Arx Fatalis - A Tale of Woe

I will admit to not being on the inside of this particular deal. I don't have all the details, and a good 50% of what I've been told about this whole mess may very well be complete bullshit. I don't know what the hell's going on, really, except for the fact that my current state of ignorance seems to stem primarily from the fact that a certain group of other individuals don't know what the hell's going on either.

Here's the story as it was laid on me: back in October, Arx Fatalis ships in Germany, or Europe, or someplace like that. Doesn't really matter. Fairly soon after, it ships in the US. And then it ships everywhere else in the world, places like Zimbabwe and Antarctica and the Vatican. Everywhere, that is, except Canada, for some reason.

A slightly-delayed Canadian release date is announced, and then almost immediately pushed back. Another release date is announced, and another, and soon after that a phone call to the local EB reveals that they no longer have any idea when the thing's actually going to show. Not just my EB, either; people in both eastern and western Canada report the same thing. It ain't here, and we don't know when it's going to be.

The same night I'm slapped in the face with this little revelation, I'm told that JoWood, the game's "main" distributor, is in serious financial trouble. They can't get the game shipped. Therefore, Activision has stepped in to take over getting the game out to Canada, and they've managed to scrape together a whole 400 - yes, that's four hundred - copies, which they're sending to Canada via a truck that's on the road... somewhere. We think.

And the release date gets pushed back again.

If you're not an RPG'er, this may not be Earth-shattering news for you. But if you are, and especially if you happen to be an Ultima Underworld afficianado as I am, it's bad news indeed. I've been waiting years - almost ten of them - for the "next Underworld," and by all reports, this is it. And it's likely as close as we're ever going to get to Underworld 3. So I want this game bad, and so do a lot of other people.

400 copies of a game for an entire country is spreading the Cheeze-Whiz pretty thin, even for a relatively small, population-wise, country like Canada. We may be a wood-and-water nation, but I'm pretty sure there's more than 400 people with computers here. And if the game was on the truck (and I say truck, not trucks, because 400 copies would fit in the back of a pickup) when that pronouncement was made, as I was told was the case, it should've been here by now. Hell, it should've been here last week, unless the driver was holding the map upside down and there are now 400 Mexicans playing my fucking game.

Stepping away from my own personal feelings about this whole debacle, I have to ask myself just what went wrong here. How does a game go from being relatively well-heralded to being unable to ship? In all the years I've been gaming, I can't recall anything quite like this happening. I am reminded, however, of another anticipated game from many years ago, one that ultimately defined a genre, redefined gaming, put a few talented guys into Ferraris, and managed to do so without relying on any of the "normal" distribution channels we're apparently so dependent on these days.

The game, in case you're too dumb to have figured it out for yourself by now, was Doom. You may have heard of it, couple of guys named Carmack and Romero worked on it. Here's how you laid your grubby little paws on it: first, you downloaded the nine-level "demo" of the game, titled, if I recall correctly, Knee Deep in the Dead. Kinda poetic. And then, if you liked it (and if you didn't, you checked your pulse because odds were you were dead) you sent a cheque for 25 or 30 bucks down to Texas, and they mailed you the rest of the game. Bammo, wall-to-wall gaming goodness.

Not a new idea, really; the shareware concept had been around long before the advent of Doom, and it continues today. What made Doom different was the simple fact that it was the first hugely mega-successful software title distributed in that fashion. Shareware until that point was largely looked upon as synonomous with garbage, the sort of software that was just too crappy to land on a store shelf somewhere. Doom changed all that, at least for a time; suddenly, shareware was looked upon as a viable way for small developers to get their stuff out their to the public.

I'm inclined to look upon Arx as an ideal candidate for this sort of distribution. Solid game, small developer, and big word-of-mouth over the net. But I doubt very much it was ever even considered; there was a rather rough demo of the game released, but to get the game itself you have to hit a store somewhere - if you're lucky enough to live in a country with stores that sell the damned thing. The result? Both JoWood and Arkane Studios are facing financial oblivion, and a significant number of people who very much want to play this game are, so far, unable to do so.

And shareware is once again looked upon by the public at large as nothing more than a repository for shitty software.

What happened? How did such a sweeping change, and one so obviously detrimental, occur in such a relatively short period of time? Distributing over the net is, to my way of thinking, an ideal way to go for a great many developers; it cuts the overhead, it makes the game cheaper (and therefore more attractive), and it offers world-wide distribution without many of the hassles normally involved with such, like shipping, paying for shelf space, and the simple act of finding retailers to carry your product.

The computer game industry has become very much like the movie or recording industries in this sense; if you don't have a deal with one of the major players, you've got a real problem on your hands. This is especially ironic given the ever-increasing trade, usually illegal, in movies and music over the internet; computer games, being written for computers as they are, have much closer ties with the net, and yet developers and publishers seem unwilling or unable to embrace electronic distribution.

I can't even guess at how many potentially good titles are missed by gamers, either because they never see the light of day, or are simply lost in the shuffle. Talented developers with quality products go tits-up, and gamers lose out as a result. It's unlikely the guys at Arkane would be cruising in Ferraris right now if they'd taken the shareware route, but maybe they'd at least be around long enough to put out their next game. Currently, that doesn't seem too likely.

Given the technology currently at our disposal, the potential for electronic distribution of games is obvious. So why's it not happening? Maybe developers and publishers need to be encouraged to reconsider shareware as a viable alternative to the current distribution methods, whether it comes from gamers actually buying more shareware titles they find enjoyable, or simply dropping an email to new developers encouraging them to offer online access to their game.

An increase in shareware, and electronic distribution in general, can only benefit gamers. Convincing game companies, especially fledgling developers, to look into alternative methods of distribution could lead to increased selection for gamers, lower prices, and maybe even reveal a few gems that would otherwise be missed. The current situation may not be deteriorating, but it's not likely to get any better in the future either; we have the ability to do more, and do better. If we go about it the right way, then maybe when the next Arx comes out, we'll all be able to play it.