Seeing as the next generation of gaming is being overshadowed by the consumer rights Vs. developer rights debate I have decided to add my two cents.
First of all I believe that both sides end up using flawed arguments. Developers seem to believe that used game sales take money away from them while consumers believe that if DVDs and Blu-Rays can be resold then so can game discs. Both opinions are valid but there is more to it than that.
The problem that exists when consumers make the comparison between film sales and video game sales is that the two examples are completely different. A video game only has two sources of income: 1) The sale of said video game and 2) extra content in the form of dlc. Whereas in the film industry you have multiple income streams: 1) Ticket sales, 2) dvd/blu-ray sales as well as 3) licensing fees from online, satellite, cable and television networks. So it is unfair for us, as consumers, to judge video game developers in the same light as movie studios.
But, on the other hand I believe that the video game industry shares some of the blame. If the gaming industry doesn't want to be treated like Hollywood then they need to stop acting like Hollywood. If a AAA game like Tomb Raider (2013) can be deemed as a comercial failure while also being one of the highest selling game in the franchise then there is clearly something wrong with how games are being produced at this time. Too much time and budget is spent trying to make the next big blockbuster game. Developers need to realize that consumers buy GAMES for GAMEPLAY. If I want an epic CINEMATIC experience I go to the CINEMA. To carry the Tomb Raider example, while I really enjoyed the game I found it a bit odd that there was so much emphasis on dramatic set epics and combat that couldn't be skipped while the actual tomb raiding was optional and underdeveloped. I didn't buy Tomb Raider to play a cover based shooter I bought Tomb Raider so I could raid tombs.
Now while used game sales might cripple a games profit I still believe that it is something that the industry needs to survive.
Firstly if developers continue to keep on releasing the same cookie-cutter games each year we, as consumers, need a cheaper market to keep up with each release. Take the Call of Duty franchise: Since the start of this generation we have seen Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2, World at War, BlackOps and BlackOps 2 with Ghost being released in November. Thats 6 games in only 6 years. Now if I was a Call of Duty fan and wanted to play each installment while showing my support to the developers by buying each game at launch day for the full retail price of lets say $60 that would mean that I would have to spend $360 on one franchise. With used game sales I would be able to sell some of the earlier CoD games to buy Ghost, therefore allowing me to purchase each game in the series at a reduced cost.
If we can't sell our games then developers need to adopt to a system of quality over quantity. In the same time frame as Call of Duty, GTA franchise has released GTA IV and its DLC episodes with GTA V being released in September. Even if we assume that the DLC episodes where sold at full retail price its still only half the total price of the CoD franchise and it could be argued that three GTA games will still give the same amount of gameplay as 6 CoD games. (this is not a dig at CoD, I just wanted to show the benefits to having a longer gap in between game releases.) If developers want to have short release windows then they have to realise that it is unfair to charge consumers full price for a game that be completed in 6-10 hours and will be made redundant in a years time while for the same price you can buy something like Skyrim that has more value in terms of gameplay hours per $.
My final point in defense of used games is that cheaper prices allow consumers to experience a wider variety of games. For example, if you could only afford to buy 4 games at full price per year you can only show support to a maximum of 4 developers. Now if you are given the right to sell some of those four games after you've completed them, you will have extra cash to spend on some second hand games that you would have overlooked when they were at full price. More games means more support for different developers. Granted it is true that the sales from the second hand games go straight to the game store and not the developer, but there is a chance that you may discover a franchise or developer that you enjoy and will continue your support in the future. Also although all profits from used games go to the store we have to remember that it is the store's income that allows them to stock games. More income means more games on shelves. As a personal example, when Arkham Asylum was first released I payed absolutely no attention to it as I had the preconceived idea that games based on films and comics are generally awful. But my local game store had a second hand copy selling for a 1/3 of the current retail price so I gave it a bash. Turns out it was one of the best games I have played this generation and I ended up paying full price on launch day for Arkham City and I am probably going to do the same when Arkham Origins is out. So for the loss of one used game sale Arkham's developers have gained a customer that is willing to purchase two more games at full retail price.
Looking back I realise that my little post ended up turning into a mini-essay, but hopefully some people will take the time to sit though it and comment on any agreements or criticisms. If its TL;DR then too bad, I refuse to reduce my opinions to a one sentence sound byte.
First of all I believe that both sides end up using flawed arguments. Developers seem to believe that used game sales take money away from them while consumers believe that if DVDs and Blu-Rays can be resold then so can game discs. Both opinions are valid but there is more to it than that.
The problem that exists when consumers make the comparison between film sales and video game sales is that the two examples are completely different. A video game only has two sources of income: 1) The sale of said video game and 2) extra content in the form of dlc. Whereas in the film industry you have multiple income streams: 1) Ticket sales, 2) dvd/blu-ray sales as well as 3) licensing fees from online, satellite, cable and television networks. So it is unfair for us, as consumers, to judge video game developers in the same light as movie studios.
But, on the other hand I believe that the video game industry shares some of the blame. If the gaming industry doesn't want to be treated like Hollywood then they need to stop acting like Hollywood. If a AAA game like Tomb Raider (2013) can be deemed as a comercial failure while also being one of the highest selling game in the franchise then there is clearly something wrong with how games are being produced at this time. Too much time and budget is spent trying to make the next big blockbuster game. Developers need to realize that consumers buy GAMES for GAMEPLAY. If I want an epic CINEMATIC experience I go to the CINEMA. To carry the Tomb Raider example, while I really enjoyed the game I found it a bit odd that there was so much emphasis on dramatic set epics and combat that couldn't be skipped while the actual tomb raiding was optional and underdeveloped. I didn't buy Tomb Raider to play a cover based shooter I bought Tomb Raider so I could raid tombs.
Now while used game sales might cripple a games profit I still believe that it is something that the industry needs to survive.
Firstly if developers continue to keep on releasing the same cookie-cutter games each year we, as consumers, need a cheaper market to keep up with each release. Take the Call of Duty franchise: Since the start of this generation we have seen Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2, World at War, BlackOps and BlackOps 2 with Ghost being released in November. Thats 6 games in only 6 years. Now if I was a Call of Duty fan and wanted to play each installment while showing my support to the developers by buying each game at launch day for the full retail price of lets say $60 that would mean that I would have to spend $360 on one franchise. With used game sales I would be able to sell some of the earlier CoD games to buy Ghost, therefore allowing me to purchase each game in the series at a reduced cost.
If we can't sell our games then developers need to adopt to a system of quality over quantity. In the same time frame as Call of Duty, GTA franchise has released GTA IV and its DLC episodes with GTA V being released in September. Even if we assume that the DLC episodes where sold at full retail price its still only half the total price of the CoD franchise and it could be argued that three GTA games will still give the same amount of gameplay as 6 CoD games. (this is not a dig at CoD, I just wanted to show the benefits to having a longer gap in between game releases.) If developers want to have short release windows then they have to realise that it is unfair to charge consumers full price for a game that be completed in 6-10 hours and will be made redundant in a years time while for the same price you can buy something like Skyrim that has more value in terms of gameplay hours per $.
My final point in defense of used games is that cheaper prices allow consumers to experience a wider variety of games. For example, if you could only afford to buy 4 games at full price per year you can only show support to a maximum of 4 developers. Now if you are given the right to sell some of those four games after you've completed them, you will have extra cash to spend on some second hand games that you would have overlooked when they were at full price. More games means more support for different developers. Granted it is true that the sales from the second hand games go straight to the game store and not the developer, but there is a chance that you may discover a franchise or developer that you enjoy and will continue your support in the future. Also although all profits from used games go to the store we have to remember that it is the store's income that allows them to stock games. More income means more games on shelves. As a personal example, when Arkham Asylum was first released I payed absolutely no attention to it as I had the preconceived idea that games based on films and comics are generally awful. But my local game store had a second hand copy selling for a 1/3 of the current retail price so I gave it a bash. Turns out it was one of the best games I have played this generation and I ended up paying full price on launch day for Arkham City and I am probably going to do the same when Arkham Origins is out. So for the loss of one used game sale Arkham's developers have gained a customer that is willing to purchase two more games at full retail price.
Looking back I realise that my little post ended up turning into a mini-essay, but hopefully some people will take the time to sit though it and comment on any agreements or criticisms. If its TL;DR then too bad, I refuse to reduce my opinions to a one sentence sound byte.
