Always The Stick, Never The Carrot
November 11th, 2008Why game industry personalities feel compelled to speculate in public about things that can cause only blind rage in the larger gaming populace is something that defies most rational explanation. Is it ignorance? A trial balloon? Confusion about the inner workings of the internet? Epic President Mike Capps serves up this week’s helping of disaster with the bizarre idea that developers might charge separately for portions of their games to fight secondhand game resales.
Reasons this is a bad idea, off the top of my head: people resent being told what to do with what they consider their property; they don’t understand why developers consider it their “right” to take portions of it; they like to share with their friends; and many people only buy resold games and wouldn’t purchase the retail version at full price to begin with.
A modest proposal: why don’t developers enter the resale market? Offer gamers the option to sell their games back to you instead of their neighborhood Gamestop. You could potentially offer a lower price point, or even a higher one if you’re willing to create a “preferred gamer” loyalty program, with future game discounts, preferential news, gaming DLC, or what have you for those who sell their games back to you. That way, gamers think you actually value them and are willing to reward them for their loyalty, instead of punishing them for doing what they feel they’re entitled to do in the first place.
I have no idea if this is feasible, or if there are better alternatives. But it seems like there’s plenty of room for win-win solutions here that don’t involve alienating your major customer base.
Posted in Business, Geoff, Personalities |
November 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Couple things here…
Unless I’m mistaken, I think the strategy that he’s mentioning is basically what they just did with GoW2, which is to offer a download code for extra content for purchasers of the new game. This adds an extra incentive for people to purchase games new because if they do, they get those free extra maps. If they wait for a used one, they don’t get the free maps (I assume they can pay for them). The maps are probably worth something like $10, so in a way, this insulates the publisher from $10 worth of “used game” discounts, which for a game like GoW could probably last 6 months or more. For instance, Gamestop would probably offer a used GoW2 for the token $2-$3 off the new price… but it likely wouldn’t include the free maps that are available for the game if you buy it new (someone likely would’ve used the code already). So, you can save the $2-$3 and get no maps or get $10 worth of maps for just an extra $2-$3. I don’t really see anything wrong with companies offering this kind of choice, and can definitely see how this is a smart idea for them… As I wrote in my last column, used game sales are almost no better for publishers than pirated games. Sure, you can sell DLC to used game buyers, but then this strategy just feeds into that as well… Epic gets no money from the sale, but at least they can make up some of that from trying to sell that map pack that they gave away for free to new buyers.
At the same time, I’ve argued that this is likely a moot point in the near-mid future anyway, as games will likely start transitioning completely over to more downloadable forms in the next few years, and even if they don’t the technology is already there to essentially tie game purchases to an account rather to a disc (think Steam). These “incentives” are sort of the transitional elements of this switch.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I’m pretty sure you’re misreading. He says explicitly: “I’ve talked to some developers who are saying ‘If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay $20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free’.” That’s not free incentive DLC.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I’ve popped this exact same idea. It’s a good one. Pubs should offer a trade-in program, just like my car. I bought a new Subaru in 2003 and every year I get a guaranteed offer from Subaru USA to buy it back or to take it in trade against a new Subaru. This makes me feel like Subaru supports their product and recognizes it’s ongoing value to me even after I purchase it. Publishers should do the same thing.
The concept of impacting customers to get used game profits is a non-sequitor. They should be tring to impact the used game shops too. Gamers will do what they do. It’s up to business to figure out how to profit from it and that’s what gamestop is doing while publishers are sitting on their hands.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
@Geoff,
That idea is absolutely horrifying. I don’t care if it’s the next Rock Band, I’m not buying any game that does that.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Hmm, I admit I didn’t read it very thoroughly… though I wonder if what he’s mentioning is almost more about downloadable episodic content… I know that’s not what’s implied, but maybe he’s misinterpreting what the developers are saying.
Other than episodic content, I don’t see this level of discretization in games. Downloadable games and the kind of in-the-box codes are where this is going to end up.