With the recent rumors of PS4s and Xbox720s, the rumors of console locked games is rearing it's ugly head again. I wrote a blog not too long ago about this topic, and my belief that GameStop is the main culprit in the used game sales discussion. I personally think that if GameStop had more competition - specifically huge chains that tailor to gamers - we'd be in better shape. But that theory was based on my area, which sees GameStops on every corner and very few other gaming stores. But several people pointed out to me in the comments that their cities/towns have very successful alternatives to GameStop. That still doesn't address the "large chain" part of my theory, but we'll go with it.
So the question boils down to this: is it GameStop's greed that is the problem? Or is it publisher/developer greed that is the problem?
Honestly, I think it's both.
Everytime one of these stories goes up there's a firestorm in the comments over used games. You have the folks defending GameStop's right to sell used games, and you have the folks defending the position that used games are no different than piracy. This almost always leads to comparisons between games and other industries: cars, books, movies, etc. Most of these are usually disregarded because many people do not think it makes sense to compare cars and games, and to an extent, this is true. There are pieces of the comparison that don't hold water, but the basis of the comparison still stands.
In my opinion, a much better comparison are movies. Movies have multi-million dollar budgets - like games - and are protected under intellectual property laws - also like games. The difference? Games tend to cost twice as much as movies. Now, one might argue that movies have the box office to recoup the money spent on making the movie, thus allowing them sell the DVDs and Blu-rays at a lower cost. But there are two problems with this argument: 1) this doesn't explain straight-to-DVD movies, and 2) games used to have the arcades, but that didn't really help the prices of games.
I've made the argument multiple times over the years that games cost too much. Many have argued that I'm wrong and that games don't cost enough. But I think the real problem is that 99% of all games cost the same amount. Why does Madden 'XX cost the same as Skyrim? Shouldn't games that release annually cost less than games that take 5 years to develop? At this point I've been paying $60 per game since 2005, so I'm not about to try and convince publishers to make games cheaper (even though I still think they should be), but I will make the argument that low budget games and annual release games should cost less than high budget games or games with longer development cycles.
On the other side of the equation is GameStop. I already pointed out in my last blog my love/hate relationship with GameStop. So here is my version of the anti-GameStop argument. GameStop doesn't make shit. They don't pay their people shit. They make quite literally billions by cramming used games down the throats of their customers, and making their employees constantly bug customers about pre-orders and trades by dangling pink slips over their heads.
Like I said in my last blog, we wouldn't even be having this conversation were it not for GameStop. GameStop is the sole reason publishers are taking steps to stop their customers from selling their games. What if publishers are telling the truth and money lost by every mom that goes into GameStop willing to buy a new game, but instead is fed a "used" copy for $5 less, is hurting them to the point that game companies are going out of business? If that's the case, then GameStop is creating it's own destruction. How does a game store sell games when there aren't any games to sell? If GameStop were only selling used games in the same way that the mom & pop shops do, or even the way Best Buy does, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now. It's the fact that GameStop pushes their customers to buy "used" copies of games that just came out for $5 less that is the problem.
This new discussion that's being brought about by rumors of console locked games is the exact point I was making when I wrote down the title of this blog. If the rumors are true, and MicroSoft and Sony are planning to console lock games in the next generation of game systems, then GameStop will have ruined used games for all of us. Let's not kid ourselves either, even if they do lock games to specific consoles, they're still gonna sell. None of the things that gamers have made big stinks about have worked. DLC locked on the disc is still making money, nobody really cares about backward compatibility, day 1 DLC still exists.
Publishers and developers could persuade many gamers that tend to wait on certain game's prices to drop by selling certain new games at cheaper prices. As I pointed out, annually released games and low budget games could - and should - sell for less than full retail price. I also think that developers and publishers should sell used copies of their own games, therefore taking on GameStop head on. But in the end, if console makers can make consoles that lock games to it then none of this compromise even matters. My only hope is that maybe we see some cheaper games as a result, though I doubt it.
I'm not siding with either one. I think that game publishers charge too much for their games and I've seen too many instances of them screwing over the developers that actually make the games to have any sympathy for them. As I've said before I will defend anyone's, including GameStop's, right to sell used products. But the fact of the matter is that if MS and Sony go through with it and release machines that lock games to consoles, then GameStop will have ruined used games for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment