Where does the money go?

My thoughts on purchases of used games.

There has recently been some (more) discussion about the used games market, thanks in part to THQ's decision to limit online functionality for their games. Penny Arcade made a comic strip about it. So I've been thinking about it a little and wanted to talk about it.

'Buying used' is unquestionably legal. But still, some might say that it's tantamount to piracy, with none of the money being spent on a used title going towards the company and developers who produced it. And no money is directly going to them, but this is too simplistic. What I've seen in my own life (hopefully economists will back me up) is that if you take a person and give them more income, they generally spend it. If a guy buys a game for $60 and sells it for $30, chances are good that the $30 goes right back into buying a different game. The guy who spends $300 on games will either buy 6 new games and keep them, or he'll buy more depending on how many he decides to keep.

Game companies would probably prefer than an additional $60 rather than $30 went towards games in this (very vague) example, but it's hard to think that $30 isn't better than nothing. Of course, there's no guarantee that the next purchase will be from the same company, so from that narrow point of view, you could say it does them no good. It seems myopic, however, because for everybody who sells a Capcom game to buy a Konami game, there's probably somebody who went the other way. Overall, the purchase of used games helps to fuel a larger game market. The idea that games are valuable, even potential collectors’ items, helps encourage people to buy new games, too.

But not all games can be sold. Downloadable games are frequently linked to an online account, so that only the user who purchased it can play it. Although you may be legally entitled to sell the game to another user, these services aren't compelled (at least at present) to give you a convenient way to do so. Selling the game, in this case, would require transferring the entire account to another person, which is inconvenient enough for both the buyer and seller to ensure it almost never happens. So many developers see downloadable games as a way to, among other things, eliminate the used game market.

However, most downloadable games have settled onto a price point of $15 (or less). Games that demand a higher price end up being sold on physical media, where prices of $50 or $60 are more common. These developers would still like to limit the resale of their game, hoping more people will buy it new instead. Enter THQ's decision to limit online play to users with a single-use code. Those who buy the game used can still unlock online functionality by paying $10 to buy a new code (it seems to me that if they wanted to be really fair, they'd discount their game by $10 and ask that all players who want to play online purchase a code). We've seen other games offer exclusive in-game bonuses for pre-orders, or for ordering through a certain retailer.

In a way, it's akin to planned obsolescence. Not quite the same, because you're good for as long as your game hardware runs and the servers are still up. But you're pretty much guaranteeing that some kid who was born after your game was released will never be able to experience it 'fully.' And that seems sad to me. I think that a lot of other passionate gamers dislike these sorts of promotions for this reason. Alternatively, some of the promotions are stupid: Dead Space gave new buyers a special suit that gave the player an in-game advantage, both functionally and monetarily, and the resulting decreased danger was thought by at least some to undercut the game's atmosphere. Either the ‘bonus’ content is worthwhile, and we mourn because many will inevitably be deprived, or it’s tacky and it degrades the experience for the people who supported it most.

I don’t blame companies and developers for trying to figure out ways to make money on their games. We all want the games industry to be healthy, and for those who make great games to be rewarded for that. But I have my concerns about whether certain choices concerning DLC and extra content are going to create problems for gamers, and limit appreciation for some games to just the people who were there at the right time.

One reason I think this is worth thinking about is because some games that I love have been hurt by these problems. I originally was going to explain how, but it became very long-winded. If you are interested in just one story of how this sort of thing can go wrong, I encourage you to look into the various sordid issues with home versions of Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (short story is that the best home version is the Dreamcast version, and those old machines can now be unreliable). Or look up information about the "suicide batteries" used by many arcade games. My point here is just that people who love games will inevitably want to preserve some of them, and it can be very difficult to do that. I hate to see (great!) games being made with parts that are designed to fail. I want game companies and gamers to also consider that a 'disposable' game that can’t be preserved — or, yes, even sold — might not be worth as much to begin with.  

- Grant Laughlin