Support NeoGAF

[Billen]

umm, Steam bends you over harder than retailers

I don't buy games via Steam since they became more expensive than stores here in Sweden and most other online stores.

 

[Mario]

Well, we could also look at XBLA, PSN, and WW/VC, none of which have been shining examples of prices being reduced over time and/or low, reasonable pricing.

Yes, but 360, PS3, and Wii all have the majority of their content and unit sales provided via retail.

I have stated quite clearly that I only expect average prices to come down when DD significantly overshadows retail for any given platform.

 

[Brofist]

Don't want to derail the thread, but could you explain this? I've asked this a lot, and honestly I've yet to get a decent answer about what makes Xbox Live worth so much money. I use my PS3 primarily for my online gaming and while I'm aware that Live does offer more features then the PSN I haven't heard anything to make me think it's worth the $50 a year, and certainly not double that.

There was a whole topic on that not long ago. I think one person in the whole topic gave some good reasons why he felt XBL is a better service, the rest said stuff to the effect of "it just feels right" and "I'm more connected".

 

[Metal Gear?!]

Yes, but 360, PS3, and Wii all have the majority of their content and unit sales provided via retail.

I have stated quite clearly that I only expect average prices to come down when DD significantly overshadows retail for any given platform.

Ahahahahahaha

Yes once they are selling so much more that they overshadow retail, then they'll lower their prices. Of course! Why didn't we all see it? That's the way economics works!

 

[Slavik81]

In such a marktetplace, it is also impossible to collude given the large number of players, any of whom could undermine any attempted collusion at any time even if it were possible to organise something on such a large scale and remain undetected by the authorities. Your suggestion that they will do this because they may have done in the past (which isn't substantiated by yourself BTW) is without merit on this basis alone.

There may be a lot of developers, but in digital distribution there is only one retailer per console platform. Further, given the high cost to consumers of switching to a new platform, the platform-holder has some leeway to organize game releases to suit it's interests over those of individual developers. As it earns percentages on total sales, its interest is maximising the collective profit, rather than allowing individual developers to undermine each other in pricing wars. Essentially, it does the colluding for them.

Thus, you end up with an oligopoly of walled gardens, each acting like mini-monopolies. It would be nice if competition between platform holders were enough to negate these effects, but I don't think it'll be enough. There's only so many factors the consumer can reasonably consider when they make their purchase. The platform holders are more likely to compete for their attention in other ways, like with exclusive titles, shinier graphics, or integrated online services. Those are easier to show to potential consumers.

 

[MWS Natural]

There was a whole topic on that not long ago. I think one person in the whole topic gave some good reasons why he felt XBL is a better service, the rest said stuff to the effect of "it just feels right" and "I'm more connected".

There were several posts in the thread listing reasons but they someone would just reply, "oh I don't care about those features so it's not worth it to me" which made it pretty pointless to discuss.

 

[permutated]

That interview was so incredibly stupid. Did that even really happen?

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Yeah, selling used games is one of the rights of customers and retailers.

That said, seeing someone walk up to the cashier at GameStop to buy Fallout 3, being told they can get it used for $54.99, and then the customer actually buying the used game instead of new is kind... yucky.

That little bit more would have actually supported the people that made the game, and not just GameStop.

On the other hand, I can understand how to the customer buying used like that is basically the same as "get $5 off".

You know what?

Bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

A consumer buying a used game isn't the problem. If he hadn't, if he had said, "you know what, $5 ain't no thang, I'll throw down for the vacuum sealed version" then that used copy would still be there. Still be waiting for someone to come buy and save $5 buying it.

The problem isn't that used copies exist, or even that Gamestop pushes used on people to such a degree. It's that videogames are traded in in such large quantities that there apparantly is a never ending availability of used copies. Addressing that is how you stop this shit.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

That interview was so incredibly stupid. Did that even really happen?

I wouldn't call it an interview as much as an internet cat fight.

 

[Mario]

That's the way economics works!

Yes. If you read earlier in the thread and an economics textbook, you'll find that is indeed the way economics works.

There may be a lot of developers, but in digital distribution there is only one retailer per console platform. Further, given the high cost to consumers of switching to a new platform, the platform-holder has some leeway to organize game releases to suit it's interests over those of individual developers. As it earns percentages on total sales, its interest is maximising the collective profit, rather than allowing individual developers to undermine each other in pricing wars. Essentially, it does the colluding for them.

Thus, you end up with an oligopoly of walled gardens, each acting like mini-monopolies. It would be nice if competition between platform holders were enough to negate these effects, but I don't think it'll be enough. There's only so many factors the consumer can reasonably consider when they make their purchase. The platform holders are more likely to compete for their attention in other ways, like with exclusive titles, shinier graphics, or integrated online services. Those are easier to show to potential consumers.

Consoles already exhibit these characteristics. These traits and behaviours would not prevent prices coming down overall.

As far as pricing mechanisms go for existing DD on various platforms, XBLA, PSN, WiiWare, and iPhone all have different rules from their respective platform manufacturers. However, nothing really prohibits an individual publisher or developer from pricing aggressively or at the very least pricing at a lower level than current retail once free from the additional restrictions of retailers.

 

[Grant DaNasty]

So, David Jaffe's Twitter is now closed and his blogspot site is now invite only.

What happened?

Last Twitter I got from him was a link to a youtube video on the used game thing.

 

[DCharlie]

once free from the additional restrictions of retailers.

again, given the underlying "we aren't making enough money" messages from pubs then i still get the sneaking suspicion that prices will stay pretty much as they are at retail and the extra profit will go back to pubs.

Given we have calls for profits on second hand games then i really can't see us getting huge savings on DD games - definitely none on NEW or AAA games, perhaps on older games.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

So, David Jaffe's Twitter is now closed and his blogspot site is now invite only.

What happened?

Last Twitter I got from him was a link to a youtube video on the used game thing.

He said he's taking a six month break from the social side of the internet.

 

[Lain]

So, David Jaffe's Twitter is now closed and his blogspot site is now invite only.

What happened?

Last Twitter I got from him was a link to a youtube video on the used game thing.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17351621&postcount=644

He said he's taking a six month break from the social side of the internet.

Don't forget the free game challenge!

 

[freddy]

Take 12 months or 10 years off. It'll be better for all concerned.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

As far as pricing mechanisms go for existing DD on various platforms, XBLA, PSN, WiiWare, and iPhone all have different rules from their respective platform manufacturers. However, nothing really prohibits an individual publisher or developer from pricing aggressively or at the very least pricing at a lower level than current retail once free from the additional restrictions of retailers.

You are looking at it from the wrong end. Sure, publishers have the option of being semi-competitive with pricing structures, but removing retail removes an entire layer of competition in favor if a single provider. We've already heard stories of Microsoft protecting it's pricing structures by preventing over-aggressive pricing. If that was the only avenue for content? Holy shit do you really think large publishers would let MS or Sony or whoever have anything close to an open market?

Ultimately big box stores are pro-consumer. Usually at the detriment of just about everything else, but it's hard to argue from this side of the aisle.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Take 12 months or 10 years off. It'll be better for all concerned.

Man, that's kinda mean.

 

[Mario]

You are looking at it from the wrong end. Sure, publishers have the option of being semi-competitive with pricing structures, but removing retail removes an entire layer of competition in favor if a single provider. We've already heard stories of Microsoft protecting it's pricing structures by preventing over-aggressive pricing. If that was the only avenue for content?

Each console already has a single provider. Any 360 title has to go through Microsoft already.

 

[wideawakewesley]

I'd like to see devs/pubs introduce a system like Nintendo Stars, which could be used to purchase DLC, future game discounts or game related merchandise. That way, retail sales of new product are encouraged, but used game owners will get the same game experience.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

For all of you individuals who are eagerly anticipating a DD only future, Microsoft is giving you a sample of it now with Games on Demand. Nice feature, but the prices are definitely higher than retail used and new. Obviously, it is more convenient then going out to purchase the games, but do you guys really think DD only games will be priced reasonably? They might go on sale occasionally, but I see the MSRP staying at a higher point for much longer with DD. Not to mention the fact that you will probably not be able to resell the games, lose them if something happens to your system or if the companies decide to cut off access to the games for whatever reason which was already mentioned.

 

[linsivvi]

If video games retailed for $30 for a new copy, places like Gamestop's margin for used game would be significantly lower, and they would have much less incentive to push for used game sales. People would also buy more new games, and less likely to re-sell them.

Is $30 possible? Probably not with today's production cost. At least not for the HD, big-budget titles. Is this the customers' or the retailers' problem? Not at all. It's the console manufacturers and the developers who pushed for the cutting edge, throwing away the old platforms and pushing a new generation of consoles onto us every few years. Nintendo is pretty much the only one doing the sensible thing, and what does the industry do? Largely ignore them and opt for the expensive options.

If used game sales are hurting them, they totally brought this upon themselves.

 

[Dambrosi]

.

Just one question.

Is that a new tag, or have you had it for a while? Just curious.

For all of you individuals who are eagerly anticipating a DD only future, Microsoft is giving you a sample of it now with Games on Demand. Nice feature, but the prices are definitely higher than retail used and new. Obviously, it is more convenient then going out to purchase the games, but do you guys really think DD only games will be priced reasonably? They might go on sale occasionally, but I see the MSRP staying at a higher point for much longer with DD. Not to mention the fact that you will probably not be able to resell the games, lose them if something happens to your system or if the companies decide to cut off access to the games for whatever reason which was already mentioned

If video games retailed for $30 for a new copy, places like Gamestop's margin for used game would be significantly lower, and they would have much less incentive to push for used game sales. People would also buy more new games, and less likely to re-sell them.

Is $30 possible? Probably not with today's production cost. At least not for the HD, big-budget titles. Is this the customers' or the retailers' problem? Not at all. It's the console manufacturers and the developers who pushed for the cutting edge, throwing away the old platforms and pushing a new generation of consoles onto us every few years. Nintendo is pretty much the only one doing the sensible thing, and what does the industry do? Largely ignore them and opt for the expensive options.

If used game sales are hurting them, they totally brought this upon themselves.

Hear hear. Quoted For Truth. Bravo, these men. THIS POST, etc.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Just one question.

Is that a new tag, or have you had it for a while? Just curious.

@Linsivvi: Hear hear. Bravo, that man.

He's had it for a while, but if I remember right, he got it by talking about used game sales.

 

[Dambrosi]

Honestly, you'd think he'd have learned.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Honestly, you'd think he'd have learned.

Actually, I appreciate that he discusses the matter. We don't have a lot of people from the development side willing to discuss things around here without falling into the FUCK U I SLEPT WITH UR MOM bit.

 

[Mario]

He's had it for a while, but if I remember right, he got it by talking about used game sales.

I think it was something to do with PDLC actually. I was asking people about their concerns about the "unlockable content already on the disk" issue. My own position as a consumer being I don't care about whether content is already on the disk or downloadable at release as lng as what I originally paid for was what was advertised in it's entirety.

Then again, it could have been used game sales too. I believe used game sales are hurting the publisher/developer side of the industry, though have always maintained I have no problem with the consumers' moral or legal right to resell games or buy them used.

Either way, obviously a mod took exception to something.

Honestly, you'd think he'd have learned.

Considering I haven't said anything "anti consumer" in this thread, I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

[Yagharek]

I think it was something to do with PDLC actually. I was asking people about their concerns about the "unlockable content already on the disk" issue. My own position as a consumer being I don't care about whether content is already on the disk or downloadable at release as lng as what I originally paid for was what was advertised in it's entirety.

You have to admit that a number of DLC releases have been nothing short of cynical cash ins with nothing that couldnt have been included on the disc.

Three indefenisble cases include:

RE5 Versus Mode DLC
Namco's entire DLC collection (especially Beautiful Katamari and Ace Combat 6)
EA unlock codes for game difficulties

I could list a further dozen or so examples from Activision, Bethesda and Capcom, among others.

 

[Dambrosi]

Actually, I appreciate that he discusses the matter. We don't have a lot of people from the development side willing to discuss things around here without falling into the FUCK U I SLEPT WITH UR MOM bit.

Oh David, never change. :lol

Considering I haven't said anything "anti consumer" in this thread, I'm not sure what you are referring to.

A DD-only future in itself is anti-consumer, for many reasons already stated by myself and others in this thread. And you're arguing for it.

Therefore, your argument is anti-consumer, IMO.

I could list a further dozen or so examples from Activision, Bethesda and Capcom, among others.

Alternate costumes in Street Fighter IV. That really ground my gears.

 

[3rdman]

So, David Jaffe's Twitter is now closed and his blogspot site is now invite only.

What happened?

Last Twitter I got from him was a link to a youtube video on the used game thing.

He's doesn't want to play anymore so he's taking his internet home.

 

[Mario]

You have to admit that a number of DLC releases have been nothing short of cynical cash ins with nothing that couldnt have been included on the disc.

Lets not indulge Dambrosi's attempt to undermine my comments and derail the thread.

A DD-only future in itself is anti-consumer, for many reasons already stated by myself and others in this thread. And you're arguing for it.

Therefore, your argument is anti-consumer, IMO.

You haven't provided any solid reasons or evidence for anything other than borderline conspiracy theories and fear mongering.

As for my comments about DD, I have only suggested in a DD dominant marketplace that average prices will come down which is hardly anti consumer. You are the one putting words in my mouth and arguing against things I haven't even said.

Seriously, either respond to what I am saying rather than what you dream up I am saying, or give it up.

 

[gerg]

A DD-only future in itself is anti-consumer, for many reasons already stated by myself and others in this thread. And you're arguing for it.

Therefore, your argument is anti-consumer, IMO.

Actually, not necessarily.

As I and others have argued in this thread, it is entirely possible that a DD future is yet another pro-consumer step. (Although, as I have also conceded, it is very likely that the situation will get worse before it gets better.)

 

[DDayton]

The problem isn't that used copies exist, or even that Gamestop pushes used on people to such a degree. It's that videogames are traded in in such large quantities that there apparantly is a never ending availability of used copies.

As many other people have already said, if games were cheaper OR higher in quality, I don't think this "problem" would exist. Expensive games ($30-$60 -- DVDs are disposable income products at $20) coupled with limited quality (real or perceived) results in consumers being friendly towards buying/trading/reselling used games.

What I don't get is the faux anger at Gamestop -- if Gamestop is really perceived to be such a threat, the logical response would be to stop treating them as a retail partner and let them become more like the Funcoland stores that so many of them used to be: game stores selling only used games. If a company really felt that Gamestop was that threatening, simply shift all your marketing and sales focus over to Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and the other "big box" sorts of stores. I doubt you'll have folks going to Gamestop to purchase new games (and being "pushed" a used copy) if Gamestop didn't carry any new games.

Publishers seem to want to have their cake (selling new games to consumers) and eat it too (blocking consumers from reselling or repurchasing previously purchased games).

You can't blame the consumers and/or the stores for the failed business model of the publishers/developers/"manufacturers".

 

[Yagharek]

A DD-only future in itself is anti-consumer, for many reasons already stated by myself and others in this thread. And you're arguing for it.

Therefore, your argument is anti-consumer, IMO.

Exactly this.

Publisher controlled distribution channel is the ultimate form of monopoly. All it will take then is one publisher to get big enough (picture a merged EActivision) and customers can bend over and take it dry if they want to play games.

The first console holder that goes DD only is the first one I abandon for good. The current landscape for DRM is so prohibitively anti-consumer that I cant see it changing anytime soon; so unless a fair-use utopia emerges in the near future, DD-only can get the fuck out of my hobby.

Thankfully there are a few major publishers (and one platform holder) on record as saying that DD-only is a looooong way off.

Lets not indulge Dambrosi's attempt to undermine my comments and derail the thread.

He is arguing the perspective of a customer. You should be listening to him.

 

[Opiate]

Well, we could also look at XBLA, PSN, and WW/VC, none of which have been shining examples of prices being reduced over time and/or low, reasonable pricing.

This gets back to my earlier point. People see things getting better, and I think they could, but the automatic assumption that they will improve seems a little unreasonable to me.

Digital distribution could help customers get better prices and could kill the evil Gamestop goliath at the same time. I get it, I understand why this could occur. But we already have significant DD, and so far, Gamestop has done nothing but get stronger. And so far, DD hasn't offered better deals -- whether you're talking about PC, XBLA, PSN, or WW/VC. Moreover, while the continuing network integration of these devices may cut down on used sales, it has also tended to increase the speed at which piracy travels. I can certainly imagine a future where used game sales drop on consoles in proportion to rising piracy rates.

I'm not saying that any of this is irreversable by any means, I'm just pointing out that we're already entering the age of DD, and so far, none of the Utopian expectations have come to pass. In fact, I believe the opposite has occured: games are priced higher now than they were last generation, and Gamestop is stronger than ever.

While the arguments for DD are completely rational (and for full disclosure, I buy most of my games through Steam), it's hard not to take an "I'll believe it when I see it" approach when so far we're not seeing any of the benefits that have been suggested.

 

[Mario]

You can't blame the consumers and/or the stores for the failed business model of the publishers/developers/"manufacturers".

I think that is the problem with a lot of industry commentary around the matter. Used games are called out as the issue and it is suggested that is where the solution must lie.

While I personally believe used game sales are an issue for publishers/developers (and one day I'll sit down and do the math beginning to end), I don't believe the solution lies in changing any rights, regulations or practises around tradeins and used game sales. I personally believe the entire traditional retail business model is flawed (for a much wider set of reasons than used games), and publishers/developers need to look to a new business model to monetise their content.

Complaining about used game sales and suggesting the solution is to get a piece of the pie is the wrong way to approach it IMO.

He is arguing the perspective of a customer. You should be listening to him.

I spend a large portion of my day every day listening to consumers. His particular comment calling out my tag was not an "argument from the perspective of a customer" at all.

 

[gerg]

I'm not saying that any of this is irreversable by any means, I'm just pointing out that we're already entering the age of DD, and so far, none of the Utopian expectations have come to pass. In fact, I believe the opposite has occured: games are priced higher now than they were last generation, and Gamestop is stronger than ever.

While the arguments for DD are completely rational (and for full disclosure, I buy most of my games through Steam), it's hard not to take an "I'll believe it when I see it" approach when so far we're not seeing any of the benefits that have been suggested.

I, at least, look to other markets (namely, the music market) where digital downloads have brought costs down so that one can buy a single track to less than a dollar or a pound, and even to the fabled "free" in regards to streaming services like Spotify. It remains to be seen whether any companies will take the final plunge and release all their content so that it can be downloaded for free, however.

 

[Yagharek]

A spend a large portion of my day every day listening to consumers. His particular comment calling out my tag was not an "argument from the perspective of a customer" at all.

That may be the case but the substance of your points is not entirely consistent with a position of, shall we say, empathy with consumers.

Empathy is a bad word I guess but its gets at what Im trying to say here - you are in a debate here against people who are complaining about the cynical, overpriced, manipulative releases of DLC.

Now, I am one person who does not buy this kind of DLC. I learnt my lesson about 4 years ago in that respect. But I am still affected by DLC being held back because of the people who do fall for it and buy it. It means that the games I buy at retail are overpriced and missing features that 5 years ago would have been included by default.

The fundamental issue here is that DLC/DD/whatever you want to call it, is overwhelmingly balanced in favour of the publishers and this is in essence a practice that is getting worse for the customers.

 

[rainking187]

I, at least, look to other markets (namely, the music market) where digital downloads have brought costs down so that one can buy a single track to less than a dollar or a pound, and even to the fabled "free" in regards to streaming services like Spotify. It remains to be seen whether any companies will take the final plunge and release all their content so that it can be downloaded for free, however.

Kind of a different situation. Most games aren't set up so that you could enjoy a single part without the rest of the game.

 

[gerg]

Kind of a different situation. Most games aren't set up so that you could enjoy a single part without the rest of the game.

Then perhaps they might be?

There's lots of ways that publishers can inject some freeconomics into their business models. It remains to be seen whether or not they will.

 

[Mario]

Empathy is a bad word I guess but its gets at what Im trying to say here - you are in a debate here against people who are complaining about the cynical, overpriced, manipulative releases of DLC.

We aren't talking about DLC, we are talking about used game sales.

Or, at least we were until Dambrosi called out my tag which wasn't an argument against anything.

 

[Yagharek]

The two issues are linked since the industry sees DD as an alternative/"cure" to used sales which a number of people seem to resent and equate with piracy.

I guess one important defense for used sales (apart from the fact it is a right) is that it helps people acquire games they missed out on first time around because they went out of print. Case in point: Gripshift for one.

In fact, I have probably about two dozen used games in my collection that were acquired via various second hand stores/sites like ebay that are out of print and ridiculously hard to find.

 

[rainking187]

Then perhaps they might be?

There's lots of ways that publishers can inject some freeconomics into their business models. It remains to be seen whether or not they will.

Really rather not. Don't want them to start changing the way games are made just to figure out another way to nickle and dime us. Would be the death of the industry if they did that.

 

[Dambrosi]

I think that is the problem with a lot of industry commentary around the matter. Used games are called out as the issue and it is suggested that is where the solution must lie.

While I personally believe used game sales are an issue for publishers/developers (and one day I'll sit down and do the math beginning to end), I don't believe the solution lies in changing any rights, regulations or practices around tradeins and used game sales. I personally believe the entire traditional retail business model is flawed (for a much wider set of reasons than used games), and publishers/developers need to look to a new business model to monetize their content.

Complaining about used game sales and suggesting the solution is to get a piece of the pie is the wrong way to approach it IMO.

Well, at least here we can agree. Going back to what Son Of Godzilla said about the market swimming in tons of used games, I personally believe that the types of games that are being made is also a major factor in this - big-budget, flashy, yet "disposable" games that don't hold the consumer's interest or affection for any longer than it takes them to finish them once. These are the games you're most likely to see on the second-hand racks (at least here in Blighty, though I assume it would be a similar situation in the US), not the ones that really stand the test of Replay Value, the Tetrises and Wii Sports of this world.

If developers could only reign themselves in and not automatically press the "make my game shiny for $10,000,000" button; if publishers were more careful which projects they green-lighted, and less frivolous with their advertising budgets; if console manufacturers swallowed their pride and toned down their next-gen machines from "needlessly spectacular" to "good enough" - then, sir, you might begin to see the situation improve for all concerned.

I spend a large portion of my day every day listening to consumers. His particular comment calling out my tag was not an "argument from the perspective of a customer" at all.

Wow. Sorry I put your nose out of joint there, chief.

 

[Doytch]

There's really no way in hell I'm wading through twenty pages to find this, but a lot of people are under the impression that downloadable must equal no resale (from the past couple pages). For a counter-example, see Stardock's not-DRM, Goo. One of the things it offers are resales, which works as follows:

The super distilled basics:

* Seller: So, you bought a PC game and now want to sell it. You go to the Impulse Marketplace and -- if you accept the "used" price -- your license will transfer back to the publisher and the game can't be played anymore. The game is "sold."
* Buyer: You want a game, but don't want to pay full price. You go to Impulse Marketplace and will be able to purchase this "used" license from the publisher through the service and download the game from the digital distribution service at a reduced price. That's it. Now you own the license and can sell it back whenever.
* Publisher: Here's why publishers will probably like this system: The companies receive almost all the money -- minus Stardock's transaction fee -- from the resold license. Essentially, the publishers get to sell the same license several times and have entered the profitable "used" games market.

Essentially, it puts the onus on the developer/publisher to release a game that more people want to buy than want to trade in, so you get the buyers getting it for "retail" price.

 

[gerg]

Really rather not. Don't want them to start changing the way games are made just to figure out another way to nickle and dime us. Would be the death of the industry if they did that.

Not necessarily.

Again, the frame of reference is an industry where it is now easier for consumers to purchase exactly what they want for less than what they used to pay, and where there are now services where one can listen to any music you want for hours on end, and only listen to a few adverts now and then to subsidise the costs. Boy, have they "nickle and dimed" us!

 

[rainking187]

Not necessarily.

Again, the frame of reference is an industry where it is now easier for consumers to purchase exactly what they want for less than what they used to pay, and where there are now services where one can listen to any music you want for hours on end, and only listen to a few adverts now and then to subsidise the costs. Boy, have they "nickle and dimed" us!

Well I was talking more about the game industry where they are already nickle and dime us as much as possible. There's no free streaming games on consoles.

 

[Dambrosi]

There's really no way in hell I'm wading through twenty pages to find this, but a lot of people are under the impression that downloadable must equal no resale (from the past couple pages). For a counter-example, see Stardock's not-DRM, Goo. One of the things it offers are resales, which works as follows:

The super distilled basics:

* Seller: So, you bought a PC game and now want to sell it. You go to the Impulse Marketplace and -- if you accept the "used" price -- your license will transfer back to the publisher and the game can't be played anymore. The game is "sold."
* Buyer: You want a game, but don't want to pay full price. You go to Impulse Marketplace and will be able to purchase this "used" license from the publisher through the service and download the game from the digital distribution service at a reduced price. That's it. Now you own the license and can sell it back whenever.
* Publisher: Here's why publishers will probably like this system: The companies receive almost all the money -- minus Stardock's transaction fee -- from the resold license. Essentially, the publishers get to sell the same license several times and have entered the profitable "used" games market.

Essentially, it puts the onus on the developer/publisher to release a game that more people want to buy than want to trade in, so you get the buyers getting it for "retail" price.

That's nice and all, but what if Stardock had to revoke the Impulse Marketplace's resale function due to unforseen circumstances or because it's costing them too much to keep up? The consumer would have no other redress than that which Stardock or the publisher is willing to give them.

Now, you could say that this would be the same as if, say, Gamestop were to suddenly stop taking in trade-ins (...I'll just let all you publishers out there wipe the drool from your mouths), and stop selling second-hand games entirely. But then, at least you could sell/trade-in the game somewhere else, or auction it off on Ebay or Amazon. No such luck with your Goo "license". Try selling that on Craigslist without any way of securely transferring ownership.

There's no free streaming games on consoles.

And there never will be. Onlive has to be some sort of scam, it just has to be. No amount of wishful thinking can deflect the sheer improbability of that platform. It's unfeasible.

 

[Sadako Yamamura]

I'm sorry, I love Jaffe and everything, but he is just flat out wrong on this one. Should home builders get a cut of the resale of a house? Of course not, this is just the way things work. And yes used cars and homes are a perfectly fine analogy. If the industry makes it easier/cheaper to get games through digital distro, then so be it. Maybe I will purchase games this way. But as long as games are available as a physical product, people (and Gamestop) have every right to resell it. Jaffe, you are just looking like a greedy ass on this one, sorry.

This.

Jaffe is a grade A cock. Telling a customer to fuck off is possibly the worst thing you could do. Maybe punching them in the face is a little worse. If the dude at your local supermarket told you to fuck off, imagine how well that would go down. He is lucky he is the boss of his own company.

I also feel DD is not the holy grail we are looking for. When games for the new microsoft system or the new sony system are only available through microsoft and sony, prices will only go higher. If they have no one to compete with regarding price what incentive is there for them to reduce the price. They have no storage or manufacturing costs but do you think they are going to pass on those savings to the consumer. Not a fucking chance!

Competition is great for the consumer. Look at the recent Batman scenario. One retailer lowers the price, others follow. Fantastic for the consumer.

 

[Mario]

I also feel DD is not the holy grail we are looking for. When games for the new microsoft system or the new sony system are only available through microsoft and sony, prices will only go higher. If they have no one to compete with regarding price what incentive is there for them to reduce the price. They have no storage or manufacturing costs but do you think they are going to pass on those savings to the consumer. Not a fucking chance!

As I said above, games for consoles already go through the console manufacturers. They already have an influence on price and already clip the ticket.

How would they drive prices higher if retailers are gone and still be successful? They still have to compete for the same consumer dollar.

Removing retailers and towards DD increases the competition by putting pricing in the hands of developers/publishers of which there are exponentially more than retailers. If you suppose that the number of retailers currently is a good level of competition, then under DD you would have increased competition and even more downwards price pressure.

 

[Dambrosi]

As I said above, games for consoles already go through the console manufacturers. They already have an influence on price and already clip the ticket.

How would they drive prices higher if retailers are gone and still be successful? They still have to compete for the same consumer dollar.

Removing retailers and towards DD increases the competition by putting pricing in the hands of developers/publishers of which there are exponentially more than retailers. If you suppose that the number of retailers currently is a good level of competition, then under DD you would have increased competition and even more downwards price pressure.

No, here you're wrong. Pricing would not only be up to publishers; it would also be at the mercy of the portal owner, or the platform manufacturer in the case of consoles. See XBLA (points only) and Steam (high prices unless there's a sale on) for examples of what I'm on about.

It's like I keep saying to you, mate - nothing occurs in a vacuum. Why can't you understand that?