Slashdot Mirror
Data Harvesting From a Developer's Perspective
cliffski raises some questions about the need for game developers to have some amount of data from the users who play their games. He says,
"PC Games connecting to a central server to send information (outside of MMOs) have gotten a (deserved) bad reputation in recent years. The huge outcry about Mass Effect and Spore are evidence enough of that. But in gamers' hurry to prevent intrusive DRM systems and dubious privacy-breaking data harvesting, are we throwing out the good with the bad?"
Clearly, some aspects of games could be improved by having a better knowledge of average PC specs or knowing which parts of the games are more entertaining to the users. Input from customers helps to improve almost any product, as indicated by the usage of countless surveys and focus groups. But where do we draw the line between being inquisitive and being intrusive? What can game developers do to prove that the collection techniques or the data themselves wouldn't be abused?
I have no problem with software collecting data that is aggregated and not kept in an individually identifiable format.
There should also be a way to opt-out with no negative repercussions (feature disabling).
Those two simple guarantees and I'm comfortable. The problem is I don't trust a corporation to be honest and forthright with the handling of customer data.
Data collection should be considered intrusive unless the user is warned beforehand and/or has the option to disable it.
A good example is popularity-contest in Debian and I think it was Winamp that also asked if you wanted to let it send anonymous statistics.
They don't know where to draw the line already with invasive DRM that locks us out of our own games. Why would it be any different with private data collection?
Twinstiq, game news
Precisely the point.
At our local mall, there's a survey and opinion company in the corner. They ask mall-goers for surveys based upon demographics and other information told by their clients (like Coca-cola, Pepsi ola, and others).
I've been asked about 8 times. I cannot discuss what was reviewed by myself, because of NDA. However, I received payment from 25$ to 75$ for said reviews. I also provided accurate demographic information, along with the proper write-ups.
I sold my privacy for a pretty penny. In some cases, I later bought some nice hardware for my computer. Why should I give it away when it is seeked and compensated for fairly?
Game-related bonuses could be offered in exchange for the data. Additional network subscription time, screensaver images, free game area/map (selected from several which are sold, so identity of survey participants is hidden).
Is data from over a million and a half samples not useful?
Seriously though, Steam's hardware survey is the first thing that came to mind when I saw this story. It's non-intrusive, it clearly asks you before sharing any information, and it keeps the summary information available for all to see. I probably wouldn't mind sharing technical information if it worked similarly to this.
LegendMUD
Glad you brought this up - I only dropped into this thread to point out the rather excellent Valve Hardware Survey.
The fact it is self-selecting does make it a shade biassed towards the high-end, but it is amusing to see the sheer amount of laptop hardware out there with Steam installed.
It is always funny to smirk at the glacial pace of Vista migration too.
Seriously, pine's been prompting users to send in an "I started using pine" email for years now and never once have they accidentally installed a trojan that monitors the user's process list and reports back on programs run and websites visted for the next decade.
There's just no comparison between innocent prompting for user feedback and DRM "enforcement" daemons. If you want info from your users, make it opt in, anonymized, limited to necessary data, and *not affect the user's rights or experience at all.*
Collecting aggregate data on the most popular menu items clicked, with the user's permission: OK. Disabling the user's install and banning their credit card from your system because they loaded a 3rd party menu widget that your program secretly patrols for: NOT OK.
The 40 EUR I spent on ESET's Smart Security package is probably the best money I've spent on software in the last 5 years. First time I started up Mass Effect I was greeted with a warning from the ESET firewall about the game trying to access my internet connection. Check "Make a rule", click "Deny". Problem solved.
As for how companies should approach information gathering, I'm with most everyone else here. Simply explain to the users exactly what information is being collected and give them the option to opt out. I say exactly because a lot of it depends on how you ask. If I'm greeted with a simple question like "Allow Mass Effect to send anonymous usage statistics to Bioware?" I'll probably click no, because I have no idea what "anonymous usage statistics" entails. Ask the same question and give me a list of exactly what information will be sent out, how often and to where, then I'll be more inclined to agree to it. Best case scenario, actually show me the information being sent and let me click the send button. Just don't do it so often.
Companies think they have to sneak this phone home stuff in because people don't like it, they don't realise that most people don't like it precisely because they try to sneak it in. The rest just don't like it at all, so let them opt out. Everyone's happy.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Echoing through the cave, you hear a voice in the distance call out "I before E except after C".
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I believe that shrink-wrap licenses have been found to be nonbinding in some jurisdictions, though I don't remember the court cases that back that up.
Perhaps, or even probably, but that's not the point. Companies offer money back guarantees and mail in rebates because they know most (or at least a statistically significant proportion of) consumers don't find it worth their while to bother. Hiring a lawyer and loosing time off work (or just plain opportunity costs) for a sixty dollar game isn't worth it. Of course you are assuming that the consumer even believes he can get his money back. In the era where laws and information campaigns are constantly reminding consumers that their rights take a back seat to that of the copy right owner, I doubt if too many (consumers) would even consider the law, much less attempt to try and enforce said law. It's not so easy to just call the police and tell them to press charges against a software company because their EULA or business practices are illegal. Believe me I've tried :)
Chances are however that if you call up the actual game company and they have some reasonable customer service rep on the line then they may refund your money if you pay to have the disks, etc sent back to them. Maybe, maybe not. It's your bet. In the end it's still a hassle. It's often easier to buy something than to return it.
No not really.
If you for instance get invited into the community theres a big button telling you press here to enable this feature. No where does it explicitly tell you that hitting that button will add all sorts of tracking information to your account freely available to any one else - and no way of opting out again. (This might have changed after I pointed out to them that their practice was in fact illegal and I would take it up with local consumer agencies if they failed to remove this information for my account - I can't actually check that because their current method of removing your information is to ban your account from the steam community (no I'm not kidding))