Poll: Do you think video games are products or services?

[krebons12]

It's something I saw a little of when surfing the web, so I just was curious how other people viewed the video games they love.

Are they a product to you? Something to be bought, sold, shared, and enjoyed?

Or are they services? An experience you pay for and enjoy until the service is canceled?

I'm quite curious as to what people think

 

[tippy2k2]

I'm going to screw up your poll and say they are becoming a hybrid; take THAT society! Fight the power!


I suppose if I had to chose one, it'd be product but with the internet age (patches, DLC, MMOs, etc.), video games are blurring the line between product and service.

Games are not like music, movies, and books. Except for special things, once you buy an album/movie/book, that is what you get. It's not going to change. They're not going to film new scenes for your movie or tweak the songs to make the guitar and bass balance better or add in an erotic octopus as a side character in a book (even though I keep pleading); what you buy is what you get.

Video games are not like that. Call of Duty will routinely patch to tweak guns and abilities. Borderlands will develop new levels and missions for players to play. One day, Assassins Creed may even add my erotic octopus (a man can dream...). What you buy is quite often not all you get now...

 

[Lilani]

Well that depends. I bought a bunch of Phoenix Wright games recently because I never had a DS before I got my 3DS and I wanted to catch up on the series. They are physical games on cartridges and have no online features. I consider these games products--they are self-contained, do not rely upon servers, and do not require or receive patches or updates.

On the other hand, I play Final Fantasy XIV, which is an MMO that frequently gets updates and almost always has some kind of seasonal event going on. This game is most definitely a service, and I pay for it monthly.

And then there are games like TF2 which I paid for once and still regularly updates, but keeps itself afloat with optional items you can buy.

And then there are games like Civilization V which I paid for once, but a couple of times now they've released expansion packs which I can purchase to add more content which weren't in the game (though the game on its own was still a complete package).

So, again, it depends. I think service is a legitimate way to describe some games, however I do not appreciate it when publishers abuse the term and use it to describe games which certainly aren't or at least SHOULDN'T be services (I'm looking at you, SimCity).

 

[brtt150]

They can be both.

 

[IceForce]

Singleplayer game = product
Multiplayer game = service

When a game company shuts down the multiplayer servers for good, they're discontinuing the service. And you're screwed (unless the game has dedicated servers).

Singleplayer doesn't have this problem because it's a product, not a service. (Unless it's always-online singleplayer, in which case fuck that.)

 

[BloatedGuppy]

They're whatever the vendor sells them to you as.

 

[Spanglish Guy]

I prefer to think of them as a product, when I buy things I like to think I own that particular item.

I do understand that multiplayer only games, such as MMOs, run more like services since the servers need to be maintained by the devs/publishers so if I buy any games like that once in a blue moon I am fully aware that they can become useless once the servers are switched off, although I can't say I would be happy about it. It's this reason, in part, that I prefer buying multiplayer only games at around £30 or less.

 

[Inazuma1]

I'm old school so they'll always be products as far as I'm concerned. Even digital purchases, MMOs, and DLCs are products to me because you pay for them after they're completed (I come from the era where DLCs were called expansions.) Beta is beta and patches are always meant to be free because they're necessary to make the game run better or fix problems. Even free MMOs are products and should be held to the same standards as any other game. If they suck, that's the fault of the developers because they don't have the talent to deliver a good experience.

Any other way of looking at it is to me anti-consumer.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Singleplayer game = product
Multiplayer game = service

I'll agree with the multiplayer part on one condition: That the developer or publisher is maintaining servers or server lists for the game, and/or is providing timely and consistent patches and/or content for the game.

Singleplayer is beyond any doubt a product, not a service. I see it this way: A steak is a product; the waiter bringing it to me in the restaurant is a service. If I bring leftover steak home and then eat it the next day, the restaurant is no longer involved.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

I would love for them to be products rather than services. Sadly, this distinction is almost meaningless now. Used to be, once you bought a game, it was yours to do with what you chose. Now, you can buy a game with missing pieces that aren't yours until you pay for each of them separately, supplemented by a continuing service that must be maintained by constant cash flow, and some of these pieces can be altered or rescinded when the service provider chooses to do so.

So really, it's a different thing entirely, with aspects of both that are interconnected.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Games as a service is a super bad idea when used widely because it means that, in most cases, the game has no life beyond its parent company.

 

[Platypus540]

I voted product, but I think that there should be another option. Certain games could be classified as a service if the company is continually putting out new content, like most MMOs.

 

[likalaruku]

Single player game: Product.
MMO: Service.
Single player game with optional multiplayer mode: Hybrid.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

Product with services attached for things like online, but mostly products.
I think the whole "games as service" movement is just the publishers trying to assert control, and frankly it's really short sighted and should probably just go away, that wont happen ... but it should.
As someone already said in this topic, it means games lose longevity outside of their parent company. If games cant be preserved, they lose a piece of what makes them art. It actively hurts games as a story telling medium, it sets us back to a time comparable to when TV shows didn't get a DVD release and tapes were routinely wiped.

I makes me think about the whole "it's not a game!" thing, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to split up the video game medium. E-sports and MMOs can have their service definition, and interactive fiction can have their product definition. I mean it would suck, and I'm not trying to imply that MMOs or E-sport style games aren?t art, but if the "games as service" movement wins (and it probably will, thanks to various factors :/ ), it may be for the best.

 

[Ratty]

Both. I don't really buy games as a service but obviously for people who buy season passes and play MMOs it's a different story. I mostly stick with older and indie games which don't go in for all that.

 

[loc978]

Singleplayer game = product
Multiplayer game = service

I'll agree with the multiplayer part on one condition: That the developer or publisher is maintaining servers or server lists for the game, and/or is providing timely and consistent patches and/or content for the game.

Singleplayer is beyond any doubt a product, not a service. I see it this way: A steak is a product; the waiter bringing it to me in the restaurant is a service. If I bring leftover steak home and then eat it the next day, the restaurant is no longer involved.

...pretty much what I came in here to say.

Single player, peer-to-peer or local multiplayer... always a product. Expansions/DLC, just a product with a prerequisite.

MMOs, multiplayer games with centralized servers only (no option for P2P or local)... those are services... and as a rule I don't like them much.

As with most binary choices made available to answer complex questions, the answer lies somewhere between 0 and 1... meaning both 0 and 1 are incorrect.

 

[Mezahmay]

I really wish the poll had a "Porque no los dos?" option, since that's what I and a lot of others seem to think. A game becomes a service when it relies on continued support for core functionality after sale, like an MMO, a multiplayer game (component) with dedicated servers, etc. Otherwise it's just a product.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I consider video games to be products that can offer up an additional service to people willing to pay for it/them. This is also part of why I strongly prefer to purchase physical games: When I spend $20+ on a single thing I want to have something that I can show for it. I feel like buying digital content for a console is a nice augmentation to that console but even though those purchases are linked to an account, I still feel like once the console itself dies or, is replaced by the next one, everything I purchased previously is history.

 

[Cidward]

While I voted 'product,' as I think they're more that than the other, I agree with the distinction others are drawing with MMOs and other similar platforms. While there is an initial product you buy, at a certain point the developer is mainly doing maintenance and facilitating continued play, and of course keeping the server running. It becomes as much or more a customer service model at that point.

 

[FPLOON]

I have no opinion...

With that said, video games, depending on the video games in question, can be a product of a service, a service of a product, something that's a bit of both, or something completely different to the point that they are only considered a "game" in a general sense and not in a "video game" kind of sense that video games are generally referred to... Also, depending on what happens to said video games in question, they can go from a service to a product and vise verse at a drop of a hat and even go as far as to put that hat back on like a boss they never dropped said hat in the first place...

So overall, they are a product, a service, a mixture of both, and/or none of the above... all depending on the video game in question's overall inception and/or purpose to the ever-continuing video game chronology...