I know this is supposed to be a post about video games, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a quick history lesson, right? You all remember Plessy vs. Ferguson and the whole “separate but equal provision of public accommodations by state governments is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause,” right? You all remember how well that worked out for the next 60 years of our history, right? Now I’m not saying that we are facing a monumental civil rights issue, or even a gamers’ rights issue at the moment, but the idea of separate but equal seems to be in use with regards to video game pre-orders. Everywhere I look games are being offered up months before their release with a different incentive depending on the retailer. Pre-order a game at one store and risk missing out on the rewards being offered at a different store. In case you can’t connect the dots on my metaphor, separate is not equal. We might need to find an equivalent to Brown vs. Board of Education quickly before things get out of control.

If the court will allow it, hit the jump for my opening statements.

I understand that it is a part of Gamestop’s business plan to keep as much cash flowing as possible. Money acquired through pre-orders is cash on hand. Cash is the most liquid form of capital and makes financial reports look fantastic, especially to stockholders and investors. That being said, the business of pre-ordering a video game has become a bastardized shadow of what it once was. Everyone has the horror stories about being pestered to pre-order yet another game. A simple trip to Gamestop or one of its subsidiaries is never simple. Even if you walk in to one of those stores knowing exactly what you want with no distractions acknowledged, no deviations taken, even with deliberate decision making, a session at Gamestop is a stressful endeavor.

No, I do not want to pre-order another game. Take my money and leave me alone.

While it might be in the best interest of Gamestop, Best Buy and other retailers to sell as many pre-orders as possible, it is also in the best interest of video game publishers to satisfy their customers. I wonder if segmenting their audience by offering exclusive and potentially game-altering content to each of these retailers is a part of their master plan to keep consumers happy. Uncharted 2, I’m looking at you right now. As excited as I am to play this game the first day it hits shelves, trying to weigh the pros and cons of my local retailers’ content exclusivity is something that no gamer should be forced to put up with.

In the grand scheme of things, a unique player skin for one system over another or to reward a pre-order at a specific retailer over another isn’t a big deal. It’s just a costume, just a palette swap. These kinds of incentives do not fundamentally alter the gaming experience from one player to another. If that was all we were seeing around the industry I would not have much room to complain and would need a new topic this week. But when I read about exclusive characters, levels and in-game items being separately offered at different retailers, my blood sugar wants to take a nose dive off of Mount Thor (Google it, it’s real). Hearing that pre-order exclusive A is only available for System X if you pre-order the game at retailer C is equal parts aggravating, confusing and unacceptable. Punishing consumers for choosing one console over the other is unfair and ignorant. Segmenting markets based on retailer is just as incompetent. Tell me a game works better on one system because it was the lead development platform like Burnout: Paradise, that’s fine, but don’t offer exclusive content to one system over the other based on a $5 deposit. Criterion has publicly stated that the PS3 is the system of choice for their Michael Bay-infused racer, but all of the content they have released is available on all platforms and offer the exact same content to any and all gamers who want it. Thank you, Criterion.

Decisions like that of Eidos Interactive to limit the Joker as a playable character to the PlayStation 3 might be a brilliant move to some non-gamer in a suit and tie, but how will the gamers with only a 360 feel about that? I’m thinking of a word that rhymes with kissed. And if you don’t think exclusive characters influence game sales based on console, let me introduce you to my friend SoulCalibur. Yoda, Darth Vader, Link, Spawn, Heihachi all made their home on an exclusive console. And yes, I am aware that Yoda and Vader crossed over… for a price, of course. My point is that these exclusives based on console and retailer do more harm than good to consumers. I just find it hard to believe that segmenting markets is ever part of a successful business strategy.

Here’s an idea: Why not bundle these tent pole releases with a download code for a demo of the next tent pole release? When it’s time to build hype for the next game, there is already a queue of gamers ready to test drive the demo. I’m tired of seeing in-game content exclusive to one retailer or system. Offering future demos is a cheap and easy way to build awareness for future releases at a cost significantly cheaper than a major marketing budget. inFamous had the Uncharted 2 Multiplayer Beta, Crackdown had the Halo 3 Multiplayer Beta. Halo 3: ODST will have Halo: Reach. Why not let these games piggyback off each other and start cross-promoting what these systems have to offer.

To get an idea of the current state of video game pre-orders, just search Kotaku. You can start here.

Not enough SugarFree for your system? Check out my blog: A Consequence of Hypoglycemia