Rentable Digital Video-Games

[Active Hoper]

Lately, I've been engaging with my local libraries more often, with one of the ways that I've been doing that being the simple borrowing of video-games from them. A title that I recently borrowed is Tomb Raider I-III Remastered, which impressively allows the player to nearly seamlessly switch between its old and new visual styles - a feature that's been pleasantly advanced from Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap. Yet, it lacks that balance between preservation and modernization in other areas, as seen with its absence of optional settings for auto-savings, creating an unnecessarily forced punishing atmosphere and an uneven experience.

I likely wouldn't have played and subsequently shared my thoughts on that game were it not for the ability to freely experience pieces of art these libraries provide me with. Libraries have their limits, though. They only provide physical titles, excluding a vast amount of digital-only video-games from being experienced with as much ease. That's where places like Steam can step in.

Places like Steam can provide to users an option to rent video-games for up to fourteen days for, say, $4.99, with games at that price or cheaper than it by default remaining unable to be rented. It's a simple idea, but it, or a rough adaptation of rental models from other industries' digital storefronts, can have the great impacts of increasing the number of people who play video-games and the conversations that are had about them.

[Active Hoper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von BJWyler:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

These are differences, but you did not explain how they are differences that prove how renting cannot become an industry standard for digital video-games.

Because renting is a supplemental income for the Movie and TV industry, and not even a big part of the supplemental sources that they have. There is a reason that Blockbuster went out of business. There's a reason that 9 out of 10 people only think of Netflix as a subscription based streaming service, when they were the ones that practically invented the online renting industry. And let's also remember the reality of the situation - movies and TV have a much broader and wider customer base than gaming does. A big summer movie will sell in excess of tens of millions of tickets. A successful Triple A game is looking at about 1 million copies sold. That's a huge business difference.

A gaming developer does not have supplemental sources of income they can rely on. Unit sales of their games are the sole means of income. So when you make a rental service that brings the default value of their game down by several percentages, you have an unsustainable business model. That's something that would be taught in the first two weeks of a basic Business 101 course. Why buy a game for $60 or $70, when you can spend $5 and complete the game within the timeframe provided for the rental and move on to the next? Even if someone really liked a game and wanted to play it again, they would have to rent it out at least 12 times to reach the same amount of income as a one and done sale. The chances of that ever happening are going to be far too slim to make up the difference.

I get it. You and thousands of others don't want to pay premium prices for a premium entertainment product. You think that devs shouldn't be paid for the work they do, and that games should just be handed out to whoever wants them because of the feels gaming gives you. You somehow think that devs are magically immune to needing to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. But that's not reality.

If you want cheap games, there are plenty to be had during the regular sales events and there are plenty of legitimate third party key sellers that sell keys to games at reduced costs. But if you simply want to rattle the tin cup with a business idea that certainly has no plausible foundation in the reality of the industry, then you are going to be outta luck.

Alternatively, Blockbuster failed because its leaders could not properly adapt new ideas to a business model that was inflexible and exploitative: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/09/05/a-look-back-at-why-blockbuster-really-failed-and-why-it-didnt-have-to/.

The video-game industry is the most popular and profitable entertainment industry. The most profitable franchise, out of any such industry, is Pokémon, which is worth about $98.9 billion, beating out second place, Mickey Mouse & Friends by a margin of over $30 billion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises.


Putting aside whether my idea, specifically, is implemented or another one like a rough adaptation of other industries' models for renting digital titles is, you severely underestimate the value of "owning" (I say "owning" in quotes because of the whole license thing), or, alternatively put, having much longer-term access to a game that is perceived by users.

The video-game industry is an extremely exploitative industry. It's raised the already-expensive standard price of games by another $10 to $69.99, despite having the strength of being the most popular entertainment industry and enough contemptible greed to implement predatory, profitable practices such as loot boxes, season passes, overly-priced special editions that make "normal" editions incomplete, and so on and so forth. You know, Blockbuster was once the popular and profitable leader of an industry itself. But, it failed to adapt. While there are differences between Blockbuster and the leaders of the video-game industry, generally, it is not outside of the realm of possible that, at the very least, the latter industry could regress because of its inflexibility and exploitation.

What I want is for there to be another way for games to be made accessible in an industry that is expensive and exploitative. With enough creativity and effort, rentals can be implemented in a fashion that respects indie developers while making things more affordable for users, especially in regard to higher-costing games.

[Crazy Tiger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

What I want is for there to be another way for games to be made accessible in an industry that is expensive and exploitative.

Yes, you want cheap stuff. That was clear from the beginning.

The thing I'm curious about, though, is what makes you think others are, or even could possibly be, interested in you getting things cheaper?

[Artemida]

It is possible, but it seems that most publishers/developers don't want to use it (geez, I wonder why...).

Here is an example:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/493340/Planet_Coaster/

[Active Hoper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Gwarsbane:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Platforms like Apple TV and Apple Music have protections set in place that are meant to prevent the pirating of titles. Though probably not perfect, they are apparently good enough for those platforms to be offered on PC. Protections on Steam, which do not impede players' abilities to continue to take screenshots and record videos, could be bettered to prevent the piracy of games with a hypothetical rental option in mind.

No... its not perfect at all, not even close because within an hour or 2 shows on apple TV are on pirate sites.

You need to remember something, if it can be programmed, it can be hacked. It doesn't matter what OS they are on.

Denuvo, which is suppose to be one of the best DRMs to prevent copying of the games, survived for a little while but then got broken and now games are up on pirate sites, sometimes before they are even released officially or at least within hours of being released officially.

They tried changing it and within a few days it was broke again. Basically they have to come up with a whole new DRM from scratch for it to be effective again... but again it won't last long. Maybe a year or 2 at best... then after that, they might as well start from scratch again.

So relying on any kind of DRM to prevent the games from being pirated when rented is not a good idea.

People typically pirate media for three reasons, two of which are relevant to this context: They either don't want to pay for anything or can't pay for something. The former pirates are going to do what they want to, presumably no matter what, while the latter pirates are held back by inaccessibility, despite wanting to officially support a title. Instead of worrying about matters pertaining to the inefficacy of any given DRM that do not prevent industries from functioning, the focus should be on constructively expanding accessibility in an industry that is becoming more inflexible and exploitative.

[Active Hoper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Artemida:

It is possible, but it seems that most publishers/developers don't want to use it (geez, I wonder why...).

Here is an example:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/493340/Planet_Coaster/

Because it's a subscription-based -- which, as I've already explained, subscriptions are not the same thing as rentals -- model that is neither fully supported nor advertised.

[Artemida]

Nobody forces you to renew the subscription after one month. Just cancel it.

[Wolf Knight]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Artemida:

It is possible, but it seems that most publishers/developers don't want to use it (geez, I wonder why...).

Here is an example:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/493340/Planet_Coaster/

Because it's a subscription-based -- which, as I've already explained, subscriptions are not the same thing as rentals -- model that is neither fully supported nor advertised.

its the same model, just different wording. you not liking the wording does not matter. the system is already there, the problem you have is there is no incentive for game developers to use it.

but for the sake of argument, lets go with they are similar systems. if the subscription system is not attractive enough, what makes you think game developers are going to want to use a rental system?

since you see the 2 systems as different, please explain how they are different?

[Active Hoper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Artemida:

Nobody forces you to renew the subscription after one month. Just cancel it.

Subscriptions are more numerous title-wise but random with that they offer. Rentals are less diverse title-wise but more specific to what is actually wanted.

[Wolf Knight]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Artemida:

Nobody forces you to renew the subscription after one month. Just cancel it.

Subscriptions are more numerous title-wise but random with that they offer. Rentals are less diverse title-wise but more specific to what is actually wanted.

the game developer/publisher is the one that decides all of that, not steam. again, steam cannot add a rental price to something except for the games that valve makes.

as I said already, if you want to rent GTA V, rockstar has to set that up, not steam.

[Artemida]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Artemida:

Nobody forces you to renew the subscription after one month. Just cancel it.

Subscriptions are more numerous title-wise but random with that they offer. Rentals are less diverse title-wise but more specific to what is actually wanted.

The example I showed you gives you access to just one game (with all DLCs) - so it is VERY SPECIFIC and not random at all.

It is up to you for how long you want to RENT it.

[Active Hoper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Wolf Knight:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Because it's a subscription-based -- which, as I've already explained, subscriptions are not the same thing as rentals -- model that is neither fully supported nor advertised.

its the same model, just different wording. you not liking the wording does not matter. the system is already there, the problem you have is there is no incentive for game developers to use it.

but for the sake of argument, lets go with they are similar systems. if the subscription system is not attractive enough, what makes you think game developers are going to want to use a rental system?

Because it would mean that people who could not afford a specific title would officially support it in some way instead of pirating it or simply not buying it.

[Active Hoper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Artemida:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Subscriptions are more numerous title-wise but random with that they offer. Rentals are less diverse title-wise but more specific to what is actually wanted.

The example I showed you gives you access to just one game (with all DLCs) - so it is VERY SPECIFIC and not random at all.

It is up to you for how long you want to RENT it.

You showed me a sale. Sales exist for digital movies and television shows, as well, both of which can be rented. Your point is moot.

[Crazy Tiger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Wolf Knight:

its the same model, just different wording. you not liking the wording does not matter. the system is already there, the problem you have is there is no incentive for game developers to use it.

but for the sake of argument, lets go with they are similar systems. if the subscription system is not attractive enough, what makes you think game developers are going to want to use a rental system?

Because it would mean that people who could not afford a specific title would officially support it in some way instead of pirating it or simply not buying it.

Translation: "I want cheap stuff".

[Active Hoper]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Wolf Knight:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Subscriptions are more numerous title-wise but random with that they offer. Rentals are less diverse title-wise but more specific to what is actually wanted.

the game developer/publisher is the one that decides all of that, not steam. again, steam cannot add a rental price to something except for the games that valve makes.

as I said already, if you want to rent GTA V, rockstar has to set that up, not steam.

No, Rockstar would have to opt-in to it, assuming that it's not made a standard by default. Steam would be the one to set it up and allow it to be opted-in to, assuming, again, that it's not made a standard by default.

[Wolf Knight]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Active Hoper:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Wolf Knight:

the game developer/publisher is the one that decides all of that, not steam. again, steam cannot add a rental price to something except for the games that valve makes.

as I said already, if you want to rent GTA V, rockstar has to set that up, not steam.

No, Rockstar would have to opt-in to it, assuming that it's not made a standard by default. Steam would be the one to set it up and allow it to be opted-in to, assuming, again, that it's not made a standard by default.

so which is it? they have to set it up or they dont have to set it up? your saying something isnt there when it is already been shown to be there.

developers not using a system or rarely using it does not mean the system doesn't exist. if the system exists and it rarely used, maybe its because its not viewed as profitable.

if yout cant find games for cheap, that is because you are either not looking or not asking the right questions. about 1/2 or more of my library is games I got for FREE. dont expect the newest releases to be cheap, game developers want to make money pay their bills.