By Matt Baker, January 26 2012
Dear Game Developer,
This is a debate that has run rampant through the interweb tubes, bowling over the kittehs and owls contained therein, for so long that I’ve always felt there was no need for me to blog my opinion because who really cares what I think anyway? But then this morning I saw a Twitter link to an article about how the upcoming Xbox 720 may reject used games and the fiery inferno of my passion was stoked. So here we are and, on the ever so slight chance that anyone with the vaguest influence on the gaming industry might ever read this, I’m going to offer up my humble opinion.
Before I get in to why I think the used game market is actually good for game developers I want to talk a bit about my own motivations for buying used games. So, first things first, let me reassure you, mighty game developer, it is not out of spite. I like games and they bring me many hours of enjoyment. You should be rewarded for this. However, the game market is kind of flooded and I have a finite amount of money, so choices have to be made and I’m going to choose what is best for me. If I can get one new game for $60 or three old games for the same amount, I think the choice is pretty obvious. Now, I understand that as far as you, the game developer, are concerned I might as well not have bought anything because you didn’t get any of that money, but what you have to remember is that even if I could only buy new games I’d still only have $60, so there’s a 2/3 chance that you are not getting that money anyway.
Ah, you say, but there is a 1/3 chance you do get the money so you are still ahead. And that is true. Or at least it would be if I only ever bought used games. But I, like most gamers, buy a mix of new and used games. If I’m really excited about a game I’ll buy it new. I mostly buy used games to try things that I missed when they first came out or that seemed interesting but not good enough to spend $60 on. The end result of this is that if they were not available used, I just would not buy them. So you are in exactly the same position you would be in with the used game market available. Or at least so it would seem. But I would argue that this is not actually true. Getting rid of the used game market is actually going to move you backwards.
Remember how I said I buy new games that I’m excited about? How do you think I get excited about them? By playing the used games (or games from the library, which are pretty much the same to you monetarily) that I missed out on when they were new or that I’d just not been interested enough in to spend $60. I got Batman: Arkham Asylum from the library and liked it so much I bought it on Steam and then bought Arkham City new for my PS3. I got the PSP Resistance and Killzone games used. They kicked ass so I bought Resistance 3 and Killzone 3 new. I’ve always kind of ignored Halo, but recently I bought Halo 3 used and now I am totally on board to buy Halo 4 new whenever it comes out. And this doesn’t just work for sequels. I bought Gran Theft Auto 3 used and it was ok, but I wasn’t in to it enough to buy the later ones new (or even used). However when Rockstar made Red Dead Redemption and it was like GTA but a western (which I love) I was familiar enough with the idea that I bought it new. And it was fucking awesome so then I bought LA Noire new, which was also fucking awesome. So now when GTA5 comes out, I’ll probably buy it new, even though I was not a huge fan of GTA3. You see how this works? If I hadn’t had a more affordable way to access these games I’d never have bought all those new games. So by quashing the used games market you are actually behind where you are now. And that isn’t even taking in to account the fact that you would have also pissed me off so I’d probably just start spending my fun money somewhere else anyway. And I haven’t even touched on people who buy new games and then sell them to fund the purchase of more new games.
Which brings me to my next point. If I have purchased an item, what right do you have to tell me what I can do with this item? You didn’t rent it to me, you sold it to me. It is standard practice in pretty much everything but the entertainment industry that after you purchase something it is yours to do with as you please, including selling it. I read another blog that compared a game to a lamp and I like this comparison. You don’t see lamp companies trying to shut down Kijiji or thrift stores because they stop people from buying new lamps. Ford is not out there trying to shut down used car dealerships. How are games different? And it is not just game developers with this odd point of view – it seems to be common to most of the entertainment industry. You are acting like Harry Potter goblins with the idea that even if you sell something it still actually belongs to you and should only go back to you once the customer is done with it.
I understand that you want to curb piracy and I totally agree with that (although I don’t believe that it is actually a big problem for games, especially on consoles – I know lots of people who have pirated movies and music but not a single person who pirates games). The music, film, and games industries go on and on about piracy and that is understandable; you worked hard on your product, why should some people get to cheat the system and enjoy it for free? Although that does remind me of a time I saw Douglas Coupland speak and he brought up an interesting point – musicians and filmmakers complain that people are circumventing purchasing their products is wrong but authors have to deal with libraries, the entire point of which is to read something without buying it and they are legal. But let’s not get too sidetracked here. Pretty much everyone has pirated something at some point, but I honestly believe that it is wrong and I stick to acquiring things legally whenever possible. And the fact remains, the used game market is entirely legal. People are still paying their hard earned money to enjoy something you made. Yes that money is not going directly to you, but the goodwill from that enjoyment is and chances are good that it will lead to future new game purchases. So try and remember, before you go alienating me and my gaming brethren, you can make it so I can’t get cheap games but I won’t have more money and I willhave less goodwill. Actually, you know what? Go ahead and do what you want because when I stop buying games that will free up a lot of time and money and there is a whole world of other things for me to enjoy.
Sincerely,
Matt
I have a problem with the idea that we could have single use games, because waste is aptly named. A game that can only be used by the first buyer is wasteful. That would be a shame, unless everything was like Steam, just digital copies that exist on your computer or console. And that's cheaper anyways.
ReplyDeleteWell, you'd hope it would be cheaper, but if you buy a game on PSN or XBox live it is the same price as buying it in the store.
ReplyDeleteFirst I'll just preface this by saying that I don't think a console should prevent used games from being played.
ReplyDeleteNext, I'll also add that the games industry probably feels more threatened by the second hand games market than it does by piracy (certainly in the Western Hemisphere). Efforts to curtail this are seen with perks such as "Free DLC codes" with the purchase of a new game. I think the position is reinforced because preventing a console from playing used games does nothing to prevent piracy.
One thing I will add though, is that "new" copies of games will always eventually drop in price. I agree that games are expensive (ironically MMO's save me money, because I'm spending less money on new games), and I make a note of which price point I'm okay buying particular games at, and wait to eventually purchase them at that point. I encourage you to give it a try. Yes, it does mean that you'll have to wait to play some games, but I actually consider that a plus as it helps prevent gaming compulsion on my part.
Although I think it's more to target retailers as it is end users. Large chains such as gamestop make WAY MORE MONEY off of used game sales than they do off new game sales. And given that, barring damage to the disc, digital information doesn't depreciate (you still get the exact same product, whereas you will have wear and tear on other material goods), Gamestop is able to resell the exact same game at huge markup costs several times over.
They typically buy games for as low as $4-$6, and then turn and sell them for $20-$50 depending on how new the game is. They actually came under fire because they were selling used copies of Dragon Age: Origins for $50 when the new game was $60 and came with a $15 DLC for free. When this used purchaser returns the game to Gamestop for $4-$6, Gamestop then resells it for another $20-$50. As long as the disc remains in playable condition, this same disc can be resold literally dozens of times.
I _am_ biased, but that's the primary reason why I don't really fully equate the games with other material goods like lamps. Though the analogy isn't completely without merit, and a better example might be books. Games (like books) are more "consumed" than something like a lamp. The big advantage is that the digital information most often remains unaltered after consumption. The only issue I have when comparing it with books is that the cost of development and distribution is on a smaller scale. Which might not be fair but c'est la vie. I won't claim to not be a hypocrite!
But making the 720 prevent used games from being played is just awful, because new copies of games are eventually no longer made. At this point, the publisher has agreed to no longer compete for business with this product, so they should not care if others trade. The big loser in all of this is definitely the end user. I don't think developers are at all concerned with private sales between two people for a used game. That's small potatoes.
@Other Comments:
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I'm not too bothered by the lack of used games is that, as a primarily PC gamer, used games has typically been a closed door for me for years now. I could only do private sales in most cases, because retailers typically didn't buy back PC games due to the ease of piracy. Furthermore, I love Steam, which by it's very nature prevents me from reselling those games. Though I don't know if I've ever sold a game, so the lack of that doesn't really bother me at all. I still have attachments to my old NES.
Though there's a funny thing about online distribution. There is resistance from the brick and mortar retailers that prevent publishers from selling a digital copy for cheaper. Retailers have actually threatened to not purchase inventory for the games if the game is available for cheaper digitally. Since the games industry is still primarily driven by brick and mortar shops, it was a risk publishers weren't willing to take. It's kind of fucked up like that.
Although IMO the industry is moving towards being completely digital eventually, which probably makes all of this kind of moot in the long term. The plus side, it costs virtually nothing to store a digital copy of an older game, so the lack of "new" copies to purchase should no longer be an issue. I can still buy games on Steam (or even better, Good Old Games) that haven't been "in print" for years.
I agree that piracy is not as big a concern to gaming companies, I mostly mention it because certain gaming executives have likened buyers of used games to pirates because they do not get the money.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the games that Gamestop sells used for $50 are usually purchased back by them at closer to $30-35, often with a trade one or two newish games for a free brand new game incentive. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to spend $50 on a used game when you can get the new one for $60. I generally purchase used games when they drop to <$20.
Also, while games do eventually drop in price to around $20, by that time the company no longer really cares about those games - all they really seem to care about are the high priced sales when they consider how successful a game is. I get the impression that, much like in the movie business with rentals and disc sales, anything at that lower price is seen more as a way to recoup the money you didn't make upon release rather than as a source of money to factor in when considering the game's success. Which is all the more reason to not get so worked up about the used game market and use it to encourage people to get familiar with your brand.
I also love Steam and GOG, so if they went that route and didn't DRM too much of a hassle (a la iTunes) I would be for it, as long as the games were correspondingly cheaper. It wasn't about games, but Jonathan Coulton recently tweeted "Make good stuff, then make it easy for people to buy it. There's your anti-piracy plan". I think it applies here too.
ReplyDeleteWhat it all boils down to is the fact that if the only way to get games is at $60 a pop I'm just going to find something else to do with my money and I think a lot of other people will too. That's not to say I'll just stop buying games, but I certainly won't be inclined to spend as much time with my games and will likely just start waiting for games to drop to $20 or lower anyway.
Early game sales definitely are the most important because that's when the bulk of ROI comes in. But game companies don't ignore those sales. In fact, it's not uncommon for publishers to re-release games at exactly the $20 price point. Although until 2009 DVD sales exceeded box office sales, so I don't know if movie studios necessarily see DVDs/Blurays as only a way to recoup costs. In some cases (Shawshank Redemption) it does turn a medicore theatrical release into a gigantic cash cow.
ReplyDeleteIf you shift it to digital, then it's almost printing money because the only real cost for a game is the development, and that's a sunk cost once the game is released.
Although I'm a bit curious what you mean when you say that the company "no longer cares" about the games. I don't think you're saying that the company is indifferent to you buying a used one vs a new one for $20.
$30 seems high for a buyback, but I'm just going on anecdotes from the internets since I don't sell my games. It is definitely higher for brand new games though so I'll concede that point, or at least the severity of it.
"What it all boils down to is the fact that if the only way to get games is at $60 a pop I'm just going to find something else to do with my money and I think a lot of other people will too. That's not to say I'll just stop buying games, but I certainly won't be inclined to spend as much time with my games and will likely just start waiting for games to drop to $20 or lower anyway."
ReplyDeleteEventually you get to a point where you'll have a nice continuous influx of games that all come in at around $20ish. The $60 tag only becomes a factor for the "ZOMG MUST BUY" game. Although even as a hardcore gamer I am finding there is less and less of those coming out all the time.
Are you referring to the idea that "A game that sells well at $20 probably won't get a sequel" or something like that?
ReplyDelete