The Problem with Giveaways
Cryptic are currently running a promotional giveaway for Star Trek Online, in which the top prize is an exclusive ORIGIN Millennium Gaming Desktop themed PC with artwork from Star Trek Online: Victory is Life. It’s worth $3, 272, looks spiffy and has robust specifications. There all also various other runner up prizes, such as the Gamma Vanguard and Gamma Vanguard Starter Pack. If you enjoy STO then this is a good value giveaway with a fair selection of rewards. Or at least it is at first glance. If you read the ubiquitous small print that comes with any sort of endeavour such as this, you’ll quickly spot that you can only enter the giveaway if you’re resident of North America. And therein lies the problem with so many competitions these days. Despite games having a global market, giveaways are frequently hamstrung by regional restrictions, rules and regulations.
Cryptic are currently running a promotional giveaway for Star Trek Online, in which the top prize is an exclusive ORIGIN Millennium Gaming Desktop themed PC with artwork from Star Trek Online: Victory is Life. It’s worth $3, 272, looks spiffy and has robust specifications. There all also various other runner up prizes, such as the Gamma Vanguard and Gamma Vanguard Starter Pack. If you enjoy STO then this is a good value giveaway with a fair selection of rewards. Or at least it is at first glance. If you read the ubiquitous small print that comes with any sort of endeavour such as this, you’ll quickly spot that you can only enter the giveaway if you’re resident of North America. And therein lies the problem with so many competitions these days. Despite games having a global market, giveaways are frequently hamstrung by regional restrictions, rules and regulations.
Let us not kid ourselves about the purpose of giveaways, competitions and prize draws that are common place to the gaming industry. They are marketing and promotional tools primarily designed to attract new customers and secondly to placate existing players. One of the biggest challenges any service industries has to face is churn; the attrition or turnover of customers. MMOs suffer this continuously. Therefore, they need to keep players engaged, enamoured and involved. Giving away in-game trinkets and baubles can only go so far. However, offering a tangible physical prize that is both exclusive and high-value is one way to attract attention. As human beings we tend to like the thrill and excitement of competitions and the chance of winning a prize. Often, the logical part of our brain which calmly tell us to consider the odds, is completely ignored by our emotions who want feel special and win something shiny. This is why companies such as Cryptic run giveaways. The buzz they create gets results.
But competitions of this kind are an administrative nightmare. Every country has its own bespoke set of rules regarding competitions, the prizes they offer and the age of those who can enter. Then there are issues pertaining to tax, physically shipping the prize to the winner and ensuring that the entire process is administered in a transparent and fair way. And those are a bunch of very difficult dots to join. Hence companies such as Cryptic often elect to limit the scope of the giveaway to a specific region. However, where such action may solve one problem, it causes another because those parties that are excluded are left feeling like second class customers. You may get a similar feeling when you see advertisements for some great deal that is only applicable to new customers of a service that you already use. I’ve phoned British Telecom several times in the past and berated some poor schmuck in customer services because I can’t have a shiny new router despite twenty-five years of loyal custom. You only have to go and visit the STO Reddit and you’ll find complaints about this PC giveaway already.
This problem seems to stem from the gap between global markets and regional bureaucracy as well as supply chains. I’m sure at present, it not an easy hurdle to overcome, but I certainly think that it needs to be addressed. Perhaps there is a compromise to be had. Can a high value prize such as a PC be sourced to other parts of the globe by local business partners? Can alternative prizes be offered to those who enter outside of North America? A solution will no doubt increase the level of administration required and all too often in business, it is the bottom line that dictates decisions. But sometimes if you’re trying to gain goodwill you have to go the extra mile. And before anyone trots out arguments about “entitlement”, this is not a matter of hurt feelings or anything as trite. It’s a matter of being publicly seen to treat all your customers the same, which is a sound business practise.
Competition or Entertainment?
It becomes apparent when reading the various musings of the gaming cognoscenti, that there are vastly differing views on most key areas of gaming. Take a subject such as “difficulty” which is currently a subject of debate over at Massively Overpowered. A quick perusal of the comments shows a broad range of views with many being at odds with each other. But if we step back from these individual differences of opinion, it becomes clear that the basis of all of these stems from a fundamental disagreement as to what actually constitutes a game and exactly what are its defining attributes. There are those who feel that competition is the foundation of gaming and that this can only be fully realised in a player versus player environment. Success is the measure of achievement and the basis of their personal gratification. However, others beg to differ and feel that collaborative play, social interaction and achieving personal goals are as equally important. I believe this divide clearly shows that the definition of gaming has evolved and may be its time we revised our preconceptions.
It becomes apparent when reading the various musings of the gaming cognoscenti, that there are vastly differing views on most key areas of gaming. Take a subject such as “difficulty” which is currently a subject of debate over at Massively Overpowered. A quick perusal of the comments shows a broad range of views with many being at odds with each other. But if we step back from these individual differences of opinion, it becomes clear that the basis of all of these stems from a fundamental disagreement as to what actually constitutes a game and exactly what are its defining attributes. There are those who feel that competition is the foundation of gaming and that this can only be fully realised in a player versus player environment. Success is the measure of achievement and the basis of their personal gratification. However, others beg to differ and feel that collaborative play, social interaction and achieving personal goals are as equally important. I believe this divide clearly shows that the definition of gaming has evolved and may be its time we revised our preconceptions.
Many of the MMOS that are currently popular are broad churches offering a variety of activities to the player. Furthermore, emergent gameplay offers a wealth of other possibilities beyond traditional competition. Games can be team orientated undertakings or personal adventures based on exploring and interaction. Some games are more interactive novels or mediums to relay a wider concept or idea. All of which strays away from notions of a competition, fail states and league tables. A lot of what currently falls under the umbrella term of “gaming” is actually more of a broader leisure service. Now traditionalists may balk at this and argue about semantics, which is a fair point. However, much of the language we employ changes in meaning over time. Consider such words as “pimp”, “awesome” or “liberal” and their respective evolution. Hence gaming can no longer be rigidly defined in terms of player versus player competition, rules complexity and fail states to determine a winner.
I often find when reading various game commentary, an undercurrent of hostility towards broader gaming criteria such a social interaction and a casual mindset, from those who self-identify as core gamers. The winning and losing mindset usually goes hand-in-hand with other negative attitudes towards “fun” and any sort of less rigorous approach towards gaming. Although those that hold such opinions are entitled to do so, they are not the arbiters of gaming. No one group of gamers really gets to set the agenda. Ultimately, market forces determine what trends get followed and how games evolve to reach the biggest audience. Some may see this as catering to the lowest common denominator where others consider it a form of democratisation. Irrespective of your view, most forms of entertainment are subject to the process. So, it’s inevitable that gaming, especially MMOs have changed from their initial incarnation.
Although MMOs have become somewhat generic in recent years and admittedly lost some of their unique charm, it’s not as if competitive gamers are not being well served by other genres. MOBAs, co-op shooters and Battle Royale games have rapidly grown in popularity and certainly satisfy those with a player versus player itch. Therefore, I would argue that the expansion of gaming in the last two decades so that it has now become a more common place pastime, has not directly denied this old school group anything, although it may have well challenged their personal philosophy. And the foundation of that philosophy is a definition of gaming that is couched in a mindset born of the previous century. The factors that shaped gaming then are different to those that exist today. It’s time to update the definition and reconcile ourselves to the fact it will change again further in the future. Unfortunately, there will always be those that resist change and prefer to mythologise the past.