In my previous life as president of the IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association), the retail trade association which represents the leading merchants in the sector (Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, GameStop, etc.), one of the challenges we faced was declining sales on the PC gaming platform amid the success of the PS2, Xbox, GameCube and DS. Several of the major retailers in the category were unsure if they wanted to continue carrying computer games. Several of them were already displaying the product boxes spine-out, which became a separate but related problem.

The issue, as we dug deeper and discovered, was that the packaging wasn't standardized. Console packaging was, likely due to the platform manufacturers also being the platform owners, efficiencies of scale and the like. PC games had evolved as almost a separate business (more on that in a different column), but it allowed marketers the freedom to be creative with their packaging... the Tomb Raider box comes to mind. Loss-prevention (LP) folks at the store level too were pleased with the over-sized packaging, because it - due to its sheer size - was a theft deterrent.

While fun for the marketing folks and comforting for the LP pros, merchandisers were examining their cost per square foot and seeing a real problem: PC games took up 66% more shelf space than their console counterparts and were significantly less profitable. The problem came to a head quickly and was brought to me at an IEMA board meeting where it seemed that the fate of computer games would be sealed. Being a gamer, and a fan of PC games in particular, I wanted us to work with the publishers to see if there was a solution.

Over the next few months we ran an emotional roller coaster; sometimes thinking that it was all for naught, other times reflecting on the people, companies and consumers that would be affected. We worked long and hard with some amazingly talented people from both the publishing side and the channel side and came to consensus around the current "IEMA-sized" box, what is essentially a double-thick DVD-sized box. (I should mention that the press often give me credit for this process, but in reality it was the determination of some brilliant minds at leading game retail and publishing companies that made this possible.)

We also couldn't have predicted that by changing the box we created new problems that required our attention. The new box meant increased interest in source-tagging and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification), which we undertook and advanced. It meant coming up with new packaging and front flap designs. And the box needed a standardized platform identification mark, so we embarked on the same inclusive, open and comprehensive process: working with the same folks as before on coming up with a mark that the IEMA could own and then give away for free to the business, a royalty-free trademark. That same mark is in use today, years later, as is the box.

I mention this as a real-world example because it's something that, in the grand scheme of things, was quick and easy to implement, and had profound implications for the industry. (Imagine the past seven or so years without PC gaming available as packaged goods – prior to digital distribution, subscriptions being enormous, etc.)

I see similar problems on the horizon for the End User Licensing Agreement
(EULA) as it relates to consumer rights. Rather than re-hash more eloquent sources, I'd point you to one here for your consideration.

EULAs are a real and tangible problem for our business. Quite simply, they're out of control. The best intentions of lawyers in the business aside, these contracts have become so unwieldy that they regularly infringe on consumer rights. Many would likely be unenforceable in a court of law. Others, consumers would be shocked to find out what all of that fine print actually meant.

The reason for the EULAs existence is sound. Certainly no reasonable person would expect the creator or seller to lose all of their rights in a sale. But neither should a consumer. We have drifted too far from the core reason for these agreements and they pose a threat even larger than retailers looking at box sizes. We can and should do better.

I propose that we form another working group to address this problem and do so no differently than we did, above. It needs to be an open and inclusive process whereby we all sit down and discuss the problem and all of its idiosyncrasies. Having trade group representatives was productive last time and probably would be again. IGDA, ESA, EMA and ECA could certainly resolve it, but having a forum for all of those constituents to become involved in the process makes the most sense to me.

There's no reason to think that we couldn't standardize the EULA and create one contract that all developers, publishers, retailers and consumers know, understand and respect. The implications would be broad and the downside negligible. Will there be complications? Sure. Will there be more issues that come as a result? You bet. But those aren't reasons for trying. And frankly, had we not confronted and overcome similarly insurmountable obstacles with packaging, the gaming world would surely be different. Since we can do something about it now, we should.