Video Game Reviews 4 You

Posted September 8, 2011 by David Radd

“Some people will be left behind, it's evolution.” - David Sarif, Deus Ex: Human Revolution

Cloud gaming firm OnLive had quite a bit of a recent coup when they announced that retail copies of Deus Ex: Human Revolution would come with an OnLive code of the same game. It's a great example of the platform's prominence and a nice reward to those consumers that would purchase a PC version of the game at retail. There was a dark cloud [no pun intended] to this silver lining however: GameStop.

"I see a world where old borders between portables and consoles no longer matter. It's not that games will be available on a singular monolithic device – it's that they'll be available everywhere."

The largest game retailer in the U.S. objected to the idea of promoting an up-and-coming competitor, so they had the codes removed from the copies of Deus Ex: Human Revolution that they sold. Square Enix politely respected GameStop's decision to remove the codes. Ultimately, GameStop sent back all copies of the game and sent out a written apology and giftcard to those affected as a mea culpa.

This whole situation reminded me why I avoid GameStop like the bubonic plague. It was also another episode that serves to make PC retail sales an even more marginal part of the video gaming industry than it already is. What was perhaps most interesting about the back and forth was how it reflected the past fighting against the future of gaming.

This isn't the first such rumbling of conflict against digital by a retail or publishing source. Steam is the most prominent example – before the launch of Half-Life 2, Sierra Online sued Valve over their use of the digital download store. On the other side of the coin, in 2007 Valve deactivated accounts with CD keys that were purchased outside of the consumer's territory in order to maintain the integrity of region-specific licensing; they didn't want users purchasing The Orange Box through cheaper, market retailers. Given the rise of Steam's success, there's an unsteady peace with retail partners, who carry games with Steam despite the fact that they resent it as competition, and publishers who often dislike power wielded by Steam but use it as a means of DRM anyway because customers prefer it. 

Getting back to the issue at hand: I'm not saying OnLive specifically is the future... what I'm saying is that what OnLive offers is more what the future will look like than GameStop retail. The funny thing is that I think GameStop knows this; the people running the largest U.S. game retail chain may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. They've invested in digital retailer Impulse and cloud gaming company Spawn Labs, along with online indie game aggregator Kongregate. They want to be in on the digital revolution for games, even if it's only a small fraction of their business right now.

See, I had an epiphany when I recently spent some time trimming my video game library. It contains hundreds of titles in over more than a dozen formats – it's one of my most treasured possessions. But looking over it, I realized what an anachronism it is. It's like having a large collection of books during the day and age when they all could fit on an iPad... except in this case, there's no charming old-school, analog appeal to something that can be picked up and used by anyone who can read.

A long time issue video games have always had with being art was how “of the now” it is as a consumer medium; the attention spans of gamers tend to be very short and for the vast majority of titles, there is only the tiniest window to be relevant before they're pushed off to the side to make room for the next greatest thing. The disposable nature of games is a subject for another op-ed, but the main issue relevant to this piece is how restricting games to such-and-such format is not beneficial in the long run.

I'm willing to bet for the vast majority of core gamers, they probably only have three or fewer consoles hooked up to a television in their house. Even if they do have legacy games and consoles more than a decade old, they're probably in a closet, an attic or off in storage somewhere. Part of this comes from the issues of having old electronics – hooking it up, getting it to work isn't an insurmountable task, but the barrier is probably enough to dissuade most much of the time. Most people also have to deal with limited space, and for some, it just isn't reasonable to devote an entire room or closet to games (especially if a significant other/family gets involved). So instead, they play the new games that are for the newest systems they have that work properly with modern televisions, and I can't say I blame them.

To get back to the point of the article, it just doesn't strike me as feasible to have these proprietary, physical products for gaming that much longer. Even though I dearly love all my cartridges and discs, tying games to such methods is long term obsolescence. While I'll most certainly buy physical game products as long as they are offered, I know that distribution problems and retail woes make such things less than optimal for the people who actually make games. But it's not just the supply side that will benefit – there's also an upside for the consumer.

While almost a fantasy not even a decade ago, digital means of distribution are now completely feasible. For many consumers, it comes down to a convenience issue, but currently many downloads don't offer the pure value of a physical product (can't be shared with others or resold). However, convergence and cross-platform play might finally make all digital games a better deal.

Some have referred to a “one console future” and they might think that's what I mean. It's a similar idea, but the difference is that I see a world where old borders between portables and consoles no longer matter. It's not that games will be available on a singular monolithic device – it's that they'll be available everywhere.

Imagine a world where you're able to play a game from any location that had a reliable Internet connection. It might be some years off at this point, but we're already starting to see the first signs of the turn coming. Portal 2 on PS3 came with a free Steam copy (and there was cross-platform play between the two), Pocket Legends is an MMORPG that can be played between Android and iOS with PC support coming very soon, and Dungeon Defenders is a game launching soon that will offer cross-platform play between mobile, PS3 and PC versions. And I would be amiss to not say there is also the ability to log-in and play any Steam game from any PC or Mac that can run the game.

Lest my above tangent seem unrelated, ultimately this sort of convergence will be good for the history of the industry as well – instead of lugging out some old machine and trying to get it to work, players can just log into an account and play their games from anywhere and without multiple purchases. You can download music, books and movies – movies that are useable across multiple devices – so why not games? It's a real value that I think once players get used to they'll have difficultly going back to the idea of the way things are. The switchover is already starting to happen in the portable gaming industry, where it's becoming less feasible to have people lug around a physical copy of a game and switch out whenever they want to try something new.

Ultimately, GameStop should continue to work on their digital and cloud gaming efforts if they want to remain relevant, because retail won't have the leverage forever in the video gaming industry. If they keep up actions like what they did with Deus Ex: Human Revolution, gamers won't think anything of value is lost when their fortunes and profits tumble if they aren't able to adapt to a new, more digital age.

 

David Radd has worked as a gaming journalist since 2004 at sites such as GamerFeed, Gigex and GameDaily Biz.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.