Used-game restrictions next-gen *spawn

[Invalid]

This isn't the place to discuss the ethics of copy protection; that discussion is here. The argument you're responding to is one of commerce - will consumers avoid the console with copy protection where you can't share games?

Oops!

 

[fearsomepirate]

I don't see how this is a win-win for consumers. You're arguing that it doesn't make things too much worse for consumers. That's not a "win." If the negative effects on used game sales are substantial, then it will significantly reduce the value gamers can get on trade-ins...which in turn reduces the money they have in their pockets to spend on new games. And while around 80% of PS3s are online, that means that 20% aren't. 20% of your customers isn't a majority, but it's bad business to cut off a double-digit percentage of your customers.

Think about that iTunes comparison for a moment. People are only spending about 1/3 as much money per capita on music as they were in 2000. Moving to digital downloads has caused a massive financial disruption in the recording industry. CD sales have collapsed (and, by the way, the traditional "record shop" with its stacks of used discs has all but disappeared), but downloads aren't even coming close to making up the difference:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-18/tech/30052663_1_riaa-music-industry-cd-era

Every time I see people in the industry talk about moving to downloads and eliminating the used market, they are assuming that they can expect customer spending habits to stay roughly constant as distribution methods radically change. They all seem to think that digital distribution and shutting down Gamestop will result in rivers of new revenue for them as the streams of cash currently flowing into Gamestop will be diverted toward them. That is a dangerous, foolish assumption. Sure, there are differences between video games and music. That doesn't make the industry's assumptions any more valid. In every industry, major changes in distribution rock the market one way or another.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I don't see how this is a win-win for consumers. You're arguing that it doesn't make things too much worse for consumers. That's not a "win." If the negative effects on used game sales are substantial, then it will significantly reduce the value gamers can get on trade-ins...which in turn reduces the money they have in their pockets to spend on new games. And while around 80% of PS3s are online, that means that 20% aren't. 20% of your customers isn't a majority, but it's bad business to cut off a double-digit percentage of your customers.

How many of that 20% aren't online because they can't be, or because they didn't need to be and it wasn't worth the bother? If they're properly motivated by the system being online only, how high does that get you? 90%? 95%? At a certain point it makes sense to cut those losses. For a lot of those people it's probably just a matter of never having upgraded to a wifi router, or pulling cable to the game room. In the US sat-based internet has basically universal coverage and would be good enough for registering purchases and downloads, if not for multiplayer. Comcast also offers cable internet for $10 a month to low income families. Anywhere that literally does not have the infrastructure for an online only console is probably a better market for your last gen system anyway.

 

[fearsomepirate]

How many of that 20% aren't online because they can't be, or because they didn't need to be and it wasn't worth the bother?

I know quite a few parents who won't let their young kids take their game consoles online.

It doesn't really matter if it's 5% or 20%, TBH. Treating your customers as adversaries to be resented and defeated via a thousand little inconveniences is a pretty good way to kill your business. I think movers in this industry forget that they're making an entertainment product, not a life necessity. No one has to play console games, just like no one has to go to the movie theater.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I know quite a few parents who won't let their young kids take their game consoles online.

There's nothing stopping those parents from blocking any online features they want with parental controls even if an online connection becomes mandatory.

It doesn't really matter if it's 5% or 20%, TBH. Treating your customers as adversaries to be resented and defeated via a thousand little inconveniences is a pretty good way to kill your business. I think movers in this industry forget that they're making an entertainment product, not a life necessity. No one has to play console games, just like no one has to go to the movie theater.

Obviously, the publishers, in their mind, aren't treating their own customers like adversaries. They're treating Gamestop's customers like adversaries. For all we know they're just playing chicken with Gamestop corporate. It's very likely they aiming for something like a "used game tax" that combines the idea of online activation codes with the Cat Woman codes that were sold directly to Gamestop to include with used copies of the game. Gamestop's margins are so high that this could be done transparently at point of sale with no terrible detriment to their own bottom line, and no appreciable impact on the perceived value of game trading for users. I think if publishers were just collecting 10% for every used copy Gamestop sold they'd be happy. Whether Gamestop agrees to this to avoid the mandatory activation, or Sony and MS follow through and they end up generating activation codes printed on every used sale receipt, the result is the same.

 

[fearsomepirate]

There's nothing stopping those parents from blocking any online features they want with parental controls even if an online connection becomes mandatory.

You know what's even easier than figuring out how to fine-tune your kid's toy? Not buying the toy in the first place. When a company adds a layer of inconvenience to a product, they can protest all they like about how it's the customers' fault for being annoyed by it, but if you're trying to make money in a business, your job is to figure out how to make customers happy and gladly fork over piles of cash to you. You want customers to love you, not grudgingly tolerate you.

Obviously, the publishers, in their mind, aren't treating their own customers like adversaries. They're treating Gamestop's customers like adversaries.

Because those are totally different people. Having the attitude that current or potential customers are adversaries whose bad behavior must be defeated in order for you to make money is a good way to lose them entirely. It doesn't matter what industry you're in.