Separator
The Murky Side of Games as Services
Me
Saturday, August 07, 2010

Editor's note: Chris brings up one of the major sticking points of services such as OnLive -- game ownership. While I'm not quite ready to jump in to such a service (and neither is my Internet connection), I think distributed computing and providing access to software as a service are only growing in popularity. - Jay


When the concept of cloud computing first started gaining traction, it became apparent to everyone -- gamers, developers, publishers, and the press -- that eventually this trend of keeping everything online would make its way to the games industry. It offered so many benefits: access your games everywhere, platform agnosticism, and no more worrying about losing a memory card or having a hard drive crash, as your saves would go wherever you went.

Services like OnLive offer these perks and more. You have the ability to watch other people play games live, upload clips, and work under a unified system that displays the games the same whether you're in the living room in front of the TV, on your desktop PC, or messing about on a netbook. Sure, OnLive has its share of technical hitches such as latency, but overall the impression that OnLive would like to give is that they're offering everything we've had in previous generations, and more.

 

Social games led the trend of cloud computing for years with titles like Farmville operating completely independent of platform and working inside a  web browser to run on pretty much any home computer. If I played Farmville, I could do so with the knowledge that so long as I had access to my Facebook account, I'd be able to carry on playing whether I was at home, at work, in the cafe, or at the University's computer lab.

Despite all of this, I'm actually quite resistant to any form of the cloud as the future of computing, whether that be in games or software in general. The recent news that Zynga shut down its Street Racing game is the main reason why, and the fact that they're doing this is no surprise.

In the good old days, when I purchased a game I had the disc to use forever. Even if the title was a commercial flop, I still had the hard copy to prove that I put down the cash, and I owned that disc as long as I wanted to keep it. Even if the game never got a sequel, I could still go back to the original many years later and play it. People who invested money in Street Racing won't enjoy the same luxury; most of the in-game items they purchased will vanish forever, and only money they invested in the last 90 days will be reimbursed -- with lots of strings attached.

Similarly, with more core-oriented services such as OnLive, they stipulate that they will only support titles for three years, after which nobody really knows what will happen to it. Another problem is that if you decide one month that you don't want to pay OnLive's monthly fee, all that money you've invested in the games on the platform up to that point becomes worthless, as you lose access to the lot. They are, essentially, holding the content you paid for to ransom in order to swindle another monthly fee off of you.

When I imagined the cloud, I thought we'd wind up with a service that worked with what we had and added to the features we already enjoyed in our games. I never expected games would move out of our reach and control. I figured they would back up our save games online and offer features that Xbox LIVE and PSN have, such as achievements, friends lists, and communication networks. I expected to always be able to play my games offline and, if the provider I bought the game from went bust, to have the ability to unshackle my games from their DRM, either via an official solution or through the community. I feel it's my moral (if not legal) right to retain ownership of the games I pay for.

What Zynga did raises many concerns for even hardcore gamers. I fear that they will lure people with the good features of OnLive and these customers will be totally unaware of the consequences they may face three years down the line. Eventually, due to the changing nature of the service, we will lose access to some of our favorite games, and many people will be left wondering what, exactly, they paid for.

And the answer will be simple: thin air.


Chris Winters is an unemployed (and unpublished) novelist and wannabe games writer. You can check out his stream of reviews from his backlog on Been There, Played That, or get in touch with him on Twitter: @akwinters.

 
6
CHRIS WINTERS' SPONSOR
Comments (8)
Lance_darnell
August 01, 2010


Seriously? If I pay for three months and buy some games, and then miss payment for a month I LOSE MY GAMES!!!???



That does sound like ransom!


Me
August 01, 2010
I think you'll get them back if you start paying again, but that's besides the point. You still have no control over something you paid for - they're holding access to content you paid for to ransom of a monthly fee. Imagine buying a game in a shop, only having the shop tell you they want you to pay monthly to carry on playing.
Lance_darnell
August 01, 2010


Oh, I see your point! It's like they are seeing how far they can stick the proverbial "stick" up our asses without us knowing! Maybe that's a bit too far, but I am completely in the "I want to hold the game I buy" camp.


Jayhenningsen
August 07, 2010


I really want to own my games too, but consider this: we've been paying for access to entertainment that we don't own for years. When you stop paying for it, you lose the access. It's called cable television.



While it seems strange that games are moving in this direction, they've already proven the business model works.


Default_picture
August 07, 2010


I still maintain the belief that services such as OnLive will not catch on with serious gamers. Stop and think for a moment about your favorite games and how long ago some of them may have come out. I have countless old PC and console games sitting on my shelf that I still enjoy playing even a decade or more after their respective launches (ex: StarCraft, X-Com, WarCraft 2, etc.).



Do we really want to put ourselves into a position 5-10 years from now where looking back at today's games can be nothing more than a nostalgia trip due to no one possessing a copy of Supreme Commander 2, Left Dead, or Mass Effect 2?



I think I will stick with my retail versions for now.


Me
August 07, 2010
I think there's probably room for games as services, but only if it's on an 'all you can eat' model.

Ownership is a big deal to me, but I think that like DVDs and 'buy to own' online film services, an all you can eat approach can only compliment the traditional ownership model.

OnLive, however, is an insidious attempt by publishers to strip passionate gamers of ownership and restrict what we play to try and alleviate their paranoia over used game sales and piracy. It's of benefit to no one but the publishers who keep the lucrative pricing structure of the ownership model whilst shafting us out of actually owning the products.

Oh, and thanks for the front page posting. I published this a week ago and thought it had slipped into obscurity. Happy to see it getting a renewed presence!
100media_imag0065
August 07, 2010


I have been saying this for years. People do not listen though, and they tell me that they WANT digital distribution, in whatever form it takes, because they don't have to go to stores and wait in line. Nevermind that they will never own the game, and it can be taken away at any time without reason and you can't do anything about it. Nevermind that you can't lend the game to a friend, or borrow one. You can't trade it in either. You are buying a license to play a game for as long as they see fit. Then, your done.



People look past these massive downfalls because of the ease it offers them. They can get in their car and drive to a store to buy and keep their games forever. Or they can click a mouse button and give all control to whoever own the game. It absolutely boggles my mind to think people would rather loose all control over the product they payed for then have to get up off their fat asses and go buy the real thing. OnLive is no exception.



I signed up for OnLive early and got a free year and a free game of my choosing. I liked what OnLive offered because it let's you rent games for a few days. I would never buy a game from them, but renting a digital game is a neat idea. You know going in that you aren't purchasing the game. You know from second one that you are only borrowing the game for 5 days, and that is OK with me. What isn't Ok is that my fantastic internet connection wasn't enough to satify OnLive.



Laggy controls, blurry graphics, terrible sound, etc. etc. etc.


100media_imag0065
August 07, 2010


@Jay. These are two very different things. With Cable television you are paying a cable provider to provide you with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of channels for one price. Even if you stop paying your bills, all your favorite shows can be found online for free.



With a service like Onlive, you are paying a subscription fee for the right to buy games. It is not like you are paying them a monthly fee and then given acess to all the games on their service whenever you want them, like cable television. You still have to pay. Imagine having to pay your cable provider for the right to buy each channel individually. You would have to pay $60 for Fox, $60 for NBC, $60 for ABC, plus the subscription fee to your cable provider. Then, when you stop paying, you loose it all.



Jeez, even HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime, combined are less $$ than a half of a game.


You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.