The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Rental Only - a common paradigm that is forever plaguing the sheets of independant game magazines. Since the introduction of viable game rental, it has become possible to borrow virtually any game for a couple of days for just under four pounds. Blockbuster video has opened up the realms of rental for everybody, and as an avid XBox owner, can literally choose whatever I want for the same price as a video. However, the consequences of game rental in the mass marketplace have to be considered before accepting that rental is a useful tool for purchase considerations and weekend fun alike.
I will begin by analysing the trends in the independant magazines, which seem to stick a 'rental only' tag on all games that score below seventy percent. Even for the higher rated games, they still advise that we rent first before buying to check the game is for us. This practice, on the face of it, appears to be a comprehendable approach for all of us to try before we buy. I relish the intent of the magazines, who only want us to make sure we buy games we like, but have they looked below the surface?
To begin with, an avid gamer may rent a game, play it virtually non-stop for the duration of the rental and complete the game. The gamer may then think that as it is completed, it would be pointless to purchase it. As an example, one of my best friends, and also an owner of an XBox, decided to rent Halo before buying the game, to check if it was for him. Consequently he completed the game, took it back to the hire shop, and decided not to buy the game by virtue of completing it. I consider this a completely oblivious practice, as any owners of Halo will tell, much of the game lies in the multiplayer mode. Not to mention the other difficulty levels add much depth to an already completed game. In summary, game completing renters may overlook the inapparent virtues that the game would offer only it's owners. This human practice is perhaps also overlooked by magazine reviewers, and should stress these points before advising a rental.
Along a similar line to renters who overlook inapparent virtues of a game solely by completing it, lies another breed of renters who fail to notice elements of a game that lie later. A renter may rent a game, play it for only a short amount of time, then pass it off as boring, or not my kind of thing. Consequently the gamer has wrote another title off his list of potential future purchases. This may result in the renter failing to acknowledge features of the game which lie beneath the surface. This superficial view taken by many renters is also one that I did to my detriment quite recently. I decided to rent Jet Set Radio Future in order to determine whether the hype was well deserved. I played it for only an hour, then took it back, thinking to myself 'what is all the fuss about?'. However, it was only revealed to me later, watching my friend play JSRF, just how deep and intricate a game JSRF actually is. So many areas to cover in graffiti, so many characters to unlock, I was forced to go and buy the game. So again, in summary, I had failed to notice the wonders of JSRF that were revealed later on by renting the game first.
Hopefully I have now revealed two common rental errors that occur, partly by virtue of magazine instruction. Perhaps the lesson to be learnt here is to bear these points in mind when renting a game, and remember that a game that does not instantly appeal to you, may turn out to be one of the best games that you have ever played. Consequently, completion of a rented game does not necessarily mean that there is nothing left for the player.
Moving swiftly on to the potential consequences of rental errors for game developers. Developers lose money for every game that is rented and not purchased. This could prove very costly if the game is easily completed, or does not come into life until later in the game. If this is the case, then the habitual renter may bypass the game as a potential purchase. However, does this mean that developers need to create games that engross you from the start and have many hidden or inapparent good features? Maybe they do, but then again, failure to do this should not result in lack of sales by developers. It is a intriguing web of paradoxical argument that is no doubt complexed by the mass throughput of rental in the modern world.
In a contrary view however, rental can be a very good determinant of what game to buy next, if carried out correctly. Theoretically a good rental play could save you lots of money, that you would have obliviously spent on buying a game. I accept that to most of us, buying a game is a decision, and one that should perhaps not be made on a whim. Thus it is important to get one that works for you, and rental proves an invaluable tool here. Also, if carried out correctly, developers may lose out, but not in an unjust manner, in fact it could lead to better games being developed in the future. After all, are developers really going to be able to develop games for the whim-purchaser if the whim-purchaser rents it first? Rental could then, theoretically, be a needed wake-up call for the developers to concentrate on creating excellent games.
Whichever stance you take, rental is clearly a game of two sides. In the worst case scenario, games developers could go bust due to rental dismissals, and even rental copying. On the other hand, we could benefit by better games appearing on the market, and by being able to give games the once over personally. However, it is likely to reach a comfortable equilibrium where both developer and gamer benefit, but it relies strongly on good rental practice.
Thanks for reading!
I will begin by analysing the trends in the independant magazines, which seem to stick a 'rental only' tag on all games that score below seventy percent. Even for the higher rated games, they still advise that we rent first before buying to check the game is for us. This practice, on the face of it, appears to be a comprehendable approach for all of us to try before we buy. I relish the intent of the magazines, who only want us to make sure we buy games we like, but have they looked below the surface?
To begin with, an avid gamer may rent a game, play it virtually non-stop for the duration of the rental and complete the game. The gamer may then think that as it is completed, it would be pointless to purchase it. As an example, one of my best friends, and also an owner of an XBox, decided to rent Halo before buying the game, to check if it was for him. Consequently he completed the game, took it back to the hire shop, and decided not to buy the game by virtue of completing it. I consider this a completely oblivious practice, as any owners of Halo will tell, much of the game lies in the multiplayer mode. Not to mention the other difficulty levels add much depth to an already completed game. In summary, game completing renters may overlook the inapparent virtues that the game would offer only it's owners. This human practice is perhaps also overlooked by magazine reviewers, and should stress these points before advising a rental.
Along a similar line to renters who overlook inapparent virtues of a game solely by completing it, lies another breed of renters who fail to notice elements of a game that lie later. A renter may rent a game, play it for only a short amount of time, then pass it off as boring, or not my kind of thing. Consequently the gamer has wrote another title off his list of potential future purchases. This may result in the renter failing to acknowledge features of the game which lie beneath the surface. This superficial view taken by many renters is also one that I did to my detriment quite recently. I decided to rent Jet Set Radio Future in order to determine whether the hype was well deserved. I played it for only an hour, then took it back, thinking to myself 'what is all the fuss about?'. However, it was only revealed to me later, watching my friend play JSRF, just how deep and intricate a game JSRF actually is. So many areas to cover in graffiti, so many characters to unlock, I was forced to go and buy the game. So again, in summary, I had failed to notice the wonders of JSRF that were revealed later on by renting the game first.
Hopefully I have now revealed two common rental errors that occur, partly by virtue of magazine instruction. Perhaps the lesson to be learnt here is to bear these points in mind when renting a game, and remember that a game that does not instantly appeal to you, may turn out to be one of the best games that you have ever played. Consequently, completion of a rented game does not necessarily mean that there is nothing left for the player.
Moving swiftly on to the potential consequences of rental errors for game developers. Developers lose money for every game that is rented and not purchased. This could prove very costly if the game is easily completed, or does not come into life until later in the game. If this is the case, then the habitual renter may bypass the game as a potential purchase. However, does this mean that developers need to create games that engross you from the start and have many hidden or inapparent good features? Maybe they do, but then again, failure to do this should not result in lack of sales by developers. It is a intriguing web of paradoxical argument that is no doubt complexed by the mass throughput of rental in the modern world.
In a contrary view however, rental can be a very good determinant of what game to buy next, if carried out correctly. Theoretically a good rental play could save you lots of money, that you would have obliviously spent on buying a game. I accept that to most of us, buying a game is a decision, and one that should perhaps not be made on a whim. Thus it is important to get one that works for you, and rental proves an invaluable tool here. Also, if carried out correctly, developers may lose out, but not in an unjust manner, in fact it could lead to better games being developed in the future. After all, are developers really going to be able to develop games for the whim-purchaser if the whim-purchaser rents it first? Rental could then, theoretically, be a needed wake-up call for the developers to concentrate on creating excellent games.
Whichever stance you take, rental is clearly a game of two sides. In the worst case scenario, games developers could go bust due to rental dismissals, and even rental copying. On the other hand, we could benefit by better games appearing on the market, and by being able to give games the once over personally. However, it is likely to reach a comfortable equilibrium where both developer and gamer benefit, but it relies strongly on good rental practice.
Thanks for reading!
doublezero wrote:
> With all due respect... what are you talking about? I've never seen
> any games that are 'rental only'. Video game rentals ensure that the
> consumer is fully satisfied with a game before committing to spending
> up to £45 on a title.
He's right no offence but this topic dident make sense.
> With all due respect... what are you talking about? I've never seen
> any games that are 'rental only'. Video game rentals ensure that the
> consumer is fully satisfied with a game before committing to spending
> up to £45 on a title.
He's right no offence but this topic dident make sense.
Again, with all due respect, my post only referenced magazines that advise rental - which by the way does happen. I suggest you open your eyes and understand what the topic is really about before airing your pointless and just for the sake of it arguments in my posts. Surely this is along the lines of all the controversial concepts that are driving people away from the boards is it not?
With all due respect... what are you talking about? I've never seen any games that are 'rental only'. Video game rentals ensure that the consumer is fully satisfied with a game before committing to spending up to £45 on a title.
Video game rentals and 'try before you buy' keeps gamers happy and content with their purchases, meaning they'll be loyal, satisfied customers. If thats not good for the industry, i dont know what is!
Video game rentals and 'try before you buy' keeps gamers happy and content with their purchases, meaning they'll be loyal, satisfied customers. If thats not good for the industry, i dont know what is!
Rental Only - a common paradigm that is forever plaguing the sheets of independant game magazines. Since the introduction of viable game rental, it has become possible to borrow virtually any game for a couple of days for just under four pounds. Blockbuster video has opened up the realms of rental for everybody, and as an avid XBox owner, can literally choose whatever I want for the same price as a video. However, the consequences of game rental in the mass marketplace have to be considered before accepting that rental is a useful tool for purchase considerations and weekend fun alike.
I will begin by analysing the trends in the independant magazines, which seem to stick a 'rental only' tag on all games that score below seventy percent. Even for the higher rated games, they still advise that we rent first before buying to check the game is for us. This practice, on the face of it, appears to be a comprehendable approach for all of us to try before we buy. I relish the intent of the magazines, who only want us to make sure we buy games we like, but have they looked below the surface?
To begin with, an avid gamer may rent a game, play it virtually non-stop for the duration of the rental and complete the game. The gamer may then think that as it is completed, it would be pointless to purchase it. As an example, one of my best friends, and also an owner of an XBox, decided to rent Halo before buying the game, to check if it was for him. Consequently he completed the game, took it back to the hire shop, and decided not to buy the game by virtue of completing it. I consider this a completely oblivious practice, as any owners of Halo will tell, much of the game lies in the multiplayer mode. Not to mention the other difficulty levels add much depth to an already completed game. In summary, game completing renters may overlook the inapparent virtues that the game would offer only it's owners. This human practice is perhaps also overlooked by magazine reviewers, and should stress these points before advising a rental.
Along a similar line to renters who overlook inapparent virtues of a game solely by completing it, lies another breed of renters who fail to notice elements of a game that lie later. A renter may rent a game, play it for only a short amount of time, then pass it off as boring, or not my kind of thing. Consequently the gamer has wrote another title off his list of potential future purchases. This may result in the renter failing to acknowledge features of the game which lie beneath the surface. This superficial view taken by many renters is also one that I did to my detriment quite recently. I decided to rent Jet Set Radio Future in order to determine whether the hype was well deserved. I played it for only an hour, then took it back, thinking to myself 'what is all the fuss about?'. However, it was only revealed to me later, watching my friend play JSRF, just how deep and intricate a game JSRF actually is. So many areas to cover in graffiti, so many characters to unlock, I was forced to go and buy the game. So again, in summary, I had failed to notice the wonders of JSRF that were revealed later on by renting the game first.
Hopefully I have now revealed two common rental errors that occur, partly by virtue of magazine instruction. Perhaps the lesson to be learnt here is to bear these points in mind when renting a game, and remember that a game that does not instantly appeal to you, may turn out to be one of the best games that you have ever played. Consequently, completion of a rented game does not necessarily mean that there is nothing left for the player.
Moving swiftly on to the potential consequences of rental errors for game developers. Developers lose money for every game that is rented and not purchased. This could prove very costly if the game is easily completed, or does not come into life until later in the game. If this is the case, then the habitual renter may bypass the game as a potential purchase. However, does this mean that developers need to create games that engross you from the start and have many hidden or inapparent good features? Maybe they do, but then again, failure to do this should not result in lack of sales by developers. It is a intriguing web of paradoxical argument that is no doubt complexed by the mass throughput of rental in the modern world.
In a contrary view however, rental can be a very good determinant of what game to buy next, if carried out correctly. Theoretically a good rental play could save you lots of money, that you would have obliviously spent on buying a game. I accept that to most of us, buying a game is a decision, and one that should perhaps not be made on a whim. Thus it is important to get one that works for you, and rental proves an invaluable tool here. Also, if carried out correctly, developers may lose out, but not in an unjust manner, in fact it could lead to better games being developed in the future. After all, are developers really going to be able to develop games for the whim-purchaser if the whim-purchaser rents it first? Rental could then, theoretically, be a needed wake-up call for the developers to concentrate on creating excellent games.
Whichever stance you take, rental is clearly a game of two sides. In the worst case scenario, games developers could go bust due to rental dismissals, and even rental copying. On the other hand, we could benefit by better games appearing on the market, and by being able to give games the once over personally. However, it is likely to reach a comfortable equilibrium where both developer and gamer benefit, but it relies strongly on good rental practice.
Thanks for reading!
I will begin by analysing the trends in the independant magazines, which seem to stick a 'rental only' tag on all games that score below seventy percent. Even for the higher rated games, they still advise that we rent first before buying to check the game is for us. This practice, on the face of it, appears to be a comprehendable approach for all of us to try before we buy. I relish the intent of the magazines, who only want us to make sure we buy games we like, but have they looked below the surface?
To begin with, an avid gamer may rent a game, play it virtually non-stop for the duration of the rental and complete the game. The gamer may then think that as it is completed, it would be pointless to purchase it. As an example, one of my best friends, and also an owner of an XBox, decided to rent Halo before buying the game, to check if it was for him. Consequently he completed the game, took it back to the hire shop, and decided not to buy the game by virtue of completing it. I consider this a completely oblivious practice, as any owners of Halo will tell, much of the game lies in the multiplayer mode. Not to mention the other difficulty levels add much depth to an already completed game. In summary, game completing renters may overlook the inapparent virtues that the game would offer only it's owners. This human practice is perhaps also overlooked by magazine reviewers, and should stress these points before advising a rental.
Along a similar line to renters who overlook inapparent virtues of a game solely by completing it, lies another breed of renters who fail to notice elements of a game that lie later. A renter may rent a game, play it for only a short amount of time, then pass it off as boring, or not my kind of thing. Consequently the gamer has wrote another title off his list of potential future purchases. This may result in the renter failing to acknowledge features of the game which lie beneath the surface. This superficial view taken by many renters is also one that I did to my detriment quite recently. I decided to rent Jet Set Radio Future in order to determine whether the hype was well deserved. I played it for only an hour, then took it back, thinking to myself 'what is all the fuss about?'. However, it was only revealed to me later, watching my friend play JSRF, just how deep and intricate a game JSRF actually is. So many areas to cover in graffiti, so many characters to unlock, I was forced to go and buy the game. So again, in summary, I had failed to notice the wonders of JSRF that were revealed later on by renting the game first.
Hopefully I have now revealed two common rental errors that occur, partly by virtue of magazine instruction. Perhaps the lesson to be learnt here is to bear these points in mind when renting a game, and remember that a game that does not instantly appeal to you, may turn out to be one of the best games that you have ever played. Consequently, completion of a rented game does not necessarily mean that there is nothing left for the player.
Moving swiftly on to the potential consequences of rental errors for game developers. Developers lose money for every game that is rented and not purchased. This could prove very costly if the game is easily completed, or does not come into life until later in the game. If this is the case, then the habitual renter may bypass the game as a potential purchase. However, does this mean that developers need to create games that engross you from the start and have many hidden or inapparent good features? Maybe they do, but then again, failure to do this should not result in lack of sales by developers. It is a intriguing web of paradoxical argument that is no doubt complexed by the mass throughput of rental in the modern world.
In a contrary view however, rental can be a very good determinant of what game to buy next, if carried out correctly. Theoretically a good rental play could save you lots of money, that you would have obliviously spent on buying a game. I accept that to most of us, buying a game is a decision, and one that should perhaps not be made on a whim. Thus it is important to get one that works for you, and rental proves an invaluable tool here. Also, if carried out correctly, developers may lose out, but not in an unjust manner, in fact it could lead to better games being developed in the future. After all, are developers really going to be able to develop games for the whim-purchaser if the whim-purchaser rents it first? Rental could then, theoretically, be a needed wake-up call for the developers to concentrate on creating excellent games.
Whichever stance you take, rental is clearly a game of two sides. In the worst case scenario, games developers could go bust due to rental dismissals, and even rental copying. On the other hand, we could benefit by better games appearing on the market, and by being able to give games the once over personally. However, it is likely to reach a comfortable equilibrium where both developer and gamer benefit, but it relies strongly on good rental practice.
Thanks for reading!