by Cameron Walker
Everyone is mad about the rumors that the next gen consoles are going to restrict the use of used games. On the face of things, this seems like a bad direction for the game industry, and people are angry — especially GameStop. I want to consider this widespread frustration and challenge the discussion to go further than hurt feelings.
Two Disclamers:
A) In this article I discuss rumors. The details on all this stuff are still sketchy; however, there are some issues that warrant consideration, should these rumors be true. So, take the discussion for what it is: pondering on the very notion of a used game prohibition.
B) I don’t like corporate greed. It is a driving force in our society that should NOT be idealized. The arguments that I make are grounded in the acknowledgement of the “force” behind capitalism. Whether it is moral or not is irrelevant to this article. This article addresses capitalism as it is and how our marketplace of products, services, and ideas function within that ideology.
These companies are behaving as they are supposed to in a capitalist market.
Don’t consider this a defense of corporations. They do, and have done, many reprehensible things in and to our history. But, acknowledging this, are game developers and hardware manufacturers doing something “wrong” by securing more revenue?
Developers are potentially taking steps that benefit them, their companies, their future, their side of the industry, their corner of the video game world. As a strict business decision, I see no reason why they shouldn’t take efforts to try to reduce the size of the used game market and increase new game sales. If you can technologically shut out or curtail a market that benefits you none, why wouldn’t you take those steps?
And consider the used game companies. They profit off of what developers and manufacturers create and do so without having to contribute or put their profit at stake in the progress of the market. Big Used Game Store (BUGS) resells products that have already been developed. They do not “make” products, they essentially facilitate the exchange of products between two individuals. Much like a very elaborate Kijiji, but one that takes a large cut of each sale. Hell, they can even profit multiple times off a single game. Developers only really profit once.
Now, considering the relationship between developers and consumers, things are a little trickier. I’m less open to the “get whatever you can business model” when it comes to interaction between corporation and consumer. However, developers aren’t taking something away from their customers; rather they are changing the product that they are selling. The games that they will be selling us, in a poorly defined future with used game limitations, are products that lack some features that they previously had. No longer can games be resold, or lent to a friend. Moreover, it might not even be contained in or on a physical media. The rumored future games seem to be more like the digital copies of games that we buy, like indie games, arcade games, or games purchased on Steam.
But wait, these are not unpopular products themselves. When games go on sale on Steam, people lose their shit. They buy games they don’t even play. Consumers are angry because the product they are accustomed to is changing in a way that prevents them from using it in the same way that they have previously. Some gamers are frustrated about this potential change in the game industry, but let’s acknowledge that the product gamers will be potentially buying has not changed drastically, nor has the product become something new and foreign, something that we don’t already accept and even like.
As for BUGS, if I were them I’d be pissed. But again, as a company that competes with other companies, you have to compete. Developers might have been able to render the business model for BUGS obsolete, but that’s BUGS’s problem. When markets change, some industries see their profits shrink. Should we not have developed laser disc technology because it hurts Vinyl manufacturers? I don’t know about you, but I prefer blu-rays to VHS.
Physical Media is becoming obsolete.
Preempting a counterargument grounded in nostalgia: I do not suggest that there is no market for games on physical media. However, we can see in multiple ways already how games are becoming more and more disassociated with physical media. I do not think that this is a wild sentiment. As with many entertainment products, the video game market is moving away from physical media.
There are a few problems with this path of course: some people have restricted bandwidth and there are limits to digital storage. I certainly acknowledge that these are currently significant problems for a media-less game market. Some people just can’t download all their games because their internet isn’t fast, or they have bandwidth limitations, or god forbid, they don’t even have internet at all. Furthermore, digital games require console hard drives. This adds more cost to gaming consumers, but in a way that doesn’t have long term cost savings. Xbox HDDs are not like Hybrid cars.
These problems are solvable, though. Both Netflix/other streaming services and iTunes have dealt with and are still dealing with these problems. While not necessarily solved, progress has been made and I see no reason to assume that these problems for digital game distribution can not likewise be minimized or made less prohibitive. Technology moves forward in both predictable and unpredictable fashions. Just because we have problems now, doesn’t mean they are problems forever.
So again I ask you to consider the game content that we currently purchase digitally. That product is bought and downloaded but cannot be lent to a friend or resold. We can log in to play them on another console, but they are essentially tied to our gamer IDs. The rumors surrounding the changes to the console predict a very similar kind of game licensing. Games that are tied to a gamer ID.
How do no used games affect the market and the gamer community?
There are different kinds of casual gamers. FarmVille fans are not going to be affected by a no used game market. But occasional gamers, people that buy used games (games that are several years old for instance), are going to find the market very different.
For instance, what about the man that buys three-year-old basketball games at the grocery store or the couple that picks up Halo Reach to play together? Do these people stop playing games? What happens when a used game also costs a certain amount to activate, and there are issues with ID linking? Do they walk away because video games are more expensive or more complicated? Does this change alienate potential gamers?
From a business perspective, this market seems negligible. After all they are buying used games anyways. What concerns me, however, is how it changes the makeup of the gamer community.
I believe that greater diversity in a community makes it stronger, more richer, and more capable of enacting change and dealing with the complexities of community issues. Losing part of the gaming community diminishes the community as a whole. Do not discount the multiplicity of voices in your community. Homogony stagnates.
Conclusion
For developers to eliminate the used game market is rude as shit. It changes the product that people are used to purchasing in a way that they dislike. It essentially cripples an entire industry. It will shut businesses down and eliminate jobs. While the increase in profit for developers might lead to more employment opportunities with them, these are not the same kind of jobs. A used game store owner doesn’t necessarily get a job in game development after his or her store goes out of business.
That said, developers are producing the products sold. They have the power to change the product they sell to their customers; they are allowed to make these kinds of decisions. The market will react and either reward or punish their decisions. If enough gamers refuse to accept this new model, the new systems will underperform. If gamers begrudgingly accept the new kind of market, developers will simply make more money. And developers making more money doesn’t even seem like a bad thing.
Gamers might be angry that the product they have become accustomed to will have more restricted use. What I don’t like reading is the discussion of “rights.” Consumers don’t have the “right” to own the product they want; consumers have the freedom to choose to buy the products that are available or to not buy them. This isn’t about the constitution.
Developers aren’t hurting people more than companies hurt people every day. They are changing their products to be more restrictive for consumers, but far more financially beneficial to themselves.
When we consider the motivations of developers, the direction of video game technology, and the effects on the gamer community, the topic of a market without used games warrants a conversation that recognizes the complexity of the implications, a conversation without binaries or knee jerk name calling; essentially, it requires us to exemplify the community that we want to be.
