Even before talk of the Xbox One and its now-nullified policies on used games came to light, I read plenty of articles and watched vlogs debating the state of used games on the gaming market. I am in no way an expert on the dealings of markets or the intricacies of supply and demand or anything of the sort, but I do find it interesting that there is such a split opinion about what will happen if companies do eventually do away with the ability to buy used games for their consoles.
There is something that hasn't sat quite right when I read the argument for the abolishing of used games, especially when this is coupled with the digital-only distribution of games, and that's the idea that games will suddenly become cheaper. The way it usually goes is that because publishers won't have to deal with packaging a physical product and sending it to stores to be sold, they will save more money and send those savings down to the customers, in either quicker drops in prices from the initial release or in cheaper prices up front. What doesn't make sense is the idea that this will result in cheaper prices for everyone buying the game. Why would a AAA industry that is, in this day and age, consistently in the red over the cost of big budget games create a way in which to assure more profit for themselves only to turn around and give back the money they stated they desperately need in the first place? This seems pretty impractical if they are trying to find ways to stop hemorrhaging money.
The thing that confuses me the most is how the people who advocate for the good of the end of used games even come to some of the conclusions that they do. Almost every opinion I've seen is theoretical, or based on sales of other forms of media. I've seen streaming services such as Netflix or HBO Go, iTunes, and Steam all used as examples of other products and services switching to digital forms and being successful. However, the thing that all of these arguments fail to mention is that 1, there is still currently a way to get physical copies of these mediums (well, maybe not Steam so much, but it's part of the video game conundrum), and 2, all of these other mediums have other competitors which drives down the price of its services.
Movies: Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, Crackle, iTunes, Redbox Instant, Amazon, Blockbuster
Music: iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, Pandora, Spotify, Grooveshark, Last.fm, HDtracks, Bandcamp
Video Games: Steam, Amazon, Origin, Gamers Gate, Green Man Gaming, GOG, GameStop, Desura, Beamdog, Get Games... to name a few examples...
If Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo held the monopoly on what could be bought to be played on their consoles, there would be no competition and thus no reason to provide better services or competitive prices. The only assurance that anyone has that this type of thing won't happen is the word of the company, which, in some cases, has clearly shown the exact opposite to be true. Microsoft has already had the opportunity to prove to customers that its policies on digital distribution will be positive and consumer-friendly by way of the Xbox Marketplace, but it has consistently sold games out of the Marketplace at full or close to full price way after the release date compared to other mediums such as Steam or used games.
What it all boils down to for me, and probably for most people on the side of skepticism, is that console companies have given absolutely no reason to trust them with this sort of power, and in some cases have given reason to do just the opposite. The used game market is arguably the only thing that does create competition with console producers. To give that up is to give away the only thing keeping these companies from charging literally as much as they possibly can.
No comments:
Post a Comment