4 ms·

The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. In theory you could sell a $60 copy of Grand Theft Auto and then just pass that around to

The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. In theory you could sell a $60 copy of Grand Theft Auto and then just pass that around to every person in the world. In this scenario Rockstar makes less than <$60 and Gamestop would take a constant % cut of every license exchange. This obviously is an extreme example but my point is to point out the disproportional economics.

gpderetta 6y ago
you could make the same arguments for books or movies on a physical medium.
- astura 6y ago
  And 35 years ago this argument was made with video rental stores, who also rented video games. As in the same physical copy was played by (gasp!) hundreds of people.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Yep and that industry has also shifted to a license per viewer/screen model as seen with Netflix et al.
prepend 6y ago
> The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. I counter this with the reality that it is working and has worked for decades. As measured by numerous thriving game developers and publishers. I don’t even think it’s revenue maximizing for game devs to not allow transfers as I suspect that being able to transfer games to friends increases overall sales due to word of mouth, press, etc. Like how shareware increased net sales.
- chrischen 6y ago
  At least for PC games the model has switched to licensing per player. Steam doesn’t allow you to resell games and this has created an explosion of indie games and developers. Especially for small developers imagine how hard it would be if the handful of players just passed around a few copies. It essentially forces everyone to make online multiplayer games.