Doer vs. player

In recent years and especially since the summer of this year a strange-looking to outsiders alienation between the community and the publishers and/or game forging has used (summarized as “Makers”). This applies in particular to the PC games section, true in parts but also to the so-called “metal sign”, especially since it is these segments not homogeneous mass, but overlaps are the rule.

But what makes this process hitch? On pages of the providers, there are some signs: while the significance of the “PC” gaming platform in General and on a regular basis with a view to the “piracy” in question is made, provide individuals of the industry with always much noticed statements (which have, for example, to the content, that from now on no longer exclusively should be developed for the PC) for a further deepening of the trenches. On the other hand is a buying public irritated – also because such statements – which, as immediately closer to run, primarily to fight with a honesty problem has, but with fair and some problems on manufacturer pages names right and demand appropriate improvement.

The alienation can be berthed at this party to the dispute at a constant criticism of the most publications, as well as in a hysterical in parts of reaction to the introduction of questionable undoubtedly SecuROM copy protection. Since it is not surprising that some one party at the sheer mention terms like “SecuROM” or “Electronic Arts” red sees and is in frequent danger, disaffiliate from a factual discussion to disguised hate.

Here is so on both sides a strangely synchronous, unsäglicherweise strongly emotional behaviour which undermines a no-nonsense approach to the problem from the outset. While the makers in a mixture of Schmoll and rage want to concentrate on other platforms (despite the fact that the subject also on consoles plays an increasingly large role), the community in turn threatens with a revolt with them although organizationally difficult, but in principle (think of the “boycott of Spore”) is quite feasible.

It now leads the actually typical image in the relationship of provider consumer in mind, a completely absurd situation was just identified. Classical understanding, you should can recognize a symbiosis, because the former want to but finally delivering, for which the latter gladly about 50 euro to spend on closer inspection of the interactions between creators and players ideally. In the search for the causes of the alienation described this statement worth very much, she opened but the theoretical path back to the first cause of bundle.

And this is without doubt in the creators. The most aspect relevant in this respect has to do with the shimmering concept of “Innovation”. Here to get to a sound judgment, must be returned in time not far. A look at the year’s major publications already shows that a clear deficit prevails when it comes to “Innovation”. Sure, some titles offer new; in fine nuances but the bulk of the offer comes along with a new graphics and the continuation of the story at best. This situation has been exacerbated by a – on the PC – in parts outrageous technical implementation. The mere existence of so-called “day-one patches” bears witness to a publishing mentality which miss any respect to the buying public. Also the fact that many a title at best one or two months is made can be run after release and only due to multiple updates, is in the “bottomless impudence” to.

You may ask, so flat-rate basis, whether eight to ten hours of bathing by already well-established values, which is also a technical disaster on top of that in some cases, is actually between 30 and 60 euros worth.

Unfortunately, this matter legally is still often only in two ways can be answer: either the player spends at random, or he is trying the hopefully in close and well stocked video library. The purchase at random is responsible no doubt for this that many a buyer afterwards writes in various forums that the quality of the product in rage. A questionable demo policy, which has the content always less likely to publish a corresponding download is because in addition to the lack of product quality. This may have several reasons, but is no surprise that such an action in relevant circles like it explains that it would inform buyers not only about the upcoming bad.

Much of the misery is so with being the one to explain. But as with the most relationship problems, no unilateral obligation can be determined also compared player makers. Because the causes of the current situation can be found also in the community. So, the charges levied by the pages of the providers because of illegal downloading of games are not far-fetched. Common sense, the prevalence of P2P applications, and top ten lists to illegal game downloads clearly show that the problem is not who talked, but de facto exist.

Overlooking this circumstance can be blamed part of the community, in a dishonest way, above all to itself, to argue. Answered the question about the reasons for the huge numbers of illegal downloads, exceeding sales often, usually with a unbalanced weight of no doubt first correct arguments. Even if a (still illegal) preliminary testing and a turning away of the installation of copy protection are a part of truth, is always ignored, that the illegal nature of the “procurement” is above all simply opportune. In a “greed is geil” organization-fired from the menacing shadows of recession, it may seem only wanton to let the most obvious reason for the Declaration of such phenomenon. And this is: If a product without any significant problems to have for free, why then to pay the market price?

In addition to the quality, innovation, and the safeguards for the product “Video game”, this one reason for this is why illegal downloads have economy. The honesty when looking at this collection is now to accept the presumption according to which the latter cause accounts for the majority, not dismiss, but they – quite a bad image of man based on.

The following sentence could have come from a marriage counselor: (to) see the proportionate share blame for the State can lead to the improvement. But how?

Under the creators a new mentality must are in many ways. Games should be placed not more quickly, but actually “when it’s done” on the market. A prolonged development time should above all be used to publish and also content innovative and technically perfect games. Should also be without if and but first released a demo, offers insights into the game to a reasonable extent. A copy protection is not per se a bad solution, but is just with a view to the mentioned “image of bad man” and only recommended on the basis of the arguments used here. But the extent of the protection shall charge not the honest buyer (particularly if it would like to resell his property later!). As a result: unique online activation, Yes. Limited installations and heavy subsequent GPO of the protection application, no. Most recently, also the pricing policy should be, where a more differentiated gradation (priced for mere bathing, 50 euros for then “real” top titles) could deliver meaningful impulses reconsidered.

The measures to be taken among the players are extensively less and should automatically follow as a result of changes on pages of the creators. Because something should do there, there would be hardly retort arguments, an illegal obtaining of the title away from of opportunism ‘ would credibly explain. So following either constellation could reform itself: either increase sales and decrease the download figures, or the status quo is maintained. In the first case, the problem would be solved. The second case would mean that the opportune regardless predominates in the people – all other factors (which, as long this is easily possible, illegally obtained no matter how good and cheap games the product). If this normative to betrauernde output is actually, the solution only in a particularly restrictive copy protection method for search – and thus in the vicious circle would be. Because this leads only to the annoyance of the buyer and not an improvement (no copy protection, which was not cracked), the actual result would a brain of the makers of the inevitably each particularly difficult to protective platforms.

Especially the last two paragraphs appear in summary as – perhaps naive – music of the future. In addition to the title and description of the problem, but also concrete implications for the solution should be supplied. Last end the proposals here can serve as the basis for a substantive discussion which hopefully better results as the insistence on the own, based heavily on emotional aspects position of players and creators.