The Negative Long-Term Effects of Charging for Multiplayer

AveryZoe

June 7, 2010

In recent weeks, Internet forums have been flooded with posts on the idea of gaming companies charging people who buy used games for multiplayer features. At first guess, one would assume these threads are filled with vicious diatribes on greedy mega-companies stealing every penny from the hands of helpless consumers. First guess, however, is dead wrong. Sure, there are posts about why this an awful step in a bad direction. Yet for each of these negative posts, there are dozens of posts telling all the reasons why these multi-million dollar companies who have been gouging consumers for years with their obviously price-fixed new releases deserve this extra money (every game costs exactly $60 to make and market--really?). Each time I find another post defending this type of customer gouging, all I can do is shake my head and say, "What are you people smokin'?"

Why is paying an extra $10 dollars to unlock all the features on a used game such a big deal? Well, there's the obvious--if you're buying a game used, the likeliest reason is because you either don't have or don't want to spend a full 60 dollars on a single video game. Some of these games are only good for 5 to 6 hours of gameplay. That is really not that great of an amount of time for the money you spend on it. Used game sales in many ways actually increase sales of new titles. A person who is on the fence about buying a new game may be more likely to do so if they know they can quickly sell it to someone else when they are finished with it. What "Project $10" has done is added $10 to the price of a used game, while simultaneously taking away $10 of profit from the person who is selling it. Gamers are likely to think twice about buying a new title once "Project $10" both lessens their return and makes it harder to sell at the same time.

The fact that they are starting this out on sports titles that release every year will make them even more unsellable than they already are. Before all this came out, I would have thought that an impossibility, as nearly every gamer has copies of NBA Shootout '98 or FIFA Soccer '06 collecting dust in their basements. Again, this may actually hurt the gaming companies. Many Madden or FIFA fans got started in the series by playing a cheap' old title used, and then getting hooked. The used game market actually brings in customers who might try a game out for cheap, love it, and buy the next title in the series new.

The biggest issue that things like "Project $10" bring up is the slippery slope idea. Any gamer who thinks the companies will be content with their $10 from sports titles is very naive indeed. Unless this causes a huge backlash from consumers (which seems unlikely at this point), this trend of charging more and more is likely to continue. It is not difficult to envision a future where the end of each level is greeted with a prompt to pay more before you can advance. Many users of iTunes are upset about purchasing an mp3, and then only being allowed to download it onto a predetermined number of devices. Kindle users were recently outraged when an eBook that was found to be pirated was removed from their machines without their consent. The companies' answers? Consumers don't actually own the mp3's and eBooks. They merely own the right to use them as the companies see fit, which is subject to change at any time.

If I go out and buy a new couch, I can use it for a few years and then pass it along to someone else for a few bucks. This is thrifty, good for the environment, and useful to those who cannot afford to buy new. When I purchased that couch, I purchased the right to all of it. There would be much outrage if Broyhill were to state that all buyers of used couches would need to pay an additional fee for use of the cushions. Yet, the couch is usable without cushions--just not nearly as comfortable and quite difficult to sell. If I buy a vintage Calvin Klein, do I need to send CK a check for use of the buttons? Toyota could charge an extra fee for anti-lock brakes on used models and consumers certainly wouldn't defend that.

So why are so many gamers defending such an obvious money-grubbing scheme? The gamers are the ones who get hosed. What about players who purchase a game new, but own two consoles? Should they pay an extra $10 for the privilege of carrying the game to another room in their house? What about families with multiple gamers who have more than one online account? What about the age-old tradition of bringing your game over to a friend's house for game night? This "pay for this" and "pay for that" and "oh, yes, that costs extra" approach to gaming will really hurt consumers. Unfortunately, it will probably become the norm before many gamers even realize the impact it will have.