I generally like your videos Jim, but you are way off base on this one.
People need to understand one thing. Digital media has no inherent value. Let me repeat that. DIGITAL MEDIA HAS NO INHERENT VALUE. Anything that can be duplicated an infinite amount of times at no additional cost for production can not by its very nature have any true monetary value.
So then, what are we paying for?
Simply put, usage rights. We are paying for the right to use/view a given piece of media content. We do not gain ownership of that content when we buy a piece of media, we are simply given access to it for our entertainment. Can you charge someone to watch a football game? Can you charge someone to listen to someone else's music? Can you charge someone to watch a movie? The answer is no. Theaters, venues, stadiums... They PAY to show movies, play music, hold sporting events, you PAY for the ability to experience the content, you do not gain ownership of that viewing experience just because you were there.
Games are no different. Just because the medium has changed, that does not mean that we have any more or less "ownership" than we did before. Could you have opened an arcade and charged people to play XBOX? Specifically set prices for certain games, consoles, etc? No. You may open an internet cafe and allow people access to machines, but in the end you are selling bandwidth and time, NOT the game in an of itself.
The problem with the upcoming generation is not always being connected(try watching PPV on your DVR without an internet connection and then tell me how ridiculous MS is). The problem is not the limiting of who has the right to resale/redistribution. No.
The real problem with the games industry, the thing that is truly screwing consumers, something you touched on briefly, is the fact that there is no distinction being made between the cost of "ownership" and the cost of obtaining usage rights. Publishers are charging people the same regardless of who ACTUALLY owns that copy of Halo.
However, consider mobile gaming. Games are priced to sell, with a clear understanding of the limitations. Clearly no one expects Angry birds to transfer from their iPhone to a Galaxy? No one worries about buying another copy for their iPad. Why is that? Because it costs $.99, that's why. People do not see it as a purchase, they see it as access. Sure maybe they think the "own" it on their phone. But no one balks at the idea of it being linked to their phone and ONLY their phone.
Why make that assumption about games on a console? The answer is simple. Because we see $60 as a significant investment, thus we perceive that to denote ownership. Unfortunately, we are mistaken, and you know what, if we could get the prices of games more in line with their actual "value", that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Online connection allows for updates, DLC, co-operative gaming, patches, etc. You cannot in good conscience decry the negatives of this type of system without also mentioning the good. Less reliance on hardware, more flexibility in terms of bug fixes.
No, the system is not perfect. Far from it. But the reality is that our expectations of what purchase actually means needs to change, as does our willingness to pay full price for something we are only "renting". The responsibility falls as much on the consume as it does on the game companies.
Consider another point of view...
People need to understand one thing. Digital media has no inherent value. Let me repeat that. DIGITAL MEDIA HAS NO INHERENT VALUE. Anything that can be duplicated an infinite amount of times at no additional cost for production can not by its very nature have any true monetary value.
So then, what are we paying for?
Simply put, usage rights. We are paying for the right to use/view a given piece of media content. We do not gain ownership of that content when we buy a piece of media, we are simply given access to it for our entertainment. Can you charge someone to watch a football game? Can you charge someone to listen to someone else's music? Can you charge someone to watch a movie? The answer is no. Theaters, venues, stadiums... They PAY to show movies, play music, hold sporting events, you PAY for the ability to experience the content, you do not gain ownership of that viewing experience just because you were there.
Games are no different. Just because the medium has changed, that does not mean that we have any more or less "ownership" than we did before. Could you have opened an arcade and charged people to play XBOX? Specifically set prices for certain games, consoles, etc? No. You may open an internet cafe and allow people access to machines, but in the end you are selling bandwidth and time, NOT the game in an of itself.
The problem with the upcoming generation is not always being connected(try watching PPV on your DVR without an internet connection and then tell me how ridiculous MS is). The problem is not the limiting of who has the right to resale/redistribution. No.
The real problem with the games industry, the thing that is truly screwing consumers, something you touched on briefly, is the fact that there is no distinction being made between the cost of "ownership" and the cost of obtaining usage rights. Publishers are charging people the same regardless of who ACTUALLY owns that copy of Halo.
However, consider mobile gaming. Games are priced to sell, with a clear understanding of the limitations. Clearly no one expects Angry birds to transfer from their iPhone to a Galaxy? No one worries about buying another copy for their iPad. Why is that? Because it costs $.99, that's why. People do not see it as a purchase, they see it as access. Sure maybe they think the "own" it on their phone. But no one balks at the idea of it being linked to their phone and ONLY their phone.
Why make that assumption about games on a console? The answer is simple. Because we see $60 as a significant investment, thus we perceive that to denote ownership. Unfortunately, we are mistaken, and you know what, if we could get the prices of games more in line with their actual "value", that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Online connection allows for updates, DLC, co-operative gaming, patches, etc. You cannot in good conscience decry the negatives of this type of system without also mentioning the good. Less reliance on hardware, more flexibility in terms of bug fixes.
No, the system is not perfect. Far from it. But the reality is that our expectations of what purchase actually means needs to change, as does our willingness to pay full price for something we are only "renting". The responsibility falls as much on the consume as it does on the game companies.
Consider another point of view...