I like to scan the news about computers every day through a series of sites and blogs for about an hour a day. One of the sites that I like going to is Googles Sci/Tech News. It gathers news stories from across the Web and I find that it is a pretty good source. There was an article about a game company called Capcon trying to "recover" some of their losses to the "piracy" of one of their games. This article was of course a reprint of another article which was a repost of a post about what was going on in Japan with the sale of Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D for the Nintendo 3DS video game. Such is the "viral" nature of the Internet. Now I will wade in with my two cents about the issue instead of the facts of the case. Why the issue instead of the facts? With this kind of third, fourth and fifth party reporting who knows what the facts are. It seems Capcon is trying to "discourage" people from reselling their game by making it impossible to erase the saved games so that another later user/consumer can't play the whole game. Is it true and is it right? Well I don't think either is that important in the grand scheme of things. It really boils down to, "what is a game company do to?" The other issue is, "what is a gamer to do?"
Game companies are in the software business and they are looking for every way they can get paid and stop anything that cuts into that bottom line. Whether it is real piracy or people reselling used games it doesn't matter to them. To them there is no difference, a perceived loss of revenue. As long as Game companies think they are getting ripped off they are going to try to stop it. I can't change companies. I don't sit on their board of directors or play any part in their management. All I am is a humble consumer.
I like computer games. For me they are an inexpensive and enjoyable form of entertainment. Many games boast over a hundred hours of game play and even replayability after that! I also like the fact that I can take a few minutes out of my day and escape for relatively little money compared to movies or let alone a vacation. The low cost, length of entertainment and replayability keep me buying computer games. If game companies either raise the price so high or require an overly expensive machine to even play a game then I will just not buy the game. If they conceive of a scheme that prevents me from using a piece of software over and over again then I will not buy it. Is it because I am mad? Not really. I just only have so much time and money in my life. It is not any more a boycott of games than it is a boycott of exotic sports cars on my part. I am not mad at exotic sports car companies I just can't afford their product so I don't buy them. People buy used games for the same reason they buy used cars, because that is what they can afford. Maybe the problem is that game companies are making games that are so expensive that they can't afford to sell them at a lower price that will keep people buying them new or even at all. Unfortunately game designers need to take cost into account.
Is this dilemma any different for any other type of software out there? Is it any different for operating systems or office productivity suites? Is it any different than any other product sold in the world? I think game companies have to realistically design a game that will be playable on systems that people can afford, at a price point people can afford, at in a volume that will make up for the inevitable losses from piracy or reselling. The larger economy is getting tighter and all software companies need to adapt to this. Game fans are deferring some of the cost of their games by selling them. Game fans are also buying games used to keep their expenses down. The good news is that game fans are still buying. When they stop buying, all schemes to keep losses down won't mean a thing. The issue is price. Address that issue and loss will mean very little.
