Buy Before You Try: Why Xbox One’s Potential Used Game Strategy Will Backfire

Unless you live in a deep, dark cave without any form of communication, friends and are forced to drink your own urine, you’ve probably heard about the Xbox One reveal. Thanks in part to the conference answering next to nothing about many of the questions that have built up over the past year, (will it need a constant Internet connection? Is Kinect required? Will it play used games?) There are so many rumors and too much head spinning double talk both from overzealous gamers and Microsoft themselves, that until there is more solid information, I don’t feel any of it is worth talking about without risking looking like a complete ass, (which I do regularly, but I at least want to sound like I know what I’m talking about.)

But one issue is too big to ignore. One that’s gotten a ton of attention over the last few days and one of the few subjects addressed directly by Phil Harrison, former Playstation talking point reciter and current Vice President at Microsoft. On the subject of used games in an interview with Kotaku, Harrison had the following to say about the Xbox One’s ability to play these industry killers, suggesting that a “fee” of the full MSRP would be required to activate the title on a console other than the one it was initially activated on.

“The bits that are on that disc, you can give it to your friend and they can install it on an Xbox One,” he said. “They would then have to purchase the right to play that game through Xbox Live.”

Maybe he’s still working for Sony as a double agent

So what does this mean? I know there are quite a few gamers out there that don’t see this as a big deal. “Stop being poor and get a job if you can’t afford the full price!” some so eloquently put it. Or “used games are killing this industry!” Yes, because used games are this new thing that didn’t exist during the boom periods of the PS2 and Xbox. My favorite is the idea that these businesses are out to make money first and foremost, customer be damned. But that’s the thing, while there will be a dedicated set of gamers that will buy anything Microsoft puts out regardless, all the new Xbox will do under the current circumstances is bury the new console before it’s released. And there are plenty of reasons why this subject alone will take the One to the point of no return.

First, taking the practice of trading in games and selling them back into consideration. One of the main reasons that such measures are being discussed in the first place is that publishers don’t see a dime of the sales used games bring in and the profits go straight into GameStop’s pockets. Some are even saying that gamers should be thankful to Microsoft, acting as if the company is their white knight that’s saving them from the evils of getting five dollars store credit for their $50 game. But if the consumer wants to take that hit, that’s their prerogative. Not to mention that some gamers wouldn’t even be able to afford new games without being able to trade in, potentially hurting new game sales even further, (ironic, isn’t it?)

“Five dollars for three games? There must be a promotion going on!”

Harrison has said that there will be some kind of ability to trade in games through Xbox Live, and recent news suggests that retailers will be able to accept trade ins if they register with Microsoft’s cloud storage system, giving both the console maker and the publishers a cut of the sales while removing the ability to play it from the person’s profile, (which is why the system is reportedly required to connect online once every 24 hours, but that’s a whole different subject .) This sounds great, doesn’t it? Everyone gets what they want. Except where does this leave small game stores? Whatever cut in profit and potential loss from this system could be sustained by GameStop. They’re big boys, they can take it. But the mom and pops that actually hire people that know what they’re talking about? Sorry, sucks to be you. You should’ve bought out a bunch of other game stores if you wanted to be a viable competitor. You know, if you weren’t so poor.

Second, Microsoft’s most loyal customers will suffer the most from this change. Take my home for example. My wife and I suck at sharing, so we have one or two 360’s each to ourselves, (probably more with all the red rings, but who’s counting?) Under this system, I would be able to play a game I bought under my profile, and as long as my profile is on her Xbox, she could play it too. But what happens when I’m using my Xbox somewhere else and she wants to play the game that’s under my name? Too bad, she’s got to buy it again. She should have thought of that before deciding to be so poor. After all, what gamer wouldn’t want to buy the same game more than once? This thinking sure sold a lot of 360’s.

Giving new meaning  to putting a ring on it.

Sarcasm aside, this is a continuing trend from the lack of split screen co op in so many games this generation. Our solution before was to rent a second copy to play together, but now that renting would be affected by this policy, we would have no choice but to buy it twice at the low, low fee of full MSRP. This isn’t just our problem either. What about siblings who have their own stuff? Since the console will need to confirm ownership so you don’t get any funny ideas about lending a game out, what about people who don’t have access to Internet at all times like servicemen? After all, how will the Xbox One know that you actually own the game if it can’t verify that you didn’t trade it in within the last day? It’s better to take the product from the consumer than risk them getting a free ride. But thanks for the sixty dollars!

While all of the above is bad enough, they don’t even touch down on my biggest problem with this whole concept, which is the loss of the ability to lend, borrow or rent games.  I don’t know about the rich gamers reading this out there, but even if I had the money to do so, (I don’t,) I wouldn’t buy each and every game that’s released that looks mildly interesting. Let’s face it, today’s games hardly justify a $60 purchase as it is, with half assed multiplayer modes being tacked on to traditionally single player games, while the solo campaigns get shorter and shorter. Without the ability to try a game before I buy it, an industry that’s already seeing less of my money as it is will soon see even less. There’s a saying that for every voice that speaks out, which is if someone speaks out, there are ten others who feel the same way, and if I can sit here and write pages about my concerns, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would gladly spend their money elsewhere.

Don’t think this won’t hurt the journalism industry either. The great thing about writing the articles I’ve written for Geekscape and other sites in the past was the ability to share my opinions with fellow gamers whether they agreed with me or not. I like you all, but not enough to spend that much on everything I want to review. Once in a while, publishers would be awesome enough to provide review copies so we could get our voice out there, but the mass majority of the games I’ve written about have been rentals. So what happens when many independent voices like mine that aren’t tied to a giant, multimedia company want to write about a game? That’ll be sixty dollars… every time. Unless you wait for a price drop months after release, making the article severely dated.

Game journalists now seeking sponsors.

What’s most concerning to me, and one subject that I haven’t seen discussed outside of my Facebook and Twitter rants, (cheap plug,) are the effect this will have on smaller publishers and creativity as a whole in an industry that’s already afraid of change. Without the ability to rent or borrow games, how willing do you think consumers will be to take a leap of faith and drop sixty hard earned dollars on an untested idea that they’re not sure they will like? I’m sure EA and Activision, (the only two publishers to take the stage at the conference I might add,) are jumping for joy knowing that gamers would rather spend their money on something tested and unchanging than something innovative if they couldn’t try it before they buy it. Without the ability to rent, I wouldn’t be here today writing this Bible of complaints because I wouldn’t be a gamer. I also wouldn’t have went out and bought Super Mario RPG, Earthbound, Donkey Kong Country and many other classics that I was on the fence about before I spent plenty of time on my three day rental from Blockbuster.

EA already took Dead Space, one of the most successful new IPs of the generation, and turned its newest installment into a borderline Gears of War clone that stripped it of almost everything that drew gamers to it in the first place. This attempt at mass market appeal will only grow under a system of “buy before you try,” and the ones that will hurt the most are the smaller, niche publishers who will be too afraid to take the risk of trying something new. So I hope you REALLY like playing the same five games over and over again. Actually, stop reading for a second, pick up your copy of your favorite multimillion franchise and give it a big hug. You better get real familiar with the thing, because this system will only foster the need to keep making the same old crap.

Because nothing says isolation and horror like forced co-op

So I hope Microsoft thinks about going forward with this. While they have promised exclusive games on the way, the 360 has had one of the weakest exclusive line ups I’ve ever seen since the Kinect launched, and have coasted on mostly having the superior versions of multi-platform software. They better pray to whoever they pray to that Sony has a similar used games strategy, because if not, there is no reason to own a game on the Xbox One if it can also be played on the PS4. Fifteen exclusives won’t be nearly enough to save them, and with their track record of such stellar titles like Tao Feng: Enter the Fist, their chances don’t look good. At this point, Microsoft has done far more to sell me on a PS4 or appreciate my Wii U than either Sony or Nintendo have done themselves.

Look, I get it. Piracy is a problem. Used games hurt profits. But punishing and restricting your user base? That will increase sales how? Last I checked, the Wii and DS had rampant piracy thanks to the Homebrew Channel and R4 device respectively, and yet that didn’t stop nine Wii games from selling over ten million units or the DS from becoming the highest selling game platform of all time. It’s still too early to call as far as how receptive gamers will be to these practices once the device is on shelves, but unlike most reveal backlash that is usually full of fanboy nonsense, there are plenty of very legitimate and very real complaints that Microsoft is doing nothing but fostering. If the next Xbox is truly going to be “the one,” they need to stop expecting consumers to “deal with it.” Because with so many alternatives in gaming and with two strong competitors that will be happy to take all that gamer cash instead, we don’t have to deal with anything.

Who knows? Maybe Sony and Nintendo will let Microsoft borrow some of it.

Sources: Kotaku.com, Nintendo.co.jp, Examiner.com