You should have the choice to buy a used game, but you should also choose not to.

(This is the longer version of the post ran on Edge Online.  It's a bit wordier, but makes some more specific points worth covering)

I wrote a series of tweets earlier with some thoughts on used games, but as anyone can tell you who has tried to say anything meaningful on Twitter, it’s a recipe for misconstrued points and a format devoid of subtlety.  People get immediately heated about the topic of used games, and motive fallacies and heated accusations flare.  It’s only slightly less touchy than telling someone the FBI is coming to seize their guns.

Regardless, I’m a developer asking you (not telling you) to hear me out and make an informed decision on the issue.

First, as is my habit, a couple disclaimers to frame my points and focus the discussion.

1) This isn’t ‘about’ Xbox One, or Sony, or anyone specifically - these are points about used games in general, formed loooong before the new console wars began.

2) I’m an outright enemy of “always on”.  If Blizzard (with all the experience from being the leading massively MP online developer) botched the launch of Diablo III, and EA (with countless online titles, their own competitor to Steam) catastrophically fumbled the Sim City launch... surely it’s understandable why people would be nervous at best at the idea of an entire console being hamstrung with the same limitations.  “Always on” and “used games” are not the same discussion.

3) I believe AAA games are too expensive.  I don’t care about history adjusted for inflation arguments... the bottom line is $60 is not an impulse buy for nearly anyone, solid income or not.  I don’t often by a AAA game unless it’s recommended by a couple trusted opinions.  So, I completely get why people want to buy a used copy of a game for a couple bucks cheaper.

4) There’s few ‘right answers’ and no ‘good guys and bad guys’ with this issue.  Despite the hyperbole from many sides of the issue, it’s all part of one very large and complicated equation.  Used games, piracy, DRM, DLC, microtransactions, etc are not 100% responsible for anything, they’re all just factors... players on the field of how people stay in business or fire everyone and go home.

_____________________

Buying new or used is a personal choice.  That said, here’s a pretty unavoidable truth for consumers.  When someone buys a used game, that specific transaction does not support the artists, designers, programmers, musicians, etc... the people who created that game.  100% of the money they hand over the counter for a used game goes to the people they just handed their money to.

When someone purchases a new game the funds are divided equitably between the studio that made the game, the publishers that created and marketed the product, the distributors who put it into your hands, the creator of the console gets a portion, and of course with the store for selling you the new game.  Everyone gets their agreed upon cut for playing their part.  The gamer just voted with their dollars to support what a group of people created.

Contrary to what you may be thinking, nobody is calling anyone a jerk for purchasing a used game.  It makes a lot of sense on the consumer end.  But used purchasers do need to be aware that they’re completely cutting out the developers who created that game, and consider if that’s what they really intended.

An online comment... “But don't the developers get paid to do the work? and only certain devs even get a cut of the retail money, so I've heard”.

Generally AAA developers get paid salaries while they are creating a game in the form of a loan from a publisher, it’s an advance on future sales.  When those sales numbers aren’t recouped, when income from a game’s sales aren’t reaching the studio that employs people, those studios fail.  There’s nothing victimless about it in terms of the individual artist and developer.  It matters to them.  They’re not free and clear while ‘evil businessmen’ absorb the sales hit... it’s usually the opposite.

______________________

Often in these discussions there are these dark undertones of gamers distrusting developers.  Never is that more apparent than the argument of “make better games and we wouldn’t trade them in”.  When I read those comments, I just want to crumple at my desk.  Look at a rack of used games and ask yourself if those are all ‘bad’ games’.

For starters, I know there are bad games... oh God I know.  It is ‘buyer beware’ out there.  We’ve all dropped $50 on a game and excitedly ripped into it only to decide instantly we thought it was horrible.  But that mistrust is about as productive as guys assuming all women are going to rip your heart out because of a previous bad relationship.

The issue with “make better games” is simply that it’s not true, and it’s actually shaping the games available to you in a very distinguishable way.  Most games have ‘an ending’, even fantastically polished 10/10 games.  The Last of Us, by nearly all accounts is a stunning game... but it has an ending, and millions of happy users will sell it back.  Constantly we see articles about wanting games with great characters and stories and interesting narratives... but in nearly any case that means a game that you experience once and ‘complete’.

If “we only trade them because they’re too short” was true, there wouldn’t be a used copy of Skyrim to be found.  Regardless of campaign length, often when people are done with a game, they’re simply done with it.  The average consumer isn’t deciding if they should trade it in based on the game being “good” or not, it’s based on them being “done” or not.

“So, make games that don’t end”.  I have sat in many meetings at several companies and witnessed firsthand the destructive power rentals and used games have on AAA creative decisions.  If you don’t gamble a large portion of your budget on multiplayer, your game won’t be considered by nearly any publisher out there.  It’s also a catch 22 that will sink most projects.  You’re spreading your team out to add features that don’t actually fit the project theme (Ico, Journey, Heavy Rain), and at the end you’re left with a game that people are comparing unfavorably to projects like Battlefield or Halo with 100+ developers on the multiplayer aspects alone.

Making ‘better games that don’t end’ is counter to the cries of making games with lower budgets, not charging as much, looking next gen, and being more creative.

The alternate methods of making games not end are equally disdained by consumers, the dreaded DLC and expansions debate.  For ~7 years I’ve heard the term among developers of keeping “disk in tray” (a term that predates mobile and freemium games more than 4 years, it’s a response to used games) as a method of drying up the used game supply and making “games that people won’t sell when they’re done”... but honestly everything that comes out of those discussions are the features currently lamented by gamers.

Here’s what developers are up against:  Every game design, every concept, and every execution can’t fit under the umbrella of “make games that don’t end”.  It’s disappointing as a developer to be forced into that predicament, and it’s a factor in why gamers get a lot of “same-old” experiences.

______________________

“What about used cars, and movies?  Why are they ok?” is a time honored argument in this discussion.

Movies make at least half of their money in the narrow window when they launch.  Why do game studios ‘selfishly’ demand to be treated differently?  For movies, that opening window is protected by the fact that it’s exclusively in theaters.  On day one, you can’t swing by Best Buy, grab the new Superman movie, watch it, and sell it back.  It’s not freely sold in private form for a couple months.
With games initial sales is even more important.  Most of the units move in the first month or two, and stores decide if they want to reorder stocks of a game based on those sales.  Honestly, if games were protected from being rented or sold for 2 months after launch, game studios and publishers would almost certainly call it even and go home happy.

Comparing games to cars is a pointless metaphor game.  Cars depreciate, data doesn’t.  When you buy a new car it’s because it’s quantifiably better and less ‘used’ than the one with 50K miles on it.  Cars eventually fail, and people must be buying new ones.  Cars always need replacement parts and service from the dealers (think DLC and microtrans).  If cars were as timeless as data, this would be a good analogy, but it’s not.

______________________

“But I trade in games to buy new ones” is a common point, and it’s not without merit.  However, if you completed a game, especially if you enjoyed a game, know that what you’re trading in goes on a shelf and then serves to undercut the future purchase of the game you enjoyed.  It’s all part of the same economy.

Personally, I’m in the habit of finishing a game and never going back to it.  I eject it... it’s done.  I actually give most of my games to neighbors who are way more casual about gaming than me.  These are generally people who would not have bought the games I loaned them, but I’ve made them fans of genres and done what I could to turn them into “gamer gamers”.  I love that people especially kids loan and trade games organically and expose people to what they think is cool.

You can say I’m a hypocrite, but here’s one big distinction.  When a person goes into a store and carries a new game up to the counter, they have the intent of purchasing that game.  It’s at that point when a salesperson intercepts the sale and says something like “that’s $5 cheaper if you buy used”, that they’re actively interfering with the process.  Everything that made that person walk into the store... word of mouth, ads, reviews, demos, E3 shows, box art, the creation of the game itself... the expensive and risky ballet that led up to that purchase decision goes unrewarded and becomes rerouted to the guy at the final step of the chain.

It’s destructive and parasitic by nearly any measure, and it baffles me to this day when I hear ‘developers’ are perceived as being selfish in this equation.

______________________

In closing, again... it’s not wrong, but it’s certainly not right either.

All I’m asking for consumers is to give the decision at the counter the same amount of consideration they would if they were at a restaurant.  If you spent the $50 price of a used game at a restaurant you would tip the waiter at least the difference between a new and used game; consider giving the equivalent of a tip towards the writers, artists, AI coders, network guy, animators, etc...  The studios that make these games deserve that consideration, even if you’re not legally “obligated” to them for that disc.

(If you’re the type who doesn’t tip because “the waiter gets paid a little hourly”... well... so be it, I’m not in that camp)

We don’t really need creative analogies and metaphors about waiters and cars and movies though.  There’s only one reality to any situation.

Consumers, ask yourself if you’re buying the disc, or the game... and decide consciously if you choose to support the people who created what you’re buying.  If you consider yourself a fan of game developers and if you want to support the people who create what you’re playing... splurge the extra $4, do what supports the people creating your hobby.

If you honestly don’t care if the developers are rewarded for their work, well, you’re still not ‘the bad guy’ here.  I would say though, you have no ground to stand on when interacting with those developers, complaining about something in their game, or lamenting that they offer DLC.  You’re not really “their” customer and fan... you’re just fans of the used game store.

Thanks for reading.