It just hasn't been a good two weeks to be a gamer. Last week, if we wanted to buy used games, we were told we were no better than common thieves. This week, we find out that if we want to continue to play games on Xbox Live, we're going to have to fork over an extra $10 a year. Gaming as a subculture is in trouble. Gamers for years have been pleading with society to take them seriously, but that serious nature comes at a steep cost - the cost of doing business.
Obviously, developers make games because they have a passion for their medium and need to make a living. Publishers on the other hand are in the business to make money. Gamers constantly demand innovation and new IPs, but we see year after year that the titles that continue to sell the best are those that are sequels based on franchises that have existed for what seems like an eternity. Why would the Activisions and Electronic Arts of the world crank out new games that may or may not catch on when they have franchises to fall back on like Call of Duty and Madden? Games that are critical successes aren't always big money makers - Psychonauts, Beyond Good & Evil, Condemned and even Alan Wake most recently, were all well received but didn't sell like the hotcakes that other established franchises did. Without new IPs, we're going to be stuck playing Gears of War and Halo forever.
The problem is that some gamers without the disposable income may have to wait to purchase a used copy of one of these new offerings. They may only have the money to rent a title for a few days to try it out. The ability to share games with friends has been a fantastic concept over the years. You buy a new game; your friend buys a different game. After a few weeks, you swap titles and a few weeks after that, you swap back. Seems fair, you each bought your own played them for a little and got to try a game you may not have otherwise. You'd be able to experience everything that game had to offer - rental, borrow or used purchase. Sadly, these days are going to be coming to a close.
With the advent of the EA Online pass for their multiplayer sports titles, if you don't buy a game new, you'll have to put out an extra $10 to take the game online. THQ is raising the price of their online pass from $5 to $10. Assuming you have an Xbox 360, you're already paying $50 a year (soon to be $60) to play games online. Why should you be subjected to an additional fee to play games online? EA's online pass for Madden this year specifically said that the code included in the game would get you a year, ONE YEAR of online play. A new copy of Madden comes out every year, but is it fair to those who've already paid full price for the game to stop them from playing online whenever they'd like? Isn't that what the XBL servers are for - so we don't need to worry about the headache of publishers creating their own server structure? At least with a game like Call of Duty you'll be able to play as long as there are people playing it. With Madden and other sports titles, it's get on the bus or get left for dead.
Used Value Killer
Think of what else the online passes do to games; it completely kills their used value. All games are volatile respective to their trade in value, but sports games even more so. As the season wears on, interests in the games fade. As such, price you'll get for a trade diminishes quicker than a normal title. Subtract an extra $10 because you don't have an online pass from the value you'd get and you could be looking at receiving as little as $15-$25 weeks after a game is released. Sure, a reseller is going to have to sell the game $10 less now because they can't provide a full featured game out of the box, but the used games market is a delicate symbiotic relationship between seller and buyer. If people are going to get less for their trade-ins, fewer people will trade in games, thus decreasing the ability for those with less income to purchase games they wouldn't otherwise get to experience.
The publishers will tell you it's used game sales are the thorn in their side that kill them, in addition to piracy of course. They don't see a dime from used game sales, but they'd never created a structure to handle the trade in and sale of those games in the first place. This is why the Game Stops of the world exist and make a killing of used game sales. It's why Amazon and Walmart wanted to get in on the action; there's a lot of money to be had in the used games market. Publishers don't want to dedicate the time or the resources to the collection and sale of used games, but at the same time, they don't want others to profit from their sale. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Consider this - it's the retailer who has the most to lose in purchasing NEW copies of games from publishers. If Game Stop buys 1,000 copies of XYZ Game at $52 wholesale from a publisher, they're on the hook for $52,000 worth of merchandise. If that game sells poorly and eventually drops below the $60 price point that new games are offered, Game Stop still paid $52,000 for that merchandise as the publisher got all their money up front. The publisher isn't going to lose in this case, Game Stop will because they're going to take a hit on the unsold merchandise.
Licensing
Another big problem lies within what is happening when you purchase a game. When you buy a hard copy of the game, you expect to own it. The EULA tells you that your simply licensing a copy of that game from the publisher even though it purchased outright; they still hold ownership of the game and you're not completely free to do what you wish with it. When you sell that game to somebody else, you should be transferring that license, but it doesn't work like this. If you get rid of your copy, the buyer is going to be obtaining the media from me in a crippled state. What if Ford were to tell you that you couldn't drive on Tuesdays and Thursdays because you bought a used car? Nobody would stand for it and to say that this isn't a similar situation is naive.
XBL Shiezahfest
In addition to all of this, Microsoft just announced that they were upping their annual subscription fees on Xbox Live to $60 a year. Act now though and you can lock in your price at $40 a year with auto-renewal! The reasoning given for the hike in fees is that you're going to be getting ESPN3 content and Hulu Plus on Xbox Live now - Hulu Plus that you still have to pay an additional $10 a month to access. That’s also on top of the $9 a month minimum for Netflix that you'd have to pay to use their play now feature. Don't worry though; you've been given things like a Facebook platform, Last.FM playback ability and access to demos with your Gold subscription status, so the increase in cost is completely justified and worth it.
Forgive my sarcasm, but this kick in the teeth is hard to take. If you're going to charge more, include more. Don't tell me I have access to use Netflix and Hulu Plus but I still have to pay extra on top of my Xbox Live subscription. If I want to use Facebook or anything net-widget related for that matter, it isn't going to be on my Xbox. It's going to be on my computer, where I don't have a handcuffed app. At least with Sony's PSN+, they're giving you access to full versions games to play each month. Their system may not be perfect, but at least they're trying. Hell, you can even use a browser on the PS3 to access Facebook if you really wanted to. Why not incorporate a browser onto the Xbox? It isn't like Microsoft has arguably the most popular browser ever created. Even the Wii has a browser.
I happen to like sports and I like the idea of having ESPN3 that I'll be able to watch on my TV instead of my computer screen, but the does not pertain to everybody. If I have to pay for a subscription that allowed me to play games in a multiplayer environment, a fair price would be $20-$30 a year. No fluff apps, no inside Xbox videos, no achievement guides, no ESPN, just the ability to play games online and chat with friends. We aren't given that option though, we're told that we have to now pay $60 or we can't play online. Are there ways around it? Sort of, you can buy subscription codes on Amazon or other places slightly cheaper than through Microsoft.
The simple solution could even be to let Silver subscriptions play online for free and just plaster it with ads. Don't forget that your Gold subscription is currently littered with ads. You're paying $50 AND still having to view ads. This double dipping is shameful. Sony has a free offering that has ads that aren't nearly as intrusive as what they are for a subscription you pay for with Microsoft.
Either way, we as gamers are being spoon-fed some disgusting tripe right now. If we don't vote with our feet and our dollars, we're going to continue to pay more for less.
Hey, this newsies did it and so can we. Don't pay for any a' this crap. Unless its from Mann Co.
-
- +0
-
-
Well, a company's greed only works if the customers bend over and take it. As soon as the customers stop paying for it, the company will change its tune almost over night and start singing a different song.
-
- +1
-
-
Its crazy. I know this is a strange comparison, but I remember my grandmother telling me how any average Joe could take his junker down to a demolition derby and have a blast. Now theres fees out the wazoo for it. Everything the common man turns to in order to blow off steam so he can make it through another day without going postal ends up charged and taxed and he pays more for it. :( crazy This greed is going to screw us all.
-
- +0
-
-
| Next > |
|---|
