I've wanted to write about buying video games for a while, to discuss the merits of purchasing new versus used, of "online passes", and whether or not there's a moral component to those issues. I hesitated because I don't have much of a background in economics and was worried that would impair my analysis. However, I think I'm a fairly informed consumer and really want to share my reasons for why I think it's good to stay away from used games and why I don't mind online passes.
(Plus I remembered I'm not writing a doctoral thesis here, it's a personal blog that maybe a couple of dozen people read. Hooray for lowered expectations!)
Basically, I think it's a good thing to make sure the developers get paid for their work. And yes, I realize that statement carries a lot more weight when you're talking about an indie game on Steam rather than the latest Call of Duty game. The principle is valid in both cases, though, even if the slice of the pie for the developers is much smaller in the latter than in the former. I think the main complicating factor surrounding this issue is the very nature of the product itself: is it the disc, or the software that has been copied onto the disc? Plenty of people point to the first sale doctrine to answer the question: the consumer has bought one physical copy of Assassin's Creed 2, and should be allowed to re-sell it (even through an intermediary... you know, like our good friends at Gamestop) to whomever he or she wants.
It's such a simple concept that seems so reasonable and fair that I almost feel like an idiot for arguing against it. Almost, but not enough to stop me from doing just that.
Our modern capitalist society has produced such a complex economy, with so many inter-dependencies and hidden costs that I can't even begin to untangle the relationship between the producers of entertainment goods and services, the distributors, the consumers, copyright law, etc. What I can do, though, is approach things from a basic perspective of fairness. It is fair, I believe, to pay someone a reasonable amount for the product of their work. If the men and women at Ubisoft work for two years on a video game, I am happy to pay them sixty bucks for a copy of that game I can play whenever I want. I'd be happier to pay them forty bucks, or thirty, obviously, but that's beside the point. The important thing is that I think it's fair to put money in their hands when they put a game in mine. I choose to believe there is value in that relationship between producer and consumer; buying a used game severs that relationship.
(Here's where I admit that yes, I've bought used games over the years. I've cut back drastically, though, and do my best to buy new whenever the option is available.)
That's why the trend towards the inclusion of an "online pass" in new video games doesn't bother me. What does bother me, though, is when I see people argue that games are so expensive they'd be unable to afford to play anything if they didn't buy used. When, exactly, did people become unable to do without? It's the same argument that some have used to justify piracy, and it infuriates me.
At any rate, that's how I feel. I don't know if it makes me a sucker, or a socialist, or whatever, but I'll keep buying new games as much as I can. Now, if you'll excuse me, I bought a ton of stuff in the latest Steam sale that I need to play...
No comments:
Post a Comment