Strauss writes:
“Those persons buying used copies of titles utilizing the Uplay Passport will have to pay $10 to unlock said features. The first game to saddle up with the program will be the long-anticipated Driver: San Francisco title, due out August 30."
"Ubisoft said that the Passport will become standard for many of the company's core games going forward. The games using the Passport will feature a logo stamp on the back of the box.”
Before I continue to elaborate on why consumers should be disheartened by this and other announcements to the same effect, I’ll take a moment to summarize the main arguments being made on the behalf of publishers.
First, there’s the desire to get more money into the hands of those people who make and distribute the games. I call this the “support the industry” argument. Developers made the games, publishers distributed them, and thus to buy used is to deprive them of some hard earned profit.
Then there are the folks who aren’t affected because they already buy new. A larger and somewhat more indifferent group usually makes this point. They never really buy used games or rent very often, so moves by publishers like the PSN Pass or Uplay Passport don’t bother them. They’ve already been “supporting the industry,” so this won’t lead to anything new in their eyes.
Finally, there’s the “I don’t play online multiplayer” folks who note that since the main gameplay will be left intact, they could care less about any online features that don’t carry over with a used purchase.
In the first instance we have a noble sentiment but a nonsensical position.
In what other mediums or markets do you hear calls to “support the industry?” Do consumers urge one another to support Ford or GM by “buying new”? Do local readers decry one another for frequenting the community library?
About the only time you hear the call to pay more to support a business these days is with Mom’n Pop stores, the theater, and newspapers. None of which, last time I checked, seemed to have much in common with the business models or bottom lines of the overall video game industry.
But lets say we should “support the industry.” Why is shelling out $60 for a new game the right level of “support?” If we should all be actively supporting the “industry,” why not shell out $70 or $80? In fact, why not go out and start fundraising for your favorite developer or publisher? Why not go door to door collecting donations? How about a bake sale for BioWare? Or a raffle for Ubisoft? The way some gamers talk about “supporting the industry” you’d think companies like THQ and EA were non-profit charities providing public goods rather than private businesses selling products to consumers.
And then there’s the fact that, technically, the industry was already supported when consumer #1 first bought the game in question. Every used game was new at some point, and each had to be purchased at full price.
As for the “I only buy new already” crowd. Fantastic. I assume you also never trade in any of those games either right? Because this isn’t just a matter of buying new, but of a product maintaining its worth. So for those loyal customers who do buy new, you can thank the industry for devaluing your purchase
Then there’s the problem of what I’ll call, for lack of a better phrase, one-way fracturing. Unlike free to play models, which basically monetize as many of a game’s discrete elements as possible, online pass codes force players to pay more for bonus content while not giving them a discount if they decide they don’t need it. This goes to the “I don’t play online multiplayer” crowd’s point.
True, a lot of players of Resistance 3 won’t care about playing online. But for that very reason it would make more sense to simply make the online component of a game separate from the rest. MakeResistance 3 $50 and charge everyone the extra $10 for online pass codes who wants them. If the industry wanted to support gamers the same way gamers support the industry, they might do something like this, but clearly, that’s not their intent.
Their intent is simply to make more money. And for anyone to wants to actively support the industry by throwing more and more money at it, go ahead, they’ll be glad to take it.
But in doing so you’ll be distorting the marketplace.
Part of the reason the used game market is causing publishers and developers grief is because many consumers have decided that some games just aren’t worth what companies want to charge. I don’t care how much money you invested in development; bad games is bad games.
What’s that? Video games use to cost even more back in the day? They’re actually cheaper now?
Yea, apples and oranges people. The media market is entirely different today. There’s iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and any number of tablets, portable gaming devices, and high quality e-readers. We have endless hours of media to consume, entertainment to enjoy, and people to communicate with. So forgive me if the $60 standard for console titles doesn’t impress. Video games aren’t just competing with Monopoly, D&D, and after-school sports anymore.
So if consumers are flocking to second-hand merchandise, that’s a sign that prices need to come down, quality needs to go up, or supply needs to fall closer toward demand. Of course, instead of attempting any of these things, publishers are trying to squeeze out a little bit more from gamers’ wallets without giving anything in return.
Gamers may understand this move, some may sympathize with it, but none should support it. To acquiesce is to give into the industry. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. If you really think Ubisoft has no feasible alternative, or that EA and others won't follow in their footsteps if they succeed, then by all means give them as much of your money as you can.
But if you think there is another way, and that a functioning market requires vigilant consumers, then don’t let the “industry” push you around.