So often when people complain about videogames we get into long discussions about the companies behind the games that we make. Further, we often find ourselves putting forward the idea that these companies act in a way which is draconian and counterintuitive. This is as true about Spore’s DRM as it is about Origin, two examples very specifically chosen for this argument. Both are ideas from EA and where the Spore DRM was a clear misstep in every sense of the word Origin is likely not one.

So we often get journalists stating that no other medium acts in the same way that ours does. No companies act to defend their property quite as viciously as game publishers. In fact, I often delve into comparisons between our own industry and those around us. Especially when we look at game design it is often interesting to look at other industries and understand how they design stories and create compelling experiences for their audiences.

With that said, it is often a problem when people do make these comparisons. The issue lies in that often when people say that “No other medium does this” is that often there are good reasons behind why our industry is different.

For example, there has recently been a lot of commentary behind the second hand gaming market. This comes following Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D which created an undeletable save file. Whether Capcom installed this feature to hamstring second hand gaming is somewhat of a mystery. Capcom are usually a fairly relaxed company with respect to consumer rights which is easy to see with the level they encourage the Street Fighter community and as such I give them the benefit of the doubt. However, separate from this, it is somewhat difficult to establish whether second hand gaming hurts or helps publishers. I favour the concept that the second hand gaming hurts developers overall because lots of people, myself included will sit back and just not buy games at release because I know that three months down the line I will be able to save money on them.

Establishing then that second hand gaming is bad overall for the developer in question; it is easy to see why a second hand film might be bad for the movie industry. So a lot of games journalists jumped on the concept that it is ridiculous for games developers to be so protective regarding second hand sales when other industries are not.

I find this argument to be somewhat fallacious. The main reason is that it doesn’t establish why our industry might be different before it derides the gaming industry as being wrong for being so strict with second hand sales. The simple point here at least is that film revenue isn’t mainly sequestered in DVD sales. The chances are for most of these companies that second hand sales do not hurt them that much because their money is made in the box office. Since the revenue loss isn’t that great companies often wish to encourage the second hand market so that people will see their next big hit. This is likely why we see such a prevalent rental market with respect to movies as opposed to games.

By comparison a games company loses a lot more through a second hand sale. Where a DVD may only cost £10 at retail and not gain that much, a game costs upwards of £30. So it’s easy to see then that more profit per unit is going to be lost when a game is sold second hand.

The deeper issue is that when comparing our industry against others we need to establish why exactly our industry is different and importantly inspect a company’s reasoning behind the decisions it makes before we establish a connection to another industry. Only in doing this can we understand why such differences exist to begin with and only in doing this can we see whether the comparisons that we make are actually relevant.