I don't know if we'll get to this on the podcast or not, but the discussion on Project Ten Dollar has me thinking.
On the surface, I'm all for it. By all means, punish people for being cheap and buying used games. Particularly when that used game system never gives money back to the people and companies who created the games in the first place. But, as has been pointed out to me, it doesn't make logical sense. Person A buys a game, then eventually flips it to GameStop so Person B can buy it two months later at a 30% discount. Person A no longer owns the game, so it's not like the game company has to extend service to two people. It's still one player, just spread across two purchases.
I'm sure the gameco thought process is that, in a world without GameStop, both Person A AND B would have bought that game at full price. So GameStop is cheating them of potential business. Now, sure, B may have waited two months anyway and bought it "new" once it hit a Target endcap sale. Or A may only buy games because he knows he can flip them for credit shortly thereafter. But I think, overall, more people do exactly what the publishers fear, and purposefully buy used games to save money. Duh.
So charging $10 for a enabler code is way to get at that used game market and extract some kind of revenue stream from it. I mean, can you blame them? Our hobby has almost become defined by the process of buy it/trade it/buy it again... and the publishers only make money once on the deal. There's a lot of gamers who have stopped paying developers for games and started paying GameStop. What other hobbies do this?
Of course, the way around it is to buy new. Then you don't need to worry about a game not working as advertised, because that enabler code is provided gratis to the original purchaser. I'm not saying this whole idea isn't dickish. It's certainly friendlier to tie the O.P. into exclusive content or bonus DLC rather than withhold core features, but desperate publishers will take desperate measures.
But what really gets me is the idea that our hobby is disposable. That's why I enjoy any technique that stings the secondary market. It's a shame that so many people who self-identify as gamers are really only in it for the short-term hype. Buy the latest game, trade the latest game, buy the new latest game. How can we expect the mainstream to accept gaming as a legitimate interest, as a viable slice of world culture, when our main instinct is to be cheap and sell off every part of it that we own? What kind of message does that send to the Roger Eberts of the world? "Yeah, it's definitely art. But not art worth keeping."
I have Odyssey 2 cartridges still ticketed at $30-40, and that's in 1983 dollars. So I get that gaming has always been expensive and that buying used is a natural response for people who quail at modern price tags. And I'm sure that having that cheaper option gets people into the hobby who maybe couldn't afford it otherwise. And I know that GameStop does act as a cheerleader for gaming, as its fate is directly connected to the health of the industry.
But I can't shake the feeling that we've got a problem at the core, that we ourselves feel our hobby is not the kind of interest to take seriously. Because we have somehow taken on the role of victim in the game maker / game player relationship. Even though we expect AAA production values, flawless animation and voice work, hours and hours of gameplay, multiple modes and bonuses, and bulletproof rendering skills, we don't feel that's worth sixty dollars American. Oh, and we expect the game creators to listen to our every online complaint and address it immediately via patch or sequel.
We've officially reached chicken-and-egg status on this. People buy used games because games are expensive. Games are expensive because too many people are buying used games. It's not like I personally enjoy paying $50-60 for brand new games, and it's not like I don't know that the publishers are already strip-mining me for cash... but if somebody is already getting a discount by buying used, I don't feel they have much to bitch about with an additional charge to activate online play or whatever. Jesus, I guess you could just not play online then. Next time, pay full price. Or wait until the game goes on sale, because that does happen, you know.
I've always believed that if something is worth it to you, then it's worth it to you. And everybody has a different threshold. ModNation Racers, to me, is a sure buy at $60. Super Mario Galaxy 2, to me, is not a sure buy at $50. I make decisions like that all the time. I look at retail discounts and giveaways. I look at preorder bonuses. I gauge the likelihood that the game will get marked down in three months. I figure how long I can wait, alongside how much time I legitimately have to devote to it. That's how I decide what's worth it to me. But I don't include the used rack in these calculations, and I don't consider a rental service like Gamefly.
So I'm not likely to get hit by Project Ten Dollar. I wish that this move wasn't necessary, but I have a real tough time coming to the defense of the gamer who subsists on a system that never seems to get around to rewarding the people who made the games in the first place.
I'm 100% with you on this. No point of contention, other than my hypothetical willingness to have paid $70 for Galaxy 2 at launch, just because I liked the first so much and was so excited for it.
But you knew that.
I don't buy often, but I buy new. Chances are, if it's at the point where the game is already at deep-discount for some reason...I never really wanted or needed it.
If I wait, it's because people gift games for me in December during the big birthday/Xmas metroplex. Which you don't do either, but...that's another show.
I agree that rewarding the developer by buying it new is a good thing. I also agree that buying it new on sale is icing on the cake. When I got an offer to preorder God of War 3 from a Blockbuster clerk for a $5 gift card I scoffed. It would definitely be discounted by someone $10 within the first couple weeks. Turns out Toys R Us did their 10a-2p $20 gift card deal on it so I was thrilled. The (steadily slimming) retail competition is our friend.
I'd wager that "Games are expensive because too many people are buying used games." is an unproven assumption. The publishers aren't saying this directly -- those prices existed when the current generation of systems showed up, and I think all they've ever said is that it's to recoup development costs.
(Which one can assume is going up over time as gamer expectations rise for feature sets, graphical, and audio fidelity of the titles.)
I am baffled by the idea that trading in/selling games for store credit is a sign that we don't value our hobby and the public shouldn't either. People as a rule don't trade them in out of some secret shame about the hobby. They trade them in because they're done with them and can get money for them. Otherwise they stack up, gathering dust, when they could turn into a fraction of a new game they want. It's craven materialism that crosses all cultural boundaries, not some hidden hobby inferiority complex.
Sure, those of us with families might get flak for a stack of games in storage, but that's a personal problem.
I've sold games I no longer want to play, often quickly if I find I made a mistake buying something I foolishly felt I would like but ended up hating, so I'm not innocent in this scenario, but I'm just glad I could do that instead of the ultimate future the publishers want: you buy it digitally, can never ever transfer it to anyone else and never get a penny back. All these little unlock codes are going there.
Resale of discs is an important part of the video gaming economy. It makes it affordable to a much wider audience, driving hardware sales and future software sales. If someone finds something they love that they get used, they may nab the sequel new at a higher price. (Thanks Tony for pointing out the excitement factor affecting sales for you with Super Mario Galaxy 2.)
1. the unlock for DLC already on the disc has grown to:
2. the unlock code for the multiplayer on the disc which will become:
3. the unlock code for the entire game on the disc.
Which puts us in the same camp as PC gaming retail-wise. You've got a disc, but without a code it's a coaster, so no resale, period. Ask your local Gamestop how that market's doing.
Oh and this just in! The ModNation Racers PSP online unlock code is $15, not $10. That didn't take long!
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114078
What makes video games different than movies, music, and books - which have the same used markets?
They are all forms of entertainment (video games are not a hobby for everyone who plays them) that some people keep and others dispose of when finished with them.
Should people who buy from used book stores instead of Barnes and Nobel or get movies from half.com instead of amazon be punished for doing so? And what terrible punishment shall we drop on those who use a library? (One area video game publishers don't have to worry about competing with)
I like discussion! Follow-up entry coming shortly.
Joe's a buyer/collector, not a renter/reseller.
And there's definitely a healthy amount of truth behind his point about the hobby being somehow disposable if the games we're so quick to defend as part of a rising and brilliant medium aren't worth holding on to for any length of time.
Some games are crap, sure. But...you're less likely to come across those games if you're picking and choosing wisely and spending only on necessities/the occasional curiosity. Informed and selective buying trumps filling up your collection with cheap crap any day.
Haygood likely wouldn't be playing the Hannah Montana game without Gamefly/a cheap method of doing so without making a more significant financial and emotional investment in his hobby.
I used to be there, at Game Stop. I was once like you! But all those cheapo games didn't make me happy...and I have a REAL issue with supporting a middleman like that.