Batman: Arkham City's release this week has been accompanied by the news that the Catwoman sections will only be available to owners of a brand new copy of the game. Anyone that buys it pre-owned will find these sections missing. This type of strategy to convince consumers to buy a game new has popped up on numerous occasions recently. Online passes are being utilised in more and more games, restricting online functionality to those that either buy a game new, or pay an extra fee on top of what they paid for their used copy.
Understandably, many gamers are not happy with this. It's not an uncommon view that a game, no matter how it was purchased, should be complete. After all, that part of the game is on the disc, it's just locked away to anyone who purchased the game used. Developers should be persuading us to buy their games new with the overall quality of the title, and promises of longevity that'll ensure we get our money's worth. There's nothing illegal about buying a pre-owned game, and there are many legitimate reasons to do so. Gaming can be an expensive hobby, and sometimes it's nice to get a good deal on a game that's been around for a while, and has started to show up in the used section of game stores.
That was perhaps the case a few years ago, but for some reason, video game retailers appear to be getting into competition with games publishers. Games that have only been out for a couple of weeks can be seen with a big fat "pre-owned" sticker on them, diverting attention away from the new copies of the game on the shelves a few feet away. Retailers stand to make more money from used games as they take all the profits, as opposed to with new games where the developer gets their cut. It appears that retailers are pushing for more used game sales than ever.
I was actually shocked at some of the tactics being employed. A games retailer here in the UK is running an 'experience points' system; your typical way of rewarding customers for their purchases with points that can be redeemed for discounts. However, there are extra ways of earning these points. Keeping up with the times, this retailer advertises 'achievements' that can be completed for extra experience points. Many of these achievements involve trading games in, an example being "trade in a game within 14 days of its launch." They're filling up their pre-owned shelves with the latest games by coaxing customers with promises of discounts and good deals.
The fact of the matter is every used game sold in place of a new copy is one less sale for the company that actually produced the game. This may not matter as much for a game that's been out for a couple of years, but when it's only been out for a couple of weeks, it affects the sales statistics drastically. Since sales figures play a large role in determining the success rate of a title, developers may only be seeing a portion of the success they were expecting. Revenue from games put out by a developer allows them to flourish, and continue making their next great game. When used games hurt the sales, budgets are going to be lower, and that affects the quality of the games that they can put out. And most obviously, if it's the developers that have spent time and effort making the games, shouldn't they be the ones that are rewarded for it?
This is why developers are resorting to drastic measures, such as charging owners of pre-owned copies of games to access online content, or by keeping certain content exclusive to new first time purchases only. It's not devious; they're just trying to do what they can to make money off the games that they've put so much work into.
I'm not arguing that we should all stop buying used games altogether. We can't help it. When faced with two prices for the same product, most people will choose the cheaper option, as it's usually the smart thing to do (yellowed Wii controllers that stink of smoke being an example of when it's not the smart option). What I'm arguing is that games developers are in their right to be using these new tactics to get us to buy their games new, as the stores now appear to be working against them, and their actions will ultimately damage the developers.
Rocksteady shouldn't need to do this with Arkham City. The general consensus from the press is that it's a high quality game that's of a decent length. It has plenty of side-content, challenge modes, and a higher difficulty level unlock that makes a second play-through of the main game worthwhile. That sounds well worth the £35-40 price tag for a new copy of the game. However, with used copies of the game being aggressively harvested and sold back to customers, can you blame Rocksteady for trying to add a good enough incentive to sway them back to a brand new copy of the game?
No comments:
Post a Comment