|
Had this idea on the way to work, popped in the local game store and noted the usual mix of new & 2nd hand games. This is only a small one-off store and I'm pretty sure if he didn't do 2nd hand games he'd probably be out of business.
I can certainly understand that this is probably the best route for the young teen gamer market where £40 (IMO) is a silly amount of money to have to pay. I prefer to pay for new games as I know the money is going back to the developer however when you see bargains for a tenner you do get tempted...which got me thinking...
Couldn't we have some sort of "Fair Trade" games system?
I understand the logistics would probably be too much but I like the idea of having a system whereby the 2nd hand game gains a marginal fee (e.g. £1 extra) but gains a "Fair Trade" game sticker and then that extra £1 is passed on back directly to the development company of the game.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that development companies are in any way in need of the money as much as third world (and even local) farmers however I like the idea that I can buy a 2nd hand game and know that there is still some proceeds going back to the creative force behind it. I like to think that if there was a 2nd hand game and a "Fair Trade" 2nd hand game for a slightly higher price I'd buy the Fair Trade one.
If there was consumer buy in I think it'd work quite well, although I'm not sure the big publishers would still agree...
What do you think? Is it something that could work? Would you buy a "Fair Trade" game?
|
As we are entering the era of microtransactions and digital distribution, I wonder if a refined version of rentals, straight from the developer, couldn't be done. Its a dangerous endeavor, as demonstrated by multiple DRM fiascoes, but I think it could work if it weathers initial growing pains.
Buyers are still going to buy and renters are still going to rent. The question is, would companies generate more revenue by renting directly (and all the overhead that entails) rather than selling copies to established distributors? I'm certainly not familiar enough with the financial information needed to answer this question, but one main advantage is that the rental fee can go towards the price of a full purchase, encouraging the consumer to buy if they enjoyed the product.
The only difficulty is similar to the "Fair Trade" idea in that it would probably only get bigger market appeal if it's through a big vendor rather than lots of different implementations. It'd probably work well if something like Steam implemented it...
If someone wants to sell something they own, which they previously bought, they should be able to do so freely. Imagine if you had to pay Toyota when you sold your car! And then whoever bought it from you would also have to pay Toyota, should they choose to sell it?
Such a concept is beyond ridiculous, it totally disempowers consumers to the point where we're just feedbags for corporations to guzzle on. This is sadly the direction that software seems to be heading, where I've only purchased the right to run the software and not actual ownership of the disc.. this is sad and somewhat scary.
If you want to decrease second-hand sales, maybe you should focus on the factors that you have control over, e.g increase the perceived value of the goods to the point where it surpasses whatever the trade-in value is. Otherwise you're advocating control over consumers in order to increase profits, which isn't a tenable position.
Just kidding. This will never happen. :D But wouldn't it be nice if there were public pressure on these companies to counter the financial incentive to treat us like shit.
If you insist on having a masochist streak, however, you could donate more money to your favorite publisher with every game purchased.
To illustrate my point: what if Gamestop sold the game new for $60, bought it back dirt cheap, for say $20, then sold it for $0.50 more than what they bought it for, at $20.50? If Gamestop adopted this practice, then you couldn't call them a bunch of greedy bastards as they really aren't making much profit off of used games. Yet, I don't see how this is any better for the developers. In fact it's worse because it makes the new price of the game seem that much more outrageous. If you want to gripe about the fact that second hand games exist at all, then that's fine, but don't gripe about how greedy Gamestop is because their profit margins on used games are irrelevant (ie: it doesn't matter if gamestop makes $50 profit or $0.50 profit from a used game, as far as the developers are concerned).