My No New Games Pledge--FOLLOW UP
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 08:30AM I'm through buying video games. Really. I'm pledging to stop buying video games until my current stack of unplayed games is reduced to zero. The story of why follows. If you want to join me in my Play Don't Pay pledge, leave a comment after the article.
When I was young (let's say from age 10 through 24), I had very little money and an enormous amount of free time. I loved video games, but it would sometimes take me months to put back enough money to buy a new game. When I received games for my birthday or Christmas (sadly, only four days apart), I had to make them last for a while. These facts of life meant I put an amazing amount of hours into the games I owned. I would turn them inside out, hold them by their feet, and shake every tiny bit of value out of their pockets. I didn't start keeping track of how much time I had put in to a game much before games started tracking that stat themselves, but I do have notes showing I put in over sixty hours on the SNES Ogre Battle and over two-hundred hours on Heroes of Might and Magic I-III (over 100 hours on HOMM II alone).
Eventually, I grew up, embarked on a career, and got married. Taken together, these things meant I had more money to buy games, but a little less time to play them. Still, I kept buying games. Really, the only games that were getting a good going over in my house at that time were those that I was reviewing for, first, some fanzines, and eventually a number of web sites, but especially Armchair Empire. I had an obligation to play those games to completion before reviewing them and often it meant not getting to play a recent release I wanted to play because I had a game I had to play. Still, I spent a lot of time playing games.
Then, the kids arrived. Down goes the disposable income; down goes the free time. I could no longer feel right receiving review copies because it would sometimes be weeks between instances when I could even turn my consoles on. The only games I was assured of getting to play were mobile games that I could play ten minutes at a time whenever I could force them in. Those, and the games I played with my daughter and niece. I beat the crap out of Rayman 2 and Donald Duck Goin' Quackers, but, otherwise, I purchased games to gather dust. I still bought every game that was hot, well-reviewed, or matched my interests.
That bring me to today. My nearly life-long love for video games is faltering. I no longer get excited for E3. The majority of game trailers leave me cold, and my reaction to most games these days is “meh.” I attribute nearly all of this disinterest to the fact that I've spent the last four or five years playing most games for about two hours and then not getting a chance to play them again for weeks at a time. By the time I had another chance to spend some time playing games, a new game would be out that I wanted to try. I would buy it, play it for a few hours (or a couple of days is some cases), and the cycle would start over. At one point last year I put about three weeks of heavy play time into Halo: Reach and I could feel my enthusiasm for games coming back. I bought a ton of games over the next few months. I haven't played any of them.
Because of that flurry of buying and the giant stack of earlier unplayed games in the basket beside my television, I'm done. I want my love of video games back, and I think the way to get it back is to play some of the great games I have bought, but not played. I have decided to make this pledge to myself: I am going to stop buying video games until I played all of the games in my current To Be Played stack that have at least a 80% rating on Gamerankings.com. (Hey, I'm not going to play a crappy game all the way through just to prove a point). Here are the games on the horizon for me:
Fable II
Gears of War II
Dragon Age: Origins
Bioshock
Bioshock 2
Mirror's Edge (it actually just misses at 79 percent, but I'll give it a go)
Halo: ODST
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Uncharted: Drakes Fortune
Uncharted: Among Thieves
Dead Space
Red Dead Redemption
Fallout 3
Borderlands
Assassins Creed II
Killzone 2
God of War Collection
Left for Dead 2
That's nineteen titles that I bought because I thought I would love them but either never played or played for a bit then put off until later. Now, that's a lot of hours of gaming ahead of me and I'll need some incentive, so here it is. I will allow myself to trade in completed games for a new game. Hopefully, I'll complete enough to get L.A. Noire when it releases. That will be my first goal. Since I'm not spending any money, I'll need sixty dollars worth of trade in by May. I'm guessing that will be about six or seven of the above games given their age. That would be more games than I've completed in the last three years (and I have the low Gamerscore and Trophy count to prove it). If you have any suggestions about which games I should play first, let me know.
Danny Webb
So, I went with Dead Space as my starting game. I've played just over three hours and I'm on level five. So far, so good. It really has a great sense of immersion. I especially like how the health bar and Stasis power level are integrated into your armor. Leaving the screen less cluttered with game information has a really positive effect on the suspension of disbelief. Already, the game is more tense and has more "jumpy" scares than any of the Resident Evil games (though none have hit me as hard as the dog-through-the-window scare from the original RE).
I'd like to complete a game a week, so I plan on getting quite a bit more of Dead Space played tonight, so I can finish over the weekend.
Danny Webb
In case you don't read the comments section, here is William's response to my pledge:
DANNY WEBB WANTS MY KIDS TO STARVE!
I am a video game developer by trade, the natural arch-nemesis of a video game reviewer. This is apparent in Danny Webb's desire for my children to starve. It is, after all, the natural circle of life. The video game developer spends 18-36 months slaving over a hot keyboard, pouring code, and art, and other indeterminable substances out of his pores. He crunches, doing 80 hour weeks, for weeks on end, becoming more slovenly in appearance until his own small children run in terror from his unkempt hair, and wild eyes.
Finally, the game is finished. And by finished, I mean the publisher finally puts their foot down, removes the remaining (hopefully minor) bugs from the bug database, and forces the title out the door. To most of the developers, the game still feels like a house of cards, ready to crash at any given moment. After working on a game for so long, and knowing all of it's weak points, it's hard to look at even the most stable of games, and not fear that it will crash at any moment. Shortly after the game goes gold, there is a good chance that there will be mass layoffs - YAAY!
After the development team is kicked to the curb in an apparent "thank you" gesture, the role of the game reviewer comes in. The reviewer plays the game (often a non-final build that still has hundreds of bugs in it), and hands down judgement. For the developer, this often feels like rating the worth of the last 3 years of his life. Case in point: Before working with my current employer, I worked on the game "Tony Hawk: SHRED" - You can still find me weeping in the corner at times.
Usually the reviewers are happy to kick your teeth in, and leave you bleeding on the pavement, gurgling for help. But not Danny. No! He wants my children to starve too. If no one buys any games, how will the developers fund future development?
As an admitted thrift store junkie, I am being a bit hypocritical here, but I do want to bring up the counter to Danny's viewpoint. Obviously, I don't expect people to be happy buying games at a rate they can't play them, but I think we all can agree that one game a day is perfectly reasonable.
All joking aside, used game sales from companies like Gamestop have really started to hurt the bottom line of game developers. Games have become huge, with AAA titles requiring teams with hundreds of people several years to complete. The budgets of games are reaching (and in some cases, exceeding) the cost of Hollywood films. There is a large movement within the video game development community to focus on smaller titles for PSN, XBL, and iPhone. This looks good to the developer for two reasons. First, the cost of development is much less expensive. Second, you can't resell digital content.
That second reason may be one of the biggest reasons that we will see a shift in games as we know it over the next few years. Those AAA blockbusters may start to fade away, and smaller, more casual experiences will begin to take their place. When I am done playing my downloadable game, I can't sell it to a second hand retailer, I can't lend it to a friend, and I can't rent it (unless the platform supports rentals intrinsically).
It may seem evil that developers want this, but most developers are just trying to stay afloat in today's economy. I don't want to see a world without physical media, and I really don't want to see games become something that we reminisce about, without any way to play our purchased games.
There are many old episodes of the BBC television show "Dr. Who" that will never be seen again. many years ago, the BBC had a policy of destroying films in their warehouse after a certain time had elapsed. Many "Dr. Who" episodes succumbed to his fate. I fear with digital distribution and DRM, that this is the fate of many of the games in our future.
As unlikely as it may seem, companies like Gamestop are driving the industry in this direction. They buy used games at an extreme markdown, often days after they have been released, and then sell them at a marginal markdown from retail price - often only $5 or so. They push the used content to the consumer, and prefer to sell it over the new packaged merchandise. Why? Because they make way more money that way.
The price of a video game is divided between many companies: The console manufacturer gets a take for licensing, packaging, and replication; The Publisher gets a cut; The developer gets a cut; The distributor gets a cut; and finally the retailer gets a cut. Between the distributor and the retailer, 50% of the profit can be made. BUT, when Gamestop buys your game for 20% of it's original value, and sells you a re-owned copy that they bought at a discount, for close to retail, Gamestop is making a profit on both sides. Way more than the 30% or so they would make on a new title. Not only is Gamestop making out like a bandit in this transaction, but the developer of the game sees none of that money.
Now, I'm not saying that second hand sales should be banned, or even that it's inherently bad. I believe it should be everyone's right to buy and sell their property as they wish. But I would suggest when choosing to sell your used games, to try selling directly to others first through Craig's list, or eBay. When it comes time to purchase a new game with the money you've made from your old games, consider buying new, especially if the price difference between new and used is a few dollars. It helps the game developers make money to create new games, and it shows up in the NPD sales numbers, which publishers track to determine what kinds of games to publish in the future.
So I would suggest a different pledge: "Pay and Play, Don't Pay and Store Away". Support the developers that make the games you enjoy, but don't waste money on games that will sit on your shelf without any play. With this attitude, maybe, just maybe, my children will live to see their next meal ;)
--William McCarroll
Reader Comments (5)
You have a lot of very excellent games to play. I am in a similar situation to you. Too many games, not enough time to play them. Bioshock 2, Fable II, Dragon Age: Origins, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed II, and God of War III sit on my shelf unplayed, so you are in good company!
I would definitely suggest playing Bioshock and the Uncharted games (Both are very good, but uncharted 2 is much better than the first. They are both story driven games, though, so you really need to play them in order).
I was going to post a (very tongue in cheek) rebuttal to this entry entitled "Danny Webb wants my kids to starve!", but It will do perfectly well here in the comments ;)
DANNY WEBB WANTS MY KIDS TO STARVE!
I am a video game developer by trade, the natural arch-nemesis of a video game reviewer. This is apparent in Danny Webb's desire for my children to starve. It is, after all, the natural circle of life. The video game developer spends 18-36 months slaving over a hot keyboard, pouring code, and art, and other indeterminable substances out of his pores. He crunches, doing 80 hour weeks, for weeks on end, becoming more slovenly in appearance until his own small children run in terror from his unkempt hair, and wild eyes.
Finally, the game is finished. And by finished, I mean the publisher finally puts their foot down, removes the remaining (hopefully minor) bugs from the bug database, and forces the title out the door. To most of the developers, the game still feels like a house of cards, ready to crash at any given moment. After working on a game for so long, and knowing all of it's weak points, it's hard to look at even the most stable of games, and not fear that it will crash at any moment. Shortly after the game goes gold, there is a good chance that there will be mass layoffs - YAAY!
After the development team is kicked to the curb in an apparent "thank you" gesture, the role of the game reviewer comes in. The reviewer plays the game (often a non-final build that still has hundreds of bugs in it), and hands down judgement. For the developer, this often feels like rating the worth of the last 3 years of his life. Case in point: Before working with my current employer, I worked on the game "Tony Hawk: SHRED" - You can still find me weeping in the corner at times.
Usually the reviewers are happy to kick your teeth in, and leave you bleeding on the pavement, gurgling for help. But not Danny. No! He wants my children to starve too. If no one buys any games, how will the developers fund future development?
As an admitted thrift store junkie, I am being a bit hypocritical here, but I do want to bring up the counter to Danny's viewpoint. Obviously, I don't expect people to be happy buying games at a rate they can't play them, but I think we all can agree that one game a day is perfectly reasonable.
All joking aside, used game sales from companies like Gamestop have really started to hurt the bottom line of game developers. Games have become huge, with AAA titles requiring teams with hundreds of people several years to complete. The budgets of games are reaching (and in some cases, exceeding) the cost of Hollywood films. There is a large movement within the video game development community to focus on smaller titles for PSN, XBL, and iPhone. This looks good to the developer for two reasons. First, the cost of development is much less expensive. Second, you can't resell digital content.
That second reason may be one of the biggest reasons that we will see a shift in games as we know it over the next few years. Those AAA blockbusters may start to fade away, and smaller, more casual experiences will begin to take their place. When I am done playing my downloadable game, I can't sell it to a second hand retailer, I can't lend it to a friend, and I can't rent it (unless the platform supports rentals intrinsically).
It may seem evil that developers want this, but most developers are just trying to stay afloat in today's economy. I don't want to see a world without physical media, and I really don't want to see games become something that we reminisce about, without any way to play our purchased games.
There are many old episodes of the BBC television show "Dr. Who" that will never be seen again. many years ago, the BBC had a policy of destroying films in their warehouse after a certain time had elapsed. Many "Dr. Who" episodes succumbed to his fate. I fear with digital distribution and DRM, that this is the fate of many of the games in our future.
As unlikely as it may seem, companies like Gamestop are driving the industry in this direction. They buy used games at an extreme markdown, often days after they have been released, and then sell them at a marginal markdown from retail price - often only $5 or so. They push the used content to the consumer, and prefer to sell it over the new packaged merchandise. Why? Because they make way more money that way.
The price of a video game is divided between many companies: The console manufacturer gets a take for licensing, packaging, and replication; The Publisher gets a cut; The developer gets a cut; The distributor gets a cut; and finally the retailer gets a cut. Between the distributor and the retailer, 50% of the profit can be made. BUT, when Gamestop buys your game for 20% of it's original value, and sells you a re-owned copy that they bought at a discount, for close to retail, Gamestop is making a profit on both sides. Way more than the 30% or so they would make on a new title. Not only is Gamestop making out like a bandit in this transaction, but the developer of the game sees none of that money.
Now, I'm not saying that second hand sales should be banned, or even that it's inherently bad. I believe it should be everyone's right to buy and sell their property as they wish. But I would suggest when choosing to sell your used games, to try selling directly to others first through Craig's list, or eBay. When it comes time to purchase a new game with the money you've made from your old games, consider buying new, especially if the price difference between new and used is a few dollars. It helps the game developers make money to create new games, and it shows up in the NPD sales numbers, which publishers track to determine what kinds of games to publish in the future.
So I would suggest a different pledge: "Pay and Play, Don't Pay and Store Away". Support the developers that make the games you enjoy, but don't waste money on games that will sit on your shelf without any play. With this attitude, maybe, just maybe, my children will live to see their next meal ;)
"Between the distributor and the retailer, 50% of the profit can be made."
And 90% of this "50% profit" is the distributor, retailers do not see as much profit as you think on new games. Last time I checked a retailer makes on average about 7$ per video game, which is about 11.6% of the profit on a video game. Looks a lot different when it's skewed not in your directive. That's one thing I hate about percentages. No matter what way you type it, who ever is biased on the opinion can make the percents work for them.
"BUT, when Gamestop buys your game for 20% of it's original value, and sells you a re-owned copy that they bought at a discount, for close to retail, Gamestop is making a profit on both sides. Way more than the 30% or so they would make on a new title. Not only is Gamestop making out like a bandit in this transaction, but the developer of the game sees none of that money."
Every developer wants a piece of the pie, then how about provide a service to used game buyers that when a product doesn't sell they can sell it back and it can sit in your warehouse. Or maybe provide a service to customers that if they don't like a game they paid 60$ for they can get a refund.
Gamestop provides a service to customers (buying games, and reselling them), so of course a product isn't going to make a major profit on it. Also, a friend of mine works at a Gamestop, he currently has on hand: 71 copies of Black Ops(55$), 56 Copies of Modern Warfare 2(30$), 65 Copies of Halo Reach (was on sale for 40$ last week). The reason the value is so low on used game trade ins, is because of the "window of sale", or something like that.
Gamestop bases it's trade in values on several things, opportunity for resale, and how long a product will sit on a shelf. Is Gamesotp going to sell though it's used inventory of Black Ops ever? No they will not, there will always be Call of Duty Black Ops up for sale at gamestop. Eventually (once newer ones come out), it will continually drop in price until it hits the 10$ bin. So that game they took in for 28$? (42 right now if you have their discount card), they just lost money on.
Andrew, thanks for the comment. I'm not against people making money, but there is something wrong when Gamestop is posting record profit (nearly 10 billion in used game sales) at the same time developers of those games are going out of business.
I must say that I do not have many games that go for long periods of time without being completed. A quick sweep of my collection returns only one (Killzone 3) and it is simply because it is new...to me anyway I purchased it from a guy on craigslist for 30 bucks. I turned away from Gamestop long ago although I do have their discount card and will only use it if they are running a great deal which in their defense they often do.
I am a capitalist I say make money but I also have the right not to give you my money if I don't feel it will benefit me. Gamestop paying me $25 for my brand new game, (which granted I completed in two days because it had a thin 8 hour storyline) does not benefit me. If they can do that why can't I? I could buy your game for 1/3 value and sell it to someone else for a few bucks off full price and I often do. For me its not about making a profit I enjoy video games of all kinds when I think about my life I do so in relevance to what game I was playing at the time. The sheer amount of good titles released each year is enough to empty my wallet on a weekly basis at a $60 sticker price and rising I have been forced to turn away from the store shelves and yes even wait a while before I purchase that new blockbuster title.
When I discovered that I could buy, sell and even trade my games on craigslist it became like a playground to me I constantly wheel and deal. It keeps me in games that I have yet to play for what I estimate to be half the annual cost.
So again I understand That companies like Gamestop need to make a profit as do the developers but their profits are tied to what works for me the consumer and its just not working.
Enjoy your carefree, I-can-play-games-to-completion days while you can. Those are the glory days:)