By Matt Baker, January 31 2012
So the other day I wrote an
open letter to game developers in defence of used games and, somewhat surprisingly, some people have actually read it. Not only that, but there has been a fair amount of discussion about the subject on Twitter lately. As a result of some of the responses I got and some of the stuff that I read online I have decided to revisit and clarify/correct some of the things I said. Additionally I want to suggest some solutions that might be amenable to both sides of the argument.
First off: the comparisons I made. I talked about getting games for $20 instead of $60. Clearly this is not the same game. When a game is brand new it tends to sell used for only five to ten dollars cheaper, which is not enough of a difference to entice me to buy used. I would rather pay the extra $10 for the new game. However, if there is a new game in a series that looks interesting but I have never played any games in the series I may opt for a used copy of an earlier game. And even then, I’d prefer to buy the earlier game new, but it is with old games where the real value of used games lies. By the time a publisher drops a price to $20 you can probably get it used for half that. I know it is still only a $10 difference but at that price point it seems like so much more.
Now I can spend all the time I want complaining about prices and developers can complain about used games, but that is never going to get us anywhere. So I have spent some time thinking about this and I want to put forward some potential solutions. I would love to get people from both sides involved in a discussion and tossing some ideas around.
I think that digital distribution is the most promising solution. After all, if people are just downloading their games they don’t even have a copy to sell (and it’s more environmentally friendly, to boot!). But this has a caveat: if developers really want online distribution to work then buying the game online has to be cheaper. As it is, buying a new release through Steam, PSN, or XBL costs the same as buying the disc. If I’m going to spend that much money I might as well get a version that comes with a lovely copy I can put on my shelf or maybe even sell/trade for another game down the line. Let’s be clear though, I’m not talking about making the game five, or even ten, dollars cheaper. It has to be cheap enough to separate people from their desire to have a physical copy (and let’s face it, there are a lot of collectors in the nerd community) and to compensate for not being able to recoup some money by selling the game (for those who aren’t collectors). I think it needs to be a minimum of $20 cheaper if developers are really serious. I could be wrong, but I don’t think this should be too much of a hardship for developers as it virtually eliminates distribution expenses and much of the overhead costs. At the very least, it should significantly reduce these costs.
Unfortunately, for the time being it is still standard to buy physical copies of games, but there are still some things developers can do to curb used games sales without alienating their fan base. There has been a lot of talk about “incentivising” purchasing games new and I think this holds a lot of promise, but again, it has to be done right. I think it is important that whatever incentives are used, they are a reward for buying new, not a punishment for renting or buying used. Granted, this is a pretty fine line and it could be argued that it is just a matter of perspective, but I think there are a couple ways that it can be done that most people will agree are rewards, not punishment (some people are always going to complain, but you can’t please everyone). Some might ask, “why should the developer care if they are punishing people who buy used?” and this is an understandable question. To me, it all boils down to respect. Developers need gamers to respect their work by making sure they get paid for it and gamers need developers to respect the fact that there is nothing legally wrong with what the gamers are doing. Remember, they are still spending their money on the game. This shouldn’t be punished. However, developers have every right to try to sway the gamers’ choice of where that money goes.
So how can developers sway the choice without punishing people for making the “wrong” one? First of all, no codes to unlock stuff with the initial release (like in Arkham City with the Catwoman content). If it was important enough to the game experience that it was initially just part of the game but then a decision is made to make it DLC, then you are punishing people, not rewarding them. Yes, you can play through the game without the Catwoman missions, but they were clearly intended to be part of the full experience. This is in contrast to most DLC, which you would never really notice the absence of. Second: if it comes on the disc you shouldn’t have to unlock it. I haven’t heard of anybody doing this, but that would just be awful.
Although I may not be a fan of how the Catwoman situation went down, I do think that a free DLC pack has a lot of potential as a reward. A better way to do it, however, would be a code for DLC of your choosing or even for a specific value, like $10. Personally, I think the freedom to choose your DLC reward would make a better incentive than having to go with specific content. The developers could also have an exclusive DLC pack for new buyers, but I don’t think this is as good an idea. While it would feel very rewarding to those who bought the game new it rules out the option of making any money from those who bought used.
Personally, I think the best idea I have come up with is a discount on DLC for people who buy new. The basic idea would be that you would have an account with the distributor (e.g. EA) and when you buy the game you enter a one-time use code that gives you a discount on any DLC for that game. The best part about this is that the reward can even be scaled based on how much you spent on the new game by using the date at which you register the code. Let’s say you bought the game in the first year when it is still $60 (or before whenever the price is dropped), then you get 20% off DLC. If you wait to buy it and register your code after the price drops to $40 you still get a discount but now it is only 10%. If you wait longer still and buy it at $20 you just get $5 worth of DLC. As long as the developer doesn’t just raise the cost of DLC, everybody wins. Everybody gets the proper, full game and has access to all DLC, but the prospect of repeated discounts instead of a single download will be more enticing to buy new even if the actual dollar value ends up being about the same. Not only that, but there are a lot of people who probably don’t take advantage of DLC because they don’t want to pay extra after they’ve already spent a bunch of money, who will be drawn in to spending that extra cash by the discount. As for people who bought used, they still have the option to buy the DLC at full price, because I’m guessing there are also a lot of people who buy the game used so they don’t feel bad about spending extra money on DLC.
Well that’s what I have come up with. What other ideas are out there? Feel free to share your ideas or comment on these ones in the comment section, especially if you work for a game developer.
Cheers,
Matt
