What is noteworthy about games, including video games, is that while they do exist on their own, just like a book, a film or an episode of a TV-show, they are incomplete if they are not played. This post does not delve into this topic. Instead it deals with what you need to know about how you get to play video games and how that is not as straightforward in research contexts.
When you plan to do research on video games, you need to acquire the acquire video games. To be more accurate, you need to acquire the licenses to play those video games.
This distinction can be a bit confusing if you are not familiar with video games. You do not buy a video game, just as you do not buy software. Instead, you buy a license to play a video game, just as you buy a license to use any software.
I will try to be as comprehensive as possible in this post, but without getting bogged down on all the specifics. If something is not explained or it is not specific enough, it is because I try to remain at a general level that is as applicable as possible, to as wide an audience as possible.
What is a license?
When you acquire software, it always contained in some physical form. It is on some computer somewhere, from which it is transferred to your computer, for example by downloading it. It can also be contained on external storage devices, such as external hard drives (HDs), solid disk drives (SSDs), USB sticks, memory cards of various kinds or optical media (CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays).
One way or another, you do not own the software, even if you own the device that contains it. For example, if you own software on optical media, you do own that optical media, but you do not own the software contained on the optical media. Instead, you have acquired a license to use that software.
To be clear. This applies to all software licenses by default, regardless of how you acquire them. In most cases you bought the license, but it could also be the case that it was transferred to you or granted to you. In some cases the software is free, but you are still using it under a certain license.
Digital and physical licenses
There are two kinds of licenses these days. Most licenses are handled as:
- Digital licenses
To be clear, all video games are digital. There are no analog video games. Digital licenses mean software licenses that are not tied to physical medium that is sold together with the license.
Digital license are typically bought from some online storefront. You receive a code that can be used to activate some software that you have downloaded, usually from that storefront that doubles as a digital distribution service.
There are basically two kinds of digital licensing models that cater for different markets:
- Personal licenses
- Volume licenses
The former caters to the consumer market (business-to-consumer), whereas the latter caters to the enterprise market (business-to-business) that also includes institutions. Here the distinction is all about who buys and uses the license instead of what it is used for.
Personal licenses are available to individuals. They are expected to manage the license themselves. These are also known as retail licenses, but that is slightly misleading as software not all software is bought from a retailer. In fact, some software must be acquired directly from the company that develops and/or publishes it.
Volume licenses are handled by companies that manage the licenses on behalf of the employees. These could also be called commercial or enterprise licenses, but that can also be a bit misleading as many personal or retail licenses permit the user to use the software for commercial purposes. For example, one can use a word processor to write a book that is sold commercially or photo editing software to edit photos that are sold commercially.
Sometimes it is indicated that personal or retail licenses do not permit commercial use. However, it is not specified what commercial use means. Moreover, if something is sold commercially, such as a document or a photo, it is irrelevant what software was used prior to that sale as it is not what is sold.
Now, of course, a business that specializes in document or photo editing services should acquire the appropriate license for businesses, because it is using the software for those purposes, commercially. This usually also makes sense otherwise as managing those licenses is easier for the company and may come with various features that they benefit from.
There is typically a difference in pricing between these two types of licenses. However, it is not clear cut that one is more or less expensive than the other, because the licensing models are different from one another.
A personal license may be cheaper than a volume license, but that is because the volume licensed versions tend to come with bundled features that are included in a personal license. In other words, a volume license is, in fact, cheaper than a personal license, but it is only sold in volumes, which is why they are called volume licenses. It makes sense for companies to buy in large volumes and have features that are not relevant for most people. This is also why these licenses are also occasionally referred to as bulk licenses.
There is also a more old-fashioned approach to licenses.
- Physical licenses
Physical licenses are tied to some physical medium, such as an optical disk. You are expected to install the software this way, while the disk may or may not be required to be inside an optical drive while using the software.
Digital and physical video game licenses
There are digital and physical video games licenses. I will explain each licensing model first and then specify the distinction is occasionally misleading.
Most video game licenses are digital these days, which means that you buy them from some online storefront that doubles as the digital distribution service, which one can also simply refer to as the platform.
That platform manages the video game licenses for you. You have a contract with them, as well as with the developers and the publishers. The platform makes money as digital store, while also distributing the digital goods to the consumers.
What you need to know about the platform is that your digital goods, those video game licenses and possibly other software licenses, are tied to it. You buy the licenses and download the software from that platform, which operates as a website and/or a separate computer program. You also often also use them through that platform. While it is not always necessary to use the platform to use the software, in this case to play the games, it is often necessary to do so, because the developers and the publishers may rely on the platform to act as a software layer that verifies that you are licensed to use their software, i.e., to play their games.
What you also need to know about the platforms is that the licenses are tied to a specific user account and these user accounts are typically personal accounts. This means that the licenses cannot be transferred from one account to another, nor to an another platform.
It is also very important to realize that as the licenses are tied to a user account that owes its existence to a contract between your and the platform, your licenses are terminated if the contract between you and/or the platform is terminated. The purpose here is not to scaremonger. It is just a consequence how digital licenses are managed these days and it is good to know.
This also applies to subscription based video gaming. However, the loss of the digital licenses is not as dramatic as the licenses are tied to that subscription, not to individual purchases. This is exactly why some like the subscription model. They do not like the idea that they have to manage the licenses the have bought.
The problem with subscriptions is that the video game catalog is smaller than what it is if the video games are licensed individually. In practice, this means that you mean not find the game you would like to play or you have to wait months or even years for it to appear on this and/or that subscription. This means that while subscriptions may or many not work well for researchers, depending on the availability of the video games they want to focus on.
The are still some video game licenses that are tied to some physical medium, typically an optical disk. This is how Sony’s PlayStation games work. You buy the optical media from the store and then install them Sony’s games consoles. The licenses are tied to the optical media, which means that they can be transferred and the licenses cannot be terminated on those games console platforms. Sony does not even know who is the legal owner of the license as that is tied to whoever is the legal owner of the optical media.
This distinction can be a bit misleading. You can still buy boxed copies with optical media inside for PC as well, albeit that is very uncommon these days. In most cases, you buy a physical copy, but it is not what you expect. It has the optical medium and maybe some leaflet or a booklet, only to realize that it comes with a code that you are expected to use on some digital storefront. That is the license. The optical medium is merely for offline installation of the software, but the software license itself must be activated online, through some storefront.
Perpetual and subscription licenses
License determines what you are allowed to do with that software. It is basically a contract according to which you can use something, as opposed to the thing itself.
There are many kinds of licenses. What often matters the most is that there are some licenses that are perpetual and other licenses that are not perpetual. This means that you have a right to use that software in perpetuity or for a period of time, for example for a month or a year.
In practice, a perpetual license is akin to owning the thing itself, even though strictly speaking you do not own the thing itself. It is what you get, out-of-the box, or so to speak. It may entitle you to certain updates, but the idea is that it is unlikely that it is updated forever. The non-perpetual license is effectively a subscription. The idea is that as long as your subscription is valid, your license is valid and it is kept updated.
Both of these licenses or, rather, licensing models have their advantages and disadvantages. I will start by addressing these for the perpetual licenses first and then for the subscription licenses.
Perpetual licenses allow you to use certain software in perpetuity. The major advantage of this licensing model is that the software should work even it is no longer available to purchase, nor updated. It will likely also work even if whoever developed it is no longer around to maintain it. This might not necessarily be the case though. Complications may arise if you wish to use the last version of that software and it is no longer maintained. You need to keep a copy or two of the software installers as a backup. It might also be the case that the license needs to be activated and if the software is no longer maintained, it might no longer work. This might amount to some violation of your right to use the software, but, in practice, there is little one can do even if this is the case. There might also be some clause in the license terms according to which it is not a violation on their part.
Subscription licenses allow you to use certain software from some date to some other date. This is typically a month or a year, with discounts being given for longer subscriptions. The major advantage of this licensing model is that the software is kept up to date and you are typically also automatically upgraded between versions of the software, whereas you are typically locked to a certain version of that software if you have acquired a perpetual license to it. This can, however, also be a disadvantage, for example, if features are changed or removed in a new software version. It may also be the case that you are expected to upgrade your hardware to use the newer versions of the software, which can be a disadvantage for you.
The clearest disadvantage of the subscription model is, however, that you may lose the right to use the software at any given moment, regardless of the version, if the developer no longer exists or wants to maintain it. For example, if a company goes bankrupt or it is acquired by another company that does not want to offer the subscription, you might simply no longer have the right to use the software. To my knowledge, this is not common. Typically another company acquires that company and maintains that service as part of their business. It might also be that a company no longer wants to maintain the software and simply cancels all the subscriptions tied to it. You are typically reimbursed for the remainder of your subscription at that point, but it does mean that you can no longer use that software.
Both models are used for video games. I would say perpetual licenses are more common and more popular, largely due to the much larger catalogs, but there are many people who prefer the subscription model.
Personal licenses
It is also important to understand that licenses may or may not be transferable after you have bought them or otherwise acquired them. They may also be tied to you, which means that only you are allowed to use them.
When you acquire a license, these days it is typically tied to you in some way. This means the license is personal and tied to some user account. It is yours to use, but not someone else’s to use.
It is unlikely that whoever grants the license to you monitors who uses the software under that license. They lack the capacity to do so and therefore it is unlikely that they ever know whether you are using it or someone else is using it, at least if the license is used on one device.
Most licenses allow the software to be used on just one device, but they may also allow them to be used on any specific number of devices that is deemed to make sense. This effective allows the software to be used by multiple people, even if that is against the license terms. This flexibility is often countered by a term according to which the software can be installed on multiple devices, but only to be used on one of them at any given time.
Even if it is technically possible to use the software on multiple devices, by multiple people, with a personal license, it may still be against the license terms. This means that, according to the terms, you could lose your license and/or face some legal consequences for having violated the terms.
Volume licenses
There are also licenses that are not personal. These are known as volume licenses. The idea is that someone, typically some entity, such as a company or an institution, acquires a pool of licenses, which are managed by activating and deactivating the licenses from that pool.
For example, a company can acquire a pool of 100 licenses. They can then install that software on up to 100 devices or tie those licenses to up to 100 company user accounts that can be used by each user on one or more devices, depending on the license terms.
The company can often also define how the software is used by the employees. For example, the company IT-department can disable certain features, such as saving to default cloud services, or replace certain features provided by the company or by some other company, such as swap the default cloud service with their own cloud service.
Companies want to be able to manage the software licenses and customize the software features for privacy and security reasons. It is a bad idea to use not to customize and often simply limit how the employees can use company computers.
Video game licenses
The problem a researcher will run into is that the video games industry focuses on business-to-consumer sales. The licenses are therefore almost exclusively personal.
There are some volume licensing options, such as Valve’s Steam PC Café Program, but the problem is that the video game catalog is limited. While it is impressive that, as of today, it offers nearly 3500 titles (may include other software in addition to video games), this is only a small portion of the entire Steam video game catalog.
Volume licensing of video games is largely unavailable for a very simple reason. People who play video games are accustomed to owning their own devices and therefore also playing games them on their own devices.
Volume licensing is much more common for other kinds software, such as office suites and graphics, photo and video editing software, for the simple reason that these software industries focus on the business-to-business sales. Companies and institutions need these kinds of software and demand this kind of flexibility.
One researcher
To my knowledge, there are no academic or education license model for video games that would suit the purposes of researchers. This can be a problem.
If you are doing research on your own, then it should be fine to use your own user account for your research purposes. That is you, as a person, using your personal account. This amounts to playing the video games, as intended by the digital distribution service and storefront, as well as the video game publisher and developer.
I do not, however, recommend sharing this user account for the simple reason that this is against the terms of service of most digital distribution services and storefronts. If caught, your access to your account might be limited temporarily (suspension) or permanently (termination). Simply put, you jeopardize your account and thus all the licenses tied to it.
Everyone is expected to have their own personal account that they use to play the video games. The licenses are tied to the accounts and, to my knowledge, it is rare that these can be transferred within the digital distribution service, from one user account to another, with or without payment.
Why are they personal? To my understanding, the reason this is not really to prevent account sharing, in the sense that members of the same household would play the same games on the same computer, although this is, strictly speaking, against the terms of service as well. It would be very difficult to prove, not to mention highly invasive, as long as the same device or devices are used consistently and/or they are used in the same geographic area, such as a country.
I would also generally be against sharing with anyone for the simple reason that contract is between you and the platform, i.e., the digital storefront that doubles as the digital distribution service. To be more specific, you are personally liable for what the account is used for. If you let someone else use that account, to play the games on that platform, in ways that violate the terms of the contract, it is you who may get the account suspended or terminated for the violations.
This is related to why some digital distribution services and storefronts permit family sharing, in addition to parental controls. To my understanding, Valve’s Steam permits this on PC, while Nintendo and Sony permit this on their Switch and PlayStation consoles. The way this works varies and may require paid subscription, now or in the future.
It is, however, worth pointing out that even with family sharing it is expected that each member of the family has their own account. The parents are expected to manage the settings for their children and share the games with them and with one another.
Nothing prevents people from using these systems with people who are not related to them. It would be difficult for the companies to prove that someone is not someone’s spouse. However, this can and I believe is countered by how either the sharing is limited to a small group, e.g. two adults and three children, or tied to a specific device, such as a games console.
In any case, the reason for requiring personal accounts is rather to prevent account sharing to make profit. The publishers and the developers want their game to sell. This is also what the storefronts responsible for managing the licenses and the digital distribution want as they get their share of the sales.
Family sharing options are not ideal for them in this regard. They prevent maximizing profits in the short-term, but I think the people in the video games industry are smart enough to realize that it helps them to maximize their profits in the long term. Allowing people in the same household to play the same games with just one license, instead of having to buy everyone a license, makes it more likely that they buy more games from the same developer and publisher and through the same digital storefront.
It is also worth specifying that this kind of sharing, which does not transfer the license from one account to another account, does not permit more than one person to play the game at the same time. If they want to play the game together, they need more licenses.
The problem is not family sharing. Instead, think of someone acquiring a license for a fixed price from some digital storefront and then allowing others to play the game for a certain amount of time, in exchange for money.
The publisher, the developer and the storefront can all not only argue that they end up making less money because of that, but also that the person is making money at their expense. That is why the companies want to tie the digital licenses to personal user accounts.
More than one researcher
If you are part of a research team, you can still use personal accounts for research purposes. It is just that each person needs to use their own accounts, not someone else’s account, because the accounts are personal.
Would the platforms know if you shared an account? They probably would not know, nor figure that out, but I do not recommend risk going against the terms of services. It is just a bad idea. After all, they would be well within their rights to suspend or terminate user accounts that are used against the terms of their service.
I would not use the family sharing features for this, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that the people in a project are part of the same family. In some cases that might be the case, for example if you work with your spouse as a team, but otherwise this would not be applicable to researchers.
It also makes sense that everyone has their own account and the necessary licenses tied to them. I would find it not only unprofessional, but also simply unbearable to have to wait for someone else to finish playing. If you are expected to work and playing is a central part of that work, you should not be made to wait for someone else to finish playing.
In practice, this means getting everyone involved the licenses they need. They are not that expensive. Just make sure that this is taken into consideration and accounted for in the project budget.
Research participants
Researchers may also be interested in conducting experiments on people, for example to understand how certain people behave while they are playing video games.
If the researcher wants to do everything by the book, the participants should not be playing video games on personal accounts, unless they are their own accounts. The reason for this is simple: using someone else’s account, such as the researcher’s account, is likely against the terms of service, regardless of whether the account was created and the license was acquired solely for that purpose.
What is most applicable for this kind of research is volume licenses, because they are specifically meant to accommodate for situations where there are tens or hundreds of people who need the licenses, but only for a short period of time. This also makes it possible for the researchers to better control the research environment, which may also be necessary for research ethical reasons. For example, asking participants to use their personal accounts may compromise their privacy, as well as the privacy of other people.
In my view, this would require the university IT-services and/or the library services to manage such. Setting up such solely for a project makes little sense, unless the purpose is to pilot this kind of research and to create the infrastructure to make such research possible in the future.
There is, however, another way of dealing with this: physical licenses. The license is either tied to a device that can be used by multiple people, one after another, or to some other device that is used together with that device. This is the case with games consoles.
This approach permits multiple players that can use the same software, one after another. This removes the need for a large pool of licenses and the infrastructure that is needed to manage them.
To be clear, physical licenses do still need to managed. It is just done physically. One has to keep track of the games consoles and the optical media and take good care of them.
Who owns the licenses?
It is possible to use personal accounts and thus personal licenses, albeit not in all kinds of research. This is, however, not without its limitations. The employer, usually a university or some other research institution, and/or the funding body may find it odd that you are asking for money to spent on licenses that are tied to personal accounts.
It does not matter whether the licenses are tied existing accounts or to accounts created for this purpose, because the bottom line is that your employer owns the hardware and the software licenses, not you. It procures the computers and provides the volume licenses. They are given to you, for you to use. You return the computer and your software license is revoked when your contract ends.
The problem is that volume licensing of video games is not a viable option for researchers. In practice, the licenses have to be tied to personal accounts. These licenses cannot be revoked by the employer, because they are not volume licenses.
What is the problem? Well, the problem is that the license becomes your personal property once it is tied to a personal account. You are the only person who is allowed to use it. Your employer cannot revoke it, because it is not a volume license.
Think of this with just about anything else that a researcher might need. If your university procures you a book, a film, a box set of a TV-series, the university owns it and expects you to return it at the end of your contract. Alternatively, if your university provides a newspaper or a streaming service subscription, it is tied to your contract and your research position. This access is revoked once you are no longer employed by the university.
Is it possible for an employer and/or a funding body to provide researchers the necessary video game licenses then? Yes. It is indeed possible to do this. The licenses can be included as costs, just like any other costs. What matters is that they are indicated as employee benefits, i.e., perks.
Why does this matter? This matters because, at least in Finland, employee benefits affect income taxation. Some of these perks are tax-free or partially tax-free. This would not be a tax-free perk, which means that the employer and/or the funding body must agree to this arrangement and handle it accordingly. This affects your taxes and pension fund contributions. They go up, but you do not get paid more. It also affects the employer and/or the funding body as all taxable income result in all kinds of other costs that the employer is expected to pay.
So, for example, you have a sum in mind, for example 1000 €, that is reversed for video game licenses. However, if this the licenses are taxable employee benefits, because the licenses become the personal property of the employee, the total costs of the licenses is higher than 1000 €.
This arrangement is possible. It is similar to any perk that affects your taxes. The problem for researchers is that research plans do not account for such. The research services do a good job. They provide you with all the spreadsheets that do the calculations for you, but they do not account for how the licenses ought to be calculated as part of the salaries, as opposed to equipment costs that are calculated differently, for the simple reason that universities are used to volume licensing, which is not a thing in the video games industry, and subscriptions, which is a thing in the video games industry but may not be useful due to the limited video game catalogs.
What about licenses that are tied to physical media?
For researchers, the least amount of hassle is to opt for an old-school solution in licensing. Games consoles offer the option to tie the licenses to physical media, albeit it is unlikely that this will be supported in the future. No one uses optical drives on PCs anymore and Sony also appears to be shifting to digital distribution.
I have opted to use Sony’s PlayStation 5 Pro combined with the attachable optical drive as the solution to this licensing problem. The two major planned projects rely on this licensing solution that ties the licenses to optical media for the various reasons I have covered in this post.
This licensing model offers research projects major advantages over the existing digital licensing models. Firstly, any researcher can install and play the video games on any PlayStation 5 or PlayStation 5 Pro that has the optical drive. Secondly, the licenses do not become the property of the researcher. Thirdly, they lend themselves excellently to participatory research, especially if they can be operated in in a closed network or in an offline environment.
Projects have to deal with the fact that researchers are often replaced temporarily and, occasionally, even permanently. It is not uncommon that a researcher goes on parental leave or has some injury or illness that prevents them from participating in the project for months or even years. People do also die unexpectedly. None of this is ideal for any project, but it needs to be taken into account.
The problem with digital video game licenses is that they may end up being tied to a member of the research team who is no longer part of the project, for the aforementioned reasons. The licenses are their personal property. They even have to pay taxes for them.
This is not a problem when the licenses are tied to physical media, such the optical media that is available on the PlayStation 5 and the PlayStation 5 Pro platforms that are equipped with an optical drive. The licenses remain the property of the employer and they can be used by the employees for research purposes without any administrative or legal hurdles.
To be clear, this is not to say that this is an ideal solution. The are three issues. Firstly, digital video game libraries offer more games to play and thus also to research. Secondly, digital distribution handled by storefronts offer not only more games to choose from, but they are also instantly available, whereas the physical copies of those video games might no longer be available or it might take time to get them. Thirdly, physical copies do take actual shelf space. They need to be accounted for and taken good care of.
It is possible to overcome these issues, but I did want to mention them. It makes sense to figure out can and cannot be done and proceed according to the plan that works for you and/or your research project.