Support NeoGAF

[AppleSmack]

Red herring much? What you just said, with that anecdotal tidbit, has 0 applicability of what we are talking about.

What are we talking about exactly? First off, both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are some pretty great looking games in their own right. If you played them you should agree. The high production values in all aspects of the game are clearly visible. Of course, they aren't top looking games and yet they still cost 100 million dollars to make. Crysis 1 was one of the best looking games and it cost merely $20 million. Crysis 3, on the other hand, cost $66 million to make. Development, advertising and publishing costs on consoles isn't cheap. These are the market prices. Software development is one of the most expensive and labor intensive industries that exist and companies are struggling to make money.

You do understand that for there to be a used game there has to have been a new game purchase somewhere along the line. Unless we are going with the logic that since buying used games is like theft, people who sell used games probably stole it.

Ok? So what? When I sell my used game why would I spend that money on a new game when I can just grab another used game (under the suggestion of the gamestop clerk, of course).

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Piracy is such a complicated thing, you can't really put a finger on how much it actually impacts sales. That is because you don't know if that end user would ever have bought the game to begin with. Do they buy any games? Do they even finish those games they pirate?

Used sales at least have a paper trail. There was an original buyer and then repeat buyers but only the first had an impact as a real sale to the content provider. So piracy and used sales aren't really the same.

The new buyers are the ones who have the largest impact but I feel without the used market we would see those new buyers buying less games. If on the other hand they did remove the used market would those who usually wait for used games likely buy new games? That is the holy grail they are trying to seek out.

Most consumers only have so much money to spend or are willing to spend. So if they spend (let's take a wild guess here) $400 per year on games and normally buy about 15 titles per year (that's $30 on average for all you math wizards). Essentially they could only buy 6 games at full price or wait for them to go on sale. Would that mean more money to the right people because even though you have a smaller pie, at least then there would be something for them to eat.

Gamer A and gamer B both spend $400 per year on games.

Gamer A buys new games. $60 each but gets kickbacks for trade-ins and items sold. Instead of buying 6 games at $60 each, he buys 20 games per year because he gets back $40 per title. A high volume type gamer.

Gamer B buys used games. No matter how many he buys none of those proceeds will go to the right people. Does gamer A with his high volume of games bought offset Gamer B?

 

[Pyronite]

Why does the market need to 'compete' with Gamestop? Set their own prices, Gamestop and any other reseller will set theirs, and the entire system goes on its merry way of some people buying used, some people buying new, and so on and on.

I don't think they can compete with GameStop for the reasons I laid out, but the quote I was responding to asked why it was okay to expect gamers to spend $60 on a new game. (I guess the other argument is that a $50 game in 1992 is about $80 adjusted to today's price, and the cost of producing games has risen tremendously at the same time.)

But mainly, it's the idea that new game pricing will never be able to compete with used game pricing. You can always slash $5 off. Incentives like online passes are an answer that gamers (myself included) dislike.

 

[thepotatoman]

Is Steam illegal in Europe? Are blizzard games legal in Europe? And no I live in Canada.

I believe in Europe you have the right to sell your account no matter what the company says and they can't ban the account if they find out it got sold second hand, while that's not the case in other areas. But you're right that you can't separate the games in your account to sell them separately.

 

[mavs]

Why does the market need to 'compete' with Gamestop? Set their own prices, Gamestop and any other reseller will set theirs, and the entire system goes on its merry way of some people buying used, some people buying new, and so on and on.

How is that not competition. They're both selling games, and both would rather people buy one game over another.

 

[Opiate]

$4 billion dollars spent on games and publisher's don't get a cent. I'm not surprised they want to take action.

Sure, and I'm confident movie studios would love to capture all the revenue from used DVD sales, and gun manufacturers wish they got the revenue from used gun sales, and jewel crafters wish they got money from second hand jewelry sales.

Everyone wishes they controlled everything, but of course they don't.

I look at my collection and I don't see a single game that was made cheaply... Indie games maybe, but 3rd party budgets this generation are going to be anything BUT cheap. Anytime a game looks substandard you see people trashing it for looking bad all the time. You are highly undervaluing the importance of graphics.

What is your evidence for this? Virtually all evidence shows a significant step away from graphics as a leading selling point. Virtually all of this generation's biggest hits were quite literally PS1-era graphics and below.

 

[unbias]

What are we talking about exactly? First off, both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are some pretty great looking games in their own right. If you played them you should agree. The high production values in all aspects of the game are clearly visible. Of course, they aren't top looking games and yet they still cost 100 million dollars to make. Crysis 1 was one of the best looking games and it cost merely $20 million. Crysis 3, on the other hand, cost $66 million to make. Development, advertising and publishing costs on consoles isn't cheap. These are the market prices. Software development is one of the most expensive and labor intensive industries that exist and companies are struggling to make money.

You said that production quality and graphics is what consumers want, then I gave examples of low production quality and low/lower quality graphics(star craft and diablo don't have very good graphics in terms of pixels). I gave you all cost examples of games with low and high budgets that dont exactly fit the mold of your original statement. Beyond that, just because there are Avatars in the game industry, doesn't mean all games have to be avatars, that line of thinking is ridiculous. Specially in an game era, specifically with the PC(but even in the console space) where we are seeing low budget works with indy and the like having remarkable industry growth.

As for Crysis, it looks beautiful, but is a very dull/standard shooter, which is why they dont sell well(for the cost of what they take to develop). Which just proves production values and graphics are not what drives the market.

 

[Tellaerin]

Yeah yeah yeah. Grossly inflated lost sales by publishers. You keep mentioning them even thought they have jack to do with what I was asking about in the first place.

Which is what, exactly?

You wanted to know why some people believe pirates usually pirate a lot more games than they would actually buy. You got your answer.

Then you asked whether I thought people are just as likely to pay for a worthless trinket as they are for something of value. I assumed that was a rhetorical question. The answer is not only obvious, but validates what I said earlier. If the pirates had to pay for everything, they'd only buy the titles they value the most, within the bounds of their budgets. And while the publishers take a financial hit there, I believe it's nowhere close to the amount they make it out to be.

And yes, I know I keep hammering the point about pubs inflating the losses they suffer through piracy. The reason for that is because I'm tired of piracy and used games being trotted out as scapegoats for the industry's financial woes. The real problems are on the development end. Instead of addressing those problems directly, publishers would rather try to slap a bandaid on the whole mess with ever-more-restrictive DRM and efforts to kill off the used game market altogether. They can't get their houses in order, and the best solutions they can come up with are increasingly elaborate ways to give consumers the shaft. I'm personally sick of it.

 

[quest]

$4 billion dollars spent on games and publisher's don't get a cent. I'm not surprised they want to take action.

The vast majority of that money is spent on new games. I don't think you really understand. Most people are not rich enough to buy game after game at 59.99. They need to sell games they did not like or beat to help purchase new games. Take that away and people will buy a hell of a lot less games. If you really think there are millions and millions of people out there who will gladly lay out 59.99 for games with no resale value you are wrong. That resale value of a game makes that purchase a lot more acceptable and affordable.

 

[noquarter]

Ok? So what? When I sell my used game why would I spend that money on a new game when I can just grab another used game (under the suggestion of the gamestop clerk, of course).

The first person to sell the game had to buy it new. If they are selling a game that they bought new, why wouldn't they put that money back into a new game?

It really looks like you don't understand the used game market at all.

And if you are only talking about Gamestop, I feel really bad for you. If the industry really didn't like Gamestop, why did they give them so many exclusives this Gen? Why did the industry that is crying about used games drive so many people into the lair of the beast? They have no problem with Gamestop, otherwise they would have given the best preorder deals to everybody but Gamestop.

 

[Pyronite]

Sure, and I'm confident movie studios would love to capture all the revenue from used DVD sales, and gun manufacturers wish they got the revenue from used gun sales, and jewel crafters wish they got money from second hand jewelry sales.

Everyone wishes they controlled everything, but of course they don't.

Guns and jewerly are not consumable media and I don't see economic justice in the comparison. You play a game for the experience, and when it's over, you can easily throw it out and still have the experience, or sell the experience to someone else without the artist getting a penny. You don't have the protection (gun), status (jewelry), transportation (car), and etc, when selling those goods.

The DVD comparison is more apt.

EDIT: And an interesting point...

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Sure, and I'm confident movie studios would love to capture all the revenue from used DVD sales, and gun manufacturers wish they got the revenue from used gun sales, and jewel crafters wish they got money from second hand jewelry sales.

Everyone wishes they controlled everything, but of course they don't.



What is your evidence for this? Virtually all evidence shows a significant step away from graphics as a leading selling point. Virtually all of this generation's biggest hits were quite literally PS1-era graphics and below.

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

Guns and jewels have a set market price and the price of making those goods has been reached after the original sale. If a gun cost $500 to make and sells for $600 they made a profit. If a jeweler makes a bracelet and it cost $500 to make they would sell it for at least what it cost to make. A 100 million dollar movie to make is not expected to be made back on one consumer, same with a game. You need high volume recipients. Movies have 2 revenue streams, games essentially have one. That is likely why games cost so much to the consumer, that and the market is much smaller.

Guns and jewerly are not consumable media and I don't see economic justice in the comparison. You play a game for the experience, and when it's over, you can easily throw it out and still have the experience, or sell the experience to someone else without the artist getting a penny. You don't have the protection (gun), status (jewelry), transportation (car), and etc, when selling those goods.

The DVD comparison is more apt.

Another good example.

 

[quest]

I don't think they can compete with GameStop for the reasons I laid out, but the quote I was responding to asked why it was okay to expect gamers to spend $60 on a new game. (I guess the other argument is that a $50 game in 1992 is about $80 adjusted to today's price, and the cost of producing games has risen tremendously at the same time.)

But mainly, it's the idea that new game pricing will never be able to compete with used game pricing. You can always slash $5 off. Incentives like online passes are an answer that gamers (myself included) dislike.

The market is a lot bigger than 1992 back then a million seller was huge. Now a game sells 3.4 million it is a failure. Also part of the cost was phyiscal carts back then that added to the cost of games.

Want to get people to buy new games. Lower prices give incentives like rewards points for getting a new game. Discounted DLC for the person who bought it new or even free. Don't go the other route and cut off your nose to spite your face. It will kill console gaming if they try and make games 59.99 dollar rentals. It will shut out everyone but the hardcore gamer and the rich.

 

[unbias]

Guns and jewerly are not consumable media and I don't see economic justice in the comparison. You play a game for the experience, and when it's over, you (or many people, apparently) throw it out. You still have the experience. You don't have the protection (gun), status (jewelry), transportation (car), and on.

But the 2nd hand market shows no evidence of actually acting different then the other 2nd hand markets. Just because there are differences, if the differences are not bearing out, those differences in that market are not indicators of anything. In order for your idea to work, you would have to show that the liquidity and extra disposable income of the 2nd hand market doesn't go back into the industry. Unless you believe in the insane idea that used games are infinite in supply, there is nothing that suggests that 2nd hand market in games acts any different then any other industry.

 

[Opiate]

Guns and jewerly are not consumable media and I don't see economic justice in the comparison.

Okay, so you don't like those comparisons, I'm happy to list dozens more. Robust second hand markets exist for all of these products:

Guns, jewelry, houses, movies, music, books, furniture, cars, appliances, electronics. There are now specialty commercials just for the resale of smart phones. There is even a second hand market for human organs.

Do I need to list more? Or are video games the unique special snowflake and no other industry can possibly compare to video games special situation?

You play a game for the experience, and when it's over, you (or many people, apparently) throw it out. You still have the experience. You don't have the protection (gun), status (jewelry), transportation (car), and on.

I notice you ignored the movie example -- I'm confident that wasn't a coincidence. There are plenty of others I have now also listed: books, music, and television shows are three others that immediately spring to mind.

 

[Card Boy]

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

They charge $60, movies don't.

 

[Tellaerin]

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

They used to do it here in the West. They still do in Asia.

They're called "arcades".

 

[Opiate]

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

The games industry needs to figure it out. You're basically saying, "it's not fair! Movie studios were smart and diversified their revenue streams!"

Now let's look at other examples. Of course, with literature, people will complain that books don't cost as much to produce and therefore don't need lots of distinct revenue streams. Music costs 1-10 dollars anyway so the used market isn't as robust because the product is comparatively cheap in the first place.

And thus you can fabricate a defense that video games are unique and special and that no other industry in the universe can possibly compare.

 

[timetokill]

Posted? Jaffe:

 

[Boken]

He has a point though, despite representing us all as one.

RE: used games

It'd be interesting to see what the courts say in response to "resell" locks - I havent been following what the XB1 implementation is, but software licenses are resalable, at least in europe.

The ironic thing is, the one solution I see around this ruling is that MS could just make software licenses limited by time, charge a 15$ premium on physical copies

imagine the console industry like that

The games industry needs to figure it out. You're basically saying, "it's not fair! Movie studios were smart and diversified their revenue streams!"

Now let's look at other examples. Of course, with literature, people will complain that books don't cost as much to produce and therefore don't need lots of distinct revenue streams. Music costs 1-10 dollars anyway so the used market isn't as robust because the product is comparatively cheap in the first place.

And thus you can fabricate a defense that video games are unique and special and that no other industry in the universe can possibly compare.

the argument you're making also touches upon the problem of piracy. Diverse revenue streams by consumable experiential goods make music, books and movies much more flexible and resistant to piracy

 

[noquarter]

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

I don't know, but the publishers should worry about figuring that out instead of crying over used game sales. Maybe if they came up with rentals on demand instead of having Gamefly around? Or they could give earlier adopters the game a week earlier digitally. Or maybe come up with a service like PS+ and put games on there that have a lot of DLC.

They are thousands of ways they could try to incentivize people buying the game new, but the best they can think of is $100+ deluxe editions with toys and shit or putting different colored guns in the game that rely on you deciding to get the game early.

They had to have spent money thinking about how to stop used games, just put that into thinking about how to get people to stop selling your game.

 

[unbias]

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

Guns and jewels have a set market price and the price of making those goods has been reached after the original sale. If a gun cost $500 to make and sells for $600 they made a profit. If a jeweler makes a bracelet and it cost $500 to make they would sell it for at least what it cost to make. A 100 million dollar movie to make is not expected to be made back on one consumer, same with a game. You need high volume recipients. Movies have 2 revenue streams, games essentially have one. That is likely why games cost so much to the consumer, that and the market is much smaller.



Another good example.

The game market isn't smaller then the movie industry. Beyond that, movies have to keep paying out, even after the product is shipped and delivered. Beyond that, that still doesnt really say anything, other then the 100 million dollar AAA budget isnt something that should be the norm or wanting to be duplicated. The problem lies in the publicly traded companies trying to artificially boost stock price.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Reading that, second hand sales are an exception in the rights of the copyright holder. I don't see anywhere where it says that you have the RIGHT to used game sales. If you had the RIGHT to them, companies could not legally block it. In this situation, they are only preventing the exception from occurring and since you don't actually have the RIGHT to that exception, they can do this.

That is not how I read it at all.

"The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, gifting, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others)

Pretty clear. I see no second hand sale exemption. There is are copy exemptions but no sale exemptions.

Another, maybe clearer, link.

Once the copyright owner transfers ownership of a particular copy (a material object) embodying a copyrighted work, the copyright owner's exclusive right to distribute copies of the work is "extinguished" with respect only to that particular copy.

 

[Yagharek]

Posted? Jaffe:

No one is saying piracy is ok, rather people are saying buying used is not the same as piracy.

RTFT Jaffe

 

[xelios]

Wouldn't any industry love people to only buy new products and for there to be no sales between individuals? Who doesn't want more money? Not the way the world works though, and good luck forcing it to work that way without some unintended consequences.

 

[Boken]

No one is saying piracy is ok, rather people are saying buying used is not the same as piracy.

RTFT Jaffe

I think he read the front page which is full of people who are A-OK with piracy

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

No one is saying piracy is ok

What thread have you been reading?

 

[Tellaerin]

David, if you're following this thread -

I don't think anybody's saying piracy's okay.

Speaking solely for myself, I'm saying that trotting out pirates and used game sales as the boogeymen under the bed, blaming them for all the industry's woes, then using that as an excuse to justify aggressive anti-consumer tactics like increasingly intrusive DRM and locking purchases to accounts/hardware to prevent resale, is fucking bullshit and anyone who supports that should be ashamed.

I think you're really mischaracterizing some of the things that are being discussed here.

 

[The Illiterati]

Let me get this straight:

Purchase a new copy of a game: Money goes to publishers. Publishers happy!

Purchase used copy of game: No money to publishers. Publishers sad.
Rent game: No money to publishers. Publishers sad.
Pirate game: No money to publisher. Publishers sad.
Don't buy, rent or pirate: No money to publishers. Publishers sad.

Choose a side now! Remember, if you ain't with 'em, you're against 'em!

 

[Joseph Merrick]

yeah, no one is saying piracy is ok. it's just hard to prove that it actually hurts devs or the industry. jaffe is having reading or comprehension problems. let's see him tackle used games next. I'm sure he wouldn't mind getting paid 3-4 times per copy of his games sold.

 

[Yagharek]

What thread have you been reading?

This one. You?

 

[unbias]

]Wouldn't any industry love people to only buy new products and for there to be no sales between individuals?[/B] Who doesn't want more money? Not the way the world works though, and good luck forcing it to work that way without some unintended consequences.

In thoery every industry wishes this, but most understand the liquidity and disposable income value add to consumers, that comes from the 2nd hand market.

 

[Card Boy]

piracy is such a dirty word, i prefer the term copyright infringement.

 

[Pyronite]

Okay, so you don't like those comparisons, I'm happy to list dozens more. Robust second hand markets exist for all of these products:

Guns, jewelry, houses, movies, music, books, furniture, cars, appliances, electronics. There are now specialty commercials just for the resale of smart phones. There is even a second hand market for human organs.

Do I need to list more? Or are video games the unique special snowflake and no other industry can possibly compare to video games special situation?

I explained why physical, non-consumable products are different in my mind. ("I notice you ignored that example.")

I notice you ignored the movie example -- I'm confident that wasn't a coincidence. There are plenty of others I have now also listed: books, music, and television shows are three others that immediately spring to mind.

I responded to DVDs - you may have seen the post prior to my editing that in.

Louis Cyphre made a good point underneath, but your inclusion of those digital products on a list does not mean those markets do not have their own problems - straight DVD purchases are falling away in favor of on-demand streaming services as movies/television have become pirated as a matter of course. (On that note, how is your "television show" example anything but redundant as they are also delivered on DVDs?) Music services are doing the exact same.

Those media are finding platforms with similar solutions (DRM in one form or another) to deal with their problems. The fact that you included their names without an examination of the similar issues they face is not a rebuttal.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Which is what, exactly?

You wanted to know why some people believe pirates usually pirate a lot more games than they would actually buy. You got your answer.

No, I didn't get my answer. I did not want to know why some believe pirates pirate more games than they would actually buy. That was already obvious. I want to know why people think that the vast majority of pirates wouldn't buy games even if there was no piracy. You seem to think I'm asking why people think that the vast majority of pirated games wouldn't be purchased by pirates. There is a difference

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

This one. You?

The same one, dude.

 

[unbias]

I explained why physical, non-consumable products are different in my mind. ("I notice you ignored that example.")



I responded to DVDs - you may have seen the post prior to my doing so.

Louis Cyphre made a good point underneath, but your inclusion of those on a list does not mean they are not a problem - straight DVD purchases are falling away in favor of on-demand streaming services. (On that note, how is your "television show" example anything but redundant as they are also delivered on DVDs?)

Those media are finding other platforms with similar solutions (DRM in one form or another) to deal with their problems. The fact that you included their names without an examination of the similar problems they face is not a rebuttal.

Bold - your response doesn't make sense on its own. You cant say it is different without actually showing that it is acting different. You have given nothing, that shows that the 2nd hand market of games actually acts different with value adjustments, then any other market.

Underlined - Those other forms of media offered a incentive from moving away from the 2nd hand market, not getting rid of it. The liquidity is still there for those products, which allows it to go back into the industry. You are not explaining why you think the disposable income and added liquidity to consumers, is not going back into the industry.

 

[Hypron]

Okay, so you don't like those comparisons, I'm happy to list dozens more. Robust second hand markets exist for all of these products:

Guns, jewelry, houses, movies, music, books, furniture, cars, appliances, electronics. There are now specialty commercials just for the resale of smart phones. There is even a second hand market for human organs.

Do I need to list more? Or are video games the unique special snowflake and no other industry can possibly compare to video games special situation?

I don't think second hand resale of physical goods is a good comparison: they all degrade over time, and hence lose value (and might require spare parts, etc. that will generate extra profits for whoever makes those spare parts). The only thing that degrades for a second hand game is its case and the disk itself - which are only worth a small fraction of the total price (and for digital goods, you've got nothing whatsoever that degrades - ie. a used game is exactly the same thing as a new game, unless DRM's are used). The game itself is still the same even after being resold 50 times: it's not going to lose value.

 

[Boken]

Let me get this straight:

Purchase a new copy of a game: Money goes to publishers. Publishers happy!

Purchase used copy of game: No money to publishers. Publishers sad.
Rent game: No money to publishers. Publishers sad.
Pirate game: No money to publisher. Publishers sad.
Don't buy, rent or pirate: No money to publishers. Publishers sad.

Choose a side now! Remember, if you ain't with 'em, you're against 'em!

Probably shouldnt put copyright infringement on the same level as used games and renting.

 

[Mr. Desu]

Piracy

I remember when games had demos. When I'd play these demos, they get me excited to buy the game, and eventually actually go out and buy them. Unfortunately, many games do not get demos as of late, and so I have nothing to do but go off a biased review or small bits of gameplay... or... off a whim. *gasp!* I stand strongly for the "try-before-you-buy" policy. It's kind of like a car. You find a car you have interest in and potentially want to buy? You do some research and you go out and do a test drive. If you like it, you buy it. If you don't, you don't. Same should go for a game. Why pay for something you're not going to like?

Used games

Ok, I see how this hurts the industry, yet I'm guilty of purchasing used games because I'm poor. It's a lost sale. It'd be nice if retailers implemented a way to give some of the money to the devs, but I don't think that'll be happening any time soon, especially with the greediness of the retailers we have out there today. In a perfect world, this won't affect them. There's no way of putting a used game sale as beneficial to the devs, and that's that.

 

[RustyO]

Can the "market" (developers/publishers) compete with GameStop? GameStop has $0 invested in the creation of the product. If the "market" sells new games for $50 (Steam pricing), GameStop sells it for $40-$45 without a loss. It is economically unfeasible for publishers to compete with someone who has no investment beyond the trade-in credit they offer their consumer (which is typically far below what they resell the game for).

You do understand that it costs money to operate a store; pay staff, rent, advertising, etc no?

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

This pops up regularly; movies have multiple revenue streams, cinema, dvd sales, rentals and tv licensing.

Conveniantly forgetting that the vast majority of people who go watch it at the cinema; won't then go and buy it on dvd, then head round to the video store to rent it, then go out of their way to watch it on tv.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

I don't know, but the publishers should worry about figuring that out instead of crying over used game sales. Maybe if they came up with rentals on demand instead of having Gamefly around? Or they could give earlier adopters the game a week earlier digitally. Or maybe come up with a service like PS+ and put games on there that have a lot of DLC.

They are thousands of ways they could try to incentivize people buying the game new, but the best they can think of is $100+ deluxe editions with toys and shit or putting different colored guns in the game that rely on you deciding to get the game early.

They had to have spent money thinking about how to stop used games, just put that into thinking about how to get people to stop selling your game.

Even then some won't be happy with the restrictions. PS+ doesn't really work like the used market since that content cannot be resold. I just haven't seen a strategy that both consumers and all game developers support.

The game market isn't smaller then the movie industry. Beyond that, movies have to keep paying out, even after the product is shipped and delivered. Beyond that, that still doesnt really say anything, other then the 100 million dollar AAA budget isnt something that should be the norm or wanting to be duplicated. The problem lies in the publicly traded companies trying to artificially boost stock price.

But more people go see movies and buy movies than games don't they? Didn't Iron Man 3 reach 1 billion dollars and an average ticket was $10-$15? Aren't those AAA games the ones that sell hardware?

The games industry needs to figure it out. You're basically saying, "it's not fair! Movie studios were smart and diversified their revenue streams!"

Now let's look at other examples. Of course, with literature, people will complain that books don't cost as much to produce and therefore don't need lots of distinct revenue streams. Music costs 1-10 dollars anyway so the used market isn't as robust because the product is comparatively cheap in the first place.

And thus you can fabricate a defense that video games are unique and special and that no other industry in the universe can possibly compare.

The music industry went through the transition gaming is going through now and is still having issues with piracy. I think that is why so many artists tour, that's where the money is made.

 

[Yagharek]

The same one, dude.

Perhaps you should provide examples then of people claiming piracy is fine. Until then, I call bollocks on your claim.

The overwhelming tone of this argument is whether used game sales are harmful, and whether they are comparable to piracy.

 

[Supermanisdead]

Lol because they are the same thing right? Frankly, I'm concerned about this anti consumer love fest going on in some of these threads. Used games hurt developers as much as used cars hurt manufacturers, so stop with this weird obsessed devotion. Should we ban libraries? Think of all those USED books. How dare we swindle JK Rowling and company.

 

[pawelranger]

It actually hurts more to publishers than devs.

Also, buying used stuff is not illegal, using a fee for used stuff is actually illegal in many countries.

 

[Elwood Blues]

It's not the consumers fault publishers are stupid. Not every ip deserves a 100 million dollar budget, not every ip is going to sell like GTA, Mario, or COD. It's comically easy to predict games that will end up in the bargain bin a month after release, and that's not my problem. It's gonna be funny when the DRM is implemented and the secondhand market is killed and it doesn't change a damn thing.

 

[noquarter]

I explained why physical, non-consumable products are different in my mind. ("I notice you ignored that example.")



I responded to DVDs - you may have seen the post prior to my doing so.

Louis Cyphre made a good point underneath, but your inclusion of those on a list does not mean those markets do not have their own problems - straight DVD purchases are falling away in favor of on-demand streaming services. (On that note, how is your "television show" example anything but redundant as they are also delivered on DVDs?) Music services are doing the exact same.

Those media are finding platforms with similar solutions (DRM in one form or another) to deal with their problems. The fact that you included their names without an examination of the similar issues they face is not a rebuttal.

Television shows are a great example, since they have gotten renewed due to DVD sales (Family Guy) even though they were originally given away for free.

Those industries all cried about various things (movies and renting VHS, music and music sharing sites, also think they were upset at radio at one point) but instead of crying and alienating their install base, they tried to add value to the consumer.

Movies have tried 3D (makes it harder to get cams of the movies), giving away Digital Downloads when you buy the DVD, adding special features to DVDs, lowering the price (VHS tapes used to cost $80-$100 minimum when video rental was all the rage).

Music embraced digital download. You could buy just the song you want off of an album, they agreed to removing DRM later, Amazon is doing Auto-Rip now. These all give me a reason to purchase, not pirate.

Even then some won't be happen with the restrictions. PS+ doesn't really work like the used market since that content cannot be resold. I just haven't seen a strategy that both consumers and all game developers support.

You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you could try to stick with the status quo (allow people to resell physical discs and play console games without online checks) and attempt to create other revenue streams for your games. They have tried some things, but most of the time it seems pretty lazy (season passes, preorder dlc) Also that was a suggestion to provide another revenue stream, not as an alternative for used games or anything. I know you can't sell the games that PS+ gives.

 

[bomblord]

To my knowledge the argument has never been does it hurt them(it does) but only how big of an effect it has. (are we talking 10's of lost sales or hundreds of thousands)

Either way piracy is still stealing but that's something else entirely.

 

[unbias]

No, I didn't get my answer. I did not want to know why some believe pirates pirate more games than they would actually buy. That was already obvious. I want to know why people think that the vast majority of pirates wouldn't buy games even if there was no piracy. You seem to think I'm asking why people think that the vast majority of pirated games wouldn't be purchased by pirates. There is a difference

Wasn't part of that discussion, but I'll take a shot. For one, you are asking something that is near impossible to have much to go off of. Frankly, corporations don't share in the way of numbers with the public, so all we can go by is how markets typically work.

For starters, there is an assumption that all pirates don't buy games(not everyone agree's with that assumption)... I personally don't understand why that is a widely held belief. I know a couple pirates, those pirates steal/priate stuff all the time, but they also buy new stuff as well, so from a personal standpoint I never experienced someone who only pirates(although there obviously are those who only pirate, just I dont know how many). Since we don't have real numbers on people who pirates and their spending habits there isn't a lot to go by.

Anywho, in order to know it piracy is actually forgone growth, we would have to know the minds of pirates, and since we dont know, all we can do is speculate, and it isn't inconceivable that the total removal of piracy, would result in an increase in the market. I personally agree wtih the belief that piracy accounts for between 1%(console pirates) to 6%(music) of sales, with PC gaming being somewhere in the middle.

 

[Halfmunch]

Both hurt devs in some way, if it didn't why go through so much effort to prevent used/pirated games.