Game Rentals - Who Do They Benefit?
According to the Video Software Dealers Association, over the past several years, the popularity of console game rentals has risen dramatically – $723M in rentals in 2003, compared to $5.8B in sales. That's a significant chunk of change - anywhere from several hundred million to a couple billion dollars in lost sales, depending on how you calculate it - that, to my knowledge, is not being passed on to developers at all.
The rental problem snuck up on developers because of the slow but constant shift in mind share to console games over the past few years (PC games are legally protected from rentals). Existing developer contracts with publishers don't take into account rental revenue at all – check your publishing contract and see how many times the word 'rentals' is mentioned. My guess is zero. This major ambiguity in the relationship between developer and publisher is primarily hurting the developer, since they have much at stake, and little say in the matter.
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
Illustration by Erin Mehlos |
|||
Publishers,
in fact, are pretending that rentals are a non-issue – the most recent
annual reports from Activision and Electronic Arts do not mention game
rentals even once. How can the executives at these companies pretend
that a $700M+ industry that directly cannibalizes sales isn't something
worth discussing with investors? My guess is that rental chains are
simply treated like distributors or retailers. As long as the
publishers are profitable and there is no demonstrable link between
rentals and declining sales, then rental outlets are a nice way to
boost sell-through numbers.
Are Rentals Cannibalizing Sales?
But
are rentals actually cannibalizing sales? It's hard to prove a
definitive link, but anecdotal evidence and common sense would seem to
indicate that this is true. If you look at Internet forums, you'll find
two key reasons players claim they prefer rentals: renting is less
expensive and it's also a good way to mitigate risk from substandard
games. Very often, you see reviews such as: "Not worth buying,
definitely worth a rental". Or, even worse, "It's a great game, but you
can complete in a rental cycle."
For
shorter-playing genres (action RPG, strategy, platformers, adventure,
single player shooters), a single rental period is often long enough to
complete a game – why pay $50 for something when you can get the same
experience for $6? This forces developers either to concentrate on
multiplayer genres (sports games, online first person shooters,
fighting games) or games with a lot of replay value (sports games,
party games). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you're not
a fan of the games that are marginalized by this shift.
Reducing
the risk of purchasing a bad game is a valid reason for rentals.
Whether we admit it or not, the general quality of games is fairly
mediocre. If you're going to spend $50 on a game with no right to
return it, then renting may be the only viable option if you don't want
to get stuck holding the bag with a subpar game. In fact, some rental
outlets encourage this "try before you buy" approach by allowing you to
simply keep your rental for a price lower than that of an unused retail
copy.
There is nothing wrong with this form
of rental, and in fact it is a natural outgrowth of the broken return
policies enforced by our industry. Both of these reasons directly lead
to reduced sales, for better (fewer bad games are purchased) and for
worse (less money is spent on good games).
The Rental Solution?
There's
no easy fix to this problem. Movies solve this dilemma by staggering
releases – production costs are offset by the initial theater run, and
then additional profit is made by sales and rentals. Games don't have
such a subsidization system, so rentals immediately take away from
profits from developers. Rental outlets could agree to share revenue
with publishers and developers, but this only dampens the effects of
rentals. It's also not very likely to happen, since without some form
of legislation, there is no reason for rental outfits to give up their
profits.
Of course, such an incentive, in the
form of new laws, would make this possible, but that's a huge special
interest fight that would likely be spun into a consumer rights debate.
Even if – in fact, especially if – video game developers and publishers
prevailed, there would be a lot of bad will generated. Realistically,
the rental outfits simply have too much money at stake to give up
without a fight, and large publishers don't believe that rentals are a
problem, making this option somewhat moot.
Game
rentals are not conceptually flawed, but the current system places
developers and even publishers at a financial disadvantage as they find
their own products competing against themselves. It's only a matter of
time when purchasing a game will be considered a silly idea. If that
sounds like hyperbole, think of DVDs today – the majority of movies,
measured by unit, are rented, and only a minority of massive hits are
purchased in appreciable quantity. The game industry will become even
more hit-driven than it is today, stunting innovation and any form of
risk taking on the part of developers and publishers alike.
______________________________________________________