Like many engineers I have trouble with throwing out things that are potentially useful. I’ve got several containers stuffed with computer parts, a few more laden with electronics bits and a shed full of other miscellanea that I have a hard time writing off as completely useless. Thankfully at least once a year I’ll do a clean out of the entire house and any of the real trash will get tossed at that point, meaning that most of the stuff I have actually has some potential to be used. My hoarder tendencies have also led me down the rather unexpected path of self discovery and brought insight into some of our societal norms.
One of the things I find hard to let go of are my socks. Like anyone I’d do a wash only to find myself one or two socks short, leaving me with at best mismatched pairs and at worst socks that were never to be used again. For the longest time I can remember just quietly cursing under my breath and tossing them into a pile, never to be looked at again. Then one day I accidentally chucked that entire pile of socks into my regular wash and interestingly enough I came out of it with many more pairs of socks than what came in. It was then I realised that for the most part my missing socks weren’t missing at all, they had either been misplaced or a complete pair had been sitting in the lost socks pile for however long. From then on I have continued the ritual of rifling through my lost sock drawer every time I find myself coming up short and around 75% of the time I find myself with a completed pair once again.
This experience got me thinking about how we as a society come to accept certain inevitabilities simply because the are accepted by everyone. It’s a well known “fact” that washing machines somehow eat a sock every so often and with that idea firmly implanted in your head you don’t think twice about it when you come up short in the wash every week. Of course most people are rational beings and if you really push the topic they’ll eventually cave and say that they’ve probably misplaced them somewhere but rarely do I hear of anyone trying to figure out a solution to it.
I hadn’t really considered the idea passed “Hey I can find most of my lost socks if I just keep them all” until I watched TED Talk by Kathryn Schulz titled On Being Wrong:
At its heart the idea that a washing machine can magically disappear socks is wrong, they’re simply not designed that way. Realistically the blame lies with us for having misplaced them but admitting that to ourselves is much harder than laying blame on some external, uncontrollable factor. We’re much more comfortable believing we’re right about the washing machines working against us than taking that leap into thinking we’re wrong and working out a solution. Taking this one step further its easy to see when people become trapped in these notions that they believe are right when objectively they’re completely wrong and there’s usually a path to follow to remedy it.
Just like my Straight Line Theory before it the Lost Sock Theory came about not through hours of philosophical study but just a realisation through going about my normal, everyday life. Perhaps its my engineering bent that causes me to seek out problems like this and work on their solutions as I often find myself seeing analogies in everyday life to philosophical ideals. Indeed it is my hope that in sharing these ideas with you that you too will embark on a similar path of self discovery, or at least find some of those socks that have gone walk about.
I’ll admit that I haven’t bought many games used since I’m usually in the store on release day hungering to be one of the first to get my hands on them. Still I realize there’s quite a market for second hand games since not everyone has the disposable income that I do to splurge on the latest and greatest titles. They’re also a significant source of revenue for brick and mortar games retailers as the margins on used titles are significantly higher than their brand new counter-parts and provide an additional sales hook for them to attract customers (I.E. trade-ins for newer games). There are one group of people who aren’t so pleased with the second hand games market however, the publishers.
Second hand titles, whilst generating significant revenue for the retailers, generate almost nothing for the publishers that first distributed the games. The advent of downloadable content mitigated this somewhat as it was usually tied to the console it was downloaded on and not the game itself but it is a pittance compared to what they generate from a new sale. More recently however games publishers have taken a more sinister approach to the second hand market, seeking to make a resold product less attractive than the new unless the consumer ponies up the extra cash to make up the difference.
Sadly this kind of chicanery affected one of my most favorite games, Mass Effect 2. New buyers of the game received a special code that gave them access to the Cerberus Network, a daily news service for the Mass Effect universe plus the gateway to all the DLC available for the game. The code was a one time use deal so anyone buying the game second hand would have to do without or pony up the US$15 for access to it. Whilst you could argue that you still got the vast majority of the game despite the lack of the additional DLC there was quite a bit of free stuff on there, some of it even on day 1. This meant that anyone buying it without the code was essentially getting an incomplete game, even if it was playable.
Whilst it’s still not the norm to cripple the second hand market like this it is becoming alarmingly common, with several recent titles making used purchases far less desirable through new-only-or-pay-up DLC. It’s still a step ahead of something like Steam which doesn’t allow the sale of second hand titles at all, not even for a trade in on other steam titles. But it’s still a dick move by the publishers who are just trying to squeeze money out of the consumers in any way they can. Realistically though its detrimental to both the publisher and consumer since many trade ins drive new games sales, to the tune of 20%. Cutting that market out completely would harm the new games market significantly, but none of the publishers will admit to that.
It’s also arguably a violation of the First Sale Doctrine although no one has yet tried to test out this particular violation of it in court.
All this does is reduce the perceived value of the product that the publishers are putting forward and will only help to encourage people to seek out alternative methods in lieu of forking out the extra dollars. Whilst I am happy to give up my freedom to sell my games for the convenience that Steam provides (I am a hoarder, though) I know many people who aren’t so willing to make that trade and have avoided purchasing games that remove their right to first sale doctrine. Instead of punishing people for buying second hand they should be encouraging people to buy in early with things like betas and in game items. Of course I find it hard to fault a company that tries to maximize its profits but when it comes at a cost of significant good will I have to wonder if the costs outweigh the potential benefits and the only ones that know the answer to that are the publishers.
And they’re not talking about it, unfortunately.