Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)

CreateNowSleepLater

CreateNowSleepLater

Member
I have been following the war against used games here and I thought to myself, why is it that Devs think they are entitled to anything beyond 1st day sales? From the consumers perspective, this is one of the only industries that behaves this way. I can sell a Blu-ray movie, I can sell my stereo. I can even sell my car if I want too.

Imagine if cars had some kind of code you needed to enter to pay for the new owner to use it?

It's their hard earned work, their artistic vision. Ok, I get that. Imagine I paint a picture and sell it at an art gallery. The new owner puts it on Ebay, do I deserve a piece of that?

I know I am not a Dev and if I am being insulting it is not with intent. Are Devs not paid employees working on projects? They are also paid once the game sells new. Are they not? A game cannot be sold used if it did not already sell new first.

If I am right, the publisher really sticks it to everyone anyway in the end, no?

Devs think of this generation alone what they (Publisher+MS/Sony) have forced on us:

1) Forced MP
2) A commitment to annual rehashes with new paints of coats and passing them off as AAA games
3) Paid subscriptions with advertising pushed down our throats
4) Outrageous DLC prices, season passes
5) Unfinished and rushed games relying of fixing the problem after release

Now I am not talking about piracy. I am saying that cementing the above points by forcing consumers to buy new is pretty much as bad as it gets. Not allowing me to sell is an equal sin. The prices of new games has gone through the roof.

Does EA give me a break every year when I buy a rehash of Madden?
The CoD people are rewarded with the most expensive season pass in gaming.
How about when Ubisoft pushes a new Assassins Creed which could have been DLC?

I guess I was curious about why the Dev feels the way they do. As an Artist you just want people to see your work, that point of view I have a hard time with. You are already paid to work on the project and in some cases rewarded for success. Neither side has shown any tendency to give the consumer a break. When was the last time Madden or CoD debuted less than $59.99. Never...
 
I don't think Devs do believe that. Publishers do. The only reason a dev studio might believe that is if they were paid royalties and, well...
 
because people don't like seeing work they did used to profit others w/ no benefit returned to them?

was this concept just invented today?
 
jhferry said:
I have been following the war against used games here and I thought to myself, why is it that Devs think they are entitled to anything beyond 1st day sales? From the consumers perspective, this is one of the only industries that behaves this way. I can sell a Blu-ray movie, I can sell my stereo. I can even sell my car if I want too.

Imagine if cars had some kind of code you needed to enter to pay for the new owner to use it?

It's their hard earned work, their artistic vision. Ok, I get that. Imagine I paint a picture and sell it at an art gallery. The new owner puts it on Ebay, do I deserve a piece of that?

I know I am not a Dev and I am being insulting it is not with intent. Are Devs not paid employees working on projects? They are also paid once the game sells new. Are they not? A game cannot be sold used if it did not already sell new first.

If I am right, the publisher really sticks it to everyone anyway in the end, no?

Devs think of this generation alone what they (Publisher+MS/Sony) have forced on us:

1) Forced MP
2) A commitment to annual rehashes with new paints of coats and passing them off as AAA games
3) Paid subscriptions with advertising pushed down our throats
4) Outrageous DLC prices, season passes
5) Unfinished and rushed games relying of fixing the problem after release

Now I am not talking about piracy. I am saying that cementing the above points by forcing consumers to buy new is pretty much as bad as it gets. Not allowing me to sell is an equal sin. The prices of new games has gone through the roof.

Does EA give me a break every year when I buy a rehash of Madden?
The CoD people are rewarded with the most expensive season pass in gaming.
How about when Ubisoft pushes a new Assassins Creed which could have been DLC?

I guess I was curious about why the Dev feels the way they do. As an Artist you just want people to see your work, that point of view I have a hard time with. You are already paid to work on the project and in some cases rewarded for success. Neither side has shown any tendency to give the consumer a break. When was the last time Madden or CoD debuted less than $59.99. Never...
Click to expand...

Because they think the added liquidity+disposable income from the 2nd hand market goes into our drugs and alcohol addiction. Without this extra disposable income or a way to make money on games people no longer play, gamers would be forced to sacrifice having less games, and giving gamers a choice to either stop drinking or doing drugs. They are just trying to help all the poor dirty people who rely on the 2nd hand market, think of the kids.
 
There are certainly devs that have expressed this opinion. I agree, it's silly, but the situation is a bit different than selling a car or even a painting, because in the case of the painting, the painter only made 1, and only expects to sell that one painting. For a car, it's just a physical object. I agree with you, I don't think games should be treated any differently, but there are certainly relevant differences with some of the examples you cite.
 
Its mostly publishers and some famous devs trying to appease shareholders that complain about it, blaminf used game sales is like nationalistic douchebags blaming immigrants for some bullshit country's recession, its a narrative created to deflect and ignore the real issues born out of irresponsibility, unaccountability and lack of self-awareness.
 
It's funny that they (devs and publishers) call us entitled gamers, yet they're the ones who feel that they are entitled to second hand sales profits.
 
I thought software usually work like that? from the really expensive Windows os, Photoshop, Autodesk Maya, Kaspersky antivirus etc to the really cheap apps and games in mobile ios and android.

I don't see many people (if any) complaint about digital download game/software. but because the data is stored on disc, now the rule is different even though it's the exact same software.

I'm just playing devil advocate here, people seems quick to blame dev and publishers without looking it from their perspective
 
Winterfang said:
Because people are paying to play their game but they don't receive a cent from it, while the player gets the full experience.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the person who sold it no longer has access to that experience. This is called "exchanging goods and services"
 
linko9 said:
There are certainly devs that have expressed this opinion. I agree, it's silly, but the situation is a bit different than selling a car or even a painting, because in the case of the painting, the painter only made 1, and only expects to sell that one painting. For a car, it's just a physical object. I agree with you, I don't think games should be treated any differently, but there are certainly relevant differences with some of the examples you cite.
Click to expand...

How about DVD/Blu Rays then?
 
bhlaab said:
I don't think Devs do believe that. Publishers do. The only reason a dev studio might believe that is if they were paid royalties and, well...
Click to expand...

.

I would not mind at all if publishers where cut out of the equation and digital distribution ment the profits went to the devs. The problem is money isn't free, it is very hard to keep a studio open for a year while working on your game without external financing from some source.
 
I always find it sad that instead of creating games with truly lasting appeal, pubs have tried to take the easy way out, locking players into their game arbitrarily. Create a game that gamers will want to come back to time and time again, and you will keep them on their terms (and they'll love you for it)

Instead of making a game they can't sell, create a game they don't want to sell.
 
jhferry said:
I have been following the war against used games here and I thought to myself, why is it that Devs think they are entitled to anything beyond 1st day sales? From the consumers perspective, this is one of the only industries that behaves this way. I can sell a Blu-ray movie, I can sell my stereo. I can even sell my car if I want too.
Click to expand...

Other industries never had a nationwide retailer that so insidously undercuts them at the point of sale though. Right next to a new game, there's a used copy selling for less that is arguably just as good. Gamestop devotes probably 50% more shelf space to Used titles than to new ones. You do not see the same thing for movies or stereos or books or music. The used car business is good for the auto industry, since their dealerships make quite a bit of money from used car sales.

If the film/music/publishing industries had some kind of equivalent to Gamestop, I suspect there might be a similar outcry. Gamestop is a pretty viable competitor, whereas used shops for books and movies and music are not really viable either.
 
Winterfang said:
Because people are paying to play their game but they don't receive a cent from it, while the player gets the full experience.
Click to expand...

So what?

Do you think car manufacturers get a cut of used sales?

Talk about entitlement. GameStop does not excuse this. Once you sell something it is no longer yours to worry about.
 
They don't deserve second hand sales.

Name me 1 other product that gets this benefit -- someone getting paid twice off of a single item.

It's fucking bananas/
 
Htown said:
They aren't supposed to receive a cent from it.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point. Unless I misunderstand in most cases they are compensated for their work and in some cases beyond.

And I love Jaffe but he can come in here and bitch and complain and I can ask him for my money back on Twisted Metal which was totally broken and released. Then he quit.
 
I don't think we deserve anything legally speaking or hell, even karmakally speaking. But do I think we have the right to TRY to profit off any and every avenue possible where our games are concerned? Yep, I do.

AND I also think gamers have every right to stick their noses in the air and say 'no thanks- fuck off' if game devs/publishers propose a new used game system that is offensive to gamers.

IDEALLY used game sales will continue with new systems that benefit gamers and game makers (and retailers IF they are a key component to the new system).

David
 
abstract alien said:
Well, they made the product. They are entitled to think whatever they want about it. Also, games aren't cars, so the comparison is off.
Click to expand...

Well, cars aren't music CDs or furniture either, and yet the consumer rights are the same.

What is it about video games in particular that merits the difference?
 
What about Cliff Blizinsky, a.k.a. Dickhead from the NODRM thread?
 
border said:
Other industries never had a nationwide retailer that so insidously undercuts them at the point of sale though. Right next to a new game, there's a used copy selling for less that is arguably just as good. You do not see the same thing for movies or stereos or books or music. The used car business is good for the auto industry, since their dealerships make quite a bit of money from used car sales.

If the film/music/publishing industries had some kind of equivalent to Gamestop, I suspect there might be a similar outcry.
Click to expand...

That's called free market. I could argue (which I did in the OP) that maybe some of those titles are overpriced. They have the right to charge what they want. I have the right to buy it uses.

Reading today it just looks like they all want their cake and eat it too. Gamestop may be scumbags but they have not broken any laws.
 
I don't think they believe they do. I think they're trying to say they do because they want more money. Money they aren't entitled to.
 
Because video games have more chance to not break even than a book or movie or TV show, considering the dev costs.

And I don't think any publisher (not devs, obviously) thinks in terms of what is deserved rather than what they can get to maximize profits.

This isn't a little kid whining about what's not fair, it's about massive companies trying to carve out a stable position in an unstable industry.

The reason we often get rehashes and games that play it safe is because of the aforementioned massive cost of failure.

Speaking frankly, if publishers had more ways to squeeze every bit of money out of us on every game, ended piracy, and profited off of used games, we'd see more games that took creative risks.

People always wonder why publishers want more money, and then they wonder why they try to make games that appeal to everyone. It's an unwinnable situation, really.
 
Because publishers can't budget properly and CEOs would rather take more money from us than do their fucking jobs correctly.
 
If it's tough for devs and publishers to see gamestop post profits every quarter while their own studios are closing and people are laid off, then pick a fight with gamestop and leave us out of it.
 
davidjaffe said:
I don't think we deserve anything legally speaking or hell, even karmakally speaking. But do I think we have the right to TRY to profit off any and every avenue possible where our games are concerned? Yep, I do.

AND I also think gamers have every right to stick their noses in the air and say 'no thanks- fuck off' if game devs/publishers propose a new used game system that is offensive to gamers.

IDEALLY used game sales will continue with new systems that benefit gamers and game makers (and retailers IF they are a key component to the new system).

David
Click to expand...

Jaffe, stop making sense.
 
Capitalist companies that doesn't understand (or want no to understand) how capitalism works.

You sell a product or you sell a service, but you cannot sell something as a product and then magically try to make service-like profits.

They are shameless.
 
thetrin said:
I always find it sad that instead of creating games with truly lasting appeal, pubs have tried to take the easy way out, locking players into their game arbitrarily. Create a game that gamers will want to come back to time and time again, and you will keep them on their terms (and they'll love you for it)

Instead of making a game they can't sell, create a game they don't want to sell.
Click to expand...

This is sort of silly, though. You can't just take existing games and add replayability. It doesn't work that way. Aiming at replayability often means making a very different sort of game.

Also, of course developers and publishers do this. Why do you think every game has a multiplayer mode now? But there are going to be plenty of primarily single player games that the vast majority of people will never finish, let alone replay. There's just no feasible way to give those lasting appeal to a large fraction of consumers.
 
Because the return on games has become an all or nothing matter and the only developers that are willing to realize that it's due to their own hubris have already moved on to smaller indie or mobile development scenes.

The industry at large has convinced itself that it needs to keep spending larger sums of money in order to make money and that it needs to prevent 2nd hand sales in order to be able to sustain such a market which they insist can only be sustained with more lavish spending. It's a viscous cycle of passing the buck.
 
If this somehow leads to healthier publishers, Im all for it. Comparisons to other industries don't work either. Movies appeal to a much broader audience than games, and have the double dip opportunity of theatrical + physical release. Not to mention used movies sales don't affect retail sales nearly as much as used game sales affect game sales.
 
jhferry said:
That's called free market. I could argue (which I did in the OP) that maybe some of those titles are overpriced. They have the right to charge what they want. I have the right to buy it uses.
Click to expand...

They cannot really compete on price when the margins on used games are so huge that Gamestop can almost always price used titles $5 lower than new titles. If Activision decides to lower the price of Call of Duty from $60 to $40, Gamestop immediately lowers the price on their used copies from $55 to $35.
 
The problems lies in the fact that games don't function like other goods. If I make a car, that costs a certain amount of money to make and then I make a profit by selling the car for more than the cost to make it. Game sell by having a very high initial cost (IE the first copy cost millions to make) and the being able to make copies super cheap.

Vidoegames should be compared to software if anything (after all videogames are technically software). While the selling of used software is legal, I don't walk into Best Buy and have them try to sell a used copy of photoshop.

I do think that used games are going to not exist sometime in the near future but the answer is digital distribution not what Mircosoft has planned.
 
First they thought Game Rentals was taking away their revenue,
then they moved to piracy
and now onto used games.

Next stop: They are going to ask for a cut for watching streams of the game and youtube videos, shutting down Twitch in the process.

Just watch

/Tabris guarantee.
 
border said:
If the film/music/publishing industries had some kind of equivalent to Gamestop, I suspect there might be a similar outcry. Gamestop is a pretty viable competitor, whereas used shops for books and movies and music are not really viable either.
Click to expand...

Because getting a USD 60 game used for USD 50 or USD 45 is a lot more appealing a proposition than getting a USD 15 CD/DVD/Whatever for USD 12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Bloodborne: Do you believe?
2 3
109
5K
Shifty1897 replied
Do you still believe in the quality of Capcom games?
2 3
146
854
AutomaticPrince replied
TES VI trailer is now 7. Do you still believe in Todd?
2 3
140
1K
Crayon replied
Why are games not getting price drops like they use to?
2 3
122
733
DownLikeBCPowder replied
Why are devs/pubs so bad at revealing their own stuff recently?
29
1K
Matt_Fox replied
Top Bottom