If you've kept up at all with video games the past few months, you've no doubt heard the surprising number of rumors floating around for the next generation versions of the Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo's Wii U. With E3 coming up in just a few months time, the rumor mill has been working non-stop, gathering up as much information as it can. And what a swirl of info it is. Stories have jumped from topics that make sense, such as the new Xbox using blu-ray disc drives for storage, to those that seem to come out of left field, such as news that Sony is dropping out of the race entirely. One of the more controversial topics covered though ties in with the format of how the games will be purchased. Many outlets report that the new systems will not allow used games to be played without a fee, and will require a constant internet connection. For many gamers, including myself, the idea of being forced to buy new or else is one that isn’t very rosy.
One of the major topics facing the game industry today is the issue of used games. For many enthusiasts, the main way of obtaining a game is by purchasing it from a local retailer, such as a Gamestop or a Meijer. I have shopped at Gamestop for a number of years, and although I disagree with some of their values for trade-ins, I’ve never had a particular problem with shopping there. I actually enjoy the opportunity to be able to talk along with people who enjoy games as much as I do and being able to fall into a ten minute discussion over a scene or boss with the salesperson working the counter is one of my little joys I find in life, because in actuality the idea of a “gamer” is still one looked at with a stereotype. Unfortunately though, the existence of Gamestop is a source of frustration for many of the main forces in the industry. This frustration primarily arises from the issue of used games. You see, Gamestop itself is an entity that serves no purpose higher than being the middleman. It is a venue for the developers to sell their games to the largest audience possible, because the amount of effort needed to sell the game on their own would put many developers out of business.
Gamestop makes a large portion of its money from selling used games, or games that were traded in by previous owners. This here is the issue that drives developers and publishers crazy. Because it is a game that is traded in, the game itself is sold cheaper than newer, unopened copies. Also, because the copy wasn’t purchased by Gamestop from the publisher, any profits gained from the sale of the used copy goes to Gamestop, without developers or publishers seeing a dime. In one way, I feel for the developers, because obviously they are trying to compete with people selling their product at a cheaper price, and they don’t gain anything from the sale. But the measures the industry is taking to prevent this practice seems almost like it’s trying to fight a fire with an atom bomb.
This atom bomb comes in the form of a system block on used games. Many outlets have reported that the next generation Xbox and Playstation will have a system block in place against used games, which will not validate them or let them be played online. A great example of this is seen with the game Homefront, which was released in the Spring of 2011. When first bought, it used a code to validate the mulitplayer component, which allowed players to play online. This code was a one-time use though, and if someone bought it used they would have to fork over another $15 to buy a new code to input. The problem is though that it seems this practice is slowly becoming the norm across the industry, and is being used in more and more popular titles such as Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3. The problem I see with this set-up though is that it basically can open up Pandora’s box in terms of how much power developers have over their clients. For many people, used games are a much better alternative than laying out $40-$60 on a new copy of a game. Games do not deteriorate in value quickly, and some of the more popular games can still hover around the $50 price range well past a year of their release. With the economy the way it is, it is much more viable to buy used games opposed to newer ones. With the lock though, the industry is basically forcing consumers to buy what the publishers want them to buy. The main fear is that this lock escalates from just multiplayer components to entire games. What happens if publishers decide to charge for single-player as well? Or what happens if it devolves into specific levels? By placing the lock in systems, consumers are placed in a difficult and unfair situation. If they want to fulfill their hobby, they have to play along with the publisher.
Another issue that arises from this lock is the need for a constant internet connection to “validate” the person’s game. To protect against piracy of games and the modding of game code, developers have begun using what are colloquially referred to as DRM, or Digital Rights Management software. The basic premise is that in order to play the game, not only will you have to initially validate it, which depending on internet speeds can take as long as 10 minutes to hours, but you also have to constantly be signed into a server to continually validate that you aren’t playing a pirated copy. This practice has been around for a few years, and has met with some disastrous results. The most well known was back in 2010 for the game Assassin’s Creed II. Initially the software performed its job well, and gamers played without experiencing many issues. But, problems began to crop up when servers or internet connections went awry. Because it needs a constant connection to validate, any time a person’s internet went down they would be locked out of playing the game until the connection was restored. Also, when when servers on the publisher’s side went down, gamers encountered the same issues and could not play their games. For reasons out of their control, gamers basically were given a $60 game that wouldn’t work half the time. It’s of no surprise that hackers were able to break the DRM locks on ACII, which rendered the whole system basically obsolete. The whole endeavor gave the publisher of ACII, Ubisoft, a lot of flak and wasted a lot of money. And ultimately, what of the people that don’t have internet? Video games are a great medium because they offer so much entertainment without the need for an online connection. There are so many genres that offer so many hours of gameplay that can be experienced in a single player format. This experience becomes something special and personal, and by forcing the online connection that experience is lost.
Obviously, the industry has the final say in the way that games are distributed. They created the games, and it is up to them to do as they wish. But as a lifetime gamer, I have to admit that the way they are going about this is wrong. The need for constant internet connection treats customers like criminals, forcing them to shell out money for a product that might not even work half the time. The gaming community is one of the most unified and friendly ones out there, and for the most part we feel the same way about hackers and pirates as developers do. So please, don’t lump us in with them. Our sense of community pride is one of the greatest things we have going for us, and the kinship that comes along with that pride is something I personally treasure. By locking games from consoles, developers are basically eliminating the years of trust and respect that we as a community have grown. It shows a lack of trust and respect for the consumer, which can do nothing but hurt the gaming industry. In these times of recession, the superfluous purchases are the ones that are first cut. I make it my choice to use my disposable income on video games because I trust that I will find something that brings me joy and entertainment. If I have to pay more just for the privilege of playing a game, then I honestly am considering taking my interests elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment