of the game on an accompanying service of your choosing.
Keeping the idea of open architectures in mind, why can't there be a way to unlock a game universally using a manner akin to an API key? So long as a manufacturer has your product key tied to a particular account, it can pass along authorization for any direct download platform. Said platform can either than serve as a gateway between you and the full game hosted on the manufacturer's site, let you download the title for free off the service, or charge you a nominal (< $5) fee for the bandwidth you eat up.
I thought this one was a done deal, as I don't often run across Steam-based games that supply their own matchmaking functionality in place of the Steam client's built-in services. In the case of the recently released PC title Borderlands, I'm not sure who to blame: Valve or Gearbox Software. Here's the deal. When you purchase Borderlands on Steam, you would think that it would be as easy to join up with your friends as any other Steam title-see your buddy playing the game in your friend window, click "join game," and there you have it.
Wrong!
Not only is Steam's matchmaking not built into Borderlands in the slightest, but you actually have to register the game with GameSpy, create a new account, develop a new online persona, and then invite your Steam friends-who have all done the same tedious process-to be your new friends via GameSpy, via Borderlands, via Steam. Ugh.
If Steam is at fault for making its matchmaking too difficult to integrate into games, then boo. If Gearbox Software is at fault for not taking advantage of the Steamworks SDK, then double-boo. There's no reason why gamers should have to suffer through multiple platforms on a single title if a better, free-to-use alternative exists. And boy would it be nice to deliver some kind of high-level login platform for multiplayer matchmaking a la a Facebook Connect for gaming: one universal login, one universal friend list, and an easy-to-access method for joining games across a variety of platforms.
This one's easy: Anyone who offers up a crude money-for-points system for downloading games or add-ons should be scorned and boycotted by the community. Microsoft points, Bioware points, Cryptic points... these are all horrible microtransaction services that force gamers to keep strange balances of alternate currency in accounts scattered across the Internet. Stop it. Just stop.
The companies won't stop, of course, as it's a perfect way to force Joe Gamer and his 285-point balance to pick up the next $15 allotment of 1,000 MurphPoints in order to buy a 300-point add-on. And, thus, with a balance of MurphPoints remaining, Joe is inspired to keep on coming back to the service to spend more money, and refill more points, and spend more money, et cetera.
Here's a hint: There's already a perfect, open platform for exchanging one's worth for services or products. It's called the dollar bill. Too bad the joy of this single, universal architecture seems to be what's stalling the adoption of better systems for gamers of all shapes, sizes, and downloading services.
Comments are closed on this article
I Jedi
November 12, 2009 at 4:12pm
Hey Murphy,
I do see your point with there needing to be a univeral all-in-one place for gamers to go to. However, right now, the gaming industry is new to the idea of online content, and it is just a fact that competition is going to arise in trying to take over this new business model.
Eventually, someday, we will see online markets (Steam, GoG, D2D) finally take their rightful position in the world of online distribution and content as the kings of online gaming. Innovation and competition are fueling these shattered online gaming services to strive ahead of one another and gain a larger crowd than their competition. It's never bad to have a lot of competition, Murphy. Mind you what happens when a company has no competition... It becomes lazy, set's its own standards, and can put the price wherever it wants to because of no competition.
Again, I agree that one day there needs to be a "king" of them all, and they need to find ways to allow us to more freely and openly use our games. For now, let's just enjoy the nice competition, prices wars, and what have you that's going on with the current online distributers.
Tyler
semillertime
November 12, 2009 at 1:58pm
Murph, if I can extend the pipe dream a little further, I would love to see the download services evolve into platform independent repositories for game saves and settings. If I have Dragon Age on my PC and 360, I want access to my saves and be able to continue the game regardless of platform. Saves could still be made locally, but synchronized with the online service.
std error
November 11, 2009 at 7:18pm
I like the multiple download services if only for the fact that they compete with each other on prices. The same way Wal-Mart and Amazon compete. For Modern Warfare 2 they were matching each other's pre-order bonuses dollar for dollar within hours of either of them making a move.
Now thats golden for us consumers!
If we have one universal "Steam" then what we have is games that simply don't change in price forever.
Sure Steam has weekend deals that are attractive, but you think they'd have that if they were the sole place to get a game?
Think about how often exclusive titles on PSN or Xbox Live go on sale. Never.
Elric
November 13, 2009 at 11:23am
Monopolies may be bad but open standards are good. A LOT of digital media, not just games, desperately wants an open to all vendors merketplace/licensing/distribution system. Movies, music, games, all of these industries would be much better off and the consumer would benefit infinitely but the vendors are terrified of changing their business model or betting on the wrong horse.
zepontiff
November 12, 2009 at 11:59am
I'm going to disagree on this. The individual developers are still going to be competing with each other for your dollar on a universal service. The amount of competion that goes on between services for the same title I don't believe is driving prices down much if at all.
The weekend deal is not about competition. I think its to get people into a game they have no previous knowledge or interest in or one that is just not moving at all. I've picked many a game I would have never even thought about that way.
std error
November 12, 2009 at 11:22pm
What you say about developers competing is correct. But surely you see that additional competition between brick and mortar retailers is beneficial to us consumers. This pretty much applies to everything from tube socks to LCD TVs. If you think that competition between download services isn't driving prices down then there already is a problem! We need more competition then.
I also think that when developers or publishers compete it is more on the quality of games rather than price, like Coke and Pepsi (competing on experience). Have you ever seen a Coke ad saying it was cheaper than Pepsi? They know that if they did that they would kill themselves until the price was driven to zero, then they'd be buried.
Retailers on the other hand have little ground to compete on but price.
Regarding the weekend deals, as with most things there is no one universal reason for something, and again your reason probably goes into the decision process at Valve.
Still wouldn't it be better if they also watched other companies prices? I think it is funny that Fallout 3 non-goty is selling at $49.99 on Steam while Amazon's and Newegg's GOTY edition is $39.99. Perhaps this may be more of a reflection of Valve's poor management than competition in the industry.
In any case, I would be happy if what happens in brick and mortar stores happens on internet download services where they follow each other's (even B&M stores) prices on everything, not just video games. Walmart managers frequently tour nearby Targets to check prices and availability for example. They bring along PDAs or to record data.
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 11:48pm
Hm. Perhaps not "exclusive titles," but I Xbox Live does frequently have deals and discounts for... older... games on the service. That's something, eh?
Biceps
November 11, 2009 at 2:54pm
Mr. Murphy, you don't have an MBA, do you? That is your problem. If you DID have an MBA (and therefore absolutely no soul) then you wouldn't waste your time writing a letter to the total A-holes who run the gaming companies (with their MBAs).
Props to you, Mr. Murphy, for this article - I couldn't agree with you more. Too bad it won't change anything.
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 3:54pm
I believe you'll find this line in the third paragraph:
"But when I ask, "Why must it be this way," I don't say that expecting any kind of change in the way this evolution is progressing."
Will anything change? Of course not. The gaming companies will do everything they can to squeeze the blood out of their fans' stones. Unlike Winston Wolf, this column identifies problems--it doesn't always solve them.
fry
November 11, 2009 at 2:14pm
Welcome to the world.
No longer is anyone interested in selling a product. It's all about selling a fee schedule.
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 2:20pm
And don't forget, when you purchase software... you aren't purchasing a physical disc, you're purchasing a license to use the software that can be altered or revoked at any time.
...but that's another column. ; )
AntiHero
November 11, 2009 at 1:57pm
Well, this is where it's going, a whole digital world. Xfire, my favorite chat program, now has a store. With all these direct 2 download sites, there needs to be a universal solution, otherwise we will all have many accounts. Sure, Battle.net can be its own, and i like how it's done because they manage their games and their games only, Valve used to do only Valve games on steam, but with Modern Warfare 2 needing to be registered on steam, it's pushing the program to become the top of it all.
Great article Murphy, once again making me think/start myself into what could have been a long, long comment.
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 2:19pm
At the very, very least... I would appreciate publishers finding a way to merge digital copies and physical copies. That's the Battle.net style -- no matter where you buy the game, you can always access a downloadable copy online, as your CD key is the activation process to unlock the digital version (if you purchased the game from a store, for example)
Wingzero_x
November 11, 2009 at 1:37pm
I would love to be able to convert my disk games to my Steam account, and be able to play without the hassle of having to have a disk in the drive, a no-disk hack, or simply dealing with all those disks when installing it. (I have the CD versions of BFME, and COD2)
Phosphorous
November 11, 2009 at 2:49pm
That can actually be done in Steam. I currently run my COD-WaW game from my Steam account. I got the CD version when I bought my GTX280. I have it in my Steam account games list so I don't need the CD anymore. I also did this with Might and Magic.
Can't tell you offhand how I did it anymore because it was awhile back, but I'll check when I get home.
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 1:50pm
It's even more frustrating given that some Steam games will support this functionality and others simply don't. Full list here: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=7480-wusf-3601#which
nekollx
November 11, 2009 at 10:57am
to be fair though CrypticPoints arent only for Champions they work cross game for anything Cryptic makes. And if CO holds true early adopters get "bonus points" so those 400 CP you got would be what a $5 you could use for items in World of Star Potter Wizards of the Coast Craft and if you pre ordered that youd have another 400CP right off the bat.
Though i think DDO did it a bit better with subcribers geting a free stipend every month of dragon points
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 11:35am
Which is all well and good, but points are still points. Developers use points to further tie you into their marketplace offerings--both because the level of committment is considered less due to one's inability to directly tie point values to real-world cash equivilients (quick, how much are 500 microsoft points worth in $$$?) and because once you've bought a block of points and are left with a weird balance, you'll want to reload your card and spend more versus letting said points just languish.
A quick take on it here!
nekollx
November 11, 2009 at 11:41am
that is one way to look at it, but again their are often free point you get for pre orders and the like. And i kind of like the idea of boying say Tie Fighter and geting a cupon for free DLC for say Bioshock.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Who
November 11, 2009 at 10:55am
You want developers to band together to make an Itunes-esque platform, except Itunes is something that created by a single developer for, more or less, its specific Ipod utility, to have content controlled by one company, itself...
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 11:27am
I meant iTunes as an example for functionality's sake -- there really isn't a great example of an all-in-one open service for the PC that people can contribute to / download items from / et cetera.
bjtalbot
November 11, 2009 at 10:31am
Dual licenses!
This is something that I would love to see. I have thought about his a lot since I bought Borderlands for the X360. I would love to pay a little (mind you: a little) bit more to play the same game on my PC. How cool would that be. You're already buying the game, you are just paying a bit more to use it on a different platform. I would spend up to 20 dollars for a new X360 game to also be able to play it on the PC.
lunchbox73
November 11, 2009 at 1:11pm
That would be awesome. I play Left 4 Dead on my PC and my kids and wife play it on our xbox (which I never touch). Believe me, there have been some arguments about L4D2 in my house because they want it for the 360 and I want it for my PC. I can't justify paying over 100 bucks right now to buy it for both. Unfortunatly I may be on the losing side...
ajuhawk
November 11, 2009 at 11:23am
Do I buy game X on the PC for a better experience, or do I buy game C on the 360 so I can play multiplayer with my friends (who aren't PC players)... In the end, the 360 multiplayer (ease of use) usually wins out and I'm not going to pay $60 so I can also play it on the PC....but I would pay $20!
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 10:53am
I like it! Just imagine -- you purchase the game for the console, input your UPC code somewhere, and receive a code to download the title straight from the manufacturer / direct-download service of your choice for a nominal fee.
I, for one, would love to have Dragon Age on the console and PC. I just don't see the point of paying $50 a pop. Then again, I'm not a game publisher. I bet they see the point of paying $50 a pop quite clearly.
Muerte
November 11, 2009 at 2:05pm
That's actually pretty shortsighted. There is no way in hell I'd buy a title twice for the same amount. But I'd at least think about it for $20 and probably do it for $10. Which is $1- -$20 more than they had before. Hell, I might even buy a console so I could.
Of course I do not know what percentage of the gaming population buys the same title for 2 platforms, but I'm guessing its pretty low. Hell this is the 1st time I've ever heard of such a thing.
TheMurph
November 11, 2009 at 2:10pm
Unfortunately, I venture that "Muerte" is not the average example for these games' target demographics. I can see a lot of people buying multiple copies of their favorite titles (like the new CoD: MW2 title) just to play with their friends across both platforms.
I mean, shoot, I have Borderlands for both systems, and I'm not even that hardcore...
mattman059
November 11, 2009 at 3:45pm
I agree with muerte...its absolutely redundant, ridiculous and a waste of money to buy the same game for multiple platforms. Yes, i have friends that play L4D on the xbox360 and i play on the PC...so i go over to their house and play L4D at their house...problem solved...Im not wasting money (and who wants to) just to buy some game thats going to cost half (if not less) as much as it did when it came out, three months later.
Phosphorous
November 11, 2009 at 2:44pm
Ugghhhh, I can't believe you even went there. Don't get me started on MW2.
nekollx
November 11, 2009 at 10:18am
Ok Nathan holloween is over, we see though your tricsies
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Print
