Electronic distribution and pricing models

The latest comment on PC game piracy comes from Blizzards Frank Pearce. What they will be doing with their new Battle.net 2.0 is very similar to how Steam works. You need to use an internet connection once to activate your game and after that you can play offline. Instead of going for a number of installations like SecuROM, they're hoping that by providing a good community (with Facebook integration) and a fun game, most players will want to buy their game to get to use those features.

This is not a bad idea, I've been playing Starcraft 2 for a few months now and it's a really solid product that will sell ten million copies or more. I have already pre-ordered my version and even though I doubt I'll use many of the Facebook features I will enjoy the game.

Making a good game will definitely help you sell more copies but something I think more companies should look into is alternative price models and easier digital distribution.

A point that few game developers are willing to admit is that from a pure usability standpoint, piracy is easier than buying games. The trackers are organized on torrent sites no matter what company the game is from and you will not have to install software like Gamers gate or Steam. I think that Steam is a great product and use it every day but I will not install something else that does the same thing because it has other games, I'll just not buy them instead. A single distributor having world domination is actually a good thing from a user point of view.

From the economic perspective that is not quite the case unless the distributor is nice enough to keep their prices low. Right now they aren't, a new game on steam usually runs at 50€ or 10% more than what you pay for an actual physical copy. With the purchase of the physical copy you also receive a box with DVDs that has to be shipped across the world as well as the vendors themselves making a profit. Digital distribution is all about data transfer costs and bandwith can't be that expensive so I guess they just don't want to compete.

Digital distribution doesn't just open up ways to get your games easier and publish smaller, cheaper games it also gives you the option of being paid in new ways. One example is Telltale games releasing Sam & Max adventures as episodes where you can buy just one, an entire season or all three seasons. I think this sort of pricing model will work great for other types of games as well.

Instead of putting up your 50€ at once with the chance of feeling cheated when it's not as good as you hoped, you can pay no money up front and instead pay per hour until you reach the 50€. If your single-player campaign is supposed to last 25 hours, just charge 2/hour. Once you reach the price point for that game you own it and can play it as much as you want, no extra charge.

Using an hourly price model like this would also allow you to have instant demos. Just allow the player to play the first few hours free and then let them have a confirmation box when they have to start paying. Instead of feeling cheated you can play as long as you are entertained, essentially being able to choose how much you think that game is worth.

Will the players stop playing a game because they have to start paying or will they keep playing because they want to see what happens? I don't know but I think it's worth trying.