The Collectors

Ownership is a basic human desire - one which digital distribution advocates ignore at their peril

What does the concept of "ownership" mean to consumers? On the surface, that's a fairly abstract, philosophical kind of question - but it's also a question which strikes to the heart of the ongoing debate about the future of games distribution.

Our most common system is, by and large, ownership based. Consumers pay a flat fee to buy a game - the product is the physical media itself, and as with any other physical product, owning it brings certain rights. Consumers can sell it on, or lend it to friends. They can play the game whenever they want, at no extra cost. They can actually display the product on their shelves, an often overlooked factor which is extremely important to many consumers, especially the over 30 age group.

There are essentially three systems which are being proposed as replacements. The subscription model, as used by most MMOs, can happily tie in with the concept of owning physical products, but removes the ability to sell the game. You can sell the physical media, but the purchaser can't use it to create an account in the game.

The digital distribution model eliminates physical media and resale rights entirely, but retains the concept of ownership in the broad sense - you purchase, not rent, the license to the game. Finally, the live streaming system proposed by (arguably technically questionable) projects like OnLive basically removes the concept of ownership entirely.

More than any technical challenges - or any particular desires on the part of games publishers - it's this fundamental difference in the approach to ownership which will, I believe, determine the eventual roles of each of these new forms of distribution.

Different market segments have different approaches to ownership. I don't think it's going to be possible to wean the planet's self-identifying "gamer" demographic - which could encompass up to 200 million people - off the desire for ownership. It will be equally difficult to wrest ownership from the hands of people with collecting, hoarding mentalities - which accounts for a pretty significant chunk of the entire human race.

For other groups, however, it's far more natural for entertainment to be transient and streamed, rather than being permanent and owned. People who watch TV or listen to radio in preference to buying DVD box sets or albums, or people who rent rather than buying their videos, are an obvious market for less ownership-focused approaches.

In a simple world, then, a publisher would choose the right kind of distribution and revenue model for each product based on its demographic appeal. To some extent, this already happens - one could argue that the distinction between web games, which are inherently a streamed service, and boxed games, which are an owned product, reflects exactly that balance.

We do not, however, live in a simple world. The reality is that no consumer sits exactly in one demographic group or another. Even today, media consumers all demonstrate a bewildering variety of purchasing behaviour.

Most consumers buy some things outright - usually DVDs, albums and boxed games - but also happily consume streamed media in the form of TV or radio, rent some other media and pay subscriptions for media like magazines, newspapers and MMOGs. They make choices on which ways to access each of those media depending on perceived value, the desire for ownership and a host of other factors which constantly shift about.

One could argue that recent years have seen one particularly noticeable shift among those factors - a general movement away from the importance of ownership. Consumers have become more accustomed to media products being digital, not physical, and more accepting of previously unpopular ideas like owning a non-transferable license or account, rather than a product which can be resold. Rental systems and subscription based services have been in the ascendant.

This tide, however, could turn. Consumers on the whole are gradually becoming more aware of digital rights, and the real consequences of handing such a huge degree of control to corporations. Burned badly by often ill-conceived services such as subscription music stores or DRM video providers who shut down their authentication servers when the cashflow dries up, consumers with digital rights nightmare stories are gradually pushing public opinion in exactly the opposite direction to the general media industry consensus.

That push will easily be enough to kill some services. The most restrictive or abusively designed services, those which entirely rob consumers of a sense of ownership or which simply aim to increase revenue without providing a corresponding increase in value, will not succeed - no matter how appealing they may seem to publishers. The experiences of both the music and movie businesses have shown that even business models with wide industry support can fail badly if consumers start to get cold feet over restrictive conditions or unappealing financial terms.

Those industries are, slowly but surely, starting to understand that the only way to keep consumers on board is to focus on creating services which consumers love, rather than services which executives love.

In some cases, whole industries are effectively dragged kicking and screaming into this reality - witness Apple's relentless bullying of music companies into accepting high-quality, DRM-free distribution on the iTunes Music Store, when the music firms themselves far prefer music services with restrictive DRM and monthly subscription fees. The subscription services are a wet dream for an industry whose bottom line has been heavily dependent on getting consumers to pay repeatedly for the same content - the downside, however, is that most consumers hate them, in part because they take away any concept of owning or collecting music.

Services like iTunes, and indeed like Steam and the various download services on consoles, generally occupy a middle ground which the majority of consumers find quite comfortable. It's a lot easier to take the leap from physical products to digital products when the concept of ownership is retained and the restrictions on what you can do are relatively light.

At present, these services still lack the ability to lend or resell your products, which is likely to keep the physical product market (and, sadly, the piracy scene) fairly healthy for many years, but it's clear that these services are the comfort zone for most game consumers right now.

There is undoubtedly room in the market for more radical business and distribution models - but rather than rushing in headlong at the prospect of cultivating new revenue streams, the industry would do well to remember that the desire to own things is basic human nature, and no amount of boardroom wishful thinking will change that.

Latest comments (8)

Martyn Brown Managing Director, Insight For Hire9 years ago
Kids who want to collect, play Pokemon.

I just don't see this with the itunes generation, and especially my own kids, it's all about having it all with you - on demand.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Victor Perez CEO, Games GI9 years ago
It is true that to pay 60E for something physical it is not the same than for something virtual/digital… I have already posted it in gamasutra I believe … but to have a good overview of gamers’ digital distribution acceptance question I would add a second important element:
The time gamers dedicate to play… we can push them with thousand of products, but they will play the same average time. How player will share that time between online products and classical games products (box) will be the right question. PC games have been banished by the distribution channel (retailer) just because Console sales more. Same phenomena can happen with box product, people will dedicate more time to online products than classical product at least in some niche as hardcore games… and pushing the publisher to move to online games and decreasing the business in retail till disappear. The idea of property is very powerful, but it can change when the product you buy it is not the same. My view is the hardcore gamer will move to online products, and with them part of the business and genre.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Dwain Hill9 years ago
I feel that online products come with lots of unknowns that makes the average consumer feel uneasy when compared to owning something physcial. What if the digital service provider goes down? What if it disappears altogether? What happens when I change PC's or devices that play the content, will I still have access? What if I lose internet access? Can I redownload content? And what if I want some nice box art to collect?

I'm all for digital content, but I'd like the option to beable to download all the content and burn it to a disc locally incase the service lets you down, or to beable to purchase physcial products related to the digital content for collectors. Owning the physcial product can sometimes be alot simplier.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (8)
I'm a natural collector of things, whether it is DVDs, Magic cards, books etc. I like the therapeutic nature of it.

But all my music is now ripped (lossless, of course!) and I have absolutely no interest in seeing any of my CDs again.

Why? Because the convenience value outweighs all other factors. So this is my feeling with this debate - yes, we humans are natural collectors. But if owning something in a virtual and/or digital form brings enough advantages, then we're quite happy to forget about our collecting tendancies pretty damned quickly.

And the same thing is likely to apply to games. When it becomes much more convenient to buy them online, they're cheaper this way, you can use them on any console/PC that you log onto and there's no disk to lose, scratch or get eaten by the dog, then the collectability will cease to be a factor for most people.

Of course there will still be some people who like the physical goods, but there again there are still some people who ride horses...
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Dwain Hill9 years ago
If car manufacturers created a new series of cars, and then disabled the use of their old cars, that horse is looking pretty good ^_^

It all comes down to the rights that the service gives the user I suppose. I love being able to get my content digitally, but only when it's transferable and easy to do so.

If the next generation of consoles doesn't allow me access to all my digitally downloaded games purchased through their services this generation, I'll be an angry man. I don't want to have 3 or 4 generations of consoles taking up room around my tv!
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jason Avent Studio Head / Creative Director, TT Games Publishing9 years ago
I really love the convenience of downloading games to my console. I don't think that all gamers are collectors. I'm certainly not. I sell all my games once I've played them for a bit.

I guess what could be created is some kind of digital bookcase on which you could show off your games. You kind of have that with the 'compare games' function on Xbox LIVE.

I'd like to see full games cost just £20-25 and only be available for download. Without the retailer's cut, they should be that cheap. Equally, if subscription, micropayments or episodic payments bring more, better content then I'm happy.

Maybe if this all comes to pass, the publishers could send you a sticker that's unique for each game that you could put in an album at home or something Rob? : )

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Chris Kolmatycki Game Designer, HB Studios9 years ago
In the end, I don't care as long as I can access the content at any time and it is sold at a fair price :)
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Victor Perez CEO, Games GI9 years ago
Download content will bring another generation of products; it is not the same product you buy now will be in the future available only online… the product itself will change. Agree about the internet connection, but, how many time your provider cut off the service?? But there are going to be always services to allow you play for a limited time off line. Online will not solve all situation of course, there are going to be always someone ready to send you at home a hardcopy by 50% extra cost. How I say, that is not yes/no, it will be a perceptual enough to online will be a good business till it will be the business.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.