Support NeoGAF

[rainking187]

Also, talking about the DD model.. why not create a "refund" system with DD?

Say you buy a game DD.. and want to get rid of it a week later you get 20 bucks back. a month later you get 15 back, etc. Until a point 6 months after release there is no "buyback" available for a game. It would give people a little flexibility if they are truly done with a game.

It makes no sense from the companies point of view. Digital distribution and trying to stop GameStop are all about them wanting to make as much profit as possible. Why would they give you money back? Especially when you aren't actually giving them anything back. It's all digital. It's not like they're running low on stock and can take your copy and sell it to someone else.

 

[gerg]

Well, I've published and sold more than 30 games TO gamestop (well, babbages, funcoland, EB, etc, etc as well, but they're all gamestop now), so I know the wholesale and retail points well.

You're providing links to back up the statement you made as an outsider with no practical knowledge of the industry from an insider's perspective. You=outsider guessing, me=insider who knows. If you have an analyst link, I'll see what they're blabbing about, but in my experience, 7-20% for the gross margin on new games for Gamestop is laughable.

Not to deny your presence in the industry, but a simply appeal to authority won't prove a point.

 

[vireland]

I'll happily admit to being surprised that Gamestop gets special dispensation on price protection and returnability from publishers because, again, nobody else who wants to sell games gets that.

Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc ALL get it. Granted, Gamestop *works* it more than those stores on the pub side, but they all have various holdbacks and price protection programs. I often wonder why Walmart doesn't really step up their game. They are in a position to really hurt Gamestop, if they got their act together. Only the mom and pops have limited or no access to the price protection thing because they have to go through their distributor.

 

[grap3fruitman]

jaffe doesnt work on GoW and hasnt worked on it for quite a while :lol

Oh really? Saw people talking about GoW in here and just assumed, like I said I've never played one of the games so I don't exactly follow them.

Dude, Fuck... Fuck You
What a child you are
What a fucking intellectual fool you are

Yup, speaking with my wallet makes me a child and an intellectual fool. Good to know.

 

[shuri]

Used? Pfft. Thanks to the brutal off-target reviews, the vista-only PC requirement, plus time since release, the XBOX360 version is completely affordable brand spanking new for $9.99 with free shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874103052

Honestly, I wonder if the game was a victim of some sort of journalistic vendetta. There was such a huge bad buzz about the game that when I got the game, I wondered if journos actually played the same game I did.

People trashed the game because it wasnt a modern version of the rpg game, and totally ignored the amazing gameplay and strategies.

 

[vireland]

Not to deny your presence in the industry, but a simply appeal to authority won't prove a point.

Uh, well, then don't believe it. The world was "flat" for a long time and plenty of people were perfectly happy with that. I'm just saying that if I fart out numbers, they have a little more weight (ha ha) than the ramblings of some consumer with zero inside experience with the actual wholesale buy and sell transaction between pubs and retailers.

 

[Starchasing]

Uh, well, then don't believe it. The world was "flat" for a long time and plenty of people were perfectly happy with that. I'm just saying that if I fart out numbers, they have a little more weight (ha ha) than the ramblings of some consumer with zero inside experience with the actual wholesale buy and sell transaction between pubs and retailers.

i speak as i consumer and we are the one paying , so you better start pleasing us or we will give our money to someone else

 

[-Rogue5-]

I'd be very interested to see the percentage profit margins comparing Calling All Cards and GoW1.

I don't know either games' budget, but I'll assume GoW was 5x the dev cost of CAC's. In which case, I could see a huge argument in jaffe's favour -- assuming GOWs profit percentage wasn't 5x CAC's, it'd be really difficult from a developers POV to not release strickly digitally. Sure you'd alienate half your potential buyers, but if the profits of selling digitally more than make up for those lost sales, then financially/commercially speaking the devs/pubs would obviously move in that favour if GS didn't start sharing... That's somethat that other "physical only" used sales vendors (like cars, houses, etc.) don't have to worry about (you can't digitize a house or car), but GS definitely does.

If anything, in that case, devs/pubs saying, "listen, cut us in for your sake" isn't so much a threat/blackmail as it's them saying, "listen, we want you to stick around, but you're making it incredibly difficult for us to support you, when cheaper and higher profitting alternatives are available to us."

 

[gerg]

Uh, well, then don't believe it. The world was "flat" for a long time and plenty of people were perfectly happy with that. I'm just saying that if I fart out numbers, they have a little more weight (ha ha) than the ramblings of some consumer with zero inside experience with the actual wholesale buy and sell transaction between pubs and retailers.

I'm just saying that simply being a presence within the industry doesn't make your arguments any more correct, and I think it's unreasonable for you to expect people to agree with you immediately because of that status. That's all.

Personally, I agree with charlequin. Whilst it seems that there are some policies and conventions put into place by retailers that are damaging to publishers and developers, this doesn't seem to answer the question as to why, if running a game store were so easy and profitable, independent businesses go out of business so easily. It seems that, in my humble opinion, it is a cop-out to put the blame for poor nature of the current business model squarely on the retailers.

 

[TheHeretic]

Uh, well, then don't believe it. The world was "flat" for a long time and plenty of people were perfectly happy with that. I'm just saying that if I fart out numbers, they have a little more weight (ha ha) than the ramblings of some consumer with zero inside experience with the actual wholesale buy and sell transaction between pubs and retailers.

So the world being flat is equivalent to your anti gamespot ramblings? Your word is as good as mine around here, so cough up the numbers or move on to another point.

 

[vireland]

i speak as i consumer and we are the one paying , so you better start pleasing us or we will give our money to someone else

Well, I'm a major game consumer as well. I just happen to be on the other side, too. And, as I've said multiple times, I am a FAN of physical media. It works for the stuff I do, so I don't want to see it go away. But I've been in this only to bring a little reality to the conversation because some of the stuff being thrown around in here was so far off base from the facts of the situation.

Anyway, I've typed enough. I'm off to fix one of my pinball machines.

 

[Agent X]

This statement leaves out a huge segment of the market, and one Gamestop trades on. Kids with limited resources that have to trade in the current game for credit to get the next game. My son has some friends like this that are locked into the Gamestop store credit morass. No access to credit/debit cards, and limited financial resources, so they trade games ALL the time, and turn them to get the next game. It's a TERRIBLE value for them, but their options are limited. I think Gamestop has a LOT of customers like this.

I understand what you're saying, but if they're trading in Game A to get Game B, then clearly they don't want Game A anymore. Is it because Game A is old hat, and Game B is the hot new thing? If Game A was worth holding on to, then it wouldn't get traded away. Will Game B end up getting traded in when Game C comes out next month?

I really don't know what to say, except that maybe they need to be more careful when selecting what games to buy. When I was a kid, I had limited resources as well, so I only bought the games that I really wanted. Of course, there wasn't much of a used games market back then either, but I carried this practice into adulthood. I generally only buy games that I have a hunch that I'm going to like (based on research, magazines, Web sites, demos, developer reputation, etc.), so it's rare that I get burned on a bad purchase.

I also have some friends in their 30s and 40s who buy and trade away games on a frequent basis, often lasting only a week or two in their collections before becoming trade fodder. Interestingly enough, they usually do buy their games new (often even preordering). So, they frequently contribute to the used game stacks, even though they rarely dip into those stacks themselves.

It may not be "nice" for the stores to prey on customers that have this type of habit, but at same time there's really nothing legally or ethically wrong with it, since (as stated) the customers are choosing to trade in games on their own volition. If the customer walks in, the clerk offers a certain price, and the customer agrees to it, then there really isn't anything wrong there.

 

[Starchasing]

Well, I'm a major game consumer as well. I just happen to be on the other side, too. And, as I've said multiple times, I am a FAN of physical media. It works for the stuff I do, so I don't want to see it go away. But I've been in this only to bring a little reality to the conversation because some of the stuff being thrown around in here was so far off base from the facts of the situation.

Anyway, I've typed enough. I'm off to fix one of my pinball machines.

you sound like horsebreeder warning us about cars

 

[charlequin]

Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc ALL get it. Granted, Gamestop *works* it more than those stores on the pub side, but they all have various holdbacks and price protection programs. I often wonder why Walmart doesn't really step up their game. They are in a position to really hurt Gamestop, if they got their act together. Only the mom and pops have limited or no access to the price protection thing because they have to go through their distributor.

Again, I understand why a small publisher is stuck in the market as it currently exists, and that relationship is completely one-sided, with Gamestop screwing over the publisher.

But there are other industries where retail isn't dominated by a single monopoly player, and where companies in positions comparable to the big game publishers like EA and Activision provide active incentives to small retail establishments to keep them operating. If Gamestop's business is so bad for the big publishers, why do they keep going out of their way to give out handjobs to Gamestop? Why is this ire focused on screwing customers out of their legal rights instead?

 

[LuCkymoON]

Link, please or it didn't happen. Also, you may be citing net margin (which still seems too skimpy), while I'm citing gross margin.

My experience? I have sold more than a million games into retail in my career. I think I have a grasp of the issues and the costs/profits.

I miss Working Designs =(
I still have my copy of Magic Knight RayEarth in pristine condition.

 

[kame-sennin]

Rather than giving a very specific suggestion, I would recommend a larger philosophical position: change what you have control over.

For example, Gamestop's used sale policies are almost entirely outside of Publisher control. You can exert a little influence -- and I recommend that you do that -- but by and large used markets exist in every industry and it would be nigh impossible to quash it.

By contrast, game budget is entirely within your control. 100%. Every penny you spend on the game's budget is your choice. As such, it is within your power to make a game that costs as much as 100 million dollars, just as it is in your control to make a game that costs 100 thousand. Lower budgets could allow lower retail prices. Mr. Pacther identified the lower initial prices of DVDs and CDs (10-20) as reasons why those industries are not suffering as badly from used sales "stealing" revenue. As such, lowering budget would allow you to lower retail price which should supress cost. Remember, this is entirely within your control.

Another example: gameplay mechanics. As with budget, the gameplay mechanics are entirely within the control of the developer/publisher. 100%. And as have been mentioned in this thread, some games seem to have lower trade in rates, while others have higher, and these tend to follow predictable patterns. Games with social and/or multiplayer value tend to be held on to longer. Examples include Mario Kart, Call of Duty, and Wii Fit.

Other options: look for other venues for your products. For example, Arcades allow for a theatre-esque "first release" of a game. If a game were released in Arcades first and then later released on home consoles, this would allow for additional revenue streams. This, however, is not entirely within a publisher's control; game developers have (I believe consciously) quashed the Arcade market in the US, and revivifying that market would take concerted effort from multiple publishers. Nevertheless, the concept works in other industries and could theoretically work in this one, in some form: release the game to a venue outside the consumer's home first, then offer a "home release" later.

To loop back to my original point: focus on the things you can actually control. You can't control rental markets: Nintendo tried and was laughed out of court. You can't control Gamestop. You can control other things, though, and you should concentrate on those.

Excellent post.

 

[coolclimate]

Personally I 100% agree with Jaffe, It's not right that gamestop can undercut DEV's and not have to pay anything to do it. I think DD is a great idea. Correct me if im wrong on this but... More Dev money = GREATER possibility of a BETTER product? Game Dev's are human and have family's and shit to feed, as stated by Jaffe, look at the music industry or even PC gaming. Lets be honest, with Cd's not many people ACTUALLY go buy a CD... Limewire much? Now I love gaming, I will GLADLY pay more to see the Dev's get the money. If I go to gamestop and they don't have a new copy, I don't have a new game. Period. I will not ever buy used, never have and I never will. I trade nothing in, if I don't want it then it rots on my shelves or EXAMPLE: friend finally gets ps3, gonna give him MGS4 as a welcome gift. Trade thread for equal value. But with gamestop doing this "undercut and sell" technique on a massive scale, they really are screwing Dev's. Gamestop it growing every day and with it the downfall of sales on quality NEW products.

 

[Scrubking]

Nobody wants to double dip into your nasty ass pocket. I am talking about a better deal between pubs and retail...customer should not feel a thing.

No. You're talking about going after Gamestop because they sell used games and don't give you any of that money. And while propping them up as some sort of bogeyman because it's easy to hate them the fact is that affecting their ability to sell used games affects everyone's ability to sell used games. DLC and DRM schemes to stick it to Gamestop doesn't just affect them it affects all of us.

The fact remains that neither you, nor any developer, have the right to money from used game sales. Period. There is no discussion to be had. Once you make your money and sell it to me or Gamestop it's none of your business what happens after that. If you don't like Gamestop then stop doing business with them. I don't shop there and have plenty of places to buy games.

And I warn you and all developers who have it in their head that they deserve more money and will try to take it from us via DLC or DRM. The customer is always right, and these schemes will ultimately backfire and blow up in your face. The more you squeeze the more consumers will wake up to your greed and eventually squeeze back. The tit of the stupid, hardcore gamer who happily lets you rip him off will not give milk forever.

 

[rc213]

The only problem I have with Gamestop is that just a few days after a games release they have a used copy for a couple dollars cheaper right next to the new copy. That means that as soon as someone trades in a copy of the game Gamestop is basically taking sales away from the new version. How can anyone not see anything wrong with that? You're going to tell me that isn't something Devs/Publishers should have an issue with?

 

[spwolf]

Rather than giving a very specific suggestion, I would recommend a larger philosophical position: change what you have control over.

For example, Gamestop's used sale policies are almost entirely outside of Publisher control. You can exert a little influence -- and I recommend that you do that -- but by and large used markets exist in every industry and it would be nigh impossible to quash it.

By contrast, game budget is entirely within your control. 100%. Every penny you spend on the game's budget is your choice. As such, it is within your power to make a game that costs as much as 100 million dollars, just as it is in your control to make a game that costs 100 thousand. Lower budgets could allow lower retail prices. Mr. Pacther identified the lower initial prices of DVDs and CDs (10-20) as reasons why those industries are not suffering as badly from used sales "stealing" revenue. As such, lowering budget would allow you to lower retail price which should supress cost. Remember, this is entirely within your control.

Another example: gameplay mechanics. As with budget, the gameplay mechanics are entirely within the control of the developer/publisher. 100%. And as have been mentioned in this thread, some games seem to have lower trade in rates, while others have higher, and these tend to follow predictable patterns. Games with social and/or multiplayer value tend to be held on to longer. Examples include Mario Kart, Call of Duty, and Wii Fit.

Other options: look for other venues for your products. For example, Arcades allow for a theatre-esque "first release" of a game. If a game were released in Arcades first and then later released on home consoles, this would allow for additional revenue streams. This, however, is not entirely within a publisher's control; game developers have (I believe consciously) quashed the Arcade market in the US, and revivifying that market would take concerted effort from multiple publishers. Nevertheless, the concept works in other industries and could theoretically work in this one, in some form: release the game to a venue outside the consumer's home first, then offer a "home release" later.

To loop back to my original point: focus on the things you can actually control. You can't control rental markets: Nintendo tried and was laughed out of court. You can't control Gamestop. You can control other things, though, and you should concentrate on those.

so:
a. publish budget games
b. revive arcades

thats your solution?

I am pretty sure that them going with DD is much better than those two options in general - for both us an publishers. I dont want to pay $2 at arcades to play 5 minutes of GoW. People complain about DD costing the same while forgetting that it is retail that pushed publishers to priced DD games same as retail.

Warhawk was costing less at DD and retailers responded by not ordering anymore copies, despite customer demand, and killing the game essentially. After that, all future PS3 DD titles were priced the same as retail.

 

[coolclimate]

No. You're talking about going after Gamestop because they sell used games and don't give you any of that money. And while propping them up as some sort of bogeyman because it's easy to hate them the fact is that affecting their ability to sell used games affects everyone's ability to sell used games. DLC and DRM schemes to stick it to Gamestop doesn't just affect them it affects all of us.

The fact remains that you, nor any developer, have the right to money from used game sales. Period. There is no discussion to be had. Once you make your money and sell it to me or Gamestop it's none of your business what happens after that. If you don't like Gamestop then stop doing business with them. I don't shop there and have plenty of places to buy games.

And I warn you and all developers who have it in their head that they deserve more money and will try to take it from us via DLC or DRM. The customer is always right, and these schemes will ultimately backfire and blow up in your face. The more you squeeze the more consumers will wake up to your greed and eventually squeeze back. The tit of the stupid, hardcore gamer who happily lets you rip him off will not give milk forever.

You step into shoes 5 times your size and believe you have right to explain how they feel? You like gaming? Odds are the DEV is right not the customer, the DEV cares a hell of a lot more about gaming as a unity and whole then you or anyone else ever could. So i put faith in the DEV ESPECIALLY the maker of fuckin GOD OF WAR. They've been at this a LOT longer then anyone else and if they see a LEGIT problem at were gaming is going, i believe them.

 

[Scrubking]

You step into shoes 5 times your size and believe you have right to explain how they feel? You like gaming? Odds are the DEV is right not the customer, the DEV cares a hell of a lot more about gaming as a unity and whole then you or anyone else ever could. So i put faith in the DEV ESPECIALLY the maker of fuckin GOD OF WAR. They've been at this a LOT longer then anyone else and if they see a LEGIT problem at were gaming is going, i believe them.

That's why they rip people like you off.

 

[coolclimate]

That's why they rip people like you off.

And your gonna be rich.. because you discovered the hidden meaning behind creating super expensive BAD insanely boring games for the system that you hate to use and do use all the time..

If it keeps game DEV's happy and games coming, rip away!

 

[Ceebs]

Not that I want them to do it, but I do wonder why publishers have not started packing console games with CD keys or selling the games as a licences with lengthy ELUAs you have to agree to before you can play like Microsoft does with Windows.

 

[coolclimate]

Not that I want them to do it, but I do wonder why publishers have not started packing console games with CD keys or selling the games as a licences with lengthy ELUAs you have to agree to before you can play like Microsoft does with Windows.

This would work great, Or incentives on NEW. Lockout multiplayer unless new cd key is provided, then put an unlock for it on PSN/XBLA for $10.00
They pay the price either way, now it makes sense financially to buy new.


Edit:

 

[Mithos]

Not that I want them to do it, but I do wonder why publishers have not started packing console games with CD keys or selling the games as a licences with lengthy ELUAs you have to agree to before you can play like Microsoft does with Windows.

Locking the game on the first console it's being used on would kill the gamemarket.

Worldwide gamecrash would happen, sales would drop through the floor.

 

[Megadragon15]

So basically you want them to treat consoles like PCs? Activation keys and all? No thanks.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

This is all I heard from Jaffee there.

"

at free market economy."

I'm sorry but if these developers and publishers are so bent out of shape over used game sales, than clearly they need to find another way to do there business.

EDIT - Maybe the reason why used game sales are so high is because the games cost too much and if they were less in price more people would buy. I mean you rarely see used DS games and the like at Gamestop and EBgames, but nope it's the fact that they are a bit cheaper, yep that's right.

 

[Opiate]

so:
a. publish budget games
b. revive arcades

thats your solution?

I am pretty sure that them going with DD is much better than those two options in general - for both us an publishers. I dont want to pay $2 at arcades to play 5 minutes of GoW. People complain about DD costing the same while forgetting that it is retail that pushed publishers to priced DD games same as retail.

I also listed c) make different types of games. You don't have to make God of War, you can make Calling All cars. Also, Arcades don't have to operate in exactly the same fashion. You could price them in a variety of ways: for example, you could pay 5 dollars for an hour of play. You could pay 20 dollars to play through the whole game. Who knows? It's the concept I was promoting: a distinct revenue stream outside the "home console 60 dollar purchase" model.

But Digital Distribution definitely is another avenue for publishers to explore. It's also one where -- as you mentioned -- they will run in opposition to retailers, which would force retailers to put pressure on the Publishers, however. My suggestions (Barring arcades) would not incur such wrath.

My list definitely wasn't supposed to be exhaustive.

 

[Ceebs]

Locking the game on the first console it's being used on would kill the gamemarket.

Worldwide gamecrash would happen, sales would drop through the floor.

PC games still sell despite being locked to a specific user. No reason it could not work for a console.

So basically you want them to treat consoles like PCs? Activation keys and all? No thanks.

You would be hard pressed to find someone that thinks CD keys and activation are terrible things in the PC world. It's the DRM the games include that get people up in arms.

 

[coolclimate]

This is all I heard from Jaffee there.

"

at free market economy."

I'm sorry but if these developers and publishers are so bent out of shape over used game sales, than clearly they need to find another way to do there business.

I was to be under the assumption that they are..? DD my friend, it's gonna be WONDERFUL.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I was to be under the assumption that they are..? DD my friend, it's gonna be WONDERFUL.

I'm for DD as well too, but I just think that this used game bitching is hilarious. :lol

It's even worse than the complaints on piracy.

 

[StoOgE]

PC games still sell despite being locked to a specific user. No reason it could not work for a console.



You would be hard pressed to find someone that thinks CD keys and activation are terrible things in the PC world. It's the DRM the games include that get people up in arms.

Yes, because the PC game market is doing really well right now.

 

[itsgreen]

Yeah that would suck. Good luck lending games from a friend, or renting a game.

Btw if Jaffe wants to have a piece of every action a game has, he should make his game cheaper. 20$ twisted metal ps3 would kind of make no sense in buying second hand.

The concept of digital games is good though. Just not in the hands of greedy publishers.

Publishers would rather have no business than drop prices.

 

[Gassey]

[/B]
I was to be under the assumption that they are..? DD my friend, it's gonna be WONDERFUL.

Exactly.
In the future there will be no returns, and there will be no Gamestop. Good riddance.

 

[ScOULaris]

To me, this is a very serious issue that I fear may end up resulting in an overall loss on our end.

What Les failed to realize is that Jaffe was never against allowing consumers to sell their games. He had a problem with retail stores like Gamestop basically making 80-90% of their profit off of used game sales, and then the developers/publishers that made the damn games don't see a dime of that profit.

I don't think that comparing used music/book sales to used games is valid at this point. Anyone can walk into a Gamestop and see that pretty much everyone buys used if it's available, and it usually is within a week of a game being released. If it wasn't so rampant, it wouldn't be a problem that devs were not getting a cut.

Like Jaffe and countless other industry insiders have stated, a game's success essentially boils down to how well it sells in the first two weeks of its release. After that, used copies rule the roost. This problem is unique to gaming retail, and it further aggravates the risk (and often lack of reward) of publishers putting their weight behind something new and fresh. If you only had two weeks for your unfamiliar game to get noticed amidst a wall of game boxes sporting CGI renders of space marines, would you bankroll three years of development time and cross your fingers? Most likely not. Anyone who has complained about the overall derivative nature of this generation's games would agree: the consumers lose.

As a supporter of physical media, I really hope that something can be worked out here that would prevent a complete switch to digital distribution. When I buy something, I actually want to OWN it and be able to easily transport it. I'm sorry, but paying for a digital download essentially feels like I am buying something that is fleeting. It just exists as data, solely on my machine, and it is completely devoid of any supplementary packaging or material that (in my opinion) adds so much to a game's total appeal.

Besides, we have to side with the devs here. Don't we all hate Gamestop for numerous reasons anyway? They're a bona fide international monopoly that has completely phased out retro game sales and has complete control over the price of used games. Any way that someone can "stick it" to Gamestop is okay in my book.

 

[Ceebs]

Yes, because the PC game market is doing really well right now.

Just because they are not selling as many copies as their console counterparts opening month does not mean the industry is hurting as much as people want to think. If they were not making enough money to warrant the effort, the ports and new titles would have stopped ages ago.

 

[itsgreen]

It will be so much fun when DD is here to stay. And there are only 3 consoles. And every game is the same price. And someone, or some government starts sueing for price fixing or uncompetiveness in the market.

 

[ksamedi]

I also listed c) make different types of games. You don't have to make God of War, you can make Calling All cars. Also, Arcades don't have to operate in exactly the same fashion. You could price them in a variety of ways: for example, you could pay 5 dollars for an hour of play. You could pay 20 dollars to play through the whole game. Who knows? It's the concept I was promoting: a distinct revenue stream outside the "home console 60 dollar purchase" model.

But Digital Distribution definitely is another avenue for publishers to explore. It's also one where -- as you mentioned -- they will run in opposition to retailers, which would force retailers to put pressure on the Publishers, however. My suggestions (Barring arcades) would not incur such wrath.

My list definitely wasn't supposed to be exhaustive.

I understand the point you are making. But games like God of War make millions for publishers as well. I think some pubs are being a little greedy here.

 

[coolclimate]

Yeah that would suck. Good luck lending games from a friend, or renting a game.

Btw if Jaffe wants to have a piece of every action a game has, he should make his game cheaper. 20$ twisted metal ps3 would kind of make no sense in buying second hand.

The concept of digital games is good though. Just not in the hands of greedy publishers.

Publishers would rather have no business than drop prices.

Or take an approach to it? 72 hour lockout style. I buy game X beat it, Friend logs on uses PSN "style" game sharing, after 72 hours of the game not being used it can be activated on another account we permit with a password. You wanna sell it? Paypal that shit to someone, lend it, 72 hours and he can have it. This would allow sharing your games just fine, and as for sales? it would permit private sales as well. Of course a fine tuning to this process would be best but yeah there it is.

 

[Dark Octave]

I just watched five minutes of his "rant" and all I have to say is Jaffe is the fucking nigga. I love this dude. Down to Earth and real about how he feels on every topic he speaks on. "Don't let the door his you on the ass" is exactly how I feel. I didn't agree with him on the one console thing but most everything else, we see eye to eye. The only reason you buy games is to sell them back? Fuck you, peace. You complain about a DD game being $15 or $20 because you can't sell it back? Fuck you, peace.

And don't let the door hit you on the ass.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

You Know I do find it funny how some on here do spout out numbers and run their mouths when they have nowhere near the knowledge as the people who actually make the games.

The used games market is a touchy issue BUT I do side with those who are making the games a little more. They've been getting the shaft for a long time and it's not too much to ask for a little more of a fair playing field.

I would like to address the personal attacks and calling names, stop it. You are damn lucky you have a forum like this that is privileged enough to host (and be lurked) by industry folk. It makes me laugh when Vic is being called out for his knowledge of margins and sales by a forum dweller who thinks he knows the score more. Sorry but my bet is gonna go with the guy who's been in the industry longer than some of the users lives here. As with Jaffe, I think it's unfair for people to call him out and call him names and not expect him to defend himself. Again, if you expect to be privileged enough to talk to folks like him, Pachter, Vic, etc, then you should show the same respect they hold of you as the consumer.

Understand that with this particular issue the pubs/devs have reason to want that level playing field. I do like the idea of putting a sort of grace period for new games being able to be resold. A 2 month window would seem fair. And as Jaffe said, I want stuff as cheap as possible but the practices of which allow us to buy these expensive to make games are the same ones that are hurting the industry as a whole.

The arguments/debate we're having here is merely letting you (the consumer) into a struggle that you really shouldn't be a part of. In the end your need will be the priority. Just don't expect the great people who makes these games to be raped by the lack of revenues due to the used games market (amongst other things).

Frankly I don't know how Dave and Vic do it but kudos on being able to roll with the punches. I'm sure in the everyday working environment you don't get people calling you assholes and pricks without really having reason to. Here on this board, it seems people want to be heard all the while unfairly insulting you.

The main and prominent point is that developers deserve a little more. The consumer will not suffer unless the seller of said goods comes halfway and not making millions while the dev.pub is hurting due to that. Double edged sword.

I understand the point you are making. But games like God of War make millions for publishers as well. I think some pubs are being a little greedy here.

True but that doesn't change the landscape the resell market has come to be.

 

[Agent X]

I don't think that comparing used music/book sales to used games is valid at this point. Anyone can walk into a Gamestop and see that pretty much everyone buys used if it's available, and it usually is within a week of a game being released. If it wasn't so rampant, it wouldn't be a problem that devs were not getting a cut.

And where do these fabled used video games come from? Do they grow on used video game trees?

Last time I checked, they came from people who were bored, disappointed, or just plain disgusted with the games they had already bought new which they clearly did not want anymore and willingly brought to the retailer in order to sell back to them.

 

[Tellaerin]

I was to be under the assumption that they are..? DD my friend, it's gonna be WONDERFUL.

Yeah, it's going to be wonderful not to be able to lend a game to a friend or sell it to someone else when you get tired of it. What you'll see is people buying less games across the board, because without some way to get back a portion of what they spent on a game they're not liable to play through more than once or twice, your game's going to have to be pretty damn amazing to justify that $60 price tag. And it's going to be wonderful to see prices on DD games stay high, because they won't have any pressure to run sales in order to stay competitive with brick-and-mortar, where price drops over time are the order of the day. WONDERFUL!

A DD-only future would suck royally for everyone except publishers and terminally lazy consumers who feel visiting a brick and mortar store requires too much effort. Since I don't belong to either group, I'm not about to jump on your little bandwagon.

 

[coolclimate]

Yeah, it's going to be wonderful not to be able to lend a game to a friend or sell it to someone else when you get tired of it. What you'll see is people buying less games across the board, because without some way to get back a portion of what they spent on a game they're not liable to play through more than once or twice, your game's going to have to be pretty damn amazing to justify that $60 price tag. And it's going to be wonderful to see prices on DD games stay high, because they won't have any pressure to run sales in order to stay competitive with brick-and-mortar, where price drops over time are the order of the day. WONDERFUL!

A DD-only future would suck royally for everyone except publishers and terminally lazy consumers who feel visiting a brick and mortar store requires too much effort. Since I don't belong to either group, I'm not about to jump on your little bandwagon.

See post on not being retarded and thinking before changing gaming for the rest of all time, went something like this


Or take an approach to it? 72 hour lockout style. I buy game X beat it, Friend logs on uses PSN "style" game sharing, after 72 hours of the game not being used it can be activated on another account we permit with a password. You wanna sell it? Paypal that shit to someone, lend it, 72 hours and he can have it. This would allow sharing your games just fine, and as for sales? it would permit private sales as well. Of course a fine tuning to this process would be best but yeah there it is.


Sometimes company's that make millions off of people, do well because there not retarded

 

[ScOULaris]

My point is: since used games seem to account for just as many if not more sales than new games (possible because they can be sold, traded in again, and then resold), somehow allowing the devs/publishers to profit from those sales at least to some small extent seems fair to me.

You have to admit, there has never been another retail market that has had this sort of problem, where used copies of merchandise are so readily available that they directly compete with newly released copies of the same products.

Part of the problem is also the consumers: If you want to pay full price for a game and then trade it in a month later for 1/4 of what you paid IN STORE CREDIT, then I clearly can't relate to you. For some reason, gamers are more prone to selling off things that they bought mere weeks or months ago than say book or movie shoppers. Although, MovieStop is trying to change that as well. Damn you Gamestop!

 

[Son of Godzilla]

DD is a terrible future for the consumer. Right now the best part of steam is that it still has a retail presence and allows you to integrate that with the DD aspect. Screw the future, that should be how it is right now.

The main and prominent point is that developers deserve a little more.

What the flying fuck does used game sales have to do with the developers? You can try and paint some rosey picture where mister game designer is just trying to feed his kids, but that is complete bullshit and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument or the reality of where the money would go if it were more than an argument.

 

[itsgreen]

See post on not being retarded and thinking before changing gaming for the rest of all time, went something like this


Or take an approach to it? 72 hour lockout style. I buy game X beat it, Friend logs on uses PSN "style" game sharing, after 72 hours of the game not being used it can be activated on another account we permit with a password. You wanna sell it? Paypal that shit to someone, lend it, 72 hours and he can have it. This would allow sharing your games just fine, and as for sales? it would permit private sales as well. Of course a fine tuning to this process would be best but yeah there it is.


Sometimes company's that make millions off of people, do well because there not retarded

Now why would companies be nice?

You already have bought the game and if they make it impossible for someone else 'to have it', they will either don't play the game or buy it anyway new 100% money for the publisher!

Now I don't know about you but I don't trust MS, Sony, Nintendo, EA and certainly Activision to be nice and think they'll rather choose option #2 and try to lock out as much freedom as they can. 'yeah uhm we need DRM for copy protection and uhm' , while the platform holder will say 'we have to because otherwise we aren't allowed to publish the game'.

 

[coolclimate]

DD is a terrible future for the consumer. Right now the best part of steam is that it still has a retail presence and allows you to integrate that with the DD aspect. Screw the future, that should be how it is right now.


What the flying fuck does used game sales have to do with the developers? You can try and paint some rosey picture where mister game designer is just trying to feed his kids, but that is complete bullshit and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument or the reality of where the money would go if it were more than an argument.

Personally I 100% agree with Jaffe, It's not right that gamestop can undercut DEV's and not have to pay anything to do it. I think DD is a great idea. Correct me if im wrong on this but... More Dev money = GREATER possibility of a BETTER product? Game Dev's are human and have family's and shit to feed, as stated by Jaffe, look at the music industry or even PC gaming. Lets be honest, with Cd's not many people ACTUALLY go buy a CD... Limewire much? Now I love gaming, I will GLADLY pay more to see the Dev's get the money. If I go to gamestop and they don't have a new copy, I don't have a new game. Period. I will not ever buy used, never have and I never will. I trade nothing in, if I don't want it then it rots on my shelves or EXAMPLE: friend finally gets ps3, gonna give him MGS4 as a welcome gift. Trade thread for equal value. But with gamestop doing this "undercut and sell" technique on a massive scale, they really are screwing Dev's. Gamestop it growing every day and with it the downfall of sales on quality NEW products



IF money = happy and happy = better mindset which really = willingness to produce

then

Feed a cat enough and it will come back (they make money we get better games with more effort to compete for a BIGGER can of cat food)

 

[Tellaerin]

Sometimes company's that make millions off of people, do well because there not retarded

And sometimes companies make their millions off of people who act retarded. You know, guys who swallow whatever they're told without thinking, just because it came from the mouth of a developer or a large company, and because anything is fine as long as they think it'll mean more games for them (whether or not that's actually true).