This post addresses everything from used game fees, to DRM, to always online, pretty much everything that people are currently hating on about the direction of the electronic entertainment industry. Trigger warning: It's a long read, and I agree with everything the industry is doing.
When you buy a game, you’re not buying a physical object, you’re not buying an item with a measurable depreciation value. When you buy a game, you’re buying an interactive experience. Many aspects of that interactive experience will be unchanged over the course of years, such as the physics sandbox and the singleplayer modes. Unlike physical objects that experience a deterioration in quality over time, the quality of a game remains the same so long as the medium in which it is stored remains in good condition.
The cost of bringing a video game experience to Consumer A is identical to the cost of bringing that identical experience to Consumer B. So why should Consumer B pay less because he bought it “used” from Consumer A? In what measurable way did Consumer B have a lesser experience playing his game used compared to Consumer A buying it new? What degradation in quality of experience did Consumer B have that would justify a price drop, that would justify denying proper financial restitution to the creators of the experience?
Sure you can get tired of games; sure you can abandon old games for newer, shinier, sexier games. But does that make the old game lose actual (not subjective/emotional) value? All games will experience the point when they are no longer the cutting edge in technology, when they are no longer mainstream, and the playerbase dwindles into tiny cult followings. But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release?
I say no. You say no every time you fire up an old game instead of a new one. And now for the first time, the industry is saying no. And we're right to say no.
We have to treat the gaming industry differently than other industries because it is inherently different. The top of the industry, the console makers and developers, are realizing this, and shifting their strategies accordingly. And they are right. Developers who own their IP, their interactive experience, have a right to make money selling access to that experience. People who don’t pay, shouldn’t have access to that experience.
So why are you complaining about DRM? If you buy your games legally, it's not a problem. If you don't get your games legally, get your priorities straight because you paid a few hundred dollars for a console, and you pay for internet, and you probably pay for a lot of other things, so pony up like the rest of us or you don't get to enjoy, boo freaking hoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the hell over it. Again, developers have the right to make money creating and sharing their experiences. People who don't pay, shouldn't play. Why are you complaining about "used game fees"? The game isn't really "used" like you buy a car used, or a house used. Why are you complaining about "always-online"? You're online playing with friends all the time anyway. It's not going to inconvenience or affect your life in any way that it isn't already.
So suck it up. All the industry is doing is making sure everyone plays by the same rules. If you've got a problem with that, you're part of the problem as to why the industry has to do this in the first place.
-
Okay, fine, say you're right about DRM, forget the "always on" for a moment. There goes a huge market for both game devs and games themselves. If it wasn't for the ability to play a game off the disk (or other medium), I might not know the glory and greatness of the Halo franchise (minus 4). Reach was the first game I ever pre-ordered, before that, I had to buy used, because it came out of my pocket, and I didn't exactly have $60 laying around from mowing lawns. I played Halo 2 (God rest it's soul), at a friend's house, and MUCH later, was able to buy a used version at Gamestop, and thus was my love for Bungie, and Halo, born. I procured Halo 3 used as well, and enjoyed the hell out of it. That led to my buying of Bungie products. That's why used games are a necessity for the industry, devs get exposure from people waiting to buy the game used, and liking that game enough to buy a future one from the same studio. If DRM's were instituted long ago, I doubt any gaming community, especially ours, would look anything like they do today. People wouldn't have bothered with a game they didn't know much about. For example, Average Joe sees (Your Favorite Game Here) on the shelf at Gamestop. He doesn't really want to spend $60 for a game he's not sure about. He knows it's popular, but so is Justin Bieber, so popularity ca be deceiving (extreme example I know, but you get the point). Mr. Joe could buy a used version, thus saving his money, and if he likes it, he might tell his friends, and/or buy (Your Favorite Game Here) 2. If DRM had been instituted, none of what I just said could have been possible. I wouldn't be a Halo fan (and therefore wouldn"t be here), and Mr. Joe wouldn't have bought (Your Favorite Game Here). That's why I'm planning to switch to a PS4, if they don't have DRM, which they haven't confirmed. DRM will kill the expansion of the gaming industry, locking us into franchises we already know, or emptying our pockets for 5 year-old games that are still the same price when new, even though the sequel is out.