I sat down with a buddy and had a long conversation about how both MS and Sony should be handling this. Here's what we came up with:
1) The Issue
We believe the underlying conflict here is company/developer revenue vs. consumer satisfaction. On one end, you can have a strict DRM system where each account must have a license to play said game (i.e. maximum developer revenue, minimum consumer satisfaction), or you have the other end of the spectrum where there are no restrictions on ownership and you are free to lend your copy of the game as many times as you'd like (maximum consumer satisfaction, minimum developer revenue). The question becomes: is there a suitable middle ground where both parties can be reasonably satisfied?
2) Used Games
We believe that the whole idea of selling a "used" copy of a digital game is silly to begin with, considering that there is really no such thing as "used" code: a new copy of the game will run just as well as a "used" copy. However, with consoles, people are used to having a physical medium for their games and typically speaking would want to have the option of selling games they no longer play. From what I understand, games will still come in discs; the game will run from the disc (and will be installed onto the HD over time), but each disc has a unique license tied to it which can only be tied to one account at any given time. In the strictest sense, this approach eliminates the used game market entirely - you buy a game at market value, you play it, you beat it, you are stuck with it forever. Very Steam-esque. But remember, console gamers are used to being able to sell their games back (and so is GameStop).
So MS and Sony cannot realistically go down this route without pissing off too many people. The polar opposite is equally bad as well; they cannot realistically stick with the old game model and let people share/pirate games since this will result in large financial losses to both MS/Sony and developers.
We believe the best alternative is to allow used licenses to be sold to other consumers at a reduced cost. Person A bought "Next Gen Game 4" for $60 on release and wants to sell it back. S/he trades in his/her license to that game for $XX% of the current market value of the game and Person B may decide to purchase Person A's license for $(XX% + Y), where Y represents some kind of profit margin the developer/MS/Sony/Gamestop (DMSG) will be gaining on this sale. Person A benefits by being able to sell back games they no longer want to play, Person B gains by being able to purchase a game for lower than full price, and DMSG will gain from this since they all get a cut of the profit. Isn't this profit less than what they would be gaining if there were no used games? Yes (with the exception of Gamestop; they would be massively boned if they could no longer profit off of selling used games), but it does strike a compromise between everyone's interests. The next question is why would anyone buy a game at full price if they can purchase someone else's ex-license? The answer is they wouldn't, but keep in mind there should be only a limited number of used licenses at any given time, which ensures that some people will be paying retail price. Of course, as with all licenses, these used licenses should be heavily safeguarded to ensure people don't try to capitalize on bogus CD keys.
3) Borrowing/Lending
Borrowing/lending is going to be impossible if MS/Sony implement an always-on DRM system. Under this system, the only time your friend would be able to play your game at his/her discretion is if you give him/her your account details so that he/she may log in using your account to play your game. This is unacceptable for some people. Most of us probably do not want to have to share account details just to let a friend borrow a game. Again, MS/Sony would do this to prevent financial losses from pirating and for
good reasons imo.
We came up with this solution to satisfy both parties:
- You are allowed to freely borrow a friend's game a limited number of times (X) over a fixed period of time (Y). There will also be a cap on how long you may borrow a friend's game.
- Permissions to borrow games will be in the form of allowances. The number of allowances refreshes back to X amount every Y days, and the value of X varies depending on the premium level of your account. Standard accounts do
not come with this privilege; you must pay extra to borrow games. Realistically, the pricing on this account upgrade should be set at a level where you would have to consistently use most of your allowances in order to break even. Think of it as having a season pass to your favorite amusement park. The cost of a day pass is $40 and the cost of the season pass is $80. Go twice and you break even; go more and you save money. Most people end up going just once, which is why season passes are profitable in the long-run. Serious gamers will love this option, and casual gamers will stick to buying a few select games.
- Assuming the borrower has an available allowance to borrow a game, the lender temporarily forfeits his/her license and may no longer play his/her copy of said game until the time limit expires. The time limit should be set to the same value as Y, i.e. when allowances refresh. If the borrower wishes to continue playing said game, they must make another request to borrow said game. Their game progress should be stored on the cloud under their account so no progress would be lost during the discontinuity in ownership.
Facebook
Twitter