Blog Archives
Video Game Publishers Created Their Own Monster: How They Should Fight It
THQ and Electronic Arts have created initiatives to help combat the used re-sale of their games, as they aren’t too fond of GameStop and EB Games profiting on used games. Currently the two publishers are requiring secondhand users to purchase a license ($10) to enable used video games to play online.
I personally don’t think that will curb the sale of used games, and for a couple of reasons: the video game consumer is extremely savvy, and will factor that additional $10 on top of the already cheap game they are purchasing. Also, online play typically isn’t the main draw of a used game, because the online activity for that game has probably died down by the time it reached the ‘used’ bin. And finally, gamers will usually buy a used game that is top-rated and mostly offline content - these games have a more timeless quality and deliver a lot of bang for a few bucks.
The big irony here, is the Publishers are trying very hard to combat a situation they effortlessly created. They forged the used game market in two ways: by releasing yearly iterations of the same game (Sports, Shooters), and by flooding the market with too many games.
With the yearly titles, gamers clued-in that there would be a new version eventually, may as well get some return on the current title. I adopted this thinking with sports titles, and after a few months of playing NHL or Madden, it was time to trade it in. Sports games are essentially $60 rentals, and trading them in is every bit the ritual as buying them in the first place. In my experience, I wouldn’t get much trade value for sports games - retailers were often flooded with them, sometimes even refusing them outright.
As for flooding the market, with so many consoles, handhelds, and mobile games, it is nearly impossible for most gamers to shell out full price for everything they want (and they want so many - gamers are compulsive!), so they assign purchasing priorities for games. Some titles are must-have midnight-madness purchases like Halo or GTA. Other titles can be put on the back-burner while the current game queue is enjoyed. And some games will be scooped up if it’s a bargain, whether used or heavily-discounted, gamers cannot resist a good value (see: Steam Store).
And once in awhile, gamers will try to save a few bucks and trade in some games to continue their habitual gaming diet. It could be for financial reasons, or simply unloading a few games that are collecting dust. On the flip side, gamers will seek out used games for nostalgic reasons. If Nintendo managed to outlaw the sale of SNES carts somehow, I don’t know what I’d do!
So far, the EA and THQ online pass initiatives aren’t penalizing the person who plopped down $60 to buy the game, which is a good thing (unlike the accusatory DRM) . And $10 is a reasonable fee for countless hours of online play, so the person who bought it used has little to gripe about. However I think Publishers could try a few different ideas to make everyone happy:
- They could include a gift card to receive a discount on next year’s version of the franchise upon trade-in. If EA gave me a $10 discount on Madden 12 for trading in Madden 11, I’d happily make that trade.
- Some loyalty down-loadable/bonus content or achievements. DLC has been very effective at extending the life of a game, but not all games are DLC-friendly, so perhaps offer gamers extended demos or beta invites to other games just for being regularly active with a title for an extended period. You could also include some Trophies or Achievements that commemorate how long the gamer has been active with a title. There are many ways to recognize consumer loyalty.
- Publishers could offer a direct outlet for trading in their games for credit. They could send out envelopes to collect titles from gamers and then send a credit back. With Netflix (and many questionable Cash4Gold companies), people are conditioned to this kind of transaction. It is going the extra mile, but it cuts out the middle man (GameStop).
- Publishers could offer legacy games as trade bait. Many publishers have a library of games reaching back as far as three decades. A lot of these games are considered ‘Abondonware‘, because they aren’t in circulation, and are just plain dated. Publishers aren’t really making money on these older games. So if EA enticed me to swap in my NHL 10 for a disc of 12 classic games like Road Rash, Need For Speed II, James Pond, NBA Street, etc., then I’d be inclined to accept. Trading one used game for a bunch of older games works for me. EA doesn’t suffer lost $ on the resale, and they make the customer happy. It’s win-win.
- Go the upgrade option. Microsoft gives consumers the option to upgrade to the newest Windows OS at a discounted price. When a new version of the game comes out, I’d like to have the option to download it to my console, using the previous year’s disc as the enabler of the new game. And I want a discount. This route will also help ween people onto the impending digital-only future the game industry is heading towards (then used games will no longer be an issue). An excellent incentive to hold onto that disc.
- Give those game discs extra functionality. Remember when Metal Gear Solid read your game saves from other games? Well game discs should trigger content in other games. For example I am in the middle of playing Tiger Woods Golf 11, and I want to unlock some additional content. I swap in a Mass Effect 2 disc, and Commander Shepard is now inexplicably teeing it up in his spacesuit as a bonus character. Yes that example is silly cross-pollination, but there are so many ways you could proceed with this mechanic. If I have no idea what potential content my game disc will unlock in other game releases (current or future), I may be more inclined to hold onto it. I’d kick myself if I traded away the ultimate unlockable or upgrade.
That’s all I can think of for now. What’s your take?
RTS Game Wrinkles
I’m a huge fan of StarCraft and Dawn of War: 40,000. Both franchises comprise the very best in RTS (Real-Time Strategy) games, and are nearly flawless in their design. A few things I would do to enhance those games, if given the opportunity:
EMERGENCY PURGING - In a scenario where your command base is under siege, and you are low on nearby infantry units/vehicles, you’d purge out unfinished units in the queue as a last-defense. What would happen is you’d have the entire queue pushed out of the armory in an incomplete state. This gives you some defensive firepower, but the troops or vehicles you purged are incomplete and not as diluted in firepower or defense. As a trade-off, your factory or armory would need time to recover from the purge.
INCIDENTAL TRAVEL - You select a group composed of ground troops and vehicles to reach a target destination, and what usually happens is the vehicles will get there first. What I would like to see are troops climb onto the sides of tanks and other vehicles that happen to be sharing the same destination. Not only could you keep your battalion better intact, but you’ll have increased firepower for ‘hitched’ vehicles, though the troops clinging aboard would have decreased accuracy. This should all be done automatically, as I’m not a fan of manually assigning troops to climb into a transport vehicle. Also, the tanks wouldn’t slow down and wait for hitchers - first come first serve.
BUILT-IN HUD - I’d like to see research progress and Unit build progress without actually having to select the building. I propose a smart HUD, where that information is built into the game buildings. For example, I’d design the armory to be made of 6 individual pistons that would be in a high position at the start of the build process, then sink as building progressed. Some color meters could also denote the progress. Sure your opponents could tell which buildings are more active in building units, but these are priority targets regardless.
SMART COVER - The thing about RTS games is the troops fight like the British Red Coats - they stand around and just fire weapons, not really being evasive in their position. If it were up to me, I’d have them take cover behind pillars, armored vehicles (operational or destroyed remnants of), and whatever other section of the environment they deem safe. This would not only make the fights more dramatic, but would give way to using specialized Units, like Snipers and Anti-Tank personnel.
ESCAPE POD - The command base could have a backup escape pod that could be fired to another section of the map (much like the Terran buildings being able to relocate in StarCraft), that would include a builder and a few troops to start a new command base. The drawback: it would take a long time to fuel and ready, and would stop any other capabilities of the command base in the interim. So if defeat looks like a possibility, this last resort could be an option - but plan ahead.
LOOT THEIR POWER - I’d build a specialized Unit that could drain the enemy’s reserves. It would be a very costly and defenseless Unit, so you’d have to secure the enemy base to utilize it. This way you can add to your reserves while depleting your enemy’s supply. More incentive to capture the enemy base! More worthwhile in 3+ player games.
CONVERT THE NON-BELIEVERS - If you could steal your enemy’s power…why not their troops? There is a few ways you could do this: a mode where you could capture enemy units, a means to utilize abandoned or dead units (zombies?), or by dispatching your builder units to assimilate enemy structures to add them into your fold. Instead of wiping out your enemy, you’d claim their carcass for your own means. Only worthwhile in 3+ player games.
RISKIER RESOURCE COLLECTION - If you want more resources in quantity, or a faster rate of harvesting, you should be allowed to gamble with a more dangerous means of collection. Once this method/ machine of collection is built, your resource collection rates increase. But if taken out by the enemy, it could result in severe damage to your base. Pretty much like opting to harvest nuclear power - worthwhile output, but very dangerous.
BUY TIME - Every Unit you build in an RTS game has a set cost attributed to it, as well as a set build time. Well if you want to get your Units a bit sooner (without purging, see above), I’d allow the option to spend more to hurry the Unit’s production speed. The trade-off being you got your Unit sooner, but burned through more resources to do it. A costly short-term measure.
