A few days ago, Cory Ledesma, creative director of THQ’s wrestling games, stirred up controversy by defending THQ’s decision to implement a one-time use code for online play in Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 with an indifferent, almost hostile, attitude toward the used game purchasers the move will largely affect. Ledesma stated that, “if used game buyers are upset they don’t get the online feature set I don’t really have much sympathy for them.” The rationale provided is that the developer receives no piece of the revenue generated by the sale of a used game to a consumer. Though it sounds harsh, Ledesma might actually have a point.
What Ledesma states is true. Strictly speaking, not a cent of the money exchanged between consumer and retailer during the purchase of a used game goes to the developer. It represents pure profit for the retailer. The question now becomes one that is much the same as the question of piracy’s effects on developers – if no tangible merchandise is lost, is it really cheating the developer? Technically, THQ is not losing a hard copy of the game without getting money in return, so in that sense, nothing is “stolen.” The cost to developers, rather, in both cases, is the loss of what would otherwise be a game sale. One purchased used game, or one pirated game, represents one consumer that should have been a paying customer, but instead has provided no revenue to the developer, and never will for that particular game. In a completely fair system, every gamer who owns a game would have provided the developer with revenue, but with used games, this is not the case. Us gamers need to remember that developers are businesses, and the purpose of business is to maximize profit in a fair and legal way, which is exactly what THQ is trying to do. Besides, used game buyers can still access online play in Smackdown vs. Raw 2011, for a fee that will actually go to THQ itself.
Though the point is valid, is THQ really addressing this in the best way? The consumer is ultimately the victim of these one-time use codes, but does the fault for the loss of revenue on the part of the developer to the used games market really lie with the consumer? Just as the business’ purpose is to maximize profit, the consumer’s purpose is to maximize utility of his or her expendable cash, which is exactly what consumers are doing when they buy used games cheaper than new games. In economic times like these, the everyday gamer can hardly be blamed for trying to save money by not paying a full $60 for every new game they want. Even if this approach is misguided for the consumer, which it clearly is not, the gamer who sells back his new game is not doing anything illegal or immoral. The game is his or her property and can be used in any way that is within the bounds of law, including resale. Granted, the developer is still cheated, because now there are two gamers that have derived value out of one new game sale, but the consumer does not seem to be doing anything wrong.
What developers like THQ need to realize is that their energies in this battle must be focused on the retailers that buy and sell used games. The used game retailer can be seen as a competitor to the developer, drawing away market share. Under this idea, a big problem arises. Retailers should not be competing with developers in any way; the game sold is not in any way the work of the retailer, thus the retailer has no right to use it to compete with the developer. If THQ wants to protect its interests (as it should), the fight must start with the retailer. Attacking the consumer, especially with such venomous words, certainly isn’t going to win any new customers, and if anything is going to drive some away. Used game buyers will still buy used games, the used game retailer will come out ahead, and the developer will be back to square one, if it’s lucky.
