Netflix's Announced 'Video Game Streaming' Foray Fizzles Into Some Mobile Games Using Netflix IP

from the more-like-a-trickle-than-a-stream dept

You may recall that my colleague Karl Bode discussed Netflix's response to real competition last month, dealing mostly with how Netflix has attempted to hand-waive concerns over losing subscribers in the face of increasing streaming options from the likes of Amazon, Disney, and Comcast. But buried down in the last paragraph was a reference to Netflix's reported interest in video game streaming. Reports indicated that Netflix had hired an executive that had previously worked for EA, speculating that the company was getting into game publishing. There was no official word from Netflix as to what this game studio would actually look like, and the speculation was roughly what you would expect.

While Netflix has not yet confirmed what shape its video game publishing arm might take, Bloomberg reporter Mark Gurman has suggested that the effort could lead to "video games [as part of] its service in the next year." The use of "video games" as a descriptor is key, as that differentiates the effort from the "choose your own adventure" TV specials that have become more common on the service since Black Mirror's "Bandersnatch" special debuted in 2018.

A tantalizing thought, to be sure. Would Netflix, the company that largely changed the way the public consumes television and movie content, jump into video game streaming in some way to compete with Amazon, Google Prime, and the like? Given the lackluster adoption of such video game streaming services, and given Netflix's reputation for redefining content via streamed services, such speculation certainly made sense.

But, no, Netflix is not getting into that sort of video game streaming service. Instead, the studio will build mobile gaming apps available to Netflix subscribers, chiefly utilizing Netflix intellectual property.

One month after its vague announcement of a new gaming-centric strategy, Netflix has explained how it will "publish" video games in the foreseeable future: as downloadable smartphone apps, available exclusively for paying video-streaming subscribers.

The news coincides with the company's public launch of Netflix Gaming on Thursday as part of the service's smartphone app... but only in Poland—and only on Android. The company's American Twitter translated Thursday's Polish announcement, which explains how the service works. It also announced the two games launching as part of the service today: Stranger Things 3, a 16-bit beat-'em-up that was previously available as a standalone Google Play purchase (and is still live on PC and consoles); and Stranger Things: 1984, a rebranding of a 2017 smartphone-exclusive game that revolve around slow, puzzle-solving movement through pixelated TV-series environments.

Yawn. The more detailed announcement is honestly underwhelming. On top of that, the way Netflix is attempting to silo this new gaming content behind the Netflix app for subscribers sounds like an absolute user experience nightmare.

To access this content, you'll need to log in to Netflix's Android app while using a Polish IP address, then open the region's new "N Gaming" row of icons (pictured below). From there, pick either of those games, and the app will direct you to their Google Play download listings. Once downloaded, the apps in question will request your Netflix credentials before loading, and they will not work without an active Netflix membership.

The Polish IP part of this equation is a function of this all being in beta, so we'll leave that aside. But accessing the Google Play store by first navigating a complicated menu in the Netflix app... only to then have to re-input your user name and password for Netflix into the game application? Come on now, this isn't the efficient user experience Netflix made its name on.

And I'm also terribly confused why Netflix would even want to restrict selling its games only to Netflix subscribers. Why not sell to, you know, everyone? This reeks of console exclusivity, where gaming console companies strike deals with developers to only appear on their consoles as a way to drive more console sales. Is Netflix's strategy really to use these mobile games to drive more people to subscribe or stay subscribed to its main offering?

If so, it's a terribly weak move, and unlikely to work. Maybe the game catalogue will grow, but I can't imagine anyone considering unsubscribing to Netflix changing their minds simply to play a Stranger Things mobile game.

Filed Under: streaming, video game streaming, video games
Companies: netflix

Doing It Right: Bethesda Likes 'Fallout' Mod So Much It Hires Some Of The Team That Made It

from the mod-squad dept

How gaming companies treat their modding communities that spring up around their games is something of a fault line in the industry. Game studios tend to be either pro-modding or not, with very little space in between. Nintendo, for instance, is notoriously anti-modding of its games. Bethesda, on the other hand, has traditionally been quite open-minded when it comes to the modding communities that have sprung up around its games. We've made the point for a long, long time that embracing modding communities is typically a massive boon to gaming companies and the restrictive attitude companies like Nintendo take makes little sense. Mods extend the shelf life and interest of games, driving attention and elongating the sales cycle and windows for those games. Giving up a little control for more sales seems to only make sense.

But, speaking of Bethesda, some developers go even further. For instance, there is a forthcoming Fallout mod made by an independent team that is entitled Fallout: London, and it looks amazing.

Now, I am very much a fan of this franchise, so I'm comfortable saying that if you can see a quality difference between what appears in this trailer and what has appeared in official trailers for the franchise, you're a much bigger stickler for details than I am. The mod changes more than just the location, though. It puts an emphasis on different types of gameplay to reflect a more British sensibility.

Fallout: London is an ambitious Fallout 4 modification that was officially revealed earlier this year. Taking place in the time between the first two games and set leagues away from the franchise’s traditional Americana-inspired stomping grounds, Fallout: London features a massive new map to explore, fresh-faced factions to join, and an added focus on melee weapons over firearms.

Now, the whole thing has been created on a volunteer basis and I haven't seen any request for money or monetary support on its website, so there is that. Still, little would stand in Bethesda's way if it wanted to shut this whole thing down. Plenty of gaming companies have done that sort of thing with fan-made projects in the past, citing copyright and/or trademark concerns. So, really, are we just waiting for the Bethesda hammer to drop on this project?

If so, it won't be the hammer you were expecting. Instead, Bethesda's folks seemed to be so impressed by the work on the mod that it is hiring some of its team directly.

Stephanie Zachariadis, head writer of the highly anticipated Fallout: London mod, is leaving the development team after being hired as an associate quest designer at Bethesda Game Studios, project lead Dean Carter announced recently.

“This is utterly fantastic news and something that all of the team here at Fallout: London stand behind and we wholeheartedly wish her the best on her endeavors,” Carter wrote in the mod’s official Discord server. “We hope that she will give them the same groundbreaking story and quests that she gave us.”

We often talk about how companies can be cool and human with their own fans, rather than restrictive assbags, and what a boon this can be to the company. It's a whole new level when a gaming company decides to take that same tact with its modding community. Bethesda obviously recognizes the value in its modding community and is now leveraging it in multiple ways.

1. The mod itself makes Fallout 4 continue to be relevant and perhaps even more relevant for the UK audience.
2. Allowing the work on the mod to come to fruition revealed a talent-hiring opportunity for Bethesda in the form of Zachariadis.
3. That hiring decision should only encourage the modding community to work on labors of love even harder, with the understanding that Bethesda is both cool with it and might even reward them for it down the road.
4. The public gets to see the company behave in a human and awesome way, a PR benefit.

I am failing to see a single downside for Bethesda to any of this, making me wonder yet again why other companies ever do it differently than this.

Filed Under: fallout, fallout london, modding, video games
Companies: bethesda

Video Games, Once Demonized, More Regularly Utilized For Positive Health Benefits

from the life-is-a-game dept

For decades now, video games have been largely demonized by a certain segment of the population that probably were annoyed when great evils like jazz music and chess were also demonized. Video games, say this group, make kids lazy and fat, degrade social skills, keep them from going outside and hitting each other with sticks or something, and also make them all violent school shooters. That many of these same charges were levied on such horrible activities as chess, Dungeons & Dragons, or any of the other moral panics we kicked off appears to be lost on most everyone. Video games are evil, full stop.

Until they're not, of course. And, fortunately, the tide continues to turn as more and more people play video games more and more. Already we've seen studies suggesting that gaming can actually be a very healthy activity, even for children. But not just for children. Gaming can also, according to a new study, be beneficial for older folks when it comes to combatting depression.

Playing video games might look like a fun way to spend an afternoon. "They get addicting," said Laurie Featherstone, age 60, who lives in Millcreek. But it can also be so much more.

"When you go to someone like me and say, 'I'm depressed,' you expect me to say, 'Well, you should take some medicine or you should go to therapy.' So we're really proposing a third, very odd option to patients," said Shizuko Morimoto, a University of Utah population health sciences professor.

Morimoto, a neuroscientist, treated Featherstone with video games designed to target the cognitive control center of the brain which malfunctions in depressed patients.

Morimoto ran several clinical trials with patients of depression between the ages of 60 and 85. The games were developed specifically to combat malfunctioning parts of the brain that lead to depression, so, no, this isn't Grandma mowing people down in Call of Duty. But that isn't really the point, as video games have been demonized beyond just shooters or violent games. But like anything else, a tool, or video game, can be good or bad depending on how you use it.

One is a word game; the other, a gardening game. "Flowers are growing and you're tapping on watering buckets and you're shooing away bugs and you're looking at the weather," he said.

But there's much more going on behind the colorful flowers. The better you get at the game the harder it becomes. It also charts your progress, giving vital feedback and improving care.

Featherstone said it's an intense workout. "It felt like I'd gone out and ran you know, a 5K race and but with my brain," she said.

The NIH has offered a $7.5 million grant to expand this study into a much larger population. The point here isn't that all video games are good for you, or that all of them are bad for you. Either assertion is self-evidently stupid. The point instead is that there is nuance to all of this and blanket policies or grand statements devoid of that nuance are silly.

Are video games good for you, or bad? It depends, but we can now say for sure that the most panicked among us are wrong.

Filed Under: depression, health, moral panic, video games

Court Orders Injunction Against RomUniverse To Permanently Shut Down, Destroy Nintendo ROMs

from the the-end dept

What a ride for RomUniverse and its owner, Matthew Storman. By way of background, 2019 saw Nintendo start an all out assault on ROM sites, websites where users could download ROMs of old Nintendo games to play on emulators. When the company set its eyes on RomUniverse, Storman attempted to crowdfund a legal defense, which failed, only to represent himself in court and make a lame argument that somehow first sale doctrine allowed him to commit mass copyright infringement. When that all failed miserably and RomUniverse lost in court, Storman was ordered to pay $2.1 million in damages in monthly $50 installments. He failed to make even those payments.

And so now this all comes to an unceremonious end, with Nintendo asking the court for a permanent injunction on RomUniverse and that injunction being granted.

A California court has ordered RomUniverse owner Matthew Storman to keep the website permanently offline and to destroy all illegal Nintendo ROMs.

As reported by TorrentFreak, he has until August 17 to comply with the order. The publisher had filed a request for a permanent injunction in May to keep the website offline, but the court at the time denied it. Nintendo however asked that the decision be reconsidered in June as Storman didn't specifically dispute that the website would be revived.

To be clear, everyone in this story is somewhere on the spectrum of dumb. Storman's defenses were laughable and the fight he attempted to put up in court pitiful. When Nintendo specifically brought evidence that Storman had been directly involved in some of the infringing content either appearing on his site, or with him pushing rewards for uploaders to induce them, his argument of first sale doctrine was incredibly weak.

Nintendo, for its part, has buried what mostly amounts to a current non-threat. Nintendo's sales of older consoles and older games, including on new consoles, has been wildly successful. It buried this site not because it acted as some major threat to Nintendo, but rather because it could. That is very much the Nintendo way, as is the total lack of acknowledgement as to how ROM sites like this, whatever you might want to say about their legality, certainly served for decades to keep interest in classic Nintendo games alive.

But instead, Nintendo has gone through this entire process, spending whatever money it had to and cannot extract from Storman, just so RomUniverse is no longer online. If that's how the company wants to spend its money, mission accomplished, I suppose.

Filed Under: classic video games, copyright, matthew storman, permanent injunction, rom sites, roms, video games
Companies: nintendo, romuniverse

4 Dems Pushing Game Companies To Drop Loot Boxes Pointing At UK Law That Doesn't Mention Loot Boxes

from the what's-in-the-box dept

Somehow, despite all odds, the conversations between the public and the video game industry about loot boxes are still going on. If you're not familiar with loot boxes, they are a randomized reward, typically after a purchase, that provides some kind of in-game benefit, cosmetic or in gameplay, to the purchaser. Because of their random nature, a whole lot of people consider them both a form of gambling (kinda) and an affront to fair online competitive gameplay (definitely) because they allow those with money to be stronger in the game than those without money. This consternation has caught the eyes of politicians, who then attempt to trade off of it in order to build up some kind of goodwill with the gaming public. You will recall that Josh Hawley introduced a doomed bill in the Senate to "regulate play to win" practices of video game companies. The bill died in Congress without receiving a vote.

Well, now a group of Democrats are trying to get larger gaming companies to self-regulate their own loot box practices by pointing to a UK law of all things.

Democrats are calling on some of the largest gaming companies to better protect children by extending new UK design rules to children in the US. The regulations could ban companies from selling in-game loot boxes to minors, among other restrictions. In letters to a dozen major gaming companies, including Blizzard, Epic Games, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Riot, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) pressed executives to extend new UK design regulations to children in the US.

“It is imperative that Congress acts with urgency to enact a strong privacy law for children and teens in the 21st century,” the lawmakers wrote. “As we work towards that goal, we urge you to extend to American children and teens any privacy enhancements that you implement to comply with the AADC.”

You can read the entire letter here (PDF). One important section of that letter to gaming executives includes this.

Loot boxes go one step further, encouraging purchase before a child knows what the “bundle” contains— akin to gambling.3 Children are uniquely vulnerable to manipulation and peer pressure associated with in-game purchases and loot boxes. Experts suggest that Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings and parental controls are insufficient. 4 The AADC represents a monumental step towards child centric design by default.

And, with respect to loot boxes, that is a very interesting position to take for this group of politicians. Why? Well, primarily because the AADC has literally nothing to say about loot boxes. As in, it doesn't even mention them. The AADC is also not a "law", but a regulatory set of standards.

However, the code explicitly mentions neither loot boxes nor in-game gambling, nor ever really even alludes to them. While the subjects of loot boxes and IAPs came up during the UK regulator’s research into “Detrimental use of data,” it’s not a factor of the final publication. It’s certainly a stretch to see how the content of the AADC relates to what’s raised in the letter sent to US publishers.

And so, to summarize: a group of Democrats are attempting to gaslight the gaming industry into doing what they want by citing a regulation from another country that doesn't even apply to its demands, all under threat of actual American legislation. "Do what we say even though our argument doesn't make sense or we'll force you to do it anyway" is not a great look for any politician, never-mind one attempting to apply this towards an industry that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. The goal of introducing protections for children against micro-transaction practices in video games may well be a well-intentioned goal, but getting there by sneaky means doesn't fill the soul with confidence.

But, then, so little about Congress does these days.

Filed Under: congress, ed markey, kathy castor, loot boxes, lori trahan, regulations, uk, video games

Rockstar Begins A War On Modders For 'GTA' Games For Totally Unclear Reasons

from the mod-squad dept

There are two types of video game publishers: those that embrace their modding communities and those that do not. The latter group is in something of a spectrum. iD Software, for instance, has long kept the modding community open and operating on its Doom titles, while developer 1C embraced its modding community so much that it built some mods into official releases. Other publishers have gone into full restriction mode, shutting down modding communities and even going after them over supposed copyright infringement violations.

Rockstar Games has previously had its own run-in with its modding community, banning modders who attempted to shift GTA5's online gameplay to dedicated servers that would allow mods to be used, since Rockstar's servers don't allow mods. What it's now doing in issuing copyright notices on modders who have been forklifting older Rockstar assets into newer GTA games, however, is totally different.

Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two has issued copyright takedown notices for several mods on LibertyCity.net, according to a post from the site. The mods either inserted content from older Rockstar games into newer ones, or combined content from similar Rockstar games into one larger game. The mods included material from Grand Theft Auto 3, San Andreas, Vice City, Mahunt, and Bully.

This has been a legally active year for Take-Two, starting with takedown notices for reverse-engineered versions of GTA3 and Vice City. Those projects were later restored. Since then, Take-Two has issued takedowns for mods that move content from older Grand Theft Auto games into GTA5, as well as mods that combine older games from the GTA3 generation into one. That lead to a group of modders preemptively taking down their 14-year-old mod for San Andreas in case they were next on Take-Two's list.

All of this is partially notable because it's new. Like many games released for the PC, the GTA series has enjoyed a healthy modding community. And Rockstar, previously, has largely left this modding community alone. Which is generally smart, as mods such as the ones the community produces are fantastic ways to both keep a game fresh as it ages and lure in new players to the original game by enticing them with mods that meet their particular interests. I'll never forget a Doom mod that replaced all of the original MIDI soundtrack files with MIDI versions of 90's alternative grunge music. That mod caused me to play Doom all over again from start to finish.

But now Rockstar Games has flipped the script and is busily taking these fan mods down. Why? Well, no one is certain, but likely for the most obvious reason of all.

One reason a company might become more concerned with this kind of copyright infringement is that it's planning to release a similar product and wants to be sure that its claim to the material can't be challenged. It's speculative at this point, but that tracks with the rumors we heard earlier this year that Take-Two is working on remakes of the PS2 Grand Theft Auto games.

In other words, Rockstar appears to be completely happy to reap all the benefits from the modding community right up until the moment it thinks it can make more money with re-releases, at which point the company cries "Copyright!" The company may well be within its rights to operate that way, but why in the world would the modding community ever work on Rockstar games again?

Filed Under: copyright, gta, modders, video games
Companies: rockstar games

Google Jumps Into The Game Revenue Split Wars With Stadia

from the splitsville dept

It's no secret that the launch of Google's video game streaming platform Stadia has not exactly been smooth. From access issues to performance problems, up to and including a low adoption rate and stunted catalogue of games, this appeared for all the world to be Google's video game equivalent of Google Plus. In other words, one of those projects Google launches half way and then abandons. Part of the issue with the catalogue was reports that Google wasn't going to be shelling out cash to bring in more games to the platform last year.

But perhaps that is going to change. And perhaps the rumors of Stadia's forthcoming death have been greatly exaggerated. Reports now indicate that Google is going to try to attract more publishers to the platform by engaging in the same revenue-split wars currently going on between Steam, Epic, and Microsoft.

As part of a Stadia keynote presentation today, Google announced several moves designed to attract more games and publishers to its streaming gaming service. Chief among these is a more generous revenue split for publishers on the platform. Starting in October, Google will only take a 15 percent cut of the first $3 million in revenue for each new game on Stadia.

Assuming the industry-standard 30 percent cut, that means publishers stand to make up to $450,000 more per game before Google's cut reverts back to the standard at the $3 million threshold (a Google representative told Ars that "Stadia currently provides competitive revenue share terms with partners that matches what they typically see from other industry platforms"). The more generous deal only applies to "newly signed games" on Stadia from October through the end of 2023, though, meaning publishers that got in on Stadia early will miss out on the increase for their legacy titles.

As noted, this program is specifically designed to attract new game titles to Stadia. It's also worth noting that the "industry-standard 30%" platform cut isn't necessarily the industry standard any longer, unless you only consider Steam as the standard. And that would be dumb. There is emerging competition in the gaming storefront space... finally.

But, for Stadia, this is less about trying to carve out more market share and more about carving out any market share. Stadia only has 195 games on its platform. And while that might sound like a healthy amount, it's really not. Not when you consider the thousands of games available on Steam and Epic, or even the hundreds of games you can buy for last-generation consoles. Yes, streaming is different and not all games will be good candidates for the streaming platform. But streaming services become attractive largely by volume of offering. Imagine Netflix never getting past 200 television shows and movies. It wouldn't work.

Stadia is also trying to lure more games onto the platform with other revenue-makers as well.

Google will also more directly be giving publishers a cut of the proceeds from the games Stadia offers as freebies through its $10/month Stadia Pro subscription. A full 70 percent of Stadia Pro revenue will now be shared with the publishers of "any new title that enters into Stadia Pro" starting this month. That revenue will be divided up among publishers based on the number of "session days" (i.e., daily active users per day) logged on each title among all Stadia Pro users.

Finally, Google says that it will be rolling out a new Affiliate Marketing Program to increase the value of the "Click to Play" links that Stadia developers and publishers can create. Starting sometime in early 2022, if a player signs up for Stadia Pro using one of those instant-play links, the developer or publisher behind the link will receive the first $10 monthly payment made on the subscription (after a one-month free trial).

All of which is to denote that it looks like Google isn't ready to give up on Stadia yet. But getting more games on Stadia is just the first step. Even if that's successful, Google then has to gain more customer adoption. That's going to take time and investment over the mid- to long-term.

And after the rocky start, we'll get to find out together whether more games will be enough to get the bad Stadia taste out of the public's mouth.

Filed Under: revenue split, stadia, video game streaming, video games
Companies: google

'Resident Evil 8: Village' Broken Due To DRM, Cracked Version Fixes It

from the your-game-on-crack dept

Any review of the stories we've done on DRM in video games will reveal two main categories as far as themes for those posts. The first is that DRM is laughably ineffective. DRM is an arms race that only ever has one winner: those who seek to circumvent it. Even the once-vaunted Denuvo DRM, thought, for some time, to be undefeatable, has now been reduced to being an industry joke. The other theme is how DRM has awful effects on paying customers and absolutely zero negative effects on those who commit copyright infringement. So, what is DRM? A useless platform used by video games with only one real impact: annoying paying customers.

But one point that often gets lost is that cracked versions of games that include annoying DRM aren't just functioning as copyright infringement (though they certainly are primarily that), but also that these cracked versions can also be legitimately seen as fixing these broken games. For an example of this, one need only look at the PC gaming experience surrounding Resident Evil 8: Village, which is fundamentally broken on the PC for paying customers.

The background here is that Capcom actually layers two different DRM systems on the game, apparently as a method for making the game much harder to crack. Instead of being cracked at the time of release, in May, the game was only cracked here in July. The problem is that this 2 months worth of protection appears to have come at the cost of the game being able to keep up when players do very necessary things in a Resident Evil game like, oh say, shooting zombies.

The retail version includes easily reproducible scenarios where attacking an advancing zombie with a gun—something you do quite often in Resident Evil games—can trigger a visible on-screen stutter. In other words, the image freezes for a noticeable moment before the game catches up, and this can be seen in RTSS's real-time graph as a spike.

Whatever Capcom and Denuvo worked up this time around seems to have evaded crackers' efforts for much longer. That may have come at the price of guaranteed smooth performance—with gaming analysts like Digital Foundry's Alex Battaglia maligning the game's PC version. "This stuttering honestly leaves a very bad first impression for this game, as the pivotal moment of a first-person game with guns is shooting those guns," Battaglia said shortly after RE8:V's May 2021 launch. "If that is unsatisfying very often when you do it, then the game is doing something wrong."

Notably, the cracked version has none of these stuttering issues. In other words, the crack, or more specifically the routing around of the DRM, simply fixes the game. Yes, it's also a method for playing the game for free and thereby committing copyright infringement, but think about what this means in summary. Capcom released a game where the core gameplay element -- shooting bad guys -- doesn't work right. The cracked version makes that core gameplay element works correctly. If you're a paying customer of Capcom's, where does this leave you?

Well, it leaves you in a place where the company you bought the game from has sold you an inferior product compared with the one the pirates are offering you for free. Does that make copyright infringement morally right? Absolutely not. But it is also not solid moral footing for the company to punish its paying customers for the crime of paying for the game as opposed to pirating it. Selling an inferior product is not a business strategy.

For what it's worth, the guilty party in this equation looks more to be the Capcom side of the equation rather than Denuvo, but that doesn't change the fact that something like 2 months worth of protection came at the cost of the paying customer. In what world does that make any sense at all?

Filed Under: drm, piracy, resident evil 8, video games
Companies: capcom

Cord-Cutting Leads To Gaming Studios Exploring In-Game Ads To Unlock Gaming Perks

from the this-is-gonna-suck dept

Advertising in the digital age is always something of a tricky subject. On the one hand, we have made the point for years that advertising is content and content is advertising. The point there is that the more useful and entertaining or engaging advertising tends to be, the more the public looks at it as just more content to consume, while really good content also serves as an advertisement of sorts for the content provider. Many folks simply believe that the public hates advertising full-stop, but that's really not true. Were it true, one of the hallmark experiences of the Super Bowl wouldn't be watching the ads. Instead, ads have to be engaging, fun, or useful. Unfortunately, the vast majority of advertising is otherwise, leading to the public tending to look for ways to not have to experience advertising generally.

The worst solution proposed in all of this is to find new and nefarious ways to force the public to view ads. The second worst solution is to coerce them into doing so. And the worst place to do any of this, it seems to me, is in the video game space, where the public has already often times dropped hundreds of dollars on gaming rigs and the games themselves. But that, it seems, is exactly what company PlayerWON is looking to roll out.

A first-of-its-kind in-game advertising platform called playerWON launches this week, allowing big-name marketers that are used to running splashy TV ads the ability to target younger demographics with similar types of spots that will run in video games.

-The platform, which is owned and operated by Simulmedia, a TV ad tech company, will let users determine whether they want to watch a 15 or 30-second video ad in exchange for being able to unlock exclusive gaming perks.

-Simulmedia has struck deals with some of the world's biggest gaming studios, including Electronic Arts (EA) and Tencent's Hi-Rez Studios, its EVP, Gaming and OTT Dave Madden told Axios.

If you're anything like me, your initial reaction to all of this is likely to result in you having convulsions over just how repulsive this all is. But we should take a step back and acknowledge something: this could be done well. The idea of injecting optional advertising into gaming, especially free-to-play games, isn't an inherently awful idea.

No, the real problem is that virtually nobody in the gaming public has, or should have, any faith that this will be done well. What does doing it well mean? Well, for starters:

• The "perks" involved had damned well better be nice-to-haves and/or cosmetic and not offer some kind of boost to being able to compete in or play the game itself. Otherwise, you've broken the balance and experience of the game.
• The ads had better stay short and not interrupt the gaming experience to the point of television, where gamers just leave the room while it plays.
• The ads, as noted in the opening of this post, must be engaging, useful content of some kind.

Missing on any of those three will cause an even larger revolt among the gaming public than will almost certainly already occur. If you need an example of how to absolutely not attempt any of this, 2K Sports has you covered.

Now, while this is largely being spurred on by younger members of the public also being cord-cutters, making them less likely to be reached by traditional advertising, Morgan Stanley seems to think that in-game ad programs like this could be a $2 billion industry. Though, importantly, that projection is based on nearly half of gamers opting into the ads.

I'm sorry, but there's no fucking way that's going to happen, even if this is done perfectly. Not if it's opt-in. What is more likely is that this will only be opt-in for a while and then someone, or several someones, are going to try to first make it opt-out and eventually non-optional. And then you're going to really see the consequences of advertising programs being done terribly, because nobody will buy those games.

Filed Under: ads, perks, playerwon, video games
Companies: ea, simulmedia, tencent

After All That, Nintendo Can't Even Get $50 A Month Out Of RomUniverse

from the time-and-money-well-spent dept

The saga of how RomUniverse, a site dedicated to offering ROMs for classic Nintendo games, came to its end is both frustrating and very dumb. Back in 2019, Nintendo launched a massive war on ROM sites, coinciding with the release of a mini version of Nintendo's NES console. Eventually, the company's sights turned to RomUniverse. Run solely by Matthew Storman, the site first tried and failed to crowdfund its legal expenses, made the lame argument that somehow the first sale doctrine meant that Storman could legally offer up digital versions of bought Nintendo games, only to see Storman represent himself in court and eventually lose. While Nintendo always had the law on its side, it was also true that sites like RomUniverse existed for a long, long time and Nintendo wasn't injured enough by any of this for it to be on the radar prior to the ROM War of 2019. In fact, I would argue that ROM sites for a long, long time kept up the interest in these classic games that created a market for Nintendo's classic console releases.

I would also argue that the whole thing was a giant waste of time and money, an assertion backed up by the fact that the victorious Nintendo reportedly can't even get $50 a month out of Storman, despite court orders.

You can’t get blood from a stone, and you can’t squeeze a relatively measly $50 payment out of a guy whose primary source of income was the video game rom site you sued into oblivion. Earlier this year Nintendo’s 2019 lawsuit against website RomUniverse concluded with the site being shut down and Nintendo awarded $2.1 million dollars in damages. That’s $35,000 for each of the 49 Nintendo games found on the site plus $400,000 in trademark damages. The chances of Matthew Storman, who defended himself in court and whose only source of income was the now-defunct rom site, being able to pay those damages are incredibly slim. In a recent court filing obtained by Torrentfreak, Nintendo complains that Storman hasn’t made his court mandated monthly payment of $50.

As a result, Nintendo is seeking a permanent injunction against Storman to keep him from ever re-launching RomUniverse. That, frankly, may be what the company was after this entire time.

But that doesn't make the futility of this whole legal enterprise any more sensical. Nintendo managed to legally pummel a single man who was, admittedly, infringing their copyrights. But one is free to wonder aloud if this legal route was really the only method Nintendo had for getting the site shut down. If Storman truly cannot manage a $50/month sanctions payment to Nintendo, there is no hope of them recovering the $2.1 million awarded in court, an amount that Storman also appears by all accounts to be unable to pay.

And so Nintendo has a legal victory without any monetary award, Storman's own actions have resulted in his fiscal life likely being in shambles, and we all go on our merry way. Again, this is really how this had to happen?

Filed Under: classic video games, copyright, matthew storman, nes, old video games, roms, trademark, video games
Companies: nintendo, romuniverse