We believe that P2P Technology offers a number of compelling benefits to game developers, publishers, and even consumers. Implementing the following best practices will help to foster a better understanding of the technology and the numerous advantages which it can provide.

The confidence with respect to the use and deployment of P2P Technology will be advanced by demonstrating consideration for game consumers through three simple directives:

1. Transparency – Make visible and readily accessible information about the presence and operational activity of the P2P technology.
2. Control – Provide the ability to manage, operate and remove the P2P technology in an intuitive and conspicuous manner to the user.
3. Privacy – Ensure the absolute privacy and security of personal information and user originated files.

Recommended Best Practices for Using P2P Technology with Games

1. During the installation of an application that utilizes P2P Technology to download a Game, Game Update, and/or User-Originated Game Content:
   a. Inform the user in a clear and conspicuous manner that P2P Technology is being installed on the user’s system;
   b. Make readily available a plain language explanation of the relevant functionality of the P2P Technology that may materially affect their system resources and/or data; and
   c. If any game files will be redistributed to other users after their installation and incorporation into the game, then disclose this behavior to users in a clear and conspicuous manner.
2. Provide a conspicuous, intuitive interface that indicates when the P2P Technology is operating, such as by displaying a system tray icon, in the task bar and/or within the game interface and clearly disclosing if delivery of an Update via P2P Technology will occur after the game closes.
3. Provide users with a clear and conspicuous way to disable the P2P Technology at any time either by closing the application or via a control accessible from within the application’s main user interface. Ensure that the operational settings that govern the P2P Technology, once set by the user to reflect their preferences, persist as desired by the user through system logout, shutdown, startup or restart.
4. Never enable other users to access any files or directories other than those necessary to the games, updates, and/or user-originated game content being distributed by the P2P technology. The P2P Technology must not permit the distribution of other user-originated files.
5. Notify the user if any of the user’s personally identifiable information (PII) provided in conjunction with the operation of the P2P Technology will be shared with any outside parties. Obtain consent from the user before any such activity begins.
6. Ensure that complete removal of the P2P Technology is simple to do and explained in plain language.

Download the Best Practices for Using P2P Technology with Online Games (PDF format). You can also download: How Solid State Networks Complies with Best Practices for P2P Technology in Game Delivery (PDF format) to see how our products implement these directives.

Click here to learn more about our position on P2P technology and its implementation with online games and patches.

P2P Best Practices for Games is a post from: Solid State Networks

As an early developer of commercial P2P solutions for games, Solid State Networks has often had to work to educate customers, partners and regulators about how the technology actually works, how it can/should be implemented, etc. Still, “P2P technology” is commonly confused with the attributes of its implementation which can, in turn, result in unintended consequences. This happened in 2009 when the U.S. House of Representatives introduced HR 1319, a bill also known as the “Informed P2P User Act”.

This bill, as originally introduced, would have required all P2P applications to comply with a restrictive set of rules for the stated purpose of preventing the inadvertent sharing of personally identifiable information (PII) by any user of any P2P network. At the time, we thought a more appropriate name for this bill would have been The Uninformed P2P User Act.

Fortunately, through the tireless efforts of the Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA), led by its CEO Marty Lafferty, along with input from key DCIA members including Solid State Networks, subsequent drafts of the bill included language that excludes certain P2P implementations that are clearly not capable of sharing PII. These applications, such as those used for content delivery, serve a very different function than the file-sharing applications that have motivated the bill’s sponsors to pursue this legislation. As a result of the efforts from the DCIA and Congressional and FTC staff, commercial P2P delivery solutions will not be unduly impacted by H.R. 1319 should the bill (which has since passed in the House) become law.

HR 1319 was indeed a close call and should be something of a wake-up call for both P2P vendors and the game publishers that benefit from P2P technology. Game publishers, whether you are using a commercial P2P solution or rolling your own P2P implementation, should be on the lookout for things that might impact your ability to utilize P2P technology in the future. There are still many open questions with respect to the use of P2P technology for game delivery (or any type of content files) to and among consumers that need to be understood for P2P to mature as a widely adopted consumer technology, such as:

• Who owns the resources that power a P2P network? Who has the right to use these resources?
• How can a player’s resources be controlled and used? How should they be used?
• How are decisions made concerning the use of these resources? Who should make those decisions?
• What role should players have in how their resources are utilized?
• What are all of the benefits of P2P? How are those benefits distributed among publishers, P2P vendors and players?
• What are the costs of P2P? How are those costs distributed among publishers, P2P vendors and players?
• What are the requirements for disclosure? Are the minimum legal requirements enough?
• What risks and potential liabilities are associated with implementing P2P for game delivery? How can those risks be mitigated?

Today, Solid State Networks is publishing the first edition of The Game Publisher’s Guide to P2P Delivery. This guide is designed to help you understand P2P technologies and their various implementations so that you can formulate your own answers to these questions. We will be updating this document as necessary to reflect changes in the technology and in the games industry. To get the document, use this simple request form and we’ll email you a link to it.

In conjunction with the release of the Publisher’s Guide, we are also publishing our own Best Practices for P2P Delivery with Online Games. These Best Practices represent our belief in the core values of transparency, control and privacy—directives which should be adopted by publishers who value long-term relationships with players.

The Best Practices also follow the concept of User Engagement: A Simple and Intuitive Peer Participation Policy.

Yes, we develop software for P2P game delivery, but we are gamers, too. We hope that our efforts to inform and educate the game community will result in a constructive industry discussion that ultimately promotes the continued adoption of P2P technologies by game publishers, trust of the technology among gamers and the avoidance of impediments often caused by legislated regulation.

We welcome any and all input from publishers, gamers, developers and other commercial P2P solution providers. If you have a comment or question please let us know using the comments section below:

The Future of P2P in Game Delivery: Pillar or Pariah? is a post from: Solid State Networks

Use these quick links to learn more about our stance on the topic of P2P implementation for online games, our recommended best practices and more:

• User Engagement: A Simple and Intuitive P2P Participation Policy (Blog post from Solid State Networks CEO Rick Buonincontri)
• The Future of P2P in Game Delivery: Pillar or Pariah? (Blog post from Solid State Networks CEO Rick Buonincontri)
• P2P Best Practices (main page)
• P2P Best Practices-related posts.

GAME PUBLISHERS: Use the form below to request a copy of The Game Publisher’s Guide to P2P Delivery (PDF format). This white paper describes P2P technology, including the most common P2P network types and client types, as well as various P2P implementations. This guide was designed to help you consider the best implementations for your games so that both you and your players will experience maximum benefits. We also welcome your comments.

PSA Video: Playing Fair with P2P is a post from: Solid State Networks

We at Solid State Networks have been steadfast in our belief that user experience (“UX”) should be the highest priority when developing the types of content delivery solutions that we develop.

UX in the context of software applications is primarily associated with the user’s perception of usability. At Solid State, our concept of providing a quality UX also includes transparency to the user (we mean transparency in the human sense and not as typically used with computing).

An application’s UX goes well beyond the user’s immediate perception and extends throughout the many ways that a user may be impacted by the application. Therefore, we strive to make applications that any user can control easily and intuitively, even if they do not completely comprehend all that they are controlling.

We believe that transparency is especially important with P2P applications. P2P can provide a benefit to publishers and consumers alike, but at the end of the day, the resources used in P2P belong to the user and not to a publisher or P2P vendor.

We decided long ago that we should be able to clearly communicate to users when, how and why they would (or would not) be a participant in a P2P network. Yet, we do not want to encumber users with complex rules and instructions.

Ideally, as gamers, we would like to see that all publishers provide users the ability to opt out of a P2P network. However, we also think it is acceptable for a publisher to require players’ participation in the P2P network, especially when the content delivered is free to users, such as in a free-to-play game. That said, it seems obvious (to us, anyway) that requiring P2P participation comes with the responsibility that publishers and vendors provide an indication that there is a P2P application running along with easily accessible controls to disable it.

Central to our own ideas around a user’s P2P participation is the state of that user’s engagement with the publisher. For example, if a player is downloading a game, that player may be required to participate in a P2P network. When that player then makes a disengaging action (i.e., by closing the download or game application) then that user should also be removed from the P2P network for that publisher’s content. Why? Because once that player has disengaged and moved on to something else (say, watching a video on YouTube or just walking away from their system) then it is reasonable for them to believe that they have concluded their business with that publisher. If, at that time, the publisher would like to continue to utilize that user’s resources then the user should be asked for permission to do so.

To us, employing a P2P participation policy that is based on user engagement is fair, transparent and respectful to the user that is ultimately contributing their resources to the network. Additionally, it minimizes any risk of users that may not be aware of the implications of P2P uploading and the impact it may have on the performance of other devices using that Internet connection. Perhaps more importantly, it may avert unplanned consumption of Internet usage, particularly for users that are on limited usage plans that may be required to pay overage fees.

- Rick Buonincontri, CEO, Solid State Networks

Related Links:
Main P2P Best Practices Page
Responsible Use of P2P Technology in Games (video)
More P2P Best Practices News and Blogs

User Engagement: A Simple and Intuitive P2P Participation Policy is a post from: Solid State Networks

CURRENT

DIRECT

SOLO

Patch Assistant

On YouTube? Subscribe to: solidgamepublishing to get the latest product demos and walk-through videos from Solid State Networks.

Watch our product videos is a post from: Solid State Networks

To schedule a meeting with us at GDC, please click here to contact us.

2010 Game Developers Conference is a post from: Solid State Networks

To learn more about how DIRECT can help boost your player conversions and make your game more profitable, please contact us today.

DIRECT Game Publishing Software Demo Video is a post from: Solid State Networks

We get that question a lot from our customers and from potential customers. We do have an answer to it because of two benefits that we can offer with our game publishing software:

1. Our game publishing software saves game developers a considerable amount of time and money because they don’t have to develop their own solutions that would enable download, install, update and launch – not to mention promotion and monetization – functionalities for their game(s).
2. Our solutions offer the ability to offset traffic costs for delivering games and updates with our peer-to-peer and our hybrid CDN/P2P delivery options.

But the bigger issue here isn’t how to save money. The bigger issue is how to generate more revenue.

If you could save 20% or increase your conversion rate by 20% (or more), which would you choose?

Our solutions definitely enable savings in multiple ways. They can save time and they can certainly save money. But as with any business, the amount that can be “saved” is limited, whereas the amount that can be made is potentially unlimited.

Given that the higher upside is in the active pursuit of revenue, we tend to emphasize that and show customers how our game publishing software can help them boost conversions and generate more revenue for each game. Compared to that, the ability to save money is more of a secondary benefit of using our game publishing software.

When you have the ability to engage gamers directly, such as through our highly customizable DIRECT launcher interface, not to mention the means to promote and monetize your game in new ways, you have a huge amount of potential revenue sitting there, staring you right in the face.

The point is not to focus solely on “how do we save” but to keep your company’s eye on “how do we make more,” especially when you give your players the most convenient ways to acquire your games and to transact with you directly via the game launcher interface.

Online games: Saving money versus making money is a post from: Solid State Networks

G-Star Korea is a post from: Solid State Networks

Details can be found below or by visiting the GDC Austin website

Conversion Technologies: Design and Implementation Strategies for Expanding Profitability of Online Games
Speaker: Matthew Shaw (Chief Technology Officer, EAMythic, Electronic Arts, Mythic Entertainment Studio), Matthew Hannus (Sleepy Giant), Rick Buonincontri (Founder and CEO, Solid State Networks)
Date/Time: Thursday (September 17, 2009) 3:00pm — 4:00pm
Location (room): Room 15
Track: Business & Marketing
Secondary Track: Design
Experience Level: Intermediate
Format: 60-minute Sponsored Session

Session Description
It is never too early to start thinking about player acquisition, retention and monetization when designing an online game. This panel will discuss how game designers and developers can use technologies, strategies and planning to contribute to the financial success of their game’s online operations and get a higher return from marketing investments.

Takeaway
Attendees will learn the importance of considering player conversions in early game design and architecture decisions and their ultimate on game profitability.

GDC Austin 2009 is a post from: Solid State Networks