Support NeoGAF

[Asmodai]

I'd like to believe this, but aside from Steam, I feel like companies will bend you over any way they can.

Aside from Steam? The only time Steam offers decent deals is during some of their weekend sales, any normal prices are a complete rip off. Charging MORE, especially considerably more, for a downloadable game than a retail game is retarded.

One of the many, many reasons I hope Steam loses its monopoly on the PC as soon as humanly possible. Without competition, they'll just gouge people as much as they can.

 

[FLEABttn]

Most have been very good, in my opinion. I find it absurd that people could think of the video game industry as magical and unique, completely different from every other industry. This isn't just cars -- it's jewelry, movies, firearms, books, houses, music, TVs and other electronics, furniture, and so on. Every single one has a used market.

Your point should be obviously specious, however. You claimed that other industries aren't hurt by used sales. If by "hurt" you mean "some people who would buy new buy used instead," then obviously every other industry is hurt by used sales. Do you think people who buy used cars would choose not to buy a car if only new cars existed? Obviously new car sales would go up if used car sales were quashed.

So what's the difference? That's an honest question.

You've been in the thread a while and I know you've seen other people say all the reasons why it's different, and you ignore them or say they're wrong. I really don't feel like going over that last 15 pages of arguments (that, again, you've already seen) so you can say "nope, invalid".

If you want me to address your complaint specifically, your example is bad because it doesn't take into consideration that Japanese cars weren't being hurt by used cars as you put it. Pontiac made bad cars, used cars had little to do with it.

And as far as cars go, capital depreciation, warranties, prestige of owning a new car, the value of a car not essentially dropping to nothing after the first 6 months of release, that a new car probably will only have 1-3 owners in it's entire lifespan, that because of the prior two reasons a dealer can't under-order stock in order to push used because a 2010 Mazda 3 isn't comparable to a 2005 Mazda Protege, that dealerships don't push used cars over new ones, that there's a negative stigma with buying used cars.

But they're totally comparable.

 

[arstal]

There actually is a way to keep the consumer buying new: decrease the trade in rate. Make games that people don't resell. There are publishers that have taken this route with great success.

QFT right there. Good games get traded in less. Good niche games even less then that, though they sell less.

what about making a game you feel atached to? or a game with a lot of replayability?

what about cheaper games?

i know i sold most of my 360 collection yet i didnt sell my ds games

Cheaper would lower your revenue, you'd need an appropiate increase in new volume to be worth it. Replayability only works if you make a game good enough to be replayed. The reason I am mainly a FG player is because of replayability and online play. I spent 2002-2007 mostly playing emulated fighting games on Kaillera.

Aside from Steam? The only time Steam offers decent deals is during some of their weekend sales, any normal prices are a complete rip off. Charging MORE, especially considerably more, for a downloadable game than a retail game is retarded.

One of the many, many reasons I hope Steam loses its monopoly on the PC as soon as humanly possible. Without competition, they'll just gouge people as much as they can.

The main reason Steam offered weekend deals was that its competitors were. Also, Steam is not a monopoly anymore- there is competition, and most PC games are put on at least one of Impulse or Gamersgate along with Steam. My guess is Steam's marketshare is going to go down over the next 2-3 years, though it will remain the biggest name. (Volume of sales for Steam will go up slightly, it's just that their competitors will go up more). This is of course, assuming broadband caps don't happen in the US, which isn't a sure thing, especially if Reps get Congress again. Also, the barrier for entry into DD is a lot lower then the entry into retail, as again, marginal costs of storing games is low.

 

[Starchasing]

You've been in the thread a while and I know you've seen other people say all the reasons why it's different

all industries all different

but

when you buy something physical you can resell it or rent it or burn it ... its been like that since the roman empire and videogames are not an exception

 

[Opiate]

To elaborate further on my earlier point, it is precisely because automobiles depreciate so rapidly that I exclusively buy used cars, and it is precisely because games do not that I occasionally buy new.

The fact that a $20k car is worth $15k the second I drive it off the lot is extreme discouragement for new purchases. Why buy new in that case, when you can save so much by waiting a very short period? I could buy a 2008 GM car for 30% less than 2009, saving thousands -- or even tens of thousands -- for waiting 9-12 months.

This is not true for games: it isn't uncommon for Gamestop's used price to stay quite close to the new price months after the game is released (for example, 60 dollar 360 games are often 50, and used 30 dollar handheld games are often 20-25). This means less savings for me. Why would I wait to 6 months to save 5-10 dollars?

Again, just for emphasis, I am not arguing that video games don't have their downsides in this comparison, too. They do. I just want to make it clear that virtually every "but cars/books/music/etc. have it easier!" argument could be turned directly on it's face. It's give and take in all cases. As I said, all of these industries are going to have their eccentricities -- differences in depreciation, price elasticity, and market size. But you know what? All the other ones figured out how to co-exist with used markets despite this.

 

[Opiate]

You've been in the thread a while and I know you've seen other people say all the reasons why it's different, and you ignore them or say they're wrong. I really don't feel like going over that last 15 pages of arguments (that, again, you've already seen) so you can say "nope, invalid".

If you want me to address your complaint specifically, your example is bad because it doesn't take into consideration that Japanese cars weren't being hurt by used cars as you put it. Pontiac made bad cars, used cars had little to do with it.

Excellent! Exactly the answer I was hoping for. Your argument is that some cars (specifically Japanese ones) weren't being hurt by used cars as much. This is true.

And this is exactly like video games: some games are being hurt far worse than others by the used game problem. David Jaffe even acknowledged this: it is specifically games with high production costs and single player focus which are being hit the worst (his examples were Uncharted, God of War, and Mass Effect). Other games -- particularly those with lower development costs and/or a social focus -- are not being hit nearly as hard. A poster named Johann has done research specifically on the topic and found empirical validation for this.

So in the case of cars, some cars were hit harder by used sales (my example was muscle cars, a la the firebird), and the market response to that was to stop making those cars and to increasingly focus on, as you say, "Japanese" cars, which I presume means efficient, low performance, low cost Sedans. Similarly, in the case of video games, some game types are hit harder by used sales. The obvious market response is to stop making those type of games, and focus on the types of games which are being hit less hard.

 

[arstal]

Excellent! Exactly t he answer I was hoping for. Your argument is that some cars (specifically Japanese ones) weren't being hurt by used cars as much.

And this is exactly like video games: some games are being hurt far worse than others by the used game problem. David Jaffe even acknowledged this: it is specifically games with high production costs and single player focus which are being hit the worst (his examples were Uncharted, God of War, and Mass Effect). Other games -- particularly those with lower development costs and/or a social focus -- are not being hit nearly as hard. A poster named Johann has done research specifically on the topic and found empirical validation for this.

So in the case of cars, some cars were hit harder by used sales (my example were muscle cars, a la the firebird), and the market response to that was to stop making those cars and to focus more, as you say, on "Japanese" cars, which I presume means efficient, low cost, low performance Sedans. Similarly, in the case of video games, some game types are hit harder by used sales. The obvious market response is to stop making those type of games, and focus on the types of games which are being hit less hard.

You hit the problem with the video game business right now. Production costs are too high, and gamers are realizing that higher production and their own utility aren't necessarily correlated. Eventually an equilibrium will be approached.

This is why Stardock has said they aren't concerned about people scared with piracy and leaving the PC market. They feel it would increase their profits if others did so. They also say that they make the games they make, because the people who like the games they make tend to have a higher ratio of paying customers to users.*

* Note- this is Stardock developed games, not published games like Demigod, which did have a low ratio.

 

[FLEABttn]

To elaborate further on my earlier point, it is precisely because automobiles depreciate so rapidly that I exclusively buy used cars, and it is precisely because games do not that I occasionally buy new.

The fact that a $20k car is worth $15k the second I drive it off the lot is extreme discouragement for new purchases. Why buy new in that case, when you can save so much by waiting a very short period? I could buy a 2008 GM car for 30% less than 2009, saving thousands -- or even tens of thousands -- for waiting 9-12 months.

This is not true for games: it isn't uncommon for Gamestop's used price to stay quite close to the new price months after the game is released (for example, 60 dollar 360 games are often 50, and used 30 dollar handheld games are often 20-25). This means less savings for me. Why would I wait to 6 months to save 5-10 dollars?

Again, just for emphasis, I am not arguing that video games don't have their downsides in this comparison, too. They do. I just want to make it clear that virtually every "but cars/books/music/etc. have it easier!" argument could be turned directly on it's face. It's give and take in all cases. As I said, all of these industries are going to have their eccentricities -- differences in depreciation, price elasticity, and market size. But you know what? All the other ones figured out how to co-exist with used markets despite this.

I don't see how what you said turned it on it's face at all. If you're waiting to buy a 2008 GM in 2009, you're still buying new. If you mean you wait 2 years to get a two year used car, then it's not competing with new cars. That be like me going into a GameStop and buying a used copy of COD4 the day Modern Warfare 2 comes out.

You don't have to wait 6 months the get a discount by buying a used videogame. The second a copy of Modern Warfare 2 comes into GameStop, it's $5 less than new. You'll be able to buy a used copy from GameStop no later than the Tuesday following release.

Excellent! Exactly the answer I was hoping for. Your argument is that some cars (specifically Japanese ones) weren't being hurt by used cars as much. This is true.

And this is exactly like video games: some games are being hurt far worse than others by the used game problem. David Jaffe even acknowledged this: it is specifically games with high production costs and single player focus which are being hit the worst (his examples were Uncharted, God of War, and Mass Effect). Other games -- particularly those with lower development costs and/or a social focus -- are not being hit nearly as hard. A poster named Johann has done research specifically on the topic and found empirical validation for this.

So in the case of cars, some cars were hit harder by used sales (my example was muscle cars, a la the firebird), and the market response to that was to stop making those cars and to increasingly focus on, as you say, "Japanese" cars, which I presume means efficient, low performance, low cost Sedans. Similarly, in the case of video games, some game types are hit harder by used sales. The obvious market response is to stop making those type of games, and focus on the types of games which are being hit less hard.

If my options are used games or Uncharted/God of War/Mass Effect, I will chose the later, every single time. I'm also not sure it's comparable to the cars as well, as Uncharted, God of War, and Mass Effect are good games, but being hurt by used games (are they? I dunno, roll with it, they're your examples). Where as Pontiacs were bleh and nobody wanted them to begin with.

 

[Mario]

when you buy something physical you can resell it or rent it or burn it ... its been like that since the roman empire and videogames are not an exception

Are videogames really physical in the classic sense though?

Sure, the box and disc are a physical embodiment. But the game itself is more ethereal than that. The game itself can (in a lot of cases) be copied without loss or degradation, transmitted digitally, (generally) reused/replayed many times without any affect on the experience, patched/expanded/improved over time, or delivered via different means.

In this sense, it is harder to just equate videogames to physical goods and say they are the same without at least considering there are additional complexities at play.

 

[Raist]

People are still using the car analogy? wtf.

 

[The_Joint]

Similarly, in the case of video games, some game types are hit harder by used sales. The obvious market response is to stop making those type of games, and focus on the types of games which are being hit less hard.

Maybe it would be better to require that each time a used game is sold the person selling it sends in $5 to the publisher?

 

[jaundicejuice]

Are videogames really physical in the classic sense though?

Sure, the box and disc are a physical embodiment. But the game itself is more ethereal than that. The game itself can (in a lot of cases) be copied without loss or degradation, transmitted digitally, (generally) reused/replayed many times without any affect on the experience, patched/expanded/improved over time, or delivered via different means.

In this sense, it is harder to just equate videogames to physical goods and say they are the same without at least considering there are additional complexities at play.

I can scan a book or image, rip a dvd or cd, how is a game different or in your own words more "ethereal"? You really seem like you're grasping at straws.

 

[Starchasing]

Are videogames really physical in the classic sense though?

Sure, the box and disc are a physical embodiment. But the game itself is more ethereal than that. The game itself can (in a lot of cases) be copied without loss or degradation, transmitted digitally, (generally) reused/replayed many times without any affect on the experience, patched/expanded/improved over time, or delivered via different means.

In this sense, it is harder to just equate videogames to physical goods and say they are the same without at least considering there are additional complexities at play.

i know this is an extreme case but

if FOOD could "(in a lot of cases) be copied without loss or degradation, transmitted digitally, (generally) reused/replayed many times without any affect on the experience, patched/expanded/improved over time, or delivered via different means"

would you be mad at the used food market???


in other words.... if a product has a marginal cost of about 0 ... dont expect people to pay 60 dollars for it

 

[Opiate]

I don't see how what you said turned it on it's face at all. If you're waiting to buy a 2008 GM in 2009, you're still buying new. If you mean you wait 2 years to get a two year used car, then it's not competing with new cars. That be like me going into a GameStop and buying a used copy of COD4 the day Modern Warfare 2 comes out.

2008 models can be purchased used in 2009. Here is a 2008 Chrysler car selling for 60% under initial price:

http://www.motortrend.com/used_cars...er/lx/california/dublin/452121/296/index.html

And of course they compete with each other -- this is one significant advantage games have over cars. People tend to buy one car, while people buy many games. Let's say I need to purchase an automobile becuase my old one has died. If I go out today and buy a used 2008 car, the likelihood of me also buying a new car has dropped astromonically. I would guess that less than .1% of people who buy a used 2008 car this month will then proceed to buy a new one as well. That's because most people do not need 2 cars, and for all practical purposes the 2007 model (i.e. CoD4) is identical to the 2009 one (i.e. CoD6).

You don't have to wait 6 months the get a discount by buying a used videogame. The second a copy of Modern Warfare 2 comes into GameStop, it's $5 less than new. You'll be able to buy a used copy from GameStop no later than the Tuesday following release.

Thi sisn't true of all games, however. Wii Fit, as an example, actually cost more on the used market than the new one for some time after its release. This gets back to my central point: some games are suffering more than others from the used market. There's an obvious formula for this: make games that people don't want to trade in right away. I would wager, as a simple example, that CoD6 will be much harder to find used a week after release than God of War 3 will be, as an example. Call of Duty 4 had a very weak used sale market.

In general, however, this is definitely example where cars have less trouble than games. Both markets have their strengths and weaknesses. So too do books, music, movies, houses, and so forth. All of them have strengths, weaknesses, and unique industry quirks.

 

[Opiate]

If my options are used games or Uncharted/God of War/Mass Effect, I will chose the later, every single time.

Ah, now I think I see where you are coming from. I would guess that you're particularly fond of the God of War/Uncharted/Mass Effect style games, and thus it's your type of games that are being specifically and particularly threatened by this problem. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My answer ot you is: too bad. I want lots of things. As I told Mr. Jaffe, I want him to give me 100000 hour games with graphics that far surpass Crysis. "Give," as in for free. However, I know that isn't financially feasible, so those games aren't made. Oh well, too bad for me. I'd also like all the TV shows I've ever liked to stay on the air -- and be commercial free, at that. But that doesn't happen. Oh well, too bad for me.

Similarly, if games like Uncharted, God of War and Mass Effect aren't financially feasible, then they shouldn't be made. Oh well, too bad for you.

I'm also not sure it's comparable to the cars as well, as Uncharted, God of War, and Mass Effect are good games, but being hurt by used games (are they? I dunno, roll with it, they're your examples). Where as Pontiacs were bleh and nobody wanted them to begin with.

Firebirds were very well liked by car enthusiasts: they're a classic muscle car. And I'm not sure everyone would agree that the games you mentioned are good games: I happened to like Mass Effect but did not enjoy God of War, while I never played Uncharted. Moreover, none of these games are super blockbusters: none have sold even half as much as Halo, or one quarter as much as New Super Mario Brothers. If your point is that Uncharted, God of War and ME were all liked by game enthusiasts, then that's precisely the same situation the Firebird was in: it was a well liked car by enthusiasts, who appreciated things like horsepower, and acceleration. The general populace wasn't particularly interested, however, which was one of the factors that lead to the brand's demise.

 

[charlequin]

Waving the customer card around in everybody's face is definitely asshole material.

No, thinking this is an "inflammatory comment" is just some insipid self-hatred complex people have around here. Consumers are never under any obligation to buy things and should indeed stop being a customer of a marketplace that does things to displease them. If one actively dislikes DD (and there are innumerable reasons not to), getting out of gaming and into some other hobby is the only correct choice if all game distribution should move to download-only.

Not really, there's a perfectly sane argument against first sales doctrine in the case of videogames, that the way GameStop does its business hurts game development.

There is nothing "sane" (in the sense of "rational and reasonable") about that as a defense in this case. First-sale doctrine is a universally-applicable part of copyright law and one particular industry doesn't get to opt out of it because they don't like its implications; the reason it's a universally-applicable part of copyright law is because content industries never like its implications, but it's important to protect end-user rights anyway.

Every example made on GAF trying to relate the game industry to another industry, from both sides of the argument, has been absolutely terrible.

No industry is exactly the same as gaming, but mostly what I see is people zealously defending corporate interests (like, say, yourself) deriding examples which compare gaming to other industries whose products protected by copyright (that is, industries that are self-evidently and unambiguously comparable) because they don't like the inexorable conclusion: that gaming is indeed not a special, precious, unique snowflake requiring protections that every other industry can get along without.

Similarly, if games like Uncharted, God of War and Mass Effect aren't financially feasible, then they shouldn't be made. Oh well, too bad for you.

Of course, it's not exactly that games like this "aren't financially feasible." Games analogous to them -- single-player interactive "experiences" -- have made up a large part of the gaming industry throughout its existence, and even today many such games are quite profitable.

The issue, rather, is that these games are subject to specific market forces that many other types of games are less affected by, and as a result they cannot continue to continually increase their budgets and scope without end and expect to remain profitable. The "used game" bugbear, much like the irrational hatred of handheld systems or the Wii or "casual gaming," derives largely from a desire to place this problem on external foes and thereby avoid actually changing business and development models to suit the market.

 

[FLEABttn]

2008 models can be purchased used in 2009. Here is a 2008 Chrysler car selling for 60% under initial price:

http://www.motortrend.com/used_cars...er/lx/california/dublin/452121/296/index.html

And of course they compete with each other -- this is one significant advantage games have over cars. People tend to buy one car, while people buy many games. Let's say I need to purchase an automobile becuase my old one has died. If I go out today and buy a used 2008 car, the likelihood of me also buying a new car has dropped astromonically. I would guess that less than .1% of people who buy a used 2008 car this month will then proceed to buy a new one as well. That's because most people do not need 2 cars, and for all practical purposes the 2007 model (i.e. CoD4) is identical to the 2009 one (i.e. CoD6).

Aren't they discontinuing the PT Cruiser because it was unpopular and unprofitable? Making the 60% under initial price disingenuous? And I don't know about the Chrysler model year stuff, so a 2008 could have easily been sold in 2007, making it a 2 year old car.

Fancy that you picked Dublin of all places, I used to live there.

But again, if I want a the newest model of a car, I can't buy it at used prices until at least two years out. You want a 2008 PT Cruiser, at used prices, sure, but you waited two years for that. You still can't buy a 2010 model whatever a week later at used prices.

 

[FLEABttn]

Oh well, too bad for you.

Yes. Which is why I will do as necessary to prevent that from happening. Even if that means you're negatively affected.

There is nothing "sane" (in the sense of "rational and reasonable") about that as a defense in this case.

If it gets me what I want, then it's perfectly rational. That's sort of the definition of rationality.

 

[Mario]

I can scan a book or image, rip a dvd or cd, how is a game different or in your own words more "ethereal"? You really seem like you're grasping at straws.

I never said it was completely different from other similar media or products that can be transferred between delivery mechanisms.

I'm just pointing out that games products have inherently different properties than most products that have been available since "Roman times" and are different than most products available today, and that a little more thought should go into the resultant complexities rather than just taking a position equivalent to "it has been like this for thousands/hundreds/tens of years, so tough" that some are taking.

In other words, I am just encouraging people to think a little deeper.

i know this is an extreme case but

if FOOD could "(in a lot of cases) be copied without loss or degradation, transmitted digitally, (generally) reused/replayed many times without any affect on the experience, patched/expanded/improved over time, or delivered via different means"

would you be mad at the used food market???

Firstly, I never said I was mad at the used game market.

Secondly, your example is so out there and not relevant to digital entertainment that I wouldn't even know where to begin to respond.

 

[Asmodai]

Firebirds were very well liked by car enthusiasts: they're a classic muscle car. And I'm not sure everyone would agree that the games you mentioned are good games: I happened to like Mass Effect but did not enjoy God of War, while I never played Uncharted. Moreover, none of these games are super blockbusters: none have sold even half as much as Halo, or one quarter as much as New Super Mario Brothers. If your point is that Uncharted, God of War and ME were all liked by game enthusiasts, then that's precisely the same situation the Firebird was in: it was a well liked car by enthusiasts, who appreciated things like horsepower, and acceleration. The general populace wasn't particularly interested, however, which was one of the factors that lead to the brand's demise.

A game doesn't need to sell 10 million copies to be financially viable. Mass Effect may have only sold 2 million or so on 360, and maybe a million at most on PC, but that's still not bad considering that most of the purchases were made shortly after release at 60 bucks. Over 100 million in revenue for a game that cost 10-20 million to develop; not exactly a financial disaster, is it?

It's no Modern Warfare or anything, but Mass Effect sold just fine. Despite being insipid and puerile :lol

 

[KScorp]

One of the largest problems are how little the first buyers sell their games for. The only reason Gamestop earns so much profit on used game sales is because people are too lazy to find better places to sell them. They buy a game for $5, they sell it for $40. It is a very bad practice for both devs and consumers, but as long as people are willing to do it, it's a win for GS.

Probably the easiest way to get a cut of used sales is for publishers to offer to purchase games that gamers don't want anymore, and then resell them. Laws of competition would state that Gamestop and the pubs would fight for control of the used sales market, and thus people would be getting more and more for selling their games, while Gamestop gets less and less, and pubs are finally in on the action.

Of course, it all depends on how lazy and knowledgeable people are. There are many avenues to sell games, unfortunately Gamestop invested the most in getting their name out, while all other, better places can't be found unless people actively search for them. That essentially gives them a monopoly, so they are free to offer ridiculously low compensation for taking games off our hands.

 

[charlequin]

If it gets me what I want, then it's perfectly rational. That's sort of the definition of rationality.

It's not particularly rational at all; it's the flailing, straw-grasping response of someone who cares not for their own rights, the good of others, or the actual underpinnings and purpose of the system they're discussing.

The first-sale doctrine is an anti-publisher doctrine. It is so more or less on purpose, because it's an area where the publisher's goals and the consumer's goals are in direct conflict, and the protection of the consumer's rights was (wisely) deemed more important. Every copyrighted-content business is restricted and loses profits as a result of this doctrine, through organized used sales, repackaging of products outside of manufacturer-suggested forms, etc. These are just the things that a content industry has to put up with in order to recieve broad, sweeping government protections against unauthorized use of their content.

The gaming industry is not a special, unique snowflake.

 

[Opiate]

Yes. Which is why I will do as necessary to prevent that from happening. Even if that means you're negatively affected.

Please keep in mind that I'm not being ungenerous here: I'm simply asking you to face market realities that adults face all the time. I want things all the time that are not realistically profitable and thus are not made. I want a pizza to be delivered to my house for free while I watch TV that has no commercials. Too bad for me, too bad for you, too bad for all of us.

By contrast, you would rather give the video game market unprecedented exception from copyright and consumer protection law -- and hurt almost all consumers in the process, as you have explicitly stated in the above post -- just so you can get what you want. It's a remarkably selfish and infantile position.

 

[Asmodai]

Of course, it all depends on how lazy and knowledgeable people are. There are many avenues to sell games, unfortunately Gamestop invested the most in getting their name out, while all other, better places can't be found unless people actively search for them. That essentially gives them a monopoly, so they are free to offer ridiculously low compensation for taking games off our hands.

The problem is that the alternatives aren't there. Futureshop, Blockbuster and other trade-in outlets generally give just as shitty a deal as Gamestop, if not worse.

Ebay and other avenues of selling are just a pain in the ass for a game that most people wouldn't pay more than 15-20 bucks for used anyway. If I have a choice between offloading all the games I don't want for 10-20 bucks a pop at Gamestop, or trying to sell them for Ebay individually and making 5 bucks more each, you better believe I'm giving them to Gamestop.

Remember, time isn't worthless. If I spend hours trying to make a few bucks on Ebay, I might end up with more money, but with a lot more wasted time, so that it wasn't worth it in the first place.

 

[Gorgon]

...i don't see anything wrong with that. if it keeps publishers from hiking game prices up, and maybe even ruffles the system up enough to where standard pricing starts to dissolve and everything is more competitive, then awesome. isn't that how it is in japan? games aren't all the exact same price at retail?

I don't see anything wrong with that either. The point here is not if it would be bad or not. The point here is that they have no moral or legal right to demand it, just like no one in any other industry has.

 

[Opiate]

It's not particularly rational at all; it's the flailing, straw-grasping response of someone who cares not for their own rights, the good of others, or the actual underpinnings and purpose of the system they're discussing.

It is rational if you believe in a absurdly Randian philosophy that values selfishness as a virtue and the only true goal. Not that I'm espousing such a philosophy, I'm just making sure we acknowledge that such "I am all that matters" philosophies do exist.

The first-sale doctrine is an anti-publisher doctrine. It is so more or less on purpose, because it's an area where the publisher's goals and the consumer's goals are in direct conflict, and the protection of the consumer's rights was (wisely) deemed more important. Every copyrighted-content business is restricted and loses profits as a result of this doctrine, through organized used sales, repackaging of products outside of manufacturer-suggested forms, etc. These are just the things that a content industry has to put up with in order to recieve broad, sweeping government protections against unauthorized use of their content.

The gaming industry is not a special, unique snowflake.

Very well said.

 

[FLEABttn]

It's a remarkably selfish and infantile position.

Oh well, too bad for you.

Yeah...

It's not particularly rational at all; it's the flailing, straw-grasping response of someone who cares not for their own rights, the good of others, or the actual underpinnings and purpose of the system they're discussing.

The first-sale doctrine is an anti-publisher doctrine. It is so more or less on purpose, because it's an area where the publisher's goals and the consumer's goals are in direct conflict, and the protection of the consumer's rights was (wisely) deemed more important. Every copyrighted-content business is restricted and loses profits as a result of this doctrine, through organized used sales, repackaging of products outside of manufacturer-suggested forms, etc. These are just the things that a content industry has to put up with in order to recieve broad, sweeping government protections against unauthorized use of their content.

The gaming industry is not a special, unique snowflake.

Someone never learned what the definition of rationality is~

I understand what first sale doctrine is. The gaming industry is not a special unique snowflake in that it applies to them, well, obviously. In that it affects them differently, sure.

 

[Opiate]

The problem is that the alternatives aren't there. Futureshop, Blockbuster and other trade-in outlets generally give just as shitty a deal as Gamestop, if not worse.

This is a very important point: it suggests that the problem isn't Gamestop. If Gamestop were the only chain offering "shitty" deals, while other shops did not, then the problem WOULD be Gamestop: they would have attained some sort of monopoly that other stores cannot break even with better values and offers. That's the definition of anti-competitive behavior.

However, as you say, this is exactly what is not happening. Because all the chains are doing offering similarly "shitty deals," not just Gamestop, this is a strong indicator that the problem is not actually Gamestop itself, and that the problem is endemic to the industry more generally.

 

[Raistlin]

Finally read through most of the OP, and I must say ... I agree with Jaffe.

It's amusing, Les claimes, "I see the big picture just fine. I see is a dev who wants to limit people’s freedom to resell stuff they no longer have a use for", yet prior to that he states:

The other assumption Jaffe makes is that the popularity of digital music is a reaction to used CD sales. At least that’s what he appears to be suggesting. I don’t know what planet he’s been on the last decade and a half, but as I recall the music industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. They started putting out digital downloads not because B&M music stores were making a killing on reselling old CDs, but because their customers pretty much decided they were going to get their music in digital form whether the industry liked it or not. And while it’s true that the popularity of digital music sales is growing all the time it still hasn’t surpassed the revenue made by physical media. It’s estimated that’ll finally happen next year in the U.S. and the rest of the world by 2016. The music industry is far from being digital distribution only so using them as an example for his argument is pretty silly. Is it possible that the games industry could go to distributing only via digital downloads in five years? Sure, it’s possible, but I’d be very surprised if it were to come to pass. After all the first legally authorized digital music providers hit the net back in 2001. If digital sales do surpass physical next year that’ll be almost nine years before it comes to pass, and even then it probably won’t mean the end of physical media for many more years.

Sorry Les, no ... you really don't get the big picture.

 

[Starchasing]

Secondly, your example is so out there and not relevant to digital entertainment that I wouldn't even know where to begin to respond.

Just think what would happen if replicating a physical object was almost free.
What would be the price of that good?
In a perfect competitive market it would be almost free


If you could use a product without degrading it, wouldnt you sell it after you are done with it?

Sorry Les, no ... you really don't get the big picture.

the big picture depends on which side you are...

secondary markets are not as good for producers

but they are good for consumers

 

[Johann]

If my options are used games or Uncharted/God of War/Mass Effect, I will chose the later, every single time. I'm also not sure it's comparable to the cars as well, as Uncharted, God of War, and Mass Effect are good games, but being hurt by used games (are they? I dunno, roll with it, they're your examples). Where as Pontiacs were bleh and nobody wanted them to begin with.

Wouldn't a consumer eventually reach a point in which he or she receives diminishing returns for playing the game? For many consumers, playing through the game a couple of times and fooling around with the bonus content is enough for them. Games often become less enjoyable after the initial playthrough and lose their initial value. Once the bulk of the content is consumed, players will want to spend their time on better and more novel forms of entertainment. The games you listed don't even have a multi-player component. People paid money to have these games entertain them as much as possible. If they believe these games aren't performing that service well enough, the second hand market becomes an attractive alternative. They can receive money in exchange for the game and can even spend that money on something that they believe will get the job done.

The other options are to have the game collect dust on the shelf or give it away for free. If that was the case, I imagine consumers be very selective with which games they purchase or choose other forms of entertainment that are more cost-effective. Publishers and developers should identify and fix causes of poor value in games or at least budget for and price their game appropriately. They shouldn't feel a sense of entitlement about how their games are so good that it would be a sin for people to trade them in. Consumers shouldn't feel guilt or obligation for a game that didn't do what it was paid for.

 

[MedHead]

Perhaps the problem is that the video game market is so small that some have started viewing developers and publishers as friends, rather than businesses, and by not spending the maximum amount of money to play these games, we're all hurting our friends?

 

[Asmodai]

This is a very important point: it suggests that the problem isn't Gamestop. If Gamestop were the only chain offering "shitty" deals, while other shops did not, then the problem WOULD be Gamestop: they would have attained some sort of monopoly that other stores cannot break even with better values and offers. That's the definition of anti-competitive behavior.

However, as you say, this is exactly what is not happening. Because all the chains are doing offering similarly "shitty deals," not just Gamestop, this is a strong indicator that the problem is not actually Gamestop itself, and that the problem is endemic to the industry more generally.

Aye, it's not Gamestop itself, Gamestop was just the first to realize that people were willing to give away their games for a relatively low trade in value. I consider these deals bad namely because Gamestop will turn around and sell that 20 dollar game you sold to them for 5 dollars less than a brand new version of the game. Of course, the other stores are now doing the same thing now that Gamestop has demonstrated that the market is there.

I know I'm not getting the best value, but hey, for the games I own that I no longer want to own, giving em away to Gamestop to buy even one new game that I do want is a better deal to me than the alternatives. That, and I'll have to be more careful about which games I do purchase in the future. I've been burned too many times before.

Perhaps the problem is that the video game market is so small that some have started viewing developers and publishers as friends, rather than businesses, and by not spending the maximum amount of money to play these games, we're all hurting our friends?

:lol :lol :lol

Seriously?

 

[gerg]

If it gets me what I want, then it's perfectly rational. That's sort of the definition of rationality.

That's quite the good defense of murder you've given there.

 

[Opiate]

Yeah...

"Too bad for me... too bad for you," was a plea for you to accept that the market does not always work the way you want it to. I even gave detailed examples (a la commercial free TV). I want that, I can't have it because it isn't feasible in the market place, so too bad for me. Oh well. I accept it and move on. That's a mature response to the situation.

By contrast an argument such as, "I don't care if other people are hurt or what laws companies circumvent, I want what I want" is exactly the opposite. It is a childish refusal to accept the concerns and desires of others, and the willful discarding of the value of the market system in place.

 

[FLEABttn]

It is rational if you believe in a absurdly Randian philosophy that values selfishness as a virtue and the only true goal. Not that I'm espousing such a philosophy, I'm just making sure we acknowledge that such "I am all that matters" philosophies do exist.

You're fine with how everything works right now because you benefit it. If what you want from the industry is no longer what's considered viable, I'm sure your tone will change.

You want to talk about what's Randian, go talk to JayDubya and Gaborn and ask them about universal healthcare and public schools.

 

[Mario]

Just think what would happen if replicating a physical object was almost free.
What would be the price of that good?
In a perfect competitive market it would be almost free

If you could use a product without degrading it, wouldnt you sell it after you are done with it?

Such a situation would completely turn the world's economy upside down and radically change all production industries, while at the same time solving a large number of the world's problems. It would also defy the laws of physics.

I fail to see how this extreme hypothetical situation is relevant at all to present reality, other than you seem to be indirectly agreeing with me that the nature of electronic entertainment sets it apart from physical goods.

 

[Asmodai]

You're fine with how everything works right now because you benefit it. If what you want from the industry is no longer what's considered viable, I'm sure your tone will change.

What are you saying exactly? That it's time for the Glorious Gaming Revolution? :lol

 

[gerg]

You're fine with how everything works right now because you benefit it. If what you want from the industry is no longer what's considered viable, I'm sure your tone will change.

Not necessarily. I, personally, am "fine" with how companies run themselves because I (try to) look at the situation rationally. I hate the fact that I can't get all the content I want for free, but I also recognise that it's not my place to tell others how they should run their own businesses (except in the case where we recognise intrinsic rights of the consumer). I think that the way most companies release their content at the moment is stupid as hell, but I ascribe them their right to be stupid.

 

[MedHead]

:lol :lol :lol

Seriously?

I think I mistyped. I don't mean market in the sense of how much money is made. I mean the amount of developers and publishers that exist.

 

[turtle553]

But again, if I want a the newest model of a car, I can't buy it at used prices until at least two years out. You want a 2008 PT Cruiser, at used prices, sure, but you waited two years for that. You still can't buy a 2010 model whatever a week later at used prices.

http://www.autoshopper.com/used-cars/2010_Toyota_Camry_North_Avenel_NJ-3138872.htm

There is a used 2010 car. There are a lot of 2010 cars available used. There is no 2 year window to wait for a used model.

Some people drive a car for a few weeks and return it for whatever reason and it gets sold as used. Same as a video game.

 

[Starchasing]

Such a situation would completely turn the world's economy upside down and radically change all production industries, while at the same time solving a large number of the world's problems. It would also defy the laws of physics.

well , its happening to the games market... Millions to produce, 0 to copy

I fail to see how this extreme hypothetical situation is relevant at all to present reality, other than you seem to be indirectly agreeing with me that the nature of electronic entertainment sets it apart from physical goods.

it will be differet when companies eliminate physical distribution. Something that aple has done so far on their Iphones, and look how that turned it to be.

If Jaffe wants to sell physical goods then he must respect the rules...

 

[John]

I meant as in they won't have to overstock the game. So theoritically, you should have lower prices.

Ah, but overstocks lead to clearances.

Being hyperbolic alone isn't offensive. Nor is being whiney. Using a tarted up version of 'fuck off' is.

He really just sounded like he was looking for an argument. He's so smug and self-satisfied you could smell it through the computer screen -- just an average internet troll. Jaffe's telling him he just doesn't care what he has to say if he's going to act like a prick.

That, and I laughed at Jaffe's retorts. I'm an easy audience.

 

[Mario]

well , its happening to the games market... Millions to produce, 0 to copy

it will be differet when companies eliminate physical distribution. Something that aple has done so far on their Iphones, and look how that turned it to be.

If Jaffe wants to sell physical goods then he must respect the rules...

Well, good to see you are in agreement with me. IMO games today are different from most other goods, and when companies shift to predominantly digital distribution the market will change radically.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

can we at least agree that jaffe, as well as other vocal developer 'figure heads', are in a tough spot as far as giving their opinion on the situation?

he works for a development team. they get money from a publisher. the publisher gets money by selling their games to vendors/retail stores/etc. if they are getting less orders of their new games because gamestop, as well as others, know they can order less- sell those- buy some of them back- and sell them again at a higher profit, is that not bad news for the publisher?

they might as well sell each store 1 copy and tell them good luck selling it over and over and over to make a decent profit off of that. if it were the case though, the publisher would have to fund a game project with a pee-your-pants-laughing low amount of funds.

so it's hard to tackle jaffe (and hell, even mario) and his perspective from a consumer standpoint because this is his job, his livelihood, etc. we are talking about. with us consumers it's just saving $10 bucks by buying used. then tons of people do it and a publisher is reporting losses and his development team gets a smaller amount of money next time around to make a game. (is that what it's boiling down to? correct me if the flow im painting a picture of here is wrong)

on the flipside with DD though, if a publisher gets more profit from each game sold due to cutting out the middle man, and loses less potential customers from pirating or used copy sales, would they not then be able to charge us less for games because he's already avoiding the reasons for charging so much in the first place? remember when people whined about HD causing prices to go up and the licensing fees being higher this gen? (also BD production costs)

 

[Starchasing]

Well, good to see you are in agreement with me. IMO games today are different from most other goods, and when companies shift to predominantly digital distribution the market will change radically.

They are not different as of today... because they are selling physical goods.

You cant sell physical goods and expect the benefits from a nonphysical market

Thats what Jaffe wants... to eat and have the pie

 

[FLEABttn]

What are you saying exactly? That it's time for the Glorious Gaming Revolution? :lol

Haha, no. Despite what Opiate and charlequin and gerg rant on about, I'm actually quite on the level.

What I'm saying exactly is this:

If GameStop is hurting game development, something needs to or will be done.

In order of likelyhood:

A) Game development isn't hurting, publishers and devs cry about it, nothing changes as far as selling goes and the past 15 pages have been for naught.
B) Game development is hurting, nothing changes, devs/publishers come and go, and the last 15 pages were 90% for naught.
C) Game development is hurting, and devs/publishers starting turning games into one use licenses instead of products. You can't resell your games.
D) Game development is hurting and more devs/publisher leave than come in. GameStop eventually realizes they've been biting the hand that feeds them/focusing on short-term gains instead of long term gains and agree to a 4-8 week windows after a games release where used copies are not sold.
.
.
.
Z) Game development is hurting and first-sale doctrine is overturned. But at least I got God of War 3.

Anyone claiming to not be talking in extremes is kidding themselves (Opiate's calling me a Randroid, charlequin's making up new definitions t words, and gerg is saying I defend murders, and somehow I'm the one being immature). I know I am. But the extreme was posed to me of resale or my games and, given the two extremes, I take my games.

http://www.autoshopper.com/used-cars...NJ-3138872.htm

There is a used 2010 car. There are a lot of 2010 cars available used. There is no 2 year window to wait for a used model.

Some people drive a car for a few weeks and return it for whatever reason and it gets sold as used. Same as a video game.

I understand. But this isn't common. This entire thread is based on extremes and generalities, and in general, you don't see used cars of the current or prior model year.

 

[Opiate]

You're fine with how everything works right now because you benefit it. If what you want from the industry is no longer what's considered viable, I'm sure your tone will change.

How do I benefit? I said I enjoyed Mass Effect quite a bit just earlier. I own Crysis and liked it a lot. Even if I did not like these games, how would I possibly benefit? I'm explicitly suggesting that developers should spend less money on me if they are unable to sustain themselves as is.

It's "too bad" for me, too. I certainly seem to care less.... emphatically than you do, but it's certainly not a boon for me. That's precisely why I made a point of including myself. I'm a freakin' PC gamer with a high end rig (i7 board with 8 GBs DDR2, 2x4870, 26'' monitors running in dual screen mode). I lose out all the time. There are practically no games harnessing the hardware I have. But I understand why I lose out, I accept it, and move on.

You want to talk about what's Randian, go talk to JayDubya and Gaborn and ask them about universal healthcare and public schools.

JayDubya is banned.

 

[Opiate]

Well, good to see you are in agreement with me. IMO games today are different from most other goods, and when companies shift to predominantly digital distribution the market will change radically.

I think this is possible. However, I do think this is still some time a way -- it will be quite a storm we're weathering until that happens -- and so far, I'm not sure the results are quite as we might hope for.

 

[Mario]

They are not different as of today... because they are selling physical goods.

well , its happening to the games market... Millions to produce, 0 to copy

Your comments are not consistent, and your example of "magic food" doesn't add to your argument.

I think this is possible. However, I do think this is quite some time a way -- it will be quite a storm we're weathering until that happens -- and so far, I'm not sure the results would be quite as we might hope for.

I think we are probably 5 or less years away from the unit sales balance being in favour of digital distribution. We are already seeing a shakeup of game companies and many who can't adapt have already fallen by the wayside with more casualties to come.

I'm looking forward to a digital distribution future as both a consumer and a producer of content. As a consumer it opens up a lot more content options for me, and will likely result in lower prices. As a producer of content, having games stand on their merits alone rather than being reliant on physical distribution and availability is both a challenging and more rewarding future to look forward to. I note many don't share these sentiments though, and I acknowledge those fears.