Should Gamers Embrace Non-Ownership and Piracy in the Digital Age?
The debate over whether gamers should adapt to non-ownership of games continues to simmer as major industry figures like Ubisoft’s VP Philippe Tremblay advocate for a shift in the gaming landscape. However, the stance on this issue is far from uniform, with many gamers and industry veterans expressing mixed emotions and outright disagreement.
Enter Philippe Tremblay
Philippe Tremblay, VP of Ubisoft’s UConnect platform, recently stated that gamers might need to get used to not owning their games. This sentiment reflects a broader movement in the industry where a shift away from the traditional “owning” model of digital games is being explored.
Tremblay's statement sparks a conversation that challenges the core principles of gamer engagement and support for developers. It prompts questions about the future of the gaming industry and the rights of consumers in the digital age.
The Argument for Non-Ownership
Defenders of the non-ownership model, such as Philipppe Tremblay, often cite the benefits of continuous updates and waveform democratisation of content as primary reasons for the shift. Proponents believe that this model could lead to more dynamic, regularly updated content and could potentially democratize access to games, making them more accessible to a wider audience.
Moreover, this approach can reduce costs for developers, allowing them to invest more in content creation and game development rather than in the infrastructure needed for content distribution.
Skepticism and Resistance
However, many gamers and industry experts are skeptical of this shift. They argue that the traditional ownership model provides gamers with a sense of accomplishment and community connection. For many, owning a game is a symbol of personal achievement and a way to support developers through direct financial contributions.
Furthermore, the ease of access to games that the current model provides is cherished. Piracy, which is closely linked to the concept of non-ownership, is a topic that garners significant attention in this debate. Many gamers, including myself, would leap back into the world of piracy if this trend gains momentum.
The Role of Steam's Terms of Service
Interestingly, a counterpoint to this debate can be found in the terms of service (ToS) agreements of digital platforms, such as Steam. The ToS often outline circumstances under which a gamer might lose access to games, such as account suspension or breach of contract. While this doesn't technically enforce non-ownership, it does align with the broader trend of less control over digital content.
Some gamers perpetually abide by these terms, not for the stolen shopping frenzies, but for supporting games that they believe are worthy. Games like Doom Eternal and Dead Space, which they see as exceptional and deserving of financial support, encourage them to honor these terms despite the lack of explicit ownership.
Conclusion
While the debate around non-ownership and piracy in the gaming industry remains contentious, it is clear that gamers and developers alike must consider the human side of this equation. Non-ownership, if implemented as an industry norm, could lead to exciting new developments and innovations.
At the same time, the loss of control over digital content and the shift away from traditional gamer support models could drive both traditional gamers and new entrants to piracy. The future of the gaming industry depends on finding a balance that respects both developers and consumers.
What is your stance on non-ownership and piracy in the digital age? Have you ever supported a game through digital payments? Share your thoughts in the comments below!