mre said:
So? They already received payment for their work on the original purchase. Why are they entitled to payment every time a game changes ownership?
I understand that we are on a video game message board, but I don't get how some people (not necessarily you, Danielsan) can parse out the video game industry as some sacred and holy entity that should be separated from other industries with a used/rental market. I could almost understand if a person was entirely against the idea of second-hand markets for everything, and felt that the doctrine of first sale was a load of shit that stole food off of every single impacted industry's table. But I just do not understand why the video game industry is a sacred cow. I don't get it.
I agree with you. If I can sell my Cds and DVDs then let me sell my games. I can see the issue with renting games, especially something that can be finished in a few days (the standard rental period), but resale and trade is the reason why I buy games on disc.
I think part of the reason people differentiate the game industry is because it is slightly different from other media industries. With music, you have CDs, concerts and merchandise as revenue streams, and CDs can sell for years after their initial release and concerts can go on forever for better bands. And thats without having new songs... With movies, you have theater revenue, and DVD sales and Bluray and special editions with double dipping and anniversary editions and again a tail of revenue, without any additional effort from the actors, director, producer....
With games, you have one shot to sell your game, at release, and if you have not sold well in the first few months, you are more often that not doomed as technology advances and your game is more and more antiquated. Also, there are no additional revenue streams, theres no re-releases on the 10th anniversary, there are no special editions a year later with more extras, there are no concerts, or merchandise years down the road. You need a new Madden every year, you need a new Call of Duty, and new Halo and a new Final Fantasy to keep the money flowing and keep the gamers satisfied. ANd that's additional work and time and investment.
That is why I think people want games to sell well for the benefit of developers, so they continue doing what we like them to do. Few, if any, developers make the big bucks like artists or actors do, instead its the publishers who seem to be raking it in. When is the last time you saw a game developer's mega-mansion or luxury car fleet on MTV's Cribs? vs a band member's house? or an athlete? or actor?
Sure we have Wii and the VC, or stupid ports on PSN and Live with no enhancements, but what kind of revenue do those bring in compared to a full title? Some of the best selling games on Live sell less than 100,000 copies. At a few bucks each, that's paltry compared to the money a re-release of Star Wars on Blu-ray or a reunion concert by the Police can bring in.