Times are tough. The economy is in trouble, everyone’s spending has been reigned back and we’re all suffering because of it. So the companies are trying to make money wherever possible. Which is all very well, but it only works when they offer something that the consumer wants, sees as good value or is helpful to them. In olden times, if someone was used to crossing a field and then the landowner erected a barrier before charging a toll to cross the field, the peasants would find another way round. Today we all do it. If a barrier is put up, we as humans are very good at changing our behaviour to get round whatever the obstacle is.
Recently the games companies have got into a fit about second hand games. They see it as unfair that they take no cut from the sale of such items, whether it be in the local branch of Game or eBay. They have developed a way round this – the online pass. Basically, a new copy of the game ships with a code that allows the player to play online. It might also entitle the user to reduced price or complimentary downloadable content (DLC). All fine and dandy if you bought it new, but if you’re a second hand buyer and you want the same items, you have to purchase a pass for around £6.99.
However, just as the companies have found a way round not getting money from second hand games, the user has found a way round the new charge – they don’t play online. Most of my gaming friends have given up playing online unless it’s against people they know. For many games this is the only rational choice. Why pay £7 or so to play against people that play the game all day and will be way better than you? Personally I’ve found that’s not much fun. In addition to the issues raised in my previous post, the games I do (or have) played online when not being beaten by were spent being shot by members of my own team, or being pushed into a gravel trap by players intent on doing their own thing in a race. So why would I want to pay for that “experience”.
However because there is further cost to the consumer following buying a second hand game, the prices of many of the affected titles has fallen. This means for those that are happy to play games on their own, or with friends that are sat in their living room, gaming is a lot cheaper now. If you get through games quite quickly, then it’s possible to sell a game for the same price you bought it for. So effectively it’s free.
The games companies think that most games are worth upwards of £40. This is probably true in the sense that to pay off all the associated costs and to provide the vendor with a margin, they need to sell for that amount, but that is not the same as the value perceived for the consumer. If you buy new and sell the game to fund the next purchase, your outlay is probably no more than £20 but usually £10. That is the value to the customer. The situation is being further stretched by iPad/iPod games that cost 59p. It all comes down to how much fun you have with a game. Graphics are of a standard now, where mobile phone games are adequate. Console games have hours of cut-scenes that cost a fortune to make , but how many gamers sit through them? How many just hit the start button. From my experience, if a title doesn’t let you skip the story bits, it feel very annoying. I just want to play.
If everything becomes download only, the online pass is moot but then a whole new economic idea will become the norm. The new OnLive system provides unlimited access to hundreds of games for £6.99 a month. You can buy a game for £35, but why would you? It seems to me that is the future. A flat fee for all games, not just individual titles.
It has to be said though, how come the software companies think they should be entitled to a cut of the second hand price? After all, you don’t have to pay Ford when you sell your old Fiesta. They’re doing it, because the technology is now available to allow them to do it. The same happened with music companies that having previously tolerated home-taping, were presented with the idea that by adding DRM to MP3′s they could control the market. And look what’s happened to them…
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Online pass? No thanks….
29 09 2011Times are tough. The economy is in trouble, everyone’s spending has been reigned back and we’re all suffering because of it. So the companies are trying to make money wherever possible. Which is all very well, but it only works when they offer something that the consumer wants, sees as good value or is helpful to them. In olden times, if someone was used to crossing a field and then the landowner erected a barrier before charging a toll to cross the field, the peasants would find another way round. Today we all do it. If a barrier is put up, we as humans are very good at changing our behaviour to get round whatever the obstacle is.
Recently the games companies have got into a fit about second hand games. They see it as unfair that they take no cut from the sale of such items, whether it be in the local branch of Game or eBay. They have developed a way round this – the online pass. Basically, a new copy of the game ships with a code that allows the player to play online. It might also entitle the user to reduced price or complimentary downloadable content (DLC). All fine and dandy if you bought it new, but if you’re a second hand buyer and you want the same items, you have to purchase a pass for around £6.99.
However, just as the companies have found a way round not getting money from second hand games, the user has found a way round the new charge – they don’t play online. Most of my gaming friends have given up playing online unless it’s against people they know. For many games this is the only rational choice. Why pay £7 or so to play against people that play the game all day and will be way better than you? Personally I’ve found that’s not much fun. In addition to the issues raised in my previous post, the games I do (or have) played online when not being beaten by were spent being shot by members of my own team, or being pushed into a gravel trap by players intent on doing their own thing in a race. So why would I want to pay for that “experience”.
However because there is further cost to the consumer following buying a second hand game, the prices of many of the affected titles has fallen. This means for those that are happy to play games on their own, or with friends that are sat in their living room, gaming is a lot cheaper now. If you get through games quite quickly, then it’s possible to sell a game for the same price you bought it for. So effectively it’s free.
The games companies think that most games are worth upwards of £40. This is probably true in the sense that to pay off all the associated costs and to provide the vendor with a margin, they need to sell for that amount, but that is not the same as the value perceived for the consumer. If you buy new and sell the game to fund the next purchase, your outlay is probably no more than £20 but usually £10. That is the value to the customer. The situation is being further stretched by iPad/iPod games that cost 59p. It all comes down to how much fun you have with a game. Graphics are of a standard now, where mobile phone games are adequate. Console games have hours of cut-scenes that cost a fortune to make , but how many gamers sit through them? How many just hit the start button. From my experience, if a title doesn’t let you skip the story bits, it feel very annoying. I just want to play.
If everything becomes download only, the online pass is moot but then a whole new economic idea will become the norm. The new OnLive system provides unlimited access to hundreds of games for £6.99 a month. You can buy a game for £35, but why would you? It seems to me that is the future. A flat fee for all games, not just individual titles.
It has to be said though, how come the software companies think they should be entitled to a cut of the second hand price? After all, you don’t have to pay Ford when you sell your old Fiesta. They’re doing it, because the technology is now available to allow them to do it. The same happened with music companies that having previously tolerated home-taping, were presented with the idea that by adding DRM to MP3′s they could control the market. And look what’s happened to them…
Like this: