bardicverse said:
Are you even trying to have a discussion here, or just bored? That analogy doesn't even make sense. If a person rents a game, they are obviously somewhat interested in the game. Let's take Halo, just to have a subject. People hear about Halo, are interested in playing it. This is your potential market. They have 3 options: Buy, Rent, Borrow (from friend, etc) If they rent and don't buy afterwards, a portion of that potential market for Halo sales has vanished, resulting in less copies sold. If they buy, that is the active market, resulting in sales and eventually profit. If they borrow but don't eventually buy, it is like renting, but no money is involved at all. So in essence, only 1/3rd of the potential Halo market will be profitable for the developer/publisher. Now, if there was no renting option, then 1/2 of the potential Halo market would be profitable to the developer/publisher. Follow me now?
|
I think they have four options: Buy, Rent, Borrow or Not Get Due to Lack of Access to a Trial Period. I think a significant proportion of potential buyers of e.g. Halo are put off by the $50 entry barrier to see whether they like it and have no access to borrowing a copy. Renting is the best solution, and if they judge the game to have enough value to last more than the rental period, they then buy it. With no renting, they wouldn't have bought it.
This has two implications. One, renting makes some sales happen that otherwise wouldn't have. Two, renting rewards those publishers that make the games have lasting value beyond 5 days. So, it's good for developers and increases game quality.
