Support NeoGAF

[Dreweyes]

These arguments are so stupid. What gamestop is doing is legal and ethical, with or without precedent. They are a middle man between two parties in which they are the primary beneficiary. All fucking businesses pretty much work this way.

This.

 

[Lost Fragment]

I can understand how devs can be frustrated at the used games business. Not that I'm one of those who think it should actually be illegal or anything, but comparing it to used car sales or used DVD sales is pretty misguided for reasons already covered in this thread.

But limiting the ability to sell games or buy used isn't the answer. If that starts happening too much, through digital distribution or whatever, then me, and I assume many others like me, will simply stop buying as many games or start playing more not-so-new games. There's a whole universe of old games that I missed out on that I can get my hands on pretty cheaply.

 

[MWS Natural]

So how many people here sell old games off to buy new ones? :lol

I haven't done that since I was a poor college student. I personally don't support Gamestop but there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, they should get it while the gettin' is good.

 

[grap3fruitman]

Download codes included with new copies. They're already doing this. I can't remember the examples. Someone?

So now I'm restricted by bullshit DRM, perfect! And the kid down the street whose console isn't hooked up to the internet but bought new doesn't get the full experience he paid for. It's only fair, right?

Hey Jaffe, why do people buy used games? And "because they hate you" isn't a valid answer. I'm being serious. Can you answer this question? Why do people buy used games?

 

[gerg]

But something else this has opened my eyes to- and I've heard this before- but it comes up over and over: make games no one wants to resell cause the replay value is too great. So to those who stake that claim, you'd be ok if games like GOD OF WAR and UNCHARTED and MASS EFFECT simple went away because they are only 8-12 hour games...and we only had more gamey-mechanic based multiplayer games that really stood the test of replay time? I'm not challenging this, I'm actually wondering. Our new game is more of a gamey game and if people LIKE it, I am not worried about resale. But it does make me think twice about making a more single player narrative game...at least one at a high budget.

My opinion is that you can't expect consumers to intrinsically value a game. You must give them reasons to value a game, and if you only give them a reason that lasts them for a specific amount of time, don't be surprised if they lose interest in owning that game beyond that time period.

My question is of what you expect of consumers. Why should they want anything but the cheapest version of a product they can find?

 

[Grecco]

I have 70 hrs logged on my ME save. If all games lasted me as long as ME id be happy.

 

[McBacon]

So now I'm restricted by bullshit DRM, perfect! And the kid down the street whose console isn't hooked up to the internet but bought new doesn't get the full experience he paid for. It's only fair, right?

Hey Jaffe, why do people buy used games? And "because they hate you" isn't a valid answer. I'm being serious. Can you answer this question? Why do people buy used games?

becus their cheeper. moran

 

[davidjaffe]

I have 70 hrs logged on my ME save. If all games lasted me as long as ME id be happy.

Ok bad example. I was looking for a more single player experience on the 360 side and it lept to mind. A better take on 360 would be stripping down the 1player of GEARS or HALO since those are only 1 time 8 hours experiences anyway, and just focusing on the MP.

 

[Kintaro]

Because they're ARTIFICALLY limiting choice, pushing consumers into buying the used that they make more money on by NOT OFFERING the NEW (via understocking). It's a shell game. Advertise the new - oops, we're "out" of that. How about this used one for $5 less? They make more money on the used, period.

I'm curious if you've read why DVD Empire got out of selling games.

"Here is an example of the video gaming industry greed: they set the retail price at just $5 above the product cost (buy it for $54.99, sell it for $59.99). When we sell a game we make on average 8.3% gross margin. That does not take into account any of the cost to store the video game or labor to receive/ship an item," the site says.

"Take a $400 console; we only make $5 on the sale--that is a .01% gross margin (note the decimal point). The game companies make their profit selling to us. We make no profit selling to you."

DVD Empire also says that games that don't sell simply get stuck on their store shelves, whereas bigger stores like Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us can return their stock. "Of course, if the video game industry produced quality games, we wouldn't have this issue."

Of course, there's no question GameStop can return their stock...but why even bother with that step? Order new copies based on consumer interest in the game. If there's no interest, why would I want to stock that much of it for it to sit there? Makes sense to me.

How is it anti consumer? Is it anti consumer if I don't basically turn over and let people ass rape me?!? Look, movies have the same thing...they are a different medium but that doesn't matter to this argument. In essence, there is theatrical run, home video, cable, network, and then shit like airplanes. If a consumer wants to watch a movie for free, he will wait till it's on NBC. That's not anti-consumer, it's just fair. If you want it sooner, you pay 10 bucks at the movies. If you are willing to wait, you pay a bit less and rent a dvd for 4 bucks. Why would games doing this be anti consumer but not movies?

Well, basically, you're telling the consumer what they can and can't do with their product. They're screwed for a month because no one takes back new games and their only choice is to sell it via other means, ebay, so forth. You'd would be telling people what they can and can't do with their product and telling business what they can and can't do with their business. Would you like being told this?

Movies and movie studios have many different options at their disposal. True. Perhaps the gaming industry should be looking into that instead of trying to fight a war it will not win by trying to eliminate retail? I mean, you had arcades but the industry fucked that over (except in Japan).

Why not do what Mr. Wii HD (love you dude =P) said? Offer your games via DD 1-2 months before the retail version? How about you rent the games via PSN/XBLA for 1-2 months before release? How about you make your own games theater?. Charge $10-15 or so for a day with the game via XBLA/PSN, etc? Then a month or two later, you release the physical product and the DD version and let consumers pick how they want to handle it.

You've just created another stream of money for yourself.

Alternative ways of revenue and profit seem better than attempting a war against retail and consumers that you can not win.

 

[Davidion]

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

But the more I read on here, and the more I see ya'lls side and the more I think about it, I would be fine if there were just a 4-12 week waiting period from when a new game hits to when it can be sold used. And once it's sold used, the retailer makes all the money from it.

Granted many of you would still not like this because you would argue that you can buy a new car and resell it the next minute. And I can see that logic.

But something else this has opened my eyes to- and I've heard this before- but it comes up over and over: make games no one wants to resell cause the replay value is too great. So to those who stake that claim, you'd be ok if games like GOD OF WAR and UNCHARTED and MASS EFFECT simple went away because they are only 8-12 hour games...and we only had more gamey-mechanic based multiplayer games that really stood the test of replay time? I'm not challenging this, I'm actually wondering. Our new game is more of a gamey game and if people LIKE it, I am not worried about resale. But it does make me think twice about making a more single player narrative game...at least one at a high budget.

There's a market for those games, of course. But if you were to produce a game with no replay value (not from the perspecive of the devs, nor the uber gaming fanboys on aplaces like here, but every day consumers who's going to make up the bulk of your customer base), then you're going to have to deal with the potential of a larger secondary market for your game. These are not the people who salivate over every screenshot and every developer interview, but rather people who see an ad or promo mockup in store and thinks that there's something to this product that may be worth owning and keeping for $50-60 of their hard-earned money.

I think what bocodragon brought up is a fine idea at least at its core. Make a full game, but like GTAIV, work on a future DLC distributed in a form that'll be readily available to new game owners for free and for used game owners, a marginal fee. Whether this is done through coupons, pre-negotiated deals with console networks, is a matter of execution. Of course there'll be business considerations to take into account, but it's ultimately the responsibility of the publishers to negotiate a package that will work for everyone. This way, everyone at least has the potential to get their cake.

Consumer expectation is what you ultimately have to cater to.

 

[TheHeretic]

The consumer loses when the publisher was expecting to ship 100,000 units sells 50,000 because Gamestop ordered 1/2 to 1/3rd as much as they normally would so their stores would be out of new (c stores got a single copy, b stores got 2 copies, etc) and they could push customers into used. Repeat this a few cycles and that pub is gone. No more games from them. It will hasten consolidation in the market and the move to pure digital. Do you want that? I don't. I'm a fan of physical media and the stuff that comes with it.

Why would they expect this knowing the used market exists?

Publishers want digital distribution, period. Unfortunately for them they are in absolutely no position to make that move. This isn't iTunes, a game isn't a 3MB song. Davidion is the only person to have made this point, but the games industry challenging brick and mortar stores is fucking absurd. They'd have to be batshit insane to try that, all they can do is offer both, and people interested in used games still have that option.

And what fairy eyed optimism is this anyway? Publishers making money and passing their benefits onto the consumer with better games? Is that really how the world works? I was under the impression companies made their products as cheaply as possible to make as much money as possible. I guess the difference is i'm living in reality. The elimination of the used game market, even gamestops is impossible. Even if it were possible theres no reason to think we'd "win" in any way, shape or form.

 

[vireland]

Ok bad example. I was looking for a more single player experience on the 360 side and it lept to mind. A better take on 360 would be stripping down the 1player of GEARS or HALO since those are only 1 time 8 hours experiences anyway, and just focusing on the MP.

Shadowrun did this and got NAILED by the review community. It has exquisitely balanced multiplayer, but all the reviews could talk about was the lack of single player.

 

[Opiate]

Ok bad example. I was looking for a more single player experience on the 360 side and it lept to mind. A better take on 360 would be stripping down the 1player of GEARS or HALO since those are only 1 time 8 hours experiences anyway, and just focusing on the MP.

I would love it if you gave me 100000 hour games with graphics better than Crysis. "Give," as in for free. However, I know that isn't economically feasible, so those types of games don't exist. Oh well. I still play other games.

If what you're telling me is that games like God of War or Uncharted aren't economically feasible, then yes, they need to go away. Oh well. You can make other games, and I can play other ones.

 

[davidjaffe]

Ok, off to the beach.

To the pricks and haters: fuck off.

To everyone else: ya know, you guys/gals really have given me alot to think about on this. I'm still a fan of devs/pubs not getting fucked but for what it's worth, I can promise 2 things:

a- I am gonna really think on what your saying and try to do a better job seeing stuff thru JUST a customers eyes, versus a customer/developer's eyes...

b- me and the team will work crazy hard to make sure- assuming you like the game we are making- that it's fun enough (and we follow it up with enough DLC) that you won't want to sell it....

Later!

David

 

[BocoDragon]

It's worth to note that from a business and marketing perspective, this should be limited to future downloads/DLC, such as GTA IV's.

You immediately run into the issue of gimping the core game, perceived or otherwise, should the content be readily available at release.

Yes, that's true. It could be very limiting... but they do have tools like this at their disposal.

Perhaps the new game comes with a "membership code" to the online club that gets you consistant DLC updates for awhile like Burnout Paradise. Used copies don't have the code. But you can BUY the code.

How so? Because, if they buy new and get that extra content its great, but if they buy used the devs/pubs don't get any money, but only a small percentage from the DLC (if the customer decides to even purchase it in the first place). I'm sure if Gamestop/EBGames/whoever were to cut a deal on used games with devs they would get a much higher percentage then what is received through that DLC which is even smaller if purchased over XBL/PSN since those companies get their cut of it (unless I'm wrong).

Oh yeah of course only a tiny percentage of people would get the DLC... but I'm just saying: this is a way to make revenue off a used copy. It's a start.

 

[StoOgE]

David,

Why don't you spend more time focusing on making the value proposition for buying new better? Or increasing the value proposition of holding onto a game longer. I'm the exception to the rule in that I like to revisit games for months and years after they come out... but it seems clear the the reason used games have taken off is that people see more value in selling a game and buying a new one. Gamestop is just the logical conclusion of that problem. If there is a market for something, it is inevitable that the marketplace will supply a way to take advantage of the demand.

I also want to know what your opinion is on Digital Distribution. Clearly it is in the publishers best interest.. but I don't think it is in the console manufacturers best interest. How do you propose to get consoles into gamers hands without a strong retail presence? Jack up the cost of consoles so it is worth Best Buys trouble to sell them? It seems to me if gaming goes DD the developers could take the opposite stance that you seem to be taking now. "Give us a cut of your profits or we'll stop selling your consoles"

 

[davidjaffe]

Shadowrun did this and got NAILED by the review community. It has exquisitely balanced multiplayer, but all the reviews could talk about was the lack of single player.

Well cause it was too expensive and was very hard to get into. I played it for 2 days and still had no fucking idea what I was supposed to do.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Please read the whole thread. I'm tired of retyping.

I did. Any game store that sells used always gets a buttload of copies of a game when it comes out. They are not gonna order less and try to push on used because the new copies have to be sold and become used in the first place. Unless you are talking about restocking a game that has been out for a while.

 

[TheHeretic]

Ok bad example. I was looking for a more single player experience on the 360 side and it lept to mind. A better take on 360 would be stripping down the 1player of GEARS or HALO since those are only 1 time 8 hours experiences anyway, and just focusing on the MP.

Many people who own consoles only play offline, or otherwise enjoy the offline experience. If those games become rarer, the ones that are made will sell better, and people would start making more of them. Not everyone wants only online games obviously, in fact very few would, I don't think you need one persons opinion to know this.

 

[vireland]

Why would they expect this knowing the used market exists?

Because that's the way it *has* worked, and it supported the system in a way that made it possible to make more games. The artificial limitation of choice by Gamestop where new games are understocked so they can push used has been expanded to the point that it will not sustain the market (it IS a symbiotic relationship, after all - no games, no used games to sell), and will force publisher consolidation and a move to digital or a digital/physical hybrid system that strips them of this anyway.

 

[Mario]

Why not do what Mr. Wii HD (love you dude =P) said? Offer your games via DD 1-2 months before the retail version? How about you rent the games via PSN/XBLA for 1-2 months before release? How about you make your own games theater?. Charge $10-15 or so for a day with the game via XBLA/PSN, etc? Then a month or two later, you release the physical product and the DD version and let consumers pick how they want to handle it.

Retailers wouldn't stand for it. They already put a quick end to console titles with both digital and retail simultaneous releases.

 

[Opiate]

David,

In case you do come back to this, thank you for your insight. I hope I did not seem antagonistic -- I am very appreciative of your time.

 

[Kintaro]

I can't be the only one here who would rent games off some of these services am I? I rent a lot of games, but I couldn't mind doing it over XBLA or PSN. Why has this revenue stream gone so ignored?

Retailers wouldn't stand for it. They already put a quick end to console titles with both digital and retail simultaneous releases.

I hear this alot. Of course they will, but it is something the industry will have to go through to get additional revenue streams for itself. So, they can stand there scared and hope for "the DD future to happen...someday" or they can be proactive and work on additional methods and take their lumps.

Otherwise, the industry is pissing into the wind and just bitching to bitch.

 

[StuBurns]

The length of the game is irrelevant.

Should Before Sunset be a third of the price of Titanic because it's a third of the length? No.

If you only have the budget for 8 hours of physical geometry, I'd rather it be that than 40 and have to constantly revisit environments.

The only thing that matters is if you feel that you've got the value. I'm as fine with the seven hours Uncharted lasted with no MP at all as I am with the 40+ hours of GTA4 plus the MP (which I didn't touch to be fair).

Some times you feel that you're being ripped off, but if a developer has made a perfect five hour experience, for twenty million dollars, I'm perfectly fine with spending full retail price for it.

Price tiers are confusing because how do you choose the price range for a specific title? Based on the budget makes the most sense, but even then it's hardly clear cut. FFXIII won't be nearly as long as FO3, the budget almost certainly is far higher. Should it cost more to the user? I don't think so.

 

[epmode]

Shadowrun did this and got NAILED by the review community. It has exquisitely balanced multiplayer, but all the reviews could talk about was the lack of single player.

I can't speak for others but the Shadowrun games I'm familiar with are rad single-player cyberpunky RPGs. VERY unique for the time, especially for consoles.

I was honestly impressed by the new Shadowrun demo but I couldn't help but resent it because of the genre swtich.

 

[vireland]

I did. Any game store that sells used always gets a buttload of copies of a game when it comes out. They are not gonna order less and try to push on used because the new copies have to be sold and become used in the first place. Unless you are talking about restocking a game that has been out for a while.

Perhaps in a larger city the ratio is masked by volume, but in our neck of the woods, it's the practice is clear when an RPG comes in with ONE copy for the whole store. And this is at all three gamestops in our town. Three copies for a town of ~100,000. If you're using store credit and can't go to Walmart, you're screwed. And, if it's really niche (Atlus/NIS), the big stores will not have it so you have NO choice at all unless you buy online.

 

[davidjaffe]

The length of the game is irrelevant.

Should Before Sunset be a third of the price of Titanic because it's a third of the length? No.

If you only have the budget for 8 hours of physical geometry, I'd rather it be that than 40 and have to constantly revisit environments.

The only thing that matter is if you feel that you've got the value. I'm as fine with the seven hours Uncharted lasted with no MP at all as I am with the 40+ hours of GTA4 plus the MP (which I didn't touch to be fair).

Some times you feel that you're being ripped off, but if a developer has made a perfect five hour experience, for forty million dollars, I'm perfectly fine with spending full retail price for it.

Price tiers are confusing because how do you choose the price range for a specific title? Based on the budget makes the most sense, but even then it's hardly clear cut. FFXIII won't be nearly as long as FO3, the budget almost certainly is far higher. Should it cost more to the user? I don't think so.

but this goes against what many are saying: MOST people don't give a shit about replaying a game if there is no tangible reason to replay. Great as Uncharted is or the single player of COD4 is, it gets resold if there is not real, obvious (i.e. non hard core NEOGAF reader reason) to keep playing....so I don't agree- assuming these folks have a point about making games you don't want to sell back- that a great 5 hours game is the same value as a good but not great 40 hour game.

Ok I REALLY gotta go now- kids are yelling Too fun to debate! LATER!

 

[Grecco]

Shadowrun did this and got NAILED by the review community. It has exquisitely balanced multiplayer, but all the reviews could talk about was the lack of single player.

The content was more of the problem. Not the fact that it was single player. It wasnta multiplayer game with 9 maps and just 3 modes. There was more multiplayer content in something like time splitters, last gen, with a singleplayer mode as well. Bioshock was singleplayer only and it didnt hurt its scores.


But i still ended up gettingSR and enjoying it. Just not at launch with a 60 dollar price tag. I got it at clearance at Compusa at 15. Its also a game Microsoft should sell now on Games on Demand.

 

[grap3fruitman]

becus their cheeper. moran

So then why not lower the cost of new games? Clearly the issue is price and consumers feel that games are overpriced so that a small $5-10 savings on a used copy is worth it.

b- me and the team will work crazy hard to make sure- assuming you like the game we are making- that it's fun enough (and we follow it up with enough DLC) that you won't want to sell it....

I've never play a GoW game before but got interested now that I have a PS3, but after seeing what an asshole you are in this thread there's no way I'll be picking up GoW3.

 

[Davidion]

Ok, off to the beach.

To the pricks and haters: fuck off.

To everyone else: ya know, you guys/gals really have given me alot to think about on this. I'm still a fan of devs/pubs not getting fucked but for what it's worth, I can promise 2 things:

a- I am gonna really think on what your saying and try to do a better job seeing stuff thru JUST a customers eyes, versus a customer/developer's eyes...

b- me and the team will work crazy hard to make sure- assuming you like the game we are making- that it's fun enough (and we follow it up with enough DLC) that you won't want to sell it....

Later!

David

I'm rather glad you came away with positive experience from the exchanges here, even though you might put me into the prick/hater column. :lol

 

[StoOgE]

Shadowrun is a really well balanced fun game.

BUT

1) No single player.
2) Genre switch pissed off a lot of players.
3) It looks like shit.
4) It only had a 9 maps.. only 3 of which were good. For an online only game that is not enough. You better bring a TON of maps to a multiplayer only game.

 

[TheHeretic]

Because that's the way it *has* worked, and it supported the system in a way that made it possible to make more games. The artificial limitation of choice by Gamestop where new games are understocked so they can push used has been expanded to the point that it will not sustain the market (it IS a symbiotic relationship, after all - no games, no used games to sell), and will force publisher consolidation and a move to digital or a digital/physical hybrid system that strips them of this anyway.

This isn't the end of times. The used game market isn't exactly new, and as far as I know practices like what we are talking about aren't new either. When publishers are in a position to move to DD they will ANYWAY. But they aren't so they can't.

 

[McBacon]

but after seeing what an asshole you are in this thread there's no way I'll be picking up GoW3.

Dude, Fuck... Fuck You

What a child you are

What a fucking intellectual fool you are

 

[vireland]

Well cause it was too expensive and was very hard to get into. I played it for 2 days and still had no fucking idea what I was supposed to do.

Come on. You're joking, right? It was a standard FPS, with magic. Shoot bad guys, stay alive. That was beyond your grasp?

 

[Davidion]

So then why not lower the cost of new games? Clearly the issue is price and consumers feel that games are overpriced so that a small $5-10 savings on a used copy is worth it.


I've never play a GoW game before but got interested now that I have a PS3, but after seeing what an asshole you are in this thread there's no way I'll be picking up GoW3.

...

 

[-Rogue5-]

This would have worked much better in non-jaffe's favour if gamestop's used game prices didn't suck so much ass. Saving only $5 is fine, but their buy-back prices are so low in comparison that, in my opinion anyway, they (GS) are almost encouraging people to use other resell methods (ebay, jiji, etc.) I mean, new game is $60, used is $55, buy-back price is $30... Go on eBay, and the same game is $40-45 -- that means you save $10-15 and the seller gets an additional $10-15 over the GS equivalent.

...but, yeah, the dev/pub always gets rocked by used games sales.

As far as digidist is concerned, I definitely do not buy as frequently or as many games, so I think Jaffe thinking that DD will be a devs/pubs saving grace is ill conceived... And knowing that I'll be able to find a "brand new copy" of a game via digital distribution means I'm much more likely to wait for the price to drop to like $3.99 on Steam or whatever, even if it's 2 years out.

 

[DCharlie]

once you get beyond that Shadowrun isn't a steam punk RPG and if you get it for a good price ($15 equivalent NEW copy for me!) then it's an extremely awesome online game.

If it was a little more fleshed out (even the online is pretty limited in its playstyles) then this really could have been a AAA game - and yes, i'm serious.

Stuff like no animation for ladder climbs though gives it away that this really needed more time in the oven.

I've never play a GoW game before but got interested now that I have a PS3, but after seeing what an asshole you are in this thread there's no way I'll be picking up GoW3.

errrrm....

 

[Roto13]

Maybe if publishers stop trying to sell me PS3 games for $70 CAD (before the extra bits and pieces that were cut off to be resold later as DLC), I'll start to give a shit about what they want.

 

[mjc]

Well cause it was too expensive and was very hard to get into. I played it for 2 days and still had no fucking idea what I was supposed to do.

To each their own, but I played the tutorials the minute I got the game and I grasped the combat immediately that evening. It really is a prime example of a game being screwed over in the review community solely because it lacked a (potentially subpar) single player campaign that would have been a second thought to the multiplayer.

I've purchased multitudes of games for my 360 and PS3, and its the multiplayer games I find myself going back to without a second thought. One could argue that single player games should be offered at a lower price point, but then you'd run into snags. How does one attach a monetary value to a game when the enjoyment they provide are just as subjective to customers as movies or music? Someone could hate Uncharted or Lost Odyssey, believing the price they paid for the game to be all for nothing. The next guy in line might think of them as the best games in existence.

Tricky subject here.

 

[Mario]

So then why not lower the cost of new games? Clearly the issue is price and consumers feel that games are overpriced so that a small $5-10 savings on a used copy is worth it.

Publishers can't really "defend" against the practise by dropping wholesale prices. All that will happen is retailers will drop the trade in prices, and maintain the discount for used games.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Only once EA, Activision Blizzard, Sony, Nintendo or Ubisoft open their own micro-stores and offer more competitive TIV's than Gamestop/EB will Jaffe and Clarke's dream come true. But what he basically wants is a royalty system, which may or may not be a good idea. Who knows until they try?

 

[HK-47]

Exactly. They only rape you on current retail releases. At which time it's almost always the exact retail price. Second it's out of retail, it's totally flexible and a lot more like it'll be when retail is dead.

Right, but can I resell it?

 

[vireland]

Shadowrun is a really well balanced fun game.

BUT

1) No single player.
2) Genre switch pissed off a lot of players.
3) It looks like shit.
4) It only had a 9 maps.. only 3 of which were good. For an online only game that is not enough. You better bring a TON of maps to a multiplayer only game.

I think #2 was a big factor. But for maps, I liked 5 of the 9 (Poco, Dig Site, Powerplant, Maelstrom, Temple Grounds) which was plenty, especially since you could take off the maps you didn't want to join on the matching screen.

Which reminds me - point 5 - the matchmaking interface SUCKED. I hated that.

 

[StoOgE]

This would have worked much better in non-jaffe's favour if gamestop's used game prices didn't suck so much ass. Saving only $5 is fine, but their buy-back prices are so low in comparison that, in my opinion anyway, they (GS) are almost encouraging people to use other resell methods (ebay, jiji, etc.) I mean, new game is $60, used is $55, buy-back price is $30... Go on eBay, and the same game is $40-45 -- that means you save $10-15 and the seller gets an additional $10-15 over the GS equivalent.
.

The problem with gamestop is they are playing middle man. So they make their money on the mark up over the cost they pay. So they have to buy as low as they can and sell as high as they can. They seem to have found what their magic number is.

Ebay is going to net you the better price on both sides because the two parties (buyer and seller) are coming to a mutually beneficial price which will put it somewhere in the middle of the gamestop prices.

Like I said, Gamestop isn't the smart way to sell a game or buy a used game. It is the convenient way though which is why they do so well. Ebay is a hassle, you don't get the game right away and you have the fear that you will somehow get screwed that you don't really get with Gamestop (at least not as much)

 

[StoOgE]

I think #2 was a big factor. But for maps, I liked 5 of the 9 (Poco, Dig Site, Powerplant, Maelstrom, Temple Grounds) which was plenty, especially since you could take off the maps you didn't want to join on the matching screen.

Which reminds me - point 5 - the matchmaking interface SUCKED. I hated that.

It had a lot of problems, which is a real shame because the game was very rewarding for those that got past the problems..

 

[Pimpbaa]

But something else this has opened my eyes to- and I've heard this before- but it comes up over and over: make games no one wants to resell cause the replay value is too great. So to those who stake that claim, you'd be ok if games like GOD OF WAR and UNCHARTED and MASS EFFECT simple went away because they are only 8-12 hour games...and we only had more gamey-mechanic based multiplayer games that really stood the test of replay time? I'm not challenging this, I'm actually wondering. Our new game is more of a gamey game and if people LIKE it, I am not worried about resale. But it does make me think twice about making a more single player narrative game...at least one at a high budget.

Mass Effect was much longer than that (at least for me). Mainly due to the optional exploration element. So it had a greater value to me. Uncharted was short, but it was replayable due to wanting to find the hidden treasures to unlock stuff. That made me keep that game. Uncharted 2 will probably have something similar plus an excellent multiplayer component (going by the beta) which will make sure it stays in my library rather than be sold at gamestop. Games similar to God of War, had stuff that made you wanna go back to the game again. Devil May Cry series allows you to continue building your character through harder difficulties (rather than just allowing to start from scratch on). Ninja Gaiden Black was really cool because it had entirely new enemies in harder difficulties, again making a person wanna play the game again. And currently, Batman arkane asylum has riddler's secrets plus challenge modes which do add quite a bit of value to the game (also doesn't hurt that wal-mart was selling it for only 40 bucks here in canada). Making a short game and adding nothing to make the player want to go back to the game is a major mistake too many developers make and most likely the reason why their games end up so quickly in the used section of a game store.

 

[T'Zariah]

*sigh* The whole argument is kinda pointless. It's still legal and there's not much we can do about it. So like everything else in the industry we just have suck it up and deal with it.

 

[TheHeretic]

*sigh* The whole argument is kinda pointless. It's still legal and there's not much we can do about it. So like everything else in the industry we just have suck it up and deal with it.

Why would we want to "do" anything about it?

 

[StuBurns]

but this goes against what many are saying: MOST people don't give a shit about replaying a game if there is no tangible reason to replay. Great as Uncharted is or the single player of COD4 is, it gets resold if there is not real, obvious (i.e. non hard core NEOGAF reader reason) to keep playing....so I don't agree- assuming these folks have a point about making games you don't want to sell back- that a great 5 hours game is the same value as a good but not great 40 hour game.

I don't think making a longer game stops it being resold, if anything, probably the opposite for me. As much as I loved ME (the best RPG this generation) I'm never going to replay it, because with all the side stuff, it's a very big time investment.

What FO3 did was probably the best option so far, every month or two, a serious slice of excellent quality DLC drops. If a game announces that stuff when the game is released, I think of the current models, that is by far the most appealing for a single player focused experience.

Will most of GAF blow thru GoW3 in less than 12 hours and never play it again, yeah, probably. And many of us will probably trade it in. I see no way to stop this in terms of price tiers, maybe if Sony sold it for so cheap it's not worth carrying to the nearest game store. If they could do it for twenty dollars, so they'd only get about twelve dollars at trade in, sure. But there's no way the budget of the game would allow for that. So do we just stop having those types of games? Or make every developer work on DLC forever or add pointless MP to games that don't need it?

I think an early release of games via DD is a great solution. Few people will want to wait a month for a game others are playing. In the same sense people want to see D9 right now because now is when it's conversationally relevant.

 

[StoOgE]

But something else this has opened my eyes to- and I've heard this before- but it comes up over and over: make games no one wants to resell cause the replay value is too great. So to those who stake that claim, you'd be ok if games like GOD OF WAR and UNCHARTED and MASS EFFECT simple went away because they are only 8-12 hour games...and we only had more gamey-mechanic based multiplayer games that really stood the test of replay time? I'm not challenging this, I'm actually wondering. Our new game is more of a gamey game and if people LIKE it, I am not worried about resale. But it does make me think twice about making a more single player narrative game...at least one at a high budget.

I would hate for those games to go away because that is what I play the most.. and I don't mind replaying them. But is clear most players are done with it after they get through it once.

I think a few things could help with this.

1) Episodic content. Put a 1-2 hour "episode" out every few months for a few dollars. I don't know anything about the development cycle of a short burst of single player or the profitability of something like that. But if a short "episode" came out every few months for a good price (5-10) dollars. I would think people would be more likely to keep it in their collection.

2) Online co-op. Even if you strip the true multiplayer out of Gears or Halo 3 the online single player is fucking fanstastic and kept me coming back for more for months.

What FO3 did was probably the best option so far, every month or two, a serious slice of excellent quality DLC drops. If a game announces that stuff when the game is released, I think of the current models, that is by far the most appealing for a single player focused experience..

This is pretty much my suggestion.