Ghengis Cohen
Banned
I don't rent games for the same reason I don't buy used books. I enjoy supporting the people who put in a lot of effort and time into creating something. Plus I'm not a broke ass. College ftw.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The case for renting games
- Thread starter GDJustin
- Start date
demi said:
I believe your game impressions.
Anyway, what's with the bizzaro world fatcats coming out to play in this thread? How in god's name is RENTING equivalent to PIRACY?! Ya'll are crazy. Blockbuster or Gamefly or whatever pay $x to gamecompany $y, therefore your favorite game company makes their buck and the risk is transferred to the rental outlet.
You really are killing me today. First color manuals, now anti-rental zealots.
ElectricBlue187
Member
GilloD said:
ooooohh burrrned
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
It's because we pay them handsomely.GilloD said:
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
Sacks of gold and gems. I'm pretty oldschool.TheTrin said:
Zylander said:
I thought I'd made it abundantly clear why. The EFFORT put into a game, or the INNOVATION a game is packed with, does not (necessarily) translate into VALUE for me, as a consumer.
I can use a rentail service to play Okami for one month for $13. Or I can buy Okami to play it for one month for $40.
Until publishers can offer a value as good as that of rental services, as a capitalist consumer I'm going to go with the better deal. I can use the money I saved by renting single player titles to enrich my life in other ways - more meals out, more iTunes music, a home stereo system, etc.
As I said, these publishers are corporations. Their goal is to make as much money as possible, period. They will not be getting "charity" purchases from me. I buy $50 games that give me $50 value. Single Player games, even great ones, usually don't do that, unless they're highly replayable.
Edit: It's the industry's fault they aren't compensated for these rentals. The movie industry is.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Yea, I agree.
Once again, **** gaf, rent games. When the developers are eating ramen, I'll blame your poor attitudes.
Once again, **** gaf, rent games. When the developers are eating ramen, I'll blame your poor attitudes.
TheTrin said:
Why don't developers do this themselves? I have Doom RPG on my phone. I had the opportunity to buy it for $8, or the ability to "subscribe" to it for 1 month for $5.
This payment model is possible because of digital distribution.
So why don't systems like Steam, or online downloadable games, offer something similar? And don't you dare answer "because they don't have to!" That's just proving my damn point and justifying my decision to not give them any money for titles that I won't play for an extended period of time. Gaming is an expensive hobby, by the DESIGN of the publishers. It wouldn't have to be.
I want to be able to buy Half-Life 2 for $25 if the game is "unlocked" for one play-through and nothing more.
I want to be able to buy JUST Halo 3 multiplayer for $35, as I don't give a shit about single player.
I want RPGs to go episodic, so I can spend $5 to see if the first five hours offer a strong battle system and strong characters.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
MoxManiac said:
Publishers dictate what their various devs should do for their next project based on the sales of previous projects. Thus, if sales are low on a particular title, publishers become more wary of new IPs, and go back to trickling out tired sequels. Pretty simple concept.
GDJustin said:
This would be great, as long as it wasn't the ONLY option. I don't like digital distribution as a sole outlet of proliferation, because I like a manual, a box, and a disc in my hand. I'm old fashioned like that, I guess.
Tyrone Slothrop
Banned
moral obligated or not, some games deserve only a rental, ... take my rental of Castlevania: Curse of Darkness for example (lets not derail this, now). i'm a huge CV fan but not big enough to blow $30-50 bucks on this, because if the reviews are any indication, its not worth it. i'd just like to play it for an hour or two just to check out the nice soundtrack, maybe get somewhat of my CV fix ... then put it down because its not that solid of a game
overall though, ideally the US should take japan's stance on making games because i'm ultimately interested in the good of the welfare of the industry as a whole. but there's next to nothing that can be done about it to my knowledge
overall though, ideally the US should take japan's stance on making games because i'm ultimately interested in the good of the welfare of the industry as a whole. but there's next to nothing that can be done about it to my knowledge
The point is that the success of rental services is not the problem. It's a REFLECTION of a problem that has been created by the publishers themselves.
The price barrier to entry is higher with videogames than almost any other common hobby I can think of, and CERTAINLY higher than any other entertainment medium.
You need a proprietary device to play these games, often times several of them if you're an enthusiast, and new products launch at $50-60.
Compare that to music, or movies, or books, or comics, or whatever you want to compare it to.
Yes yes, I know a game is a bigger undertaking than an album, but what about a summer blockbuster? Is Okami or Dead Rising a bigger corporate undertaking than Spiderman 3, or PotC? I can consume both those films as a one-off in a theater at a $5.50 matinee, or own it forever for $18 on DVD.
Dead Rising and Okami on the other hand cost me $60 and $40 to enjoy, respectively.
The REASON for this disparity is because the film industry isn't so goddamn broken - there's lots of diversified revenue streams, allowing even middling films to recover their budget. The rental industry, for them, is one of these streams. And it doesn't cannibalize the others.
Edit:
Films have a much bigger target audience than games, so a $200 million dollar picture like Pirates costs people $5.50 to see, whereas a $20 million game like Halo 2 costs audiences $55 to buy.
Since games have a smaller target audience, they just shove the costs down gamers' throats instead of developing and nurturing ancillary revenue sources, or by WIDENING their damn appeal.
The price barrier to entry is higher with videogames than almost any other common hobby I can think of, and CERTAINLY higher than any other entertainment medium.
You need a proprietary device to play these games, often times several of them if you're an enthusiast, and new products launch at $50-60.
Compare that to music, or movies, or books, or comics, or whatever you want to compare it to.
Yes yes, I know a game is a bigger undertaking than an album, but what about a summer blockbuster? Is Okami or Dead Rising a bigger corporate undertaking than Spiderman 3, or PotC? I can consume both those films as a one-off in a theater at a $5.50 matinee, or own it forever for $18 on DVD.
Dead Rising and Okami on the other hand cost me $60 and $40 to enjoy, respectively.
The REASON for this disparity is because the film industry isn't so goddamn broken - there's lots of diversified revenue streams, allowing even middling films to recover their budget. The rental industry, for them, is one of these streams. And it doesn't cannibalize the others.
Edit:
Films have a much bigger target audience than games, so a $200 million dollar picture like Pirates costs people $5.50 to see, whereas a $20 million game like Halo 2 costs audiences $55 to buy.
Since games have a smaller target audience, they just shove the costs down gamers' throats instead of developing and nurturing ancillary revenue sources, or by WIDENING their damn appeal.
I personally don't see the problem with renting games, but man, I just can't bother with it. I have too many hobbies as it is demanding my money. Therefore, I'm patient and wait for sales to buy things (which still supports dev/pubs of movies/games/anime). I honestly don't see how you guys can have so much time to play or rent so many different games. I'm still trying to catch up on older games I missed and went out of print!
I can rent movies/anime, and buy them on the cheap (not used, I like my ish new). I buy CDs from the artists I dig (and sample new ones on iTunes to see if they're worth it), and I just wait to pick up games on the cheap. Unless there's a game I know I'm going to LOVE, then I'm there on day 1 paying full price.
I paid full price for Dead Rising, and I played it for 9 days straight. I feel that's worth my $60 right there. It kept me glued to my seat, playing and having a damn fine time for 9 days. Then I still go back to it for infinite mode. (So, given that Oblivion kept you going for a MONTH at $60, a straight MONTH, I think you got your money's worth man imho. If you break it down, you only paid $2 a day for a game that kept you glued. And you gave your thanks to the devs for it).
I picked up Yakuza yesterday for full price, cuz I know I'm going to love it, and want Sega to know I want more of these games. I'll buy NBA2k7 full price cuz...damn, even I have to admit, it's going to be hot shit.
Anyways, I guess it's all relative, but I just can't keep up normally even to rent things. So, I guess it's a blessing. By the time I realize I have time to buy and play something like Digital Devil Saga I-II, I manage to find them for $40 combined brand new. Can't beat that.
I can see Justin's points clearly, and they make sense for him (and many other gamers out there). I gotta disagree on your Oblivion comments though. You got your money's worth, and you gave the devs your thanks. I mean, come on man. a MONTH is a long ****in time for one game. A month of pure entertainment is a steal at $60 (while supporting the makers of the game. Yes, you'll make the point that it'll be cheaper and you save more by renting it). Eh, that's just me though.
I can rent movies/anime, and buy them on the cheap (not used, I like my ish new). I buy CDs from the artists I dig (and sample new ones on iTunes to see if they're worth it), and I just wait to pick up games on the cheap. Unless there's a game I know I'm going to LOVE, then I'm there on day 1 paying full price.
I paid full price for Dead Rising, and I played it for 9 days straight. I feel that's worth my $60 right there. It kept me glued to my seat, playing and having a damn fine time for 9 days. Then I still go back to it for infinite mode. (So, given that Oblivion kept you going for a MONTH at $60, a straight MONTH, I think you got your money's worth man imho. If you break it down, you only paid $2 a day for a game that kept you glued. And you gave your thanks to the devs for it).
I picked up Yakuza yesterday for full price, cuz I know I'm going to love it, and want Sega to know I want more of these games. I'll buy NBA2k7 full price cuz...damn, even I have to admit, it's going to be hot shit.
Anyways, I guess it's all relative, but I just can't keep up normally even to rent things. So, I guess it's a blessing. By the time I realize I have time to buy and play something like Digital Devil Saga I-II, I manage to find them for $40 combined brand new. Can't beat that.
I can see Justin's points clearly, and they make sense for him (and many other gamers out there). I gotta disagree on your Oblivion comments though. You got your money's worth, and you gave the devs your thanks. I mean, come on man. a MONTH is a long ****in time for one game. A month of pure entertainment is a steal at $60 (while supporting the makers of the game. Yes, you'll make the point that it'll be cheaper and you save more by renting it). Eh, that's just me though.
Killing developers?! Jesus what?!
Get off the soapbox, brother. I'm a consumer - I don't want to pay 50-60 bucks for a game that I will play for a month, and might not play again for a year. I rent it now, enjoy it alot, and maybe buy it later when if I find it for cheap.
I am not "killing a developer" when I do this. Capcom is a multi-million dollar developer/publisher. They pawn off Street Fighter and Megaman sequels, spinoffs, and collections. They're one of the top three game console 3rd party earners in the US and Japan. This sad tale of the poor, penniless developer that puts in hundreds of hours of love and devotion into game software just so they can hope that some compassionate patron will throw a miserly 50 or 60 US dollars their way is silly hyperbole.
Renting is NOT piracy. You don't see federal agents shutting down Gamefly and Blockbuster. They pay for copies of the games so you're able to play it. They pay less royalties for DVD rentals, because you can now buy a DVD the same day, and they were loosing money. Do you feel that Hollywood Video is robbing from poor movie houses like Warner Bros.?
If you're a collector, and like the "excitement" of purchasing a game at MSRP the day its released, and enjoy seeing the sides of game cases on your shelf, that's great. I had that mentality once too. I have the Neo Geo games to prove it.
But don't give me this ethics and moral lecture about renting videogames and how I'm killing the industry. Wow...
Get off the soapbox, brother. I'm a consumer - I don't want to pay 50-60 bucks for a game that I will play for a month, and might not play again for a year. I rent it now, enjoy it alot, and maybe buy it later when if I find it for cheap.
I am not "killing a developer" when I do this. Capcom is a multi-million dollar developer/publisher. They pawn off Street Fighter and Megaman sequels, spinoffs, and collections. They're one of the top three game console 3rd party earners in the US and Japan. This sad tale of the poor, penniless developer that puts in hundreds of hours of love and devotion into game software just so they can hope that some compassionate patron will throw a miserly 50 or 60 US dollars their way is silly hyperbole.
Renting is NOT piracy. You don't see federal agents shutting down Gamefly and Blockbuster. They pay for copies of the games so you're able to play it. They pay less royalties for DVD rentals, because you can now buy a DVD the same day, and they were loosing money. Do you feel that Hollywood Video is robbing from poor movie houses like Warner Bros.?
If you're a collector, and like the "excitement" of purchasing a game at MSRP the day its released, and enjoy seeing the sides of game cases on your shelf, that's great. I had that mentality once too. I have the Neo Geo games to prove it.
But don't give me this ethics and moral lecture about renting videogames and how I'm killing the industry. Wow...
ElectricBlue187
Member
^^agreed.
mr jones said:
But you are. I'm not saying it's not your right, but you can't simply ignore your/renting's affect.
The video gaming business model isn't built around renting. It simply isn't. Other forms of media, namely movies, can handle renting, because they have multiple outlets of income. Theater release, multiple DVD releases, broadcast deals. Gaming has 1: Video game sales.
How can you say it doesn't affect the industry when for the price of 1 sale, 10 people take a game, without anything paid to the publisher/developer. This isn't loaning a game to a friend, it's a large scale business, it's a large chunk of profits.
Again, I'm not saying you can't, and it's not your right, but you can't claim ignorance or ignore what it does.
thestopsign
Member
The problem with your theory for me GDJustin is that I'm that type of person who plays games for under 1 hour every day. When I'm really into a game, atmost I will play 2 1/2 Hours in a day. So I normally end up buying about 3-4 Full price games a year. So far it's only been New Super Mario Bros, Metroid Prime Hunters, Shadow of the Collosus, and Guitar Heroes. The rest I buy at discount prices of 20-30 bucks. So instead of playing through a game in a week, I can play through it in a month.
Another thing I do is get through about half of a game, and drop it even though I still want to play it (usually school or some other thing like a vacation gets in the way), so I can't play games for a week or two. The only other time I play games is with my friends, and those are usually PC games like Age of Empires over lan, or Counter Strike. Your arguement is good for some people but not mine.
Another thing I do is get through about half of a game, and drop it even though I still want to play it (usually school or some other thing like a vacation gets in the way), so I can't play games for a week or two. The only other time I play games is with my friends, and those are usually PC games like Age of Empires over lan, or Counter Strike. Your arguement is good for some people but not mine.
SnakeXs said:
The industry revolves around its consumers. The videogame industry has to adapt to the desires of its patrons, otherwise it fails. If it becomes a growing trend that more folks tend to rent than purchase games, there will be a shift in game companies' business models. They will find a different way of getting thier product to consumers. Or they will fail. This is happening with the music industry. It happened to the automobile industry.
No I won't claim ignorance that when I don't purchase a game for MSRP, the game company isn't getting its projected dollar amount per game. But I also don't claim to try to protect the assets of companies that I have no financial investments in. Companies like Capcom, Nintendo, and EA have been around almost as long as I've been alive. If traditional retail strategies don't work to get their product to the consumer, and still keep them in the black, then they'll find another way.
So yes, I'll rent. I'll buy at a discounted price, and I'll buy used.
charlequin
Banned
SnakeXs said:
Sure I can, and I'll blame it on the publishers too. This is not a situation where their hands are tied by an unfair legal system or an unavoidable conflux of poor circumstances. This is a situation where a conscious choice on the part of video game publishers -- across-the-board premium pricing on new releases without an effort to develop secondary income streams -- results in them losing out on "sales" that they think are "rightfully" theirs. Well, no, they're not. Publishers lose out on some things by sticking to the $50 model, and one of those is my purchase of a game I feel will be marginal for my collection; I'll make use of the entirely legal methods available to me to avoid a full purchase.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
I rent most of my games and buy the gems, but I usually sell off the vast majority of the games I do buy. I don't like the idea of spending $60 for a game I might only play a few days and let it collect dust on the shelf just so I can have an nicer collection.
Kelegacy
XBOX - RECORD ME LOVING DOWN MY WOMAN GOOD
I think the audience for Dead Rising may be different for Okami. Comparing the two just solidifies the fact that you're a tool.demi said:
I don't care if you don't buy Okami, I'm all for rentals. I don't rent myself, but in the age of next-gen prices while offering stale gameplay, renting seems the most viable option. If developers and publishers don't like people renting their games or buying them used, lower the goddamn prices.
Again, I don't give two shits if you buy Okami, but stating that it's a bad game is another bulletpoint on the "Why I'm Ignorant" outline for the autobiography of your life.
Kelegacy
XBOX - RECORD ME LOVING DOWN MY WOMAN GOOD
I said I don't care if you buy/rent it. Saying it sucks seems like you are hoping it's bad in order to justify some weird agenda you have with the game. Why don't you wait until it's out before looking like a fool?demi said:
Gamerankings FTW.
I only rent games and never buy anymore.
Part of the reason why is because when I buy a game it loses a huge chunk of it's value the second I open it. If I don't like the game or just never get around to playing it (which was the case with me more often than not when I used to buy a lot of games) then the amount of time and money it will cost me to get rid of that game and recover some of it's value ends up being greater than what it would have cost me to simply rent the game from an online service and return it when I'm done with it. Why should I take that risk when there are alternatives that eliminate most of that hassle?
For me, renting games means that I will pay the minimal amount of money while assuming the least amount of risk when I decide to play a game. Taking into account the cost, the convinience of a rental service and my typical gaming habits, it is the most logical course of action for me to take. Even if, you contend that games aren't that expensive in the first place (which they aren't) it would still mean I wasn't spending my money wisely because renting is still cheaper than buying a game. To me, the only reasonable argument against renting is if you want to keep the game because you are a video game collector, which I'm not.
I play games to have fun. I don't care about ammasing a collection of games for the sake of proving something to someone else (in fact, I am absolutely opposed to "collecting" anything these days) and the fact that anyone thinks what I'm doing is bad for the industry isn't going to make me feel guilty enough to change my gaming habits. I don't feel guilty and I do the same thing with movies/dvds and to a lesser extent CDs. It's not about not having the money to buy the games it's about being smart with the money you do have and doing what suits your gaming habits best.
Part of the reason why is because when I buy a game it loses a huge chunk of it's value the second I open it. If I don't like the game or just never get around to playing it (which was the case with me more often than not when I used to buy a lot of games) then the amount of time and money it will cost me to get rid of that game and recover some of it's value ends up being greater than what it would have cost me to simply rent the game from an online service and return it when I'm done with it. Why should I take that risk when there are alternatives that eliminate most of that hassle?
For me, renting games means that I will pay the minimal amount of money while assuming the least amount of risk when I decide to play a game. Taking into account the cost, the convinience of a rental service and my typical gaming habits, it is the most logical course of action for me to take. Even if, you contend that games aren't that expensive in the first place (which they aren't) it would still mean I wasn't spending my money wisely because renting is still cheaper than buying a game. To me, the only reasonable argument against renting is if you want to keep the game because you are a video game collector, which I'm not.
I play games to have fun. I don't care about ammasing a collection of games for the sake of proving something to someone else (in fact, I am absolutely opposed to "collecting" anything these days) and the fact that anyone thinks what I'm doing is bad for the industry isn't going to make me feel guilty enough to change my gaming habits. I don't feel guilty and I do the same thing with movies/dvds and to a lesser extent CDs. It's not about not having the money to buy the games it's about being smart with the money you do have and doing what suits your gaming habits best.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
The only way I advocate renting is in a `try before you buy` scenario, where you end up purchasing the game if you really enjoy it.
Renting is killing american sales the way used games are selling japanese game sales. Used games in Japan are in such perfect ****ing condition, it`s hard to justify buying a new copy, because they`re virtually the same.
Renting is killing american sales the way used games are selling japanese game sales. Used games in Japan are in such perfect ****ing condition, it`s hard to justify buying a new copy, because they`re virtually the same.
Kelegacy
XBOX - RECORD ME LOVING DOWN MY WOMAN GOOD
I haven't rented in years, but I don't have a problem with it because I would use renting to satisfy the following:TheTrin said:
1. Try out new games to see if they are worth a purchase
2. Beat short ones that are not worth a 60 price tag (like being 6 hours long)
A person could rent Stubbs the Zombie and beat it in one afternoon. I don't see why it is bad that a person decides to rent an extremely short game and get the same enjoyment out of it in one day, for 6 bucks or so, rather than shelling out 50 dollars for a game he's going to play for an equal amount of time. Games like Oblivion or Disgaea (or most RPGs) almost require you to make a purchase to enjoy them to completion, but I suppose a rental is prudent if you want to try the game out first and see if it's for you.
Games are getting shorter. Some games, like Black, are the equivalant of watching BraveHeart and the Patriot back to back. Why pay a retail price for something that is so bloody short? The way the industry is moving, games will be as long as movies in the near future, because they are more focused on engines and graphics and marketing than lengthy gameplay or replayability. Bioware has gone on record as saying that games like Baldur's Gate 2 (one of the most epic games ever) are not in their interest anymore due to their size. You can see a good example of this with their last game, Jade Empire. Short, oh was it short.
I bought Dead Rising, but I could have rented it and saved myself over 50 bucks with a simple 5-day rental. I beat it in less than 2. It has lots of replayability, but for the folks that don't care about beating games more than once, a purchase makes little sense. And many rentals are for games you'll never buy anyway. I'm not interested in buying Saints Row, but I would rent it for sure. There is also the fact that there are just too many games coming out for some consumers to purchase. Again, rentals are a very viable solution to this.
charlequin
Banned
TheTrin said:
You should start teaching Japanese gamers to serve Fritos with/have sex on top of/wipe their ass with their games before trading them in, just like Americans!