I've always wondered how this would affect the companies bottom line. I'm sure that in their magical world 100% of games sold used would transfer into 100% of said games sold new at the same prices they have in place now would there be no used games market.
There are tons of variables at play. What about that guy who can afford 10 new games a year only because he is able to trade in 7 of them? What about the one who bought a game used only to buy the sequel new 2 years later, would that person even have tried the first game otherwise? What about the one who buys a game used and likes it so much that he convinces 2 or 3 other people to buy the game? Word of mouth can be surprisingly effective for everything but the biggest games out there and every sources of it are important. Of course there's everyone who don't have a reliable internet connection if they go for an always-on approach. These are just a couple examples.
It worked for Steam or PC digital distribution in general because PC games are on average priced a bit lower at launch, drop in price faster and are discounted more often and more substantially. I'm certainly not trusting Microsoft or Sony to do this. If they go ahead with no used games systems and keep the same pricing model they have right now this will blow in their face.
People aren't stupid, you can't take something this important to this many people without giving something in return to make up for it. People can and will cope with a lot of shit like crappy DRMs or "real endings" sold separately as DLC but for many this would lead to the reality that they simply can't afford as many games anymore. There is no coping with that if you don't have enough money even if you wanted to.
So if they do decide to emulate what Steam has done, i hope they take the time to understand why it worked for Valve.
Log in to comment