All of these points support my arguments! Publishers have not been losing money due to the used games market. If any, sales go up each time. They lose the opportunity to make more money, but that's obviously not the same as losing money. That's why there's no "opportunity cost" line in income statements.GonzoGamer said:
The problem is that publishers' costs have been going up, especially as games become more complex, and the cost curve reveals that at some point even the removal of a used games market will not be enough to cover those costs.
To make matters worse, part of increased sales includes more gamers buying more games each year, something that will difficult if older games remain "useful." I raised this point several times: Browne argues that games are not supposed to be "disposable entertainment." But for game sales to keep going up, they HAVE to be "disposable entertainment." The general idea to see in light of that is "planned obsolescence," where the business cycle can only go on as long as consumers keep buying newly developed products each tine and not enjoying older ones.
It also doesn't help if it turns out that gamers are affected by prices. Say, at $50 a title, then it won't be surprising if more buy fewer games each year (something that publishers don't want to see), wait for prices to drop (as seen in annual and other sales), will trade-in their old games to be able to afford to buy new ones, etc.
That's where your argument of games as a service comes in. With that, publishers will now have more control over the amount of time gamers can appreciate the services that they paid for. Or publishers can continue milking gamers for more money from the same game, e.g., requiring a particular fee to play a game for a certain period, then requiring an additional fee to continue playing the game. One consequence of this scheme, is that one will no longer own any games. Instead, he will go online and choose to play a game on demand, like watching movies on demand. If, of course, the service is not available or the company closes....
Very likely, those who like to keep games and play them without such restrictions in the way that one can read books and listen to music on CDs will not be very happy.
The problem is that the same issue concerning prices may also apply. For example, one article states that we may be seeing more moves to F2P multiplayer as more gamers find it more difficult to shell out around $15 a month to play them. Likely, as the current economic crisis persists, they will look for cheaper options (like a few dollars to be able to go up certain levels, or just pay full amount to buy the multiplayer client but play the game subscription-free), etc.
With that, the claim that those who complain can just go away is something that publishers won't accept easily because they need more paying gamers to cover their increasing costs.
Still, I think that there will still be several indies who will still make games that aren't as complex as the ones referred to in your post, and without restrictions like those given above, and those products are the ones that gamers will buy for fewer bucks and play for some time. Perhaps the game industry will eventually move to that phenomenon as the large companies are crushed by their own weight.
Meanwhile, as L1 puts it in his video, he'll still play his older games, and borrow and trade them.
