| ratchet426 said: First, I'd just like to say kudos on a very well thought-out post. I personally happen to disagree with about 99% of it, but you do seem to be passionate about the subject and took the time to lay out your argument quite succinctly, without any fanboy craziness or name-calling. About my disagreement, it boils down to this. There is nothing, and I mean nothing that could ever convince me that a game publishers NEEDS to double, triple, and quadruple dip into a consumer's pocket to ensure that they remain in business. If they truly need to eliminate used games to survive, then their business model is fatally flawed anyway. This argument seems to hinge on some unique, intangible aspect of the video game media that somehow makes it different than any other producer/consumer model of commerce. I just don't see any truth to that argument. In every other industry - even other entertainment media industries - that fact that a consumer who purchased a product can then turn around and sell it or trade it does not spell certain doom for said industry. Why are video game publishers special? The motion picture industry has not been killed by used Betamax, VHS, DVD, or Bluray movies. The publishing industry has not been killed by used bookstores or libraries. The music industry has not been killed by used CD sales or (rampant) mpg3 file sharing. The automobile industry has not been killed by used car dealerships. In every one of the above industries a consumer is able to purchase a new product (and actually OWN it) and can then trade it in, lend it to friends, or sell it used. The only reason game publisher are crying poverty and blaming used game sales is that they are trying to grab as much UN-EARNED money as they possibly can from consumers while hoping they are too dumb to notice. Sorry, they earned their money when their product was sold the first time. They aren't entitled to ongoing profits after that initial sale. I've no doubt they really really WANT that profit (any business would) but it doesn't make their rationale for eliminating used games any more valid. |
I really appreciate posts like this. I like being challenged with well thought out arguments and clear and concise reasoning.
The thing is, I completely understand and pretty much agree with you. Gaming publishers do not deserve special treatment at all. They collected their game asking price when the initial sale occured and this is when the transfer of ownership happened. Games are still clasiffied as goods and there is no reason why their economy should function any differently from any other goods.
My post was mostly inspired by the fact that I am seeing significant stagnation and repetition in gaming and the number of AAA titles I have desire to play is becoming smaller every year. With the way next gen is starting, I am not seeing any signs things will change. Looks like next gen is going to be about massive day 1 sellers that ride the hype train, and indie titles that do great things but don't have the budgets.
Another issue with the current business model is that console gaming is slowly becoming service based rather than being the goods you buy. Everything is presented on a string, with more better things to come later at a price...For example I really enjoyed Gears of War when it came out, but now I feel that in order for me to enjoy it I have to buy the game, seasons pass, DLC and god knows what else. I have no time, money or patience for this...
All I am saying is that I would be willing to give up used game sales, even though it isn't the correct thing to do, if that will make publishers take more risks, deliver more quality new IPs, more single player experiences like the Last of Us... I'd be willing to throw publishers a bone even if they don't desreve it.
