56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

[Jezzascmezza]

This may be slightly off topic, but to my experience, lending games to others is not the way to go. Out of the four games I've lent to others in the past year, two never came back, and one came back scratched.
Also, the title of this thread makes the matter sound like a bigger deal than it actually is.

 

[Hiroshi Mishima]

I think if a lot of the games coming out these days didn't suck and weren't so overly priced in a hurting economy, maybe more people would buy them. I hardly touch new games anymore, save for a few gems like Saints Row 2 and Ghost Trick. I typically play old games via the consoles that still work or emulation when they don't. Well, that and PC games I get from Good Old Gamers, which you probably won't hear about in that kind of article, cause most of those games are quite old.

 

[ghostrider9876]

I buy new games if they do come with some bonus (e.g. Arkham City's Catwoman) or if I just think the game is going to be good enough that I should give the publisher and developer my money, instead of giving it to the used games retailer (thus, for instance, I'm buying Mass Effect 3 new).

I have no problem with day-one DLC or Online Passes; I understand that used game sales don't give a penny to the people who actually MADE the game, and it's not as if you MUST buy the DLC or the Online Pass to play the game.

 

[Atmos Duality]

A bit of commentary.

Yes they could. They could shut down the service and go laughing "HAHAHAHA we got your money and you got nothing". The thing is they could by that logic leave empty CD's in the cases. This is an absurd reasoning. You might have it in your skull that its us VS them but you cant run a business very long like that.

It isn't completely absurd; just partly.
Lets just state the obvious: if anyone can get something valuable for nothing, they would do it every single time. If EA believed that it was time to make their last big wad of cash, then pack their bags and go home, they could swindle hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people and get away scot-free.

But that isn't the whole story here; if Demand decreases as a result of protest, then Supply will be forced to change. Conversely, if Supply under-prices their goods, the Tragedy of the Commons kicks in, and Supply ultimately shrivels up and dies.

So it's up to Demand to keep Supply's pricing schemes under control, as much as it's up to Supply to limit availability so production doesn't shrivel up. So yes, in a sense it IS Us Vs Them, but it's competition designed to let economics overcome potential hazards/pitfalls and to keep things moving in the long-run.

When Supply starts unilaterally dictating what Demand should do, it destabilizes the process and leads to a crash down the line. EA *could* milk their customers for cash one last time, then pack their bags and cash out, and there wouldn't be a single thing their customers could do about it.

They wouldn't work in the business again, but they would have made a ton of money. However, I'd like to think that EA is in it for the long haul.

no....
Just no. Neither legally or financially can they get away with ignoring consumer rights. The problem is that people seem to think consumer rights means that "the consumer is always right". People are still being dragged to court for this stuff. More importantly in the market we have now there will be 4 competitors ready to take your customers if you dont keep them. Again this hyperbole Us VS them you got going. It just isn't true.

Oh yes they can. From their perspective, "consumers should only have the rights WE define for them; which is as few as possible". This is a game of control with them. They test our willingness to throw away bargaining in exchange for access to the good.

Economic law would sort EA out in a heartbeat, if not for two facts:
1) Most gamers (or potential customers) are completely ignorant of what they've given up by using Origin.
2) EA is going to flex their natural monopoly power at some point (tangentially, this is why I find it a bit silly to compare Origin and Steam directly. Steam doesn't own the products they sell. However, EA owns everything they sell on Origin. Economically, that's a HUGE difference.)

Monopolies have a bad habit of overpricing their goods because they get TOO greedy. The irony is that most monopolies would be more profitable if they priced even a bit lower.

However, most businesses with virtual/natural monopolies are content with those profits, so they leave them in place as long as it doesn't cripple them, and focus on maintaining their monopoly instead. The severance of consumer rights is a definitive first step in that direction, like it or not.

Now, don't construe my argument to mean that customers should work/compete towards the destruction of these publishers or the market in general. That ultimately serves nobody.
However, it's our job (as Demand) to keep them accountable, and to let them know when they've gone too far, not only so we can get the games we so selfishly want, but it keeps THEM in business for longer.

It's "us vs them", but again, it's not intended to be a purely destructive relationship; just one of adjustment.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I am not going to disagree with this because you pretty much clarified what I was trying to say.

I used the term VS because it is negative and meant as destructive.

The only point I'd like to add/amend (couldn't because I had to run off to class) is that "destruction" (absolute rejection of a firm and intervention) should only be employed when a firm is systematically, and deliberately violating/destroying the market for any reason; be it flat-out destroying stock (or capital), extorting money in patently unnecessary or illegal ways ("shylock market") or anything more overtly drastic.

(I leave "carteling" out of the equation, because cartels have a habit of cheating themselves to death; very few that spring to my mind have stood the test of time and all of them necessity-goods)

IMO, EA's removal of consumers' rights should be grounds for strong rejection by anyone who is aware of the potential (and likely) consequences, but not outright destruction. I'd save that for if/when they start screwing people over regularly (significant proportions of the market; not just outlier incidents here and there).

 

[Atmos Duality]

I dont know how far back you read, but I was more or less arguing for the advancement of digital distribution and the potential complete abolishment of physical copies because it would lower prices and remove the need for splitting resources to make things like day one DLC.

I didn't really talk about EA's removal of consumer rights.

Don't worry; the topics are closely related.

Digital distribution is basically going to take over the majority of the market in the future (assuming no horrific crashes or such).
However, full-on digital distribution has inevitable and dire consequences for the consumer if we can't hammer out some sort of ground rules/rights now, because full-distribution requires DRM to be effective, and the sort the publishers want to push is Always-Online DRM.

Add to that the fact that we've seen the first signs of some truly ridiculous terms in their agreements (do I even have to bring up the Origin EULA?), and the legitimate customer starts to get jacked.

Basically, this boils down to two things:
1) The publishers want to push for proprietary all-digital distribution SERVICE so they can flex their their Natural Monopoly power. Because it's a Natural Monopoly, prices will not likely drop.
2) They want to take all market control from the consumer, and boil it down to a "Do or Die/Take it or Leave it" system enforced by Hardline DRM. Games will become services that can be terminated AT WILL by the Publisher, and consumers will have no recourse but to not do business with them.

Physical copies, by simple logic, are essentially immune to the DRM and instant-termination clauses. This provides the consumer security in their transaction. Online also can (as Steam has) but my prediction suggests that the publishers aren't as interested in making their customers happy.

Why entice when you can FORCE.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Now you are pushing Hyperbole stuff. The must successful of all digital distribution doesn't have always on DRM.

You ignore the fact that Steam does not own the copyright to most of the games they distribute. Steam will flourish as it does now so long as developers and publishers are willing to license their property to them.

EA pulled out of Steam not due to any sort of "unfair" business agreement (as they claimed), but simply because they could finally cut them out as a middleman and increase their revenue per sale by selling AT RETAIL PRICES, without actually paying the difference that goes with distributing via retail.

This is an important distinction.

Now you are pressing on potential again.

Lacking the ability to see the future, I can only speak of potentials.

Secondly there is no monopoly. Even with full digital distribution, the companies will have to compete amongst themselves. I may misunderstand what you mean, but the only competitor full digital distribution will remove is the second hand market. At the end of the day prices has to stay competitive with other publishers.

I apologize for the lack of clarity on my part here, but digital goods fall under the type "Natural Monopoly". They are excludable, and non-rival goods. I used an economical term here when it had an ambiguous meaning. Sorry.

EA still has to compete with other game companies, yes. But what I mean is that they will become the sole distributor, which in turn decreases the need to compete for their customer's business.

Before, when games were treated as products, we could apply market practices that could benefit consumers (as a result of competition). With purely proprietary digital distribution, the consumer will pay whatever price the publisher wants, just like a monopoly.

Steam competes with other online distribution services, and contrary to what many claim, other retailers. Again, Steam is heavily reliant on other publishers/developers for its business. They still have their inhouse/core games to fall back on, but Steam would be nowhere near as successful as it is today without that support.

Now on the EA origins Eula.
I am willing to say some of it was incompetence and general lack of goodwill towards the EA side that made this into a bigger problem than it were. The original intent for origin to scan your PC for other EA product and then add them automatic to your steam account. Now should they have added this? No because it is an invasion of privacy. But it was blown out of proportion by people being iron clad sure that "EA wants to take over your PC", when what it really was was a misguided attempt of getting users to give up privacy in exchange for service.

The original intention was made clear as day. EA flat out said in the original draft of their EULA (and more subtly in their current draft) that they were going to gather marketing data on you from your computer, and either use it, share it, or sell it to "approved business partners/affiliates", which basically means anyone they do business with.

What is the benefit to the customer? Very little compared to the benefits to EA. Miniscule.
Maybe better technical support. MAYBE.

In fact, Origin's EULA is still far too vaguely worded on what they request access to. I've addressed this repeatedly in other topics on the subject. I'll provide a summary below.

I really tire of people referring to it. Especially now it has been changed.

Their EULA as *currently worded* states that they will scan for "information on....software, AND software usage..." individually. "Software" as worded, legally means ANYTHING ON YOUR HARD DRIVE.

NOT "EA's installed software", nor "competitor's software" or even "frequently used software", but just "software", with an implicit general definition. And if you don't agree to that, they could legally terminate the agreement, and lock you out of the games you paid for.

I must emphasize, there is not ONE exaggeration in what I said here. No hyperbole.
Can you see why I take this matter so seriously?