Yeah, I understood it as the AAA industry, I don't think he means games will die off as a form of entertainment.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
Yeah, I understood it as the AAA industry, I don't think he means games will die off as a form of entertainment.
Used games often have dirty, scratched covers and discs. It's not brand new. I get that the content is the same, but the package it's in isn't the same as a new copy. It's obviously used, most of the time, so the comparison to a car isn't *completely* off. Regardless, it can be compared perfectly well to movies and CD's.
1rst post [of the page] and all that
Open Source
Banned
Kind of like the fits that people are throwing now about used games, or the fits about online passes?
It's a trade-off that is far more complex than that. First off, the original owner has unlimited access now as it is, so even with no used sales, there's nothing stopping that original owner from using the service until they pull the plug on the servers.
But used gamers online help keep the community alive - which means more DLC map pack sales, more potential new game sales from word-of-mouth, etc. A stronger community definitely results in more opportunities for continued revenue than a dying community, even in non-F2P game structures.
Yes, exactly. This is what's known as a "no-win situation". But better to piss off people who aren't paying you any money anyway than people who are buying your games new.
But there is something stopping the original owner from using the service: the fact that people get bored with games and stop playing them. You look at players' behavior and base your assumptions around that, so that you can focus your budget on things that those players care about, rather than assuming that all players will play online forever and reserving budget for the costs to cover that.
RobotRocker
Member
You also have to realize that historically, the videogame consumer has been an idiot.
Nintendo got away with price fixing and operating a cartel for years till the EU stopped it and smacked them with a €130 million fine but their damage was already done. And even now, Nintendo have had some extremely shady pricing policies and are known to take massive strops if stores "devalue" their product. But they still maintain a highly dedicated fanbase, despite being one of the most hostile anti-consumer companies to ever have existed simply because of their games and customers willful ignorance. And considering Nintendo are a market leader, everyone else thinks they can also get away with such rampant anti-consumer tactics because if they think they have the loyalty of the customer. They are practically invincible.
The Fairplay Campaign organised by the Edge forums to highlight such awful practices to the general public due to concern that people in not good financial health could not afford the horrid pricing. It got horrendous amounts of abuse, not just from the industry, but from industry fanboys who genuinely thought that it should be a privilege to buy a video game and anyone who was poor enough to want to buy a game or two for their kids at Christmas for a better price could go suck a lemon. That's the mindset that we have been dealing with.
We've had so many years of "Fuck You, I Got Mine" from customers that the industry basically sees the customer as selfish idiots who will pay anything for their precious video game from "COD: Straight Up Dog Time" to "Anime girls with their boobs falling out RPG" and clearly sees why they should take advantage of them because they eat that shit up no matter what as long as it has a market. They already have years of this happening and customers did nothing. So they know they can push the envelope farther and farther each gen. Hence why they want a slice of used games. They know they can push it further without customer blowback. And it doesn't matter what sort of game it is, they know they can take advantage of the customer because they will pay for it. If not COD, then "Super Action Open World RPG" they can charge the earth for even if it's 60 hours long. In the end, it's the same principle. The customers willing to take it if they get their shiny game. Hell, the only blowback against COD is because it's popular even though this crap has been going on with every single game on the market.
It's only the logical conclusion since Nintendo's cosy cartel that they would try bullshit like this and they had customer help for years. And people are shocked, shocked that suddenly the industry would try go further.
Nintendo got away with price fixing and operating a cartel for years till the EU stopped it and smacked them with a €130 million fine but their damage was already done. And even now, Nintendo have had some extremely shady pricing policies and are known to take massive strops if stores "devalue" their product. But they still maintain a highly dedicated fanbase, despite being one of the most hostile anti-consumer companies to ever have existed simply because of their games and customers willful ignorance. And considering Nintendo are a market leader, everyone else thinks they can also get away with such rampant anti-consumer tactics because if they think they have the loyalty of the customer. They are practically invincible.
The Fairplay Campaign organised by the Edge forums to highlight such awful practices to the general public due to concern that people in not good financial health could not afford the horrid pricing. It got horrendous amounts of abuse, not just from the industry, but from industry fanboys who genuinely thought that it should be a privilege to buy a video game and anyone who was poor enough to want to buy a game or two for their kids at Christmas for a better price could go suck a lemon. That's the mindset that we have been dealing with.
We've had so many years of "Fuck You, I Got Mine" from customers that the industry basically sees the customer as selfish idiots who will pay anything for their precious video game from "COD: Straight Up Dog Time" to "Anime girls with their boobs falling out RPG" and clearly sees why they should take advantage of them because they eat that shit up no matter what as long as it has a market. They already have years of this happening and customers did nothing. So they know they can push the envelope farther and farther each gen. Hence why they want a slice of used games. They know they can push it further without customer blowback. And it doesn't matter what sort of game it is, they know they can take advantage of the customer because they will pay for it. If not COD, then "Super Action Open World RPG" they can charge the earth for even if it's 60 hours long. In the end, it's the same principle. The customers willing to take it if they get their shiny game. Hell, the only blowback against COD is because it's popular even though this crap has been going on with every single game on the market.
It's only the logical conclusion since Nintendo's cosy cartel that they would try bullshit like this and they had customer help for years. And people are shocked, shocked that suddenly the industry would try go further.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
At what point it goes beyond being fair compensation that motivates you and it becomes greed though?
If I sell you my own originally recorded CD of music I have composed myself, why should I profit when you sell it to your friend?
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
I completely disagree with you. Once I buy a disc, the disc belongs to me, I can and have the right, do whatever I feel like doing with it. The developers, and everyone else involved in the process of creating the physical disc and the experience written unto the disc, do not deserve to get any more money out of that disc after I have purchased the game. If a developer/publisher isn't making enough money out of selling their product to a consumer, they need to change their business model, or raise the prices accordingly if they want to stick to the business model.
This is ridiculous. How do you think people would react if the same thing was done with Blu-Ray/DVDs? Outrage, and rightfully so. The publishers/developers call their consumers entitled, but what it is you are suggesting here is entitlement if I have ever seen it.
Open Source
Banned
Notice how many of those games you list are immune to used game sales.
Maybe the switch to X86 will make development cheaper, or maybe publishers need to reign in the $100 million budget to a more reasonable number because the sales are there for good games.
If you can't be profitable with 3.4-3.6 million copies/game then something is wrong with you as a company, not the "Industry".
Until you mentioned it.. No.
Do you imagine with the ability to sell your digital downloads, those developers/games would have been any less successful? Also consider, the games you're referring to were on steam during the many steam sales.
If the industry chooses to make everything digital download only and goes the direction of "Steam sales" be it Sony, or MS, then I'm all in. Call me pessimistic, but I don't see Activision, Ubisoft, or EA following Valves model primarily because they're publicly held companies.
Open Source
Banned
Then publishers will simply not put games on discs. It's about the software. No reason to fetishize the medium on which the software is imprinted. It's a primitive mindset, this obsession with physical objects. A quirk of human nature. A vestige of a past time that people cling to desperately, because "my rock!" is what they can understand.
element
Member
won't make a difference. the cost of making games comes from the content, so the art. 5 years ago you needed 10 artist and now you need 30.
SpinningBirdKick
Banned
There really can't be any worse way to launch a new version of a product that pisses off heavy users and consumers of your previous product.
GAF are core consumers that would buy many more titles than a casual consumer during the life cycle of their box.
Microsoft are willing to throw that all away with their anti-consumer practices in the hope of many mass market consumers buying into their emperor's new clothes marketing of a system that solves a problem that no one has.
Industries are like houses of cards. Once a few cards start to topple, even those who push positively in another direction get caught up too. They just have to hope they've got the strength to crawl from the wreckage.
This is comedy gold :
"yeah maybe retailers will be left to live if we see fit to spare them"
These guys are pretty much the reasons the industry is so big (because if I have to do 20miles to get the latest Uncharted I can tell you that won't happen in a long time), heck they even make sure that the customers become repeat customers (as data shows, if you want to prove that it isn't true you better back that up) so that you more games gets played and sold and everyone treat them like they're the devil.
You'll even find customer that are willing to fall on the publisher's sword to kill them!
It became apparent since the mid 80's that this whole thing was an industry shitting out factory made products without the hint of handcrafter on it but it's becoming more apparent that it's really no better than the soulless greedy and control freak shit that is Hollywood.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I still do not see why the creator should not have its commercial rights regarding further ownership transfers for a particular item exhausted after the first sale. The day I see valid and satisfactory arguments supporting this beyond the "GameStop is evil, why cannot they just be happy with very low margin sales" or "but games are different" I will definitely reconsider my stance... and no, I do not like the licensed not sold thing one bit either...
So in your opinion Sony and MS are fucked? Basically this gen will be worse off (profits wise) then the previous one?
Well, the companies aren't supporting the servers forever. EA has even been shutting down servers within a couple years, including some where they sold online passes. So they aren't supporting some of these games all that long anyway - even to people who bought new.
But only looking at the extra costs associated with used game users completely ignores the extra revenues that they might help generate as well. It's not a vacuum where the used game online users suck up everything and contribute nothing. Used gamers keeping a community active can help keep DLC selling far longer than it might otherwise - or even help bring in new sales through word-of-mouth due to the still healthy community of the game.
It's not all-or-nothing.
I'm curious to see what comes from Europe's dalliance with granting the right of resale to digital products. That could really be an interesting development if they follow through on that.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
And don't cost $60 either.
I completely agree with this. I dont get it how greedy the industry is. But then again, there are always the costumers who have to follow or to deny this trend. But unfortunately most of these people dont care about those little things. I miss instruction manuals, i miss cool boxes, full games(without patches dlc online passes) and games who actually DO HAVE AN OFFLINE MULTIPLAYER. what the fuck? N64 and last gen had that too so where is the problem? Also there is the problem with forced multiplayer. Games that are good with just the single player experience. Why patch it up with a multiplayer?
Version 3.0
Member
No, you don't. You can make a game with a staff of 1 person, or 10,000 people, or anything in between. Nobody is forcing you to chase the so-called "AAA" market, but if you do, that doesnt give you the right to tell your customers what your game is worth or what they can or can't do with it after they buy it.
The ante is bigger at the high stakes table, but you don't get to change the rules.
Budget busters bolded as black bylines.
And as usual, all had their prices slashed along with numerous sales to move their bits through the ether.
Not necessarily because they have other revenue streams both within and without their consoles but it's likely that consumers will be so turned off by a lack of trade-ins that they'll never invest in the new hardware in the first place.
Which is staying competitive with an unsustainable method of production. It's Chinese Democracy all over again and oh boy, it will die a harrowing death. There won't be 57 distributors with equal market shares to subsidize development.
BishopLamont
Banned
Used games have always existed, it gets games into even more people's hands than if it had not existed, leading into even more sales on their next games. Platform holders and publishers can try to stop it all they want, but don't cry when you make even less profit because of it. If they figure out something that works? Good on them, but the chances are slim.
element
Member
My point being that PS4 and Xbox One having x86 won't magically make it cheaper to make games.
As far as the chasing AAA, sadly mid-tier studios have to chase it as the consumer demands it. As I said in previous posts, I'd love to make more cost effective games, but if a game doesn't have the graphics or features of a AAA game, it is viewed as a budget title right or wrong.
My point was that the "Industry" is not dying.
If you're interested in games that were successful at $60 look it up.
Plenty of AAA games last year sold 1-3 million in copies and yet were still able to make money. If the company making a game has mismanaged development so poorly that they need to sell 5 million to break even, then the responsibility lies with that company, not the industry.
You may be right.
If Sony goes the same direction as MS, which is very likely, we'll see how the hardware sells compared to this gen.
darkistheway
Member
A couple of things: it's not about physical media, it's about ownership. I am sure they are lots of people who believe that they 'own' their Steam library and all hell would break loose if there was ever something that caused that 'ownership' to be questioned.
Secondly, the rest of your point is ridiculous. Primitive? Vestige? notsureifserious.gif
Publishers still need discs for a simple reason. They need a physical, retail presence in order to sell their consoles. Those retail spaces need to make money from the sale of those boxes; unfortunately, the current model has razor-thin margins so very little profit is made from the sale of those consoles. In order for the retailers to pay for the lease, electricity and staff, they need to generate revenue from somewhere. There is more revenue available in the discs and even more available in used discs. The day Gamestop closes its door will be a very bad day for the videogame industry.
travisbickle
Member
I honestly think the publishers are confusing the willingness for initial consumers that buy a game for $60, with the game actual having a worth of $60.
If it was me and I was selling a product for $60 to someone (A) who used it for a couple of weeks then sold it on for $30 to (B), I would think phew that guy saved me a job.
The game wasn't worth $60 to either of A or B but the initial customer A was willing to take the risk of purchasing for double he believed it's worth because he would sell it on later to B.
Then if someone came in and was cutting into that transaction between the two parties A and B to cream off extra profit I'd think maybe I should sell my product for close to $30 so both A and B would buy my game initially?
...
Or make a product worth $60, but that's difficult you have to be like Nintendo or something!!!
If it was me and I was selling a product for $60 to someone (A) who used it for a couple of weeks then sold it on for $30 to (B), I would think phew that guy saved me a job.
The game wasn't worth $60 to either of A or B but the initial customer A was willing to take the risk of purchasing for double he believed it's worth because he would sell it on later to B.
Then if someone came in and was cutting into that transaction between the two parties A and B to cream off extra profit I'd think maybe I should sell my product for close to $30 so both A and B would buy my game initially?
...
Or make a product worth $60, but that's difficult you have to be like Nintendo or something!!!
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
Because they do.
When you buy a game, you don't own the code itself. You basically pay for a license to play. The code on the disk still belongs to the dev.
So when you buy a game used, their is no license paid for.
And its really a simple fix. Cut the dev 10-15 percent of what ever the used retailer sells the game for. The used game retailer still makes a killing since that used price doesn't have to be divided among the dev, publisher, console maker, advertising, etc.
When you buy a game, you don't own the code itself. You basically pay for a license to play. The code on the disk still belongs to the dev.
So when you buy a game used, their is no license paid for.
And its really a simple fix. Cut the dev 10-15 percent of what ever the used retailer sells the game for. The used game retailer still makes a killing since that used price doesn't have to be divided among the dev, publisher, console maker, advertising, etc.
Open Source
Banned
I agree that retail isn't dead, but it's really just a necessary evil that is growing less necessary over time. Customers and publishers alike would be better off in an all-digital marketplace. I don't think GameStop closing would be bad. It and the whole retail model, and consoles that rely on it, need to be purged.
As far as ownership goes, I don't see it being an issue if people look at the situation rationally isntead of maintaining the primitive obsession of owning physical things in an area where the things in question aren't physical in nature. People have gone apeshit about the horrors of not owning games on Steam from time to time. Practical effect of non-ownership? Nada. It's more than compensated for by the perks. I haven't paid more than $20 for a game in years and I have more games in my library than I could ever properly play. It's an embarrassment of riches.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Does it?
element
Member
Do you own the source code or assets of Windows because you bought it?
dragonelite
Member
So do developers that release quality $15 dlc or a year later big expansion pack for $45 or make a stand alone expansion pack.
If the expansion pack is good enough changes are people will either get your game again new plus the expansion pack or get the game used. But expansion packs are a big nonono with yearly releases. Because for me an expansion pack is all about content and not really about massive amount of new tech.
They have the models and choose the more risk bigger reward route with yearly releases and hope franchise fatigue doesn't strikes.
And they have convinced themselves they are entitled to our money and don't have to earn it at least that is the feeling i get.
Open Source
Banned
I agree that some games should cost less than $60. But retail doesn't want to give those games shelf space because their margins will be smaller.
So, fuck retail. Any system that cuts retail further out of the equation is fine with me, because it opens the door for a greater variety of games, game prices, and discounts.
Open Source
Banned
In the US, the right to resell it typically belongs to you, but all other rights, including copy/modification, remain with the creator.
That's basically what online codes are. And those did not end the discussion. Instead, the discussion ended them! Ha!
Do they ship the source code of Windows when you buy it?
element
Member
Do they with games?
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Given we're talking about being able to sell used video games in this thread - I thought the law made specific reference to video games as opposed to 'regular' software with respect to rights of ownership/sale/trading (but not extending to modifying or duplicating). It was posted earlier.
Well no, since we were talking about the code on the discs anyway I don't see the connexion.
his words, not mine.
darkistheway
Member
I think you will be surprised at how long retail is going to last. The alternative is the Amazon model and I'm not sure Microsoft, Sony et al. will like Amazon's terms (and they will dictate terms). The bottom line is that people like to shop - considering most videogame retail happens during the Christmas shopping season, I don't think e-retail will ever be sufficient for stuff like consoles.
What you reject as primitive, I see as part of the fundamental human experience.
Now, that is not to say things don't change. The Amazon phenomenon is one, although I think the Amazon model is based on razor thin margins times sales volume and as such is not suited to the current console model.
The rise of mobile gaming is one area where we see glimpses of the future. Based on the ubiquity of smartphones/tablets, digital purchases account for billions of dollars that, arguably, are 'new revenue' for the industry.
You appear to be a PC gamer - I really think that PC gaming and mobile gaming are the true future of the industry. It is because of the ubiquitous presence of these devices that I can picture future growth. Truthfully, it is the closed system of consoles that seems primitive to me and in need of purging.
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
This is a really good and important point that I think gets overlooked so very often during these discussions.
Eric the Red
Member
Starting in 2002 record companies started trying to replace CD-DA standard discs with "copy-protected" discs that were impossible to play on CD-ROMs. In 2005 Sony (lol) started including "extended copy protection" on their CDs which installed a root-kit on your computer to disable your ability to copy your own purchased CD.
The only reason these aren't standard today is because of the public outcry that followed. People stood up against these threats to fair use and the record companies had to slink back. If everyone's attitude was concern for the poor music industry, worried that their rights were destroying the industry, we would have no rights today. We all want the games industry to thrive, but it is not our consumer rights that is holding them back. It is just the easiest path corporations can try to take to make more money, and so they push as far as they can (basically what Jaffe said smh.)
So no, they obviously don't deserve to be paid twice for the same disc that was already purchased. And hopefully we won't be corporate apologists about this because we're too caught up a console war. Hopefully we will push back hard enough to force the industry to fix their systemic problems instead of exploiting us for easy money.
The only reason these aren't standard today is because of the public outcry that followed. People stood up against these threats to fair use and the record companies had to slink back. If everyone's attitude was concern for the poor music industry, worried that their rights were destroying the industry, we would have no rights today. We all want the games industry to thrive, but it is not our consumer rights that is holding them back. It is just the easiest path corporations can try to take to make more money, and so they push as far as they can (basically what Jaffe said smh.)
So no, they obviously don't deserve to be paid twice for the same disc that was already purchased. And hopefully we won't be corporate apologists about this because we're too caught up a console war. Hopefully we will push back hard enough to force the industry to fix their systemic problems instead of exploiting us for easy money.
dragonelite
Member
Do they need to.
They also dont ship the design documents of a car with you when you buy one.
But im in full control if i want to resale the car or individual parts of it. It is mine i worked for it i paid for it. I own the disk and the executable on it simple like that.
This has nothing to do with source code.
element
Member
software is software. i don't know of any laws giving video games any different ownership rights than any other form of software.
Difference is that games games are starting explore the software licenses model, which is something Microsoft, Adobe, and countless other companies have been doing for years.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
To me it sounds like they want all the benefit of retail store presence without having to deal with any the realities of selling physical products to people. That's fine, but they should have expected the fallout from their customers.
I won't pretend to be an expert on this, but it's been discussed at length in these threads since the Xbone was revealed.
But, as far as I'm aware this doesn't extend outside the US (?)
Open Source
Banned
Retail will last indefinitely. But the important thing is what factors into decision-making. If you don't have to base your decisions on what retail wants, then for all practical purposes retail doesn't matter.
There are problems with the PC/mobile model, too, namely a glut of supply that is shifting money from great games into lowest-common-denominator stuff like most f2p games. I like to have consoles around as well, as they are better suited for certain types of games that would be impossible for financial reasons on other platforms, and because they increase the total audience by subsidizing the hardware.
