So... he sees that there is there is a problem. He also sees that there are two sides to it(problem X exsists because element A cannot coexist with element B therefore problem X has 2 sides).
Industry cannot sustain under current model
ELEMENT A
High Budget Games
A practice of investing obscene large sums of money into a game as well as advertising so enough (key) demographic(s) are hit to ensure the investment is as safe as possible. Safe being not only an immediate recoup of investment + profit 2 weeks-1 month after launch, but also safe in that they can launch immediately into production of the sequel knowing their current userbase is the minimum to expect for the next release.
This practice has produced games products that have grossed so high that it seems pointless to make a product that doesn't in some way aim at the demographics the product leader has attracted.
It seems to have lead to misguided assumptions of the way competing product should be made. That a product that covers the same ground, has more features and functions better will either succeed above the leader on the merits they have over it, be as successful as the leader or at least fracture the leaders userbase.
These competing products all have a similar times where their target audience has been known to spend money on products like theirs and if they miss it, profit forecasts fall dramatically. This leads to an expensive advertising competition that raises the budget even more and every time you increase the budget, you increase your projected sales so investors don't get nervous.
Now you're in a situation where every lost sale hurts you.
So you compete over the people who already have what they wanted hoping they all collectively decide to move to your product for the same/similar fix.
But whatever, those are your cards to play. Just realize this is the active side. Choosing to go lower budget with a particular, under served niche in mind is also an option. Not company shatteringly risky however profits are lower.
ELEMENT B
Used Games
A practice where the consumer decides to sell their product when the value of keeping the product is lower the value of money amounting to a fraction of what they purchased it for.
There are many reasons for doing this from reasons like quitting the hobby and trying to recoup investment to getting enough cash for a new release to "I finished it" to many other things. The timeframe from release varies as wildly as the amount of reasons for selling.
Retailers, seeing this trend, set themselves up as a hub for first sale and resale. The amount of profit made on resales had investors pushing for rapid expansion that can no longer sustain itself without pushing item resale(reminds me of another business grasping beyond their reach...). This business doesn't just rely on the people who make the product, this relies heavily on the consumer who decides the product is not worth keeping, the consumer who didn't rent the game but bought it and resold it after a weekend.
While this product can be sold repeatedly without loss of quality, it still needs every owner of said product to trade it in, and trade ins matter most in the short term...
If resold products are such a problem in the space of 2 weeks where it cripples profits... there might just be something wrong or missing with your product.
Element B is passive, it's the natural result of a consumer weighing what they paid against what they got and coming to the decision that half or even less than half the money back from the initial purchase is worth not having that experience with that product in the foreseeable future.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I agree, these two things cannot coexist.
Element A needs Element B gone so they can get larger investments by ensuring investors that consumers won't be able to resell the product. Whether that will actually help them or make people buy less new games a year, no idea.
If the reliance on blockbuster tentpole go big or go home was at least lessened, then used games would remain one of the key things that keeps our player base large. A player base that includes people who buy used because that's their financial level but then trade them in so they can get into a new release's multiplayer with their friends so they won't enter it when their friends outlevel them greatly, or worse, have stopped playing.
He just took that side because he was an active part of element A, a lower budget would be a nightmare for him. The successful franchises he's been a part of has isolated his perspective in a strange way.
