Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

Someone never learned what the definition of rationality is~

No, there's still really nothing particularly rational about your argument beyond the most simplistic level at which "I want something, so give it to me!!!!!" is a "rational" expression of raw animal emotion. You have certainly not offered a rational policy argument by which the first-sale doctrine should apply to every copyrighted-content field except gaming, just a blanket statement of how you want things to be and damn the consequences.

You're fine with how everything works right now because you benefit it.

That's a silly conclusion to draw (though I suppose it follows from the ludicrously self-oriented expression of your ideas so far).

Myself, I'm actually a pretty big fan of many "experience"-oriented single-player games, but an ultimately fleeting interest in insulating the creators of those games from the economic impact of their decisions simply cannot compete with the need for a rational, consistent, consumer-friendly copyright policy. As such, I'd much rather the people who make those games accept the market realities and figure out how to make games they want to make within the scope of the possible than either screw me over for an extra buck or take their toys and go home because they are incapable of compromise.

 

[durendal]

I'm wary of digital distribution in its current form. What worries me is not being able to sell my games, since I haven't sold a game in many years. What I worry about is the fact that I may have the game that I payed for taken from me by either a company going under or by some other forced means.

With a DRM'ed digital copy, I'm at the mercy of the publisher, whereas before I could at least be assured of having my copy indefinitely. You can't take my NES copy of Super Mario Bros. away from unless you steal it, but if I bought a Virtual Console copy from Nintendo, the license agreement does not guarantee I will always have access to it. When the Wii 2 launches Nintendo could say "Tough luck, buy it again" and I would have no legal basis to complain.

This is a horrible step backwards and not something that benefits the consumer in any way. I really hope digital distribution does not take over in this form.

 

[Starchasing]

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

I will try to explain my view better.

Game companies produce a good that cost to produce , but has no cost to copy.
(thats what different from the car industry)

yet

Game companies sell a physical product
(thats whats equal to the car industry)


Game companies want to have the benefits of both sides.. but they cant because physical goods market have certain rules that they cant ignore. You cant eat the pie and have it

 

[sonicmj1]

Yeah...

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.

Why does it affect them differently?

Some people buy music. Some people buy DVDs. Some people buy games. The potential for used markets in all of these industries exists to the same degree as it does for games.

Do people find more value in keeping books, movies, and music they own than they do in video games? I'm not sure. But I think that those industries have a business model that allows them to make money without requiring the second, third, and fourth sales of their products. Maybe music doesn't work that way, but that has nothing to do with the sale of used albums.

I'd argue that the game industry is affected in the same way by the secondary market as any industry is. Those industries either try to open venues where the secondary market cannot interfere (movie theaters, digital distribution), or they structure their business models such that customers find enough value over time in their purchases to keep their products, and such that if the secondary market gets a large portion of sales, the producers still come out on top.

The former is an avenue that many game developers have pursued, but some of the most successful have found a lot of success with the latter strategy. Nintendo and Activision have already been used as examples, but even a niche publisher like Atlus provides a lot of incentives for consumers to buy new without creating hurdles or digital restrictions, or even changing the sorts of games they make.

It's rational to want things you like. But when outside circumstances make it harder for the things you like to exist (things such as market forces that are rather difficult to oppose), demanding exceptions isn't going to solve the problem. The rules exist as they are for a reason. You can recognize these realities and still find ways for the products you enjoy to thrive. There will just have to be some compromises.

 

[RockmanWhore]

I love DVD Empire's conclusions :

Too many shitty games
Games are too expensive and they can't make much profit out of them
They can't send back the crappy games

I hope that as people get more and more interested in games, then maybe people will learn to avoid the crap. There is way too much shovel ware and shitty movie adaptations on the shelves.

 

[Zenith]

So what happens when I spend $1000's on downloadable titles and the console maker goes under?

What happens if my system breaks down?

What happens when the next console is released?

DRM?

Will I be able to play my downloadable games 20 years after it's initial release? 10 years after?

Sorry, there are just too many issues with 100% DD and I'm sure most of you championing just don't realize how shitty it's going to be.

ding. even DD I back up on cd. the fact that I can't know if I'll have internet access when I want to play these games is enough reason alone why I'll never be a DD enthusiast.

 

[FLEABttn]

Why does it affect them differently?

Past 16 pages. Go.

 

[ghst]

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.

steam doesn't set prices, nor do they have a monopoly.

dd prices are fucked all around europe, and i have zero doubt that it's due to anything other than retail pressure. valve doesn't have the kahoonas nor the war chest to start pressuring its partners, and all the other dd services are too desperate to sign up anyone they can, on any terms, to even think about correcting this.

i fear this will be the status quo until dd becomes the primary occupation of some of the largest companies in the world, rather than just a little extra pocket money. i've no idea how publishers feel about selling their product on the hot new service for a price that is an insulting markup over retail (although i'm sure they don't mind valve taking most the flak for it from people like yourself) but as much as i'm entirely comfortable with an all dd future -- buying a game on a disk is a bizarrely archaic practice to me -- there is a ugly, ugly war coming between the publishers and retail, and gamestop will surely be first to take to their sword.

 

[charlequin]

I hope that as people get more and more interested in games, then maybe people will learn to avoid the crap.

As the gaming market has grown more mature, the sales charts have increasingly matched up with what you would expect to see in other content markets: products that tend to be well-crafted, but which may be "good" or instead may just have a base, lowest-common denominator appeal, the majority of which win on marketing (but a few of which succeed on real word-of-mouth) fill out the charts.

There is way too much shovel ware and shitty movie adaptations on the shelves.

The reason there's shovelware and shitty adaptations on the shelves is that they're cheap to make, not that they sell well. (Same reason there are so many terrible direct-to-DVD movies.)

There is a problem where without a backlist and clearly delineated purchasing market for different genres (and with the need to separate platforms), gaming just has these undifferentiated shelves of material with everything just thrown together. I'd love to see the day where I can go into a store and go look at "Adventure games" or "Spaceship games" instead of just seeing everything lumped together in an undifferentiated, poorly alphabetized PS2 section.

 

[sonicmj1]

Past 16 pages. Go.

I've read a few of the last pages, but the closest I've seen to you supporting this position is your claim that, "the way Gamestop does business hurts game development." I'm not sure if you've proven why what Gamestop does harms games more than any other secondary market harms any other industry.

A secondary market will inevitably have some sort of negative effect on the primary market. It's competition between direct substitutes. That's sort of what happens.

 

[D4Danger]

I love DVD Empire's conclusions :

Too many shitty games
Games are too expensive and they can't make much profit out of them
They can't send back the crappy games

sounds about right.

I think the second point about games being too expensive is maybe up for debate. There was a thread recently where somebody from EA said a game that costs 10m to make, they will spend 30m on advertisement.

There's probably quite a few games that are considered bombs and don't get a sequal because they couldn't make enough to cover the advertisement.

 

[Tellaerin]

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.

If it's as inevitable as you seem to think, then the results should be amusing. I expect overall game sales to contract sharply when people no longer have the option of reselling titles they're done with in order to help underwrite new game purchases if your DD future happens. I also expect publishers to blame any resulting sales drop-offs on changing audience tastes or competition from Facebook apps or anything else but the actual reason, rather than admitting they screwed up. People in the industry (and even some industry followers, like the ones in this thread) have so much mindshare invested in the belief that DD will magically solve every problem that they won't even allow for the possibility that it won't work out that way. And the fact that they seem so blatantly adversarial towards consumers means I can't have much sympathy if it all blows up in their faces. *shrug*

 

[turtle553]

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.

920 2010 Used card for sale just at dealers in the US already http://www.autoshopper.com/search/results.asp?sort=yeardesc&distance=4000&zipcode=08812&showadsdated=ALL&fromyear=2010&toyear=2010&condition=used&page=62

Thats a lot considering 2010 models just went on sale and considering how often people buy cars.

Even bringing in 2009 models, there are more than 1,000 available within 25 miles of my house: http://www.autoshopper.com/search/results.asp?sort=distanceasc&showadsdated=ALL&fromyear=2009&toyear=2009&condition=used

In general, I would say there are a lot of just about new used cars available. Plus the prices usually aren't 25% less than a new one. The discount is probably pretty similar to used games at GS for used sales of new releases.

 

[Asmodai]

I love DVD Empire's conclusions :

Too many shitty games
Games are too expensive and they can't make much profit out of them
They can't send back the crappy games

I hope that as people get more and more interested in games, then maybe people will learn to avoid the crap. There is way too much shovel ware and shitty movie adaptations on the shelves.

There are far fewer shovelware titles than there used to be on the "hardcore" consoles. The higher cost of production has for the most part made them not financially feasible.

Still tons of them on the handheld consoles and Wii, of course.

 

[Gorgon]

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)

I think everyone agrees with what you're saying in general and everyone understands the needs of publishers/devs. I can even sympathize with them. However you're missing the point and the point is they don't have the moral right to demand a cut from used goods. No one in any industry has. Period.

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)

This is another issue altogether. Publishers can go the route of DD if they want. It's their right to do so and a legitimate answer to counterattack the lack of revenew. Demanding cuts from legitimate businesses isn't.

As for the potential benefits of DD milking down to consumers, sure, they are there. However there's no garantee this will happen. I haven't seen anything at all that points to a reduction in price if games go totally digital. But this is besides the point and a completely different discussion.

 

[FLEABttn]

920 2010 Used card for sale just at dealers in the US already http://www.autoshopper.com/search/results.asp?sort=yeardesc&distance=4000&zipcode=08812&showadsdated=ALL&fromyear=2010&toyear=2010&condition=used&page=62

Thats a lot considering 2010 models just went on sale and considering how often people buy cars.

Even bringing in 2009 models, there are more than 1,000 available within 25 miles of my house: http://www.autoshopper.com/search/results.asp?sort=distanceasc&showadsdated=ALL&fromyear=2009&toyear=2009&condition=used

In general, I would say that is a lot of used cars available.

Then I'm wrong.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

mario: what do you think about this supposed "subscription" based future many talk about?

ie: sega channel was just an add-on to your cable bill. you got the little box for your genesis, you popped it in, unlimited games so long as you pay your bill on time.

you can call it streaming, or download based like steam or whatever, but do you see something like that being offered directly by publishers or "the big 3"?

it's odd that i hear so many people complain that they wish they could pay for only the 5 channels of cable tv they actually watch, instead of $50 for the whole shebang.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I've read a few of the last pages, but the closest I've seen to you supporting this position is your claim that, "the way Gamestop does business hurts game development." I'm not sure if you've proven why what Gamestop does harms games more than any other secondary market harms any other industry.

A secondary market will inevitably have some sort of negative effect on the primary market. It's competition between direct substitutes. That's sort of what happens.

The best explanation of the gaming industry's issues with Gamestop can be found with Drek's posts in this thread. I recommend everyone who is still discussing this topic to read them.

Here's a good one.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17355656&postcount=745

 

[Drek]

As the lemon farmer maybe I have to either change my business model or close shop. Clearly me selling fresh lemons to the stand owner is not the most advantageous for his business. The stand owner is just adapting to the market, seeying that people prefer to pay for cheap concentrate at lower prices than buying the more expensive lemonade from fresh lemons. Maybe other stand owners are doing the same and he will quicly be out of business soon if he doesn't change. The stand owner adapted to the market and the lemon producer didn't. It's called free market.

If the stand owner agrees to some kind of compromise, fine. The point is, he has NO obligation, moral or legal, to do so. He's just ensuring that he's kids also can get feed and go to college (it's not only the "lemon producers" who have kids as Jaffe seems to think) and the concentrate is cheaper and consumers prefer it.

EDIT:

We're talking about businesses whose purpose is to maximise profits, not school buddies. These relashionships are based on getting the most out of a business, not keeping a business relashionship out of love between partners. This is how the market works in EVERY INDUSTRY and there's no reason to suppose that the gamming industry should be any different. Again, it's a free market and it doesn't matter if we like it or not.

This is hardly how it works in every industry. I take exceptional care of all my clients and business partners, and I expect them to try doing the same in return.

For example, just the other day a partner of mine forgot to include a needed part of some equipment we rent from his company. Not only did he initially offer to eat the costs of the rental for my lost time, but when I explained that his rate wouldn't actually change (since we rented at $100 a day or $275 a week and we had it for five days, so knocking a day off still keeps us at the weekly rate) he quickly offered the alternative of just letting me keep the missing part so that I can be assured that it will never happen again.

That is a business relationship that will grow and last with time. What the game publishers and Gamestop has is not.

A lot of people in this thread (yourself included) seem to be missing the point here. Its not that Gamestop and their ilk are trying to make profit by selling used games. Its that they actively subvert the sale of new merchandise in order to horde the entire profit margin to themselves. Again, that is entirely within their right, but the publishers whom they rely on for games are in no way beholden to them either. Hence why they'll move to digital distro.

Gamestop won't change. But as a result they have a business model that looks VERY BAD in the not so distant future. Publishers won't change, and while the economy has slowed sales and hurt a lot of the smaller companies their consumer base as a whole continues to grow despite increased prices over previous generations.

Do I like the idea of a publisher controlled distribution channel being my only source for games? Not at all. But it is what we'll move towards because it is easily the most cost effective (no physical merchandise means no manufacturing costs or delays, no shipping costs, reduced theft, and no reselling eating away at lifetime sales).

I don't have any problem with what Gamestop does. I'm a pretty notorious reseller myself and I agree that for a lot of people its a vital tool to play as many games as possible. But its not something publishers are going to embrace, especially when a company like Gamestop actively promotes used over new as hard as they can.

In short, the lemon farmers have already made the adaptions to their business model you suggest, now they're just warning the stand owner that unless he wants to be entirely dependent on what lemons the farmer can spare (maybe not always the freshest lemons) and concentrate (which itself will go up in price and become harder to find as lemons in general will move towards this new channel).

In the free market being the middle man absolutely sucks. Thats all Gamestop is, and currently we're seeing a prolonged bout of publishers reminding them of such.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

I think everyone agrees with what you're saying in general and everyone understands the needs of publishers/devs. I can even sympathize with them. However you're missing the point and the point is they don't have the moral right to demand a cut from used goods. No one in any industry has. Period.

This is another issue altogether. Publishers can go the route of DD if they want. It's their right to do so and a legitimate answer to counterattack the lack of revenew. Demanding cuts from legitimate businesses isn't.

As for the potential benefits of DD milking down to consumers, sure, they are there. However there's no garantee this will happen. I haven't seen anything at all that points to a reduction in price if games go totally digital. But this is besides the point and a completely different discussion.

well im not missing the point per se, im just trying to figure out where said point is coming from in the first place and why it has to be/stay that way. i understand that "demanding" something like that is a bit much, but i have yet to see any "demands" other than some select quotes from publishers that have been made. jaffe's specific stance seems to come from people ASKING him his opinion, and then douches like this guy egging him on and getting him all worked up about it to make his point sound like bullying instead of "the way he sees it"- which is what his point always seemed in the beginning. no demands.

yeah, i guess that's what i meant. there are some annoying hurdles it seems right now with getting full games onto, say, PSN/XBL/WW that would normally be sold on a disc. they all seem to be special cases at the moment (wipeout hd and it's platinum, etc.), and i don't see any full disc games coming to WW at all. but you're right, the option is there for them to at least try, and they can always think about this at the beginning of the production cycle to make things "lubricated" so to speak in anticipation of a split-release.

yeah, steam isn't really a good indicator of weather or not games will be cheaper as DD instead of on disc. they randomly fire off the most insane temporary price cuts, and they're usually on games THEY made. until we start seeing more split releases and DD going hardcore mainstream then it's a tough call. i fear being shafted eventually by publishers making up reasons that they have to leave the prices the same.

 

[iammeiam]

I think the second point about games being too expensive is maybe up for debate. There was a thread recently where somebody from EA said a game that costs 10m to make, they will spend 30m on advertisement.

There's probably quite a few games that are considered bombs and don't get a sequal because they couldn't make enough to cover the advertisement.

Do we have any concrete data on the financial impact of a Wii bomb vs an HD console bomb for third parties? For key 'big' titles advertising budgets get huge, but I'm more curious about the middle-of-the-road titles; the stuff that gets released without a ton of fanfare. Bringing the costs on those particular titles down would likely help.

The gaming industry's in a weird spot because the entire thing, at this point, is based on selling to consumers.

With the DVD industry, the vast majority of titles released either carry content that was available for free (airing on TV), or for a $10 entry fee. The home-video releases, by and large, are often straight profit. Production costs go towards the initial airing/theatrical release; home video's either a chance to try and recoup losses on a bomb, or just make more profit.

The music industry has the radio and/or music TV stations and other such things.

In both cases, the consumer-end purchases are usually by people who already know they want to own the product. When The Dark Knight came out DVD/Blu Ray,it sold mostly to people who intended to keep it long-term, because they'd seen it and knew they liked it. Additionally, it's a like $20 investment, which is pretty easy to swallow. The studio can afford the lower price-point because the home video release doesn't have to carry the film's entire budget; it's a bonus.

When Batman: Arkham Asylum came out, it sold to people who believe they will probably enjoy it and may or may not want to keep it long-term. There's no way to be sure, with most games, that they're actually worth owning for years and years. The success or failure of that game is going to rely largely on whether or not people want to keep the title after finishing it. The entire production budget needs to be recouped by selling the title to people who may or may not like it; it's a risky proposition, and people have to like something at $60 a whole lot more, to keep it, than they do at $20.

In the long term, game budgets need to shrink (or at least stop expanding for a few years) for publishers to survive; Gamestop's exploiting the current weakness in the system, and that weakness should probably be addressed. Wanting in on the exploitation doesn't address the problem at all, and pushing for an earlier DD-only shift may bite publishers in the ass if game prices don't come down alongside that move.

 

[linkboy]

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.

I have to ask, how will it result in lower prices.

Giant corporations tend to error on the side of their pocketbooks, not what's best for the consumers.

I'm sorry but I don't trust game companies to just lower their prices when they control both the prices and the only means to get them.

Let's take Activision for example. If they can get away with selling a copy of Call of Duty for $60 via DD, they're going to try to push it up to $65 and then try to push it to $70. They're going to keep adjusting the price until it reaches a point where customers say enough. If they control both the price and the means to get it, people will have no choice but to pay what Activision is asking to play a game they want.

Companies are always going to do whats best for their pocketbook, it doesn't matter if its good for the consumer or not. Do you really think Activision is going to lower the prices of their game (remember, they control both the price and the means to get the game) out of the goodness of their heart?

 

[Opiate]

I think Drek is correct that we're probably moving towards publisher-controlled distribution channels. That's hardly a good thing for consumers, but that's too bad.

 

[riskVSreward]

I don't see why used game sales should be treated any differently than used music, used movies, used books, used comics, etc... Jaffe just needs some cheese for his whine.

 

[Kimosabae]

Typically a staunch Jaffee apologist, but he was definitely being out-debated here and quite pigheaded.

Last time I checked though, the auto industry didn't have a rampant piracy problem cutting into manufacturer's profit margins.


-SynikaL

 

[Nessus]

With a DRM'ed digital copy, I'm at the mercy of the publisher, whereas before I could at least be assured of having my copy indefinitely. You can't take my NES copy of Super Mario Bros. away from unless you steal it, but if I bought a Virtual Console copy from Nintendo, the license agreement does not guarantee I will always have access to it. When the Wii 2 launches Nintendo could say "Tough luck, buy it again" and I would have no legal basis to complain.

I don't quite see the problem.

Just as Nintendo has no obligation to make the physical old NES carts work on subsequent hardware generations they have no obligation to make the digital copies of those NES games work with the Wii 2, or whatever they do next.

You have the game on the Wii, you own it. They will not take it away from you.

So what if years from now you have to set up your old Wii if you want to play it, you similarly must set up your old NES if you want to play those old physical NES carts.




With regards to the linked blog posting, I think the writer is a little naive if he thinks that digital distribution will not eventually completely replace all physical media.

I must admit the resale dimension never enters into it for me because I never sell my games or my systems.

As far as I'm concerned Steam is one of the single best things to ever happen to PC gaming. The unified architecture, the elimination of stupid useless installer discs that invariably get scratched (oh how many copies of Brood War did I go through over the years?) and bulky cardboard packaging that goes with them.

 

[Brashnir]

There is a problem where without a backlist and clearly delineated purchasing market for different genres (and with the need to separate platforms), gaming just has these undifferentiated shelves of material with everything just thrown together. I'd love to see the day where I can go into a store and go look at "Adventure games" or "Spaceship games" instead of just seeing everything lumped together in an undifferentiated, poorly alphabetized PS2 section.

This, I'm afraid, is going to continue as long as we keep the current business structure int he gaming world. It's a situation created, ultimately, by the platform holders. The games industry is still a young one, and has been driven to this point largely by technological advances. This had led to an arms race of sorts between console manufacturers where they hold all the cards for releases on their platforms.

In order for this to change, the games industry will have to adopt the CD/DVD model, where there is one hardware standard which can be produced by any manufacturer. There are two major barriers to this route. The first is technology. The games business, more than any other, has been defined by its technological advances. Generations of hardware have come and gone, each with more powerful hardware than the last. However, it seems that we're getting near the end of this being a sustainable model. Games have become so expensive to produce that the small userbases of a fractured industry are stuggling to sustain publishers. The fact that we have not yet heard any rumblings of specs on a traditional successor to the 360 or PS3 is evidence that we're nearing the end of the arms race business model.

The second barrier to the DVD model is the platform holders themselves. They've currently got a stranglehold on the publishers with regard to releases on their platforms, and they gain massive royalties from game sales. This further increases the risk taken on by third-party publishers. A switch to an open hardware model will eliminate their ability to price gouge on accessories, and will cost them the bulk of their royalties on third-party releases.

Something has got to give in this industry. The platform holders are gouging customers and publishers alike on prices, and are directly leading to this Gamestop/used game sales issue. The fractured community means that none of the respective userbases are large nor diverse enough to sustain a wide range of releases, and needing to port games to multiple hardware configurations in order to reach the widest possible audience costs developers and publishers money, which is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Selling to a smaller potential market further increases the need for high game prices.

I think that eventually, a unified gaming model is inevitable, but I'm not sure how far off the next collapse is, which will ultimately be the trigger that causes it.

 

[Asmodai]

I think Drek is correct that we're probably moving towards publisher-controlled distribution channels. That's hardly a good thing for consumers, but that's too bad.

Not so much moving towards as already there. Microsoft will own the DD space on 360, Sony will own it on PS3, Nintendo will control it on their console, and Steam will control it on PC. That's the current situation, but in the future, if it goes exclusively DD, these companies will all have monopolies in their respective markets.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I think Drek is correct that we're probably moving towards publisher-controlled distribution channels. That's hardly a good thing for consumers, but that's too bad.

It seems a bit like a "tragedy of the commons" situation and it's unfortunate. Publishers would likely have been fine with selling boxed products to retailers, but Gamestop taking advantage of the partnership has forced publishers to seek out other options.

The sort of consumer that Gamestop loved and the publishers hated, that is the guy who trades every game toward a new game and who only buys used, will be negatively effected by this certainly, but I'm not sure your average gamer that occasionally trades games will notice much difference in overall price of his game buying.

If digital download stores compete against each other then I think you could see competition keep prices low. The fear that DD stores will form a cabal and simply keep high, unchanging prices is I think a bit unfounded, however my opinion on that depends on whether we'll see the trend of stores competing against each other. From some initial reports it seems that the PSP Minis store may be geared toward competing with the iPhone and DSi stores on price and variety. If it ends up being that way then that would be a positive first step toward a competitive DD market.

 

[LiquidJin]

Wow! It goes to show that some people will defend anything to get it cheap. Nobody cares about the sacrifice that people make to create games. Do they realize that, thanks to pirating of games and the used games market, developers can really only count on money from the first month or two of sales?

The Games Industry has some of the brightest creative and technological minds in the world graciously allowing themselves to be underpaid because they are passionate about creating games. A lot of these men and women are already leaving the industry for better paying jobs with a higher QOL for themselves and their families. You had best believe that as Gamestop continues to hurt the royalty checks (because that's what used games have done this gen) more and more of them will leave.

I do think that this is an issue that the Publishers and Developers have to work out for themselves as the industry matures. However, make no mistake about it, Gamestop's current power allows them to throw any progress made into the fire and continues to put publishers and developers at odds.

REMEMBER: You get what you pay for!

 

[Asmodai]

Wow! It goes to show that some people will defend anything to get it cheap. Nobody cares about the sacrifice that people make to create games. Do they realize that, thanks to pirating of games and the used games market, developers can really only count on money from the first month or two of sales?

The Games Industry has some of the brightest creative and technological minds in the world graciously allowing themselves to be underpaid because they are passionate about creating games. A lot of these men and women are already leaving the industry for better paying jobs with a higher QOL for themselves and their families. You had best believe that as Gamestop continues to hurt the royalty checks (because that's what used games have done this gen) more and more of them will leave.

I do think that this is an issue that the Publishers and Developers have to work out for themselves as the industry matures. However, make no mistake about it, Gamestop's current power allows them to throw any progress made into the fire and continues to put publishers and developers at odds.

REMEMBER: You get what you pay for!

Who told you that capitalism was fair?

Developers can either adapt or go out of business. Their call.

Today, developers who make games that people want do extremely well.

 

[Opiate]

I'm still very weary about calling Gamestop doomed, however. It seems rational, but it reminds me a bit about the Windows situation.

A good number of people have, through the years, spelled doom for Microsoft's monopoly. It's a comparatively buggy product that will be outcompeted by Linux; by Web Platforms; by mobile devices, and most importantly by Google. It seemed impossible that Microsoft could sustain their monopoly given the relatively poor reception to core products like Vista.

And yet, Microsoft's profits are still extremely high -- last year was a record, in fact -- and by and large Windows shows no signs of slowing down. I even have Windows 7 preordered. I do see why someone would feel that the Windows platform has glaring vulnerabilities (i.e. it's perception of bugginess and poor performance would catch up to it), but reality simply hasn't born it out.

To an extent, I feel the same way about Gamestop. I absolutely see why people feel Gamestop's decline is inevitable -- but at the same time, Gamestop has been posting record profits for the last year and a half. It seems very odd to be talking about a company dying in the next 5 years when it's done nothing but grow for the last decade.

What I'm saying is: I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop found a way. I think they're in a more vulnerable position than Microsoft is certainly, but still, I'm not sure this is quite the slam dunk many would percieve. Digital Distribution has already shown significant problems -- I think a very obvious example would be that I could imagine piracy on consoles growing astronomically even as used game sales decline. Just an example.

 

[gerg]

I'm doubtful of the move to digital distribution ultimately working out worse for consumers because it seems (to me, at least) that it will be just another unavoidable step towards free. I wouldn't be surprised if things got better before they got worse, mind.

 

[Green Biker Dude]

if your games suck dick, then maybe you should worry about making it more rewarding as an incentive for people to keep it. i'm sure many people have kept their diablo 2, super mario world, final fantasy x, metal gear solid 4, etc.

developers these days are incompetent. they thought that by shoehorning online multiplayer into every game no one would sell them anymore. except, instead, the online communities are empty and the games are even worse. and now that no one wants to keep the badly designed crap that lasts 5 hours and costs 60 bucks, they try to do something retarded again instead of fixing the actual problem

*thumbs up*

 

[LiquidJin]

Who told you that capitalism was fair?

Developers can either adapt or go out of business. Their call.

Today, developers who make games that people want do extremely well.

What does that even mean?

I'm not talking about fair or unfair. I'm saying wake up and realize the big picture. If you want $30 games then you will get $30 games. The majority of game players don't want that though as you can see by the sales of the games with high development budgets.

I agree that a lot of developers do do well because we pay them well. But I'm not going to be naive and say that developers who make games that people want do extremely well. You can make a great game that people want, and if you have no control over its distribution then you can get fucked! Which is what developers are saying.

WOW + Burning Crusade for 3 years = I paid Blizzard developers roughly $568 (only $100 of which was through a retailer). I don't regret it. In fact, I want them to keep doing it; and they've put themselves in a position to do just that with Battle.Net.

That's what Jaffe is talking about. If Gamestop keeps ripping off developers then they will figure out how to cut them out almost completely the way Blizzard has. And I'm just tacking on that not everyone will be able to be Blizzard/Steam. The rest of those Pubs/Devs are going to be made up of subpar talent and offer subpar products, in comparison to previous generations, because the brightest people will move on to make better money somewhere else.

 

[Asmodai]

I'm still very weary about calling Gamestop doomed, however. It seems rational, but it reminds me a bit about the Windows situation.

A good number of people have, through the years, spelled doom for Microsoft's monopoly. It's a comparatively buggy product that will be outcompeted by Linux; by Web Platforms; by mobile devices, and most importantly by Google. It seemed impossible that Microsoft could sustain their monopoly given the relatively poor reception to core products like Vista.

And yet, Microsoft's profits are still extremely high -- last year was a record, in fact -- and by and large Windows shows no signs of slowing down. I even have Windows 7 preordered. I do see why someone would feel that the Windows platform has glaring vulnerabilities (i.e. it's perception of bugginess and poor performance would catch up to it), but reality simply hasn't born it out.

To an extent, I feel the same way about Gamestop. I absolutely see why people feel Gamestop's decline is inevitable -- but at the same time, Gamestop has been posting record profits for the last year and a half. It seems very odd to be talking about a company dying in the next 5 years when it's done nothing but grow for the last decade.

What I'm saying is: I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop found a way. I think they're in a more vulnerable position than Microsoft is certainly, but still, I'm not sure this is quite the slam dunk many would percieve. Digital Distribution has already shown significant problems -- I think a very obvious example would be that I could imagine piracy on consoles growing astronomically even as used game sales decline. Just an example.

I understand your argument, but the situation of Microsoft is so different. If you buy a PC, it will almost certainly come with Vista, or now Windows 7, whether the consumer wants it or not. I know guys who had to pay extra for their laptop to have Windows XP preloaded on it rather than Vista. It doesn't really matter how annoyed people are with the current iteration of Windows, as long as they don't get a Mac instead, they'll be paying Microsoft. Personally I'd rather have XP on the laptop I'm using right now, but I'd rather have Vista than a Mac, so here I am.

Gamestop on the other hand: ten years out, if the software in the industry is dominated by digital distribution, how would they possibly survive?

I'm not talking about the high priced, gouging monopolies of Steam or something like that. I mean a digital distribution that uses the method itself to have much lower prices than would be possible in a retail store. Rather than paying 60 dollars to Gamestop for a game, you pay 30 bucks directly to Microsoft, but the developer and the publisher make the same amount of revenue from it.

If that kind of DD becomes a reality, Gamestop seems pretty doomed to me, regardless of how well they're doing now with the used game business.

 

[Asmodai]

I'm not talking about fair or unfair. I'm saying wake up and realize the big picture. If you want $30 games then you will get $30 games. The majority of game players don't want that though as you can see by the sales of the games with high development budgets.

I want free games, and I'm sure most other people do as well. We aren't going to get them, though, so we pay the price that the industry charges.

If companies can avoid the retailers and the associated used game business, by all means, more power to them. That's exactly what I meant by adapting.

Developers are making games like COD4 with multiplayer components that seem to be holding their value much better than other singleplayer only games, as well as being traded in less. And of course games like World of Warcraft basically avoid retailers entirely.

That's great. And more developers should be figuring out solutions for that, if used games are indeed such a problem. I have no doubt that developers and publishers would be happier if used games disappeared tomorrow. But they aren't going to. And so developers are going to have to adapt.

Whining isn't going to solve anything, and Jaffe is going to figure that out eventually.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I'm still very weary about calling Gamestop doomed, however. It seems rational, but it reminds me a bit about the Windows situation.

A good number of people have, through the years, spelled doom for Microsoft's monopoly. It's a comparatively buggy product that will be outcompeted by Linux; by Web Platforms; by mobile devices, and most importantly by Google. It seemed impossible that Microsoft could sustain their monopoly given the relatively poor reception to core products like Vista.

And yet, Microsoft's profits are still extremely high -- last year was a record, in fact -- and by and large Windows shows no signs of slowing down. I even have Windows 7 preordered. I do see why someone would feel that the Windows platform has glaring vulnerabilities (i.e. it's perception of bugginess and poor performance would catch up to it), but reality simply hasn't born it out.

To an extent, I feel the same way about Gamestop. I absolutely see why people feel Gamestop's decline is inevitable -- but at the same time, Gamestop has been posting record profits for the last year and a half. It seems very odd to be talking about a company dying in the next 5 years when it's done nothing but grow for the last decade.

What I'm saying is: I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop found a way. I think they're in a more vulnerable position than Microsoft is certainly, but still, I'm not sure this is quite the slam dunk many would percieve. Digital Distribution has already shown significant problems -- I think a very obvious example would be that I could imagine piracy on consoles growing astronomically even as used game sales decline. Just an example.

Yeah I agree. I'm pretty bullish on DD as being a huge part of gaming's future but I certainly still think that it will be just one aspect of how games are published. Iwata himself has said that he doesn't think that boxed product will ever disappear completely.

Focusing just on Gamestop's troubles I think the gaming industry is interested in side stepping Gamestop in other ways in addition to using digital distribution. In Canada a common drug store, Shoppers Drug Mart, has a little Nintendo kiosk with their most popular Nintendo Wii and DS games. They usually carry Nintendo hits with broad appeal such as Wii Fit, Music, Sports, Kirby, Pokemon, Mario Kart. This promotion of gaming sales in a retail environment not normally associated with video games is I think very interesting. I think the gaming industry should continue to look into this sort of thing.

 

[charlequin]

This, I'm afraid, is going to continue as long as we keep the current business structure int he gaming world. It's a situation created, ultimately, by the platform holders.

Yup. I agree with everything you've said here, down to an economic collapse or at least major crisis in the industry probably being the trigger for what, eventually, will wind up something like a unified standard.

It seems a bit like a "tragedy of the commons" situation and it's unfortunate. Publishers would likely have been fine with selling boxed products to retailers, but Gamestop taking advantage of the partnership has forced publishers to seek out other options.

Again, I think attributing this to a disagreement between good, noble, upstanding publishers and evil Gamestop is misleading. The game industry relies on a specialty retail channel to drive sales because games don't have an entire secondary marketing channel (like theaters for movies, TV broadcast for TV shows, radio and music TV for music, etc.), but publisher policies (or, perhaps more accurately, the policies that have resulted from publisher back-and-forth with platform holders) make it impossible for a business that doesn't look like Gamestop to fill that niche.

To an extent, I feel the same way about Gamestop. I absolutely see why people feel Gamestop's decline is inevitable -- but at the same time, Gamestop has been posting record profits for the last year and a half. It seems very odd to be talking about a company dying in the next 5 years when it's done nothing but grow for the last decade.

Yup.

Thus far, I'm not convinced that digital distribution of games can really take off as a truly mainstream thing without changes that meaningfully alter the experience -- and the cost commitment -- occurring. At the moment, broadband penetration is too low, cellular broadband too expensive and niche, the broad market too used to purchasing games in concrete and reusable physical units... Much like video has been more resistant to DD than music (because the DD model doesn't fit how people are currently used to buying movies/TV shows and using those videos once they've bought them) I expect the physical-media market for games that look like the games sold in physical units now to be surprisingly resilient for some time.

I'm doubtful of the move to digital distribution ultimately working out worse for consumers because it seems (to me, at least) that it will be just another unavoidable step towards free.

Historically I've been hugely cynical about this, but the direction of the online music marketplace has definitely been influencing my thinking. There is literally no reason for me not to buy my music digitally now because I can get basically anything I want in DRM-free, infinitely backup-able form for a fair market price.

Of course, the reason this has happened is because of competition -- when Amazon swoops in and sells in MP3 format, Apple is forced to respond, and so on. My concern with gaming specifically is in the degree to which closed standards will allow cartel-esque local monopolies to get away without competition.

 

[Azelover]

I'm wary of digital distribution in its current form. What worries me is not being able to sell my games, since I haven't sold a game in many years. What I worry about is the fact that I may have the game that I payed for taken from me by either a company going under or by some other forced means.

With a DRM'ed digital copy, I'm at the mercy of the publisher, whereas before I could at least be assured of having my copy indefinitely. You can't take my NES copy of Super Mario Bros. away from unless you steal it, but if I bought a Virtual Console copy from Nintendo, the license agreement does not guarantee I will always have access to it. When the Wii 2 launches Nintendo could say "Tough luck, buy it again" and I would have no legal basis to complain.

This is a horrible step backwards and not something that benefits the consumer in any way. I really hope digital distribution does not take over in this form.

Yep. Exactly why there is such a strong movement from the top to implement a digital only paradigm as fast as possible.

Right now costs are quite low because it's still being implemented, and it has to compete with a lot of collected physical media, that's still somewhat prevalent. When it becomes the norm though, it will be highly priced media that you don't own. Basically.

The dream format is that of cable TV, with astronomical rates for everything. For other types of DD it won't be that different.

It's absolutely innevitable, because the people orchestrating it know to a science that populations are like sheep and will absolutely go along with everything eventually.

 

[Snipes424]

It may be a little off topic, but did Jaffe shut down his blog?

 

[charlequin]

It may be a little off topic, but did Jaffe shut down his blog?

Apparently this thread shamed Jaffe into shutting down his blog, deleting his twitter, and otherwise disappearing from conversation on the Internet altogether.

 

[Gorgon]

A lot of people in this thread (yourself included) seem to be missing the point here. Its not that Gamestop and their ilk are trying to make profit by selling used games. Its that they actively subvert the sale of new merchandise in order to horde the entire profit margin to themselves. Again, that is entirely within their right, but the publishers whom they rely on for games are in no way beholden to them either. Hence why they'll move to digital distro.

Gamestop won't change. But as a result they have a business model that looks VERY BAD in the not so distant future. Publishers won't change, and while the economy has slowed sales and hurt a lot of the smaller companies their consumer base as a whole continues to grow despite increased prices over previous generations.

Do I like the idea of a publisher controlled distribution channel being my only source for games? Not at all. But it is what we'll move towards because it is easily the most cost effective (no physical merchandise means no manufacturing costs or delays, no shipping costs, reduced theft, and no reselling eating away at lifetime sales).

I don't have any problem with what Gamestop does. I'm a pretty notorious reseller myself and I agree that for a lot of people its a vital tool to play as many games as possible. But its not something publishers are going to embrace, especially when a company like Gamestop actively promotes used over new as hard as they can.

In short, the lemon farmers have already made the adaptions to their business model you suggest, now they're just warning the stand owner that unless he wants to be entirely dependent on what lemons the farmer can spare (maybe not always the freshest lemons) and concentrate (which itself will go up in price and become harder to find as lemons in general will move towards this new channel).

In the free market being the middle man absolutely sucks. Thats all Gamestop is, and currently we're seeing a prolonged bout of publishers reminding them of such.

First, thanks for such a good comment, Drek.

I understand what you are saying. However looking at past comments from Jaffe and other devs I'm not convinced in the least that the only problem for them is the active promotion of used over new on the part of GS. Some of the stances taken were clearly, at least IMO, against the sale for substantial profits of used goods per si that the publisher has no control of. Reading the original post in this thread I don't see Jaffe comenting a single time or implying that the problem is that GS actively promotes the sales of used over new. All he seems to imply is that GS should cut them in for no reason whatsover except that they make a huge profit from it, or else "they will suffer in the future if they don't do so". If there is a clear statement that the promotion of used over new is the only real problem then please point me to it. So far the arguments ranged from "we need to feed our children" to "we worked so hard and it's not fair to us".

I'm convinced that even if GS didn't actively promote the sales of used over new to customers the devs, including Jaffe, would still be complaining that they should be getting a cut in from the retailers. In the end, the real problem here is that publishers want a piece of the pie that consists on the substantial revenew that GS is getting from the sale of used games. The "active promotion of used over new" seems to me like just another excuse publishers/devs are coming up with to justify wnating a piece of that pie.

EDIT: Just like you I would largely prefer that the relashionship between pubs and retailers was one of thrust and mutual beneffiting. However that is something that has to be worked out between them, and pubs trying to come up with arguments that amount to trying to convince everyone that they are moraly entitled to a cut from the used market profits are as moraly questionable in themselves as what GS is doing with the active promotion of used over new. There are no good good and bad guys here, just companies wanting more profit to stay alive. There's fingers to be pointed at both sides.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Good night to eveyone.

 

[Mash]

It may be a little off topic, but did Jaffe shut down his blog?

He said he was going to do something along those lines so probably. It's a shame but he was right, the majority of people will read or interpret things you say in order to suit themselves so it's probably best to just not bother talking candidly outside of interviews.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Historically I've been hugely cynical about this, but the direction of the online music marketplace has definitely been influencing my thinking. There is literally no reason for me not to buy my music digitally now because I can get basically anything I want in DRM-free, infinitely backup-able form for a fair market price.

Of course, the reason this has happened is because of competition -- when Amazon swoops in and sells in MP3 format, Apple is forced to respond, and so on. My concern with gaming specifically is in the degree to which closed standards will allow cartel-esque local monopolies to get away without competition.

This is an important note. Every game console has their own little store, and so far they've all been pretty sleepy. These consoles however, are in competition with each other, and so if we start to see digital distribution stores become a battleground in this competition then we're going to see very dynamic prices and it'll be a great situation for consumers.

Right now we aren't seeing it, but digital distribution is quite new and developing. Apple's store seems to have already shaken things up slightly. It remains to be seen, but the PSP minis store could be an early indicator of competition between DD stores. If the PSP minis store takes off and puts pressure on the DSi store and Nintendo actually reacts to that then that will be a fantastic thing for consumers.

 

[Mario]

mario: what do you think about this supposed "subscription" based future many talk about?

I'm not certain that the market is necessarily heading this way. Certainly there will be many different models that are explored around PDLC, ingame advertising, episodic content, standard and premium subscriptions, item sales etc. It is difficult to say what will stand the test of time.

I have to ask, how will it result in lower prices.

The market will force lower prices. In a completely (or mostly) digitally distributed world, all content is more or less equally accessible. The amount of content available to consumers will be orders of magnitude above what they would otherwise have access to via retail and that means hugely increased competition.

An example of this is iPhone, where the large amount of content is putting huge pressure on prices (and raising quality) in order for games to be successful.

This of course introduces different kinds of challenges for developers and publishers than the current challenges of the traditional retail model, but for consumers at least I don't think pricing is going to be a problem.

 

[RedNumberFive]

I don't quite see the problem.

Just as Nintendo has no obligation to make the physical old NES carts work on subsequent hardware generations they have no obligation to make the digital copies of those NES games work with the Wii 2, or whatever they do next.

You have the game on the Wii, you own it. They will not take it away from you.

So what if years from now you have to set up your old Wii if you want to play it, you similarly must set up your old NES if you want to play those old physical NES carts.

You're missing the point. If I wanted to play an old NES copy of Mario, I'd pull out my dust covered console, plug it in, and play. If it didn't work, I could just find another used console, and my game cartridges would still work.

With DD, those games are tied to the console that I bought them on, and if that console craps out, I'll likely be out of luck. I've already had my Wii die on me once, and when I set up the repair, one of the first things Nintendo said is that they might be unable to retrieve my purchases if they send me a different console. I also had problems with the 360, prior to the reauthentication tool, in which my content was locked away as well.

Anyhow, to trust these companies to do the right thing, let alone still be around 10-20 years from now, is a foolish notion. All of these publishers have only one interest, your pocketbook, and that should be your first interest as well.

 

[gerg]

Historically I've been hugely cynical about this, but the direction of the online music marketplace has definitely been influencing my thinking. There is literally no reason for me not to buy my music digitally now because I can get basically anything I want in DRM-free, infinitely backup-able form for a fair market price.

Of course, the reason this has happened is because of competition -- when Amazon swoops in and sells in MP3 format, Apple is forced to respond, and so on. My concern with gaming specifically is in the degree to which closed standards will allow cartel-esque local monopolies to get away without competition.

The competition will never be with other companies, but with illegal routes of acquisition. I presume that the age of predominant digital downloads will occur when the general populace will have internet rates fast enough to make the system feasible, and will be used to the tradition of downloading a product online that it becomes widespread. And I have no problem believing that when people are confident enough acquiring media legally, they'll find it easy enough to do so illegally. And here the content will always be free. Even if you have to go to EA for Madden and Activision for CoD, you can still find both of them on Pirate Bay.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Why does it affect them differently?

Some people buy music. Some people buy DVDs. Some people buy games. The potential for used markets in all of these industries exists to the same degree as it does for games.

Do people find more value in keeping books, movies, and music they own than they do in video games? I'm not sure. But I think that those industries have a business model that allows them to make money without requiring the second, third, and fourth sales of their products. Maybe music doesn't work that way, but that has nothing to do with the sale of used albums.

I'd argue that the game industry is affected in the same way by the secondary market as any industry is. Those industries either try to open venues where the secondary market cannot interfere (movie theaters, digital distribution), or they structure their business models such that customers find enough value over time in their purchases to keep their products, and such that if the secondary market gets a large portion of sales, the producers still come out on top.

The former is an avenue that many game developers have pursued, but some of the most successful have found a lot of success with the latter strategy. Nintendo and Activision have already been used as examples, but even a niche publisher like Atlus provides a lot of incentives for consumers to buy new without creating hurdles or digital restrictions, or even changing the sorts of games they make.

It's rational to want things you like. But when outside circumstances make it harder for the things you like to exist (things such as market forces that are rather difficult to oppose), demanding exceptions isn't going to solve the problem. The rules exist as they are for a reason. You can recognize these realities and still find ways for the products you enjoy to thrive. There will just have to be some compromises.

Show me the Gamestop of used CD sales, of used book sales, or anything else. Yes, I know companies exist that sell those things in brick and mortar stores. But none have anywhere near the marketshare Gamestop does. It's willful ignorance to claim that the percentage of books or CDs bought used are in any way close to the percentage of games bought used.

This is as disingenuous as comparing Napster to copying cassettes for your friends. The principle is the same, sure, but different circumstances have turned the practice from a gnat annoying the industry to something that significantly impacts the health of the industry.

I'd argue that the game industry is affected in the same way by the secondary market as any industry is. Those industries either try to open venues where the secondary market cannot interfere (movie theaters, digital distribution), or they structure their business models such that customers find enough value over time in their purchases to keep their products, and such that if the secondary market gets a large portion of sales, the producers still come out on top.

The problem is that the consumers who have heretofore benefited from this legal form of piracy bitch and moan about most of those techniques used to make sure that the developers get their due. DLC codes, moving primarily to digital distribution, etc. are being decried in this very thread.

 

[RedNumberFive]

After reading through most of this thread, I thought I should post this as a public service:

Main Entry: hyperbole
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: exaggeration

Synonyms:

PR, amplification, big talk, coloring, distortion, embellishment, embroidering, enlargement, hype*, laying it on thick, magnification, metaphor, mountain out of molehill, overstatement, tall talk

Antonyms:

understatement

I know that some of you guys are IN LOVE with this word, and will use it at any and every opportunity, but there are other options out there.