lol.
This is post is too perfect. Man.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
lol.
This is post is too perfect. Man.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
A lot of entertainment works this way, it's called royalties. Every time a song is played on the radio they pay the band. Every time a TV show is shown in reruns the actors get paid again. I'm still getting paid for music I wrote 4 years ago because the shows keep getting broadcast or that piece of music got licensed for another show. This is what software is, you may own the disk but you don't own the content, it's licensed to you.
Games have royalties too.
fabricated backlash
Member
Because they're greedy as fuck and try to paint their products as something completely new that defies the conventional right of first sale because of fairy dust and rainbows.
They try to take advantage of a lack of trade regulations in this area, and a severe lack of spine in their customer base. They're afraid of raising prices outright so they implement all these schemes and scams to milk customers even more: Season Passes, online passes, special editions and retailer exclusive content...
To me it's pretty simple:
Devs and pubs have zero right to any profit made in the second hand market. They forfeited all sale rights to the copy the moment it was purchased from them. Unless you believe in fairies and unicorns, there is no argument to be made that games are somehow different and should be treated as leased goods, instead of purchases.
I base my argument on the right of first sale and the recent EU verdict that publishers and developers have no rights to keep someone from reselling his digital content or to demand profit from it.
They try to take advantage of a lack of trade regulations in this area, and a severe lack of spine in their customer base. They're afraid of raising prices outright so they implement all these schemes and scams to milk customers even more: Season Passes, online passes, special editions and retailer exclusive content...
To me it's pretty simple:
Devs and pubs have zero right to any profit made in the second hand market. They forfeited all sale rights to the copy the moment it was purchased from them. Unless you believe in fairies and unicorns, there is no argument to be made that games are somehow different and should be treated as leased goods, instead of purchases.
I base my argument on the right of first sale and the recent EU verdict that publishers and developers have no rights to keep someone from reselling his digital content or to demand profit from it.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
Of course they do, but they're not recouping royalties on used games.
The issue with used games isn't a publisher issue, necessarily - it's that the experience of flipping used games basically means a retailer will profit considerably more than the sale price of the cost of the unit purchased. It's basically like offering a rental service with a $50 deposit... they can't lose. Specifically, imagine a game is traded at a rate of x times - the retail firstly discourages users from buying new by pushing pre-owned (or selling pre-owned as new!) and then encourages you to come back in shortly after purchase and sell it back for a massive margin. There's nearly no other markets that work like this in my mind, and I can see why I'd be concerned about it if I was a developer seeing my peers lose their jobs at astonishing rates.
The problem is the end user is the one that tends to get burned by a war between manufacturer and retailer. This is the same situation as most other schemes aimed at walling in profit [e.g. DRM aiming to curb piracy].
I think MS, if they were smart, would turn this into a massive win by basically forcing the used market onto Live. Let people buy and sell used games digitally in an eBay type universe (factoring in a 'selling fee' split to both them and the publisher) so the only person that really loses is your brick and mortar retailer. Imagine unpopular games tanking in price because of a lack of demand, and imagine great games staying expensive because no one wants to part with their copy. It would make users, MS and pubs happy. Imagine being able to instantly grab a second hand copy of anything you want for the cheapest price from your couch and play it instantly. I would love this system.
The problem is the end user is the one that tends to get burned by a war between manufacturer and retailer. This is the same situation as most other schemes aimed at walling in profit [e.g. DRM aiming to curb piracy].
I think MS, if they were smart, would turn this into a massive win by basically forcing the used market onto Live. Let people buy and sell used games digitally in an eBay type universe (factoring in a 'selling fee' split to both them and the publisher) so the only person that really loses is your brick and mortar retailer. Imagine unpopular games tanking in price because of a lack of demand, and imagine great games staying expensive because no one wants to part with their copy. It would make users, MS and pubs happy. Imagine being able to instantly grab a second hand copy of anything you want for the cheapest price from your couch and play it instantly. I would love this system.
Nothing much to be done, but it's still riding a wave.
The music industry crashed and it still hasn't recovered, so there you go.
fabricated backlash
Member
Of course not, why would they?
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Corporate greed.
Funny how it crashed at the peak of anti consumer drm strategies.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Really interested to see what their 'game trading' policy is. If it's tied to a single retailer like Gamestop that'll be completely fucked. Will see come E3 I guess.
That's true for how software tends to work legally, but it's also insane that it is accepted. We don't buy software for the purposes of mass distribution through broadcast, which is what licensing is intended for.
To put it another way, if I buy your CD that does not give me the right to play your songs on television because I bought a recorded copy of your songs and not the rights associated to the content. I can sell MY copy of your CD on amazon without having to give you a cut because I paid for my copy of those songs. That CD is MY COPY and would not belong to you. If I bought your CD and you didn't like that, you would not be allowed to knock on my door and demand I return your property to you.
It's the retailer that is the "problem".
When you walk into GameStop and go to buy a new game, the cashier will say:
"We have one of those pre-owned for $3 less, would you like that instead?"
There's no other industry that has this problem, no other industry has their main route to the consumer actively competing with them for sales. GameStop would like to think they are a friend of the industry, but really, they're the number one competitor.
Publishers don't really care that a user wants to sell their game, if it was just trading between friends or selling on ebay, there would be no issue. It's the way that GameStop and GAME have set up their entire business around sniping sales from the publishers/developers that is the issue.
We don't know how the "Xbox One console" trade-ins will work yet, but I imagine it will be a very similar experience for the consumer. You trade in your game and GameStop give you a pittance for it, which you put towards something else. They then resell it for $20 more than they offered you. But now, instead of them getting that $20 they'll have to buy a new license key from Microsoft (probably for about $15).
For the consumer the experience is the same, MS and the publisher win because they get money. The only loser is the retailer, and they're a pack a scumbags anyway, so who cares?
EDIT: And one thing that infuriates me about pre-owned, at least in the UK, is that you don't pay any sales tax/VAT on the used games. So when you take the tax into account, you're actually paying more to GAME for a pre-owned copy than you are for a new one in pretty much 100% of cases.
When you walk into GameStop and go to buy a new game, the cashier will say:
"We have one of those pre-owned for $3 less, would you like that instead?"
There's no other industry that has this problem, no other industry has their main route to the consumer actively competing with them for sales. GameStop would like to think they are a friend of the industry, but really, they're the number one competitor.
Publishers don't really care that a user wants to sell their game, if it was just trading between friends or selling on ebay, there would be no issue. It's the way that GameStop and GAME have set up their entire business around sniping sales from the publishers/developers that is the issue.
We don't know how the "Xbox One console" trade-ins will work yet, but I imagine it will be a very similar experience for the consumer. You trade in your game and GameStop give you a pittance for it, which you put towards something else. They then resell it for $20 more than they offered you. But now, instead of them getting that $20 they'll have to buy a new license key from Microsoft (probably for about $15).
For the consumer the experience is the same, MS and the publisher win because they get money. The only loser is the retailer, and they're a pack a scumbags anyway, so who cares?
EDIT: And one thing that infuriates me about pre-owned, at least in the UK, is that you don't pay any sales tax/VAT on the used games. So when you take the tax into account, you're actually paying more to GAME for a pre-owned copy than you are for a new one in pretty much 100% of cases.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
Trade ins for used games wont be activated until at least a month after being onsale so that new games don't have to compete with used sales and the sales are higher for full price.
StreetsAhead
Member
Which is why I am against Let's Plays, but for used games.
Then publishers should stop offering DLC and other pre-order bonuses through that retailer and supporting them. Oh, that'd have the opposite effect.
element
Member
royalties vs residual. movies and tv have residual, meaning everytime something is viewed/aired/sold people will get a cut. There are common jokes of actors getting $2 checks for a movie they did 10 years ago because it aired on some cable channel. it doesn't matter how well the movie does, these profits are done via contracts, guilds, and unions that each person belongs too, thought the percentages might change.
Royalties are typical based on the performance of a project and hitting specific targets.
It hasn't recovered, but it is gaining for the first time since 1999.
It's a grey area, but Let's Plays don't function in that way because games are generally bought to be played which a LP does not allow a viewer to accomplish.
Just watching someone progress through the narrative without any meaningful interactivity accomplishes very little of what a game is.
Unless the game in question is Heavy Rain. Or Bioshock Infinite. Or Spec Ops The Line. Or... you know, you might have a point.
element
Member
I'm curious how the growth of the Let's Play phenomenon will affect strong single player titles. The fact that someone can 'watch' an entire game without having to pay for it does open up a lot of curious doors. At GDC Twitch said that they are quickly becoming the strongest purchase influencer, with direct friend word of mouth being #1. So watching games have become more important than reviews.
Well those things encourage people to buy a new game over a pre-owned one, or buy it on day one when there are no pre-owned available.
Also the retailer doesn't get those things for free.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Good thread.
So I was thinking about this on the way to work. I came to a couple of conclusions.
1. Developers and publishers need to stop whining and suck it up. The used market exists and gets their product into more people's hands than it would have done without used games. That gives them the opportunity to sell DLC and online passes to them creating a revenue stream from nothing.
2. Online passes. Don't have a problem with them, it costs money to keep servers running and used gaming increases server utilisation and their running costs. Sure, people will say that the revenue for the game has already been taken, but really the cost curve for servers will be changed by used gaming and online passes will help address that.
3. Publishers need to start looking at non-traditional methods of distribution including f2p and microtransactions which will essentially devalue the game disc. I wouldn't mind the microtransaction model if publishers sold the games for £15 and put a microtransaction cap of £30 on their games to unlock all of the content.
So I was thinking about this on the way to work. I came to a couple of conclusions.
1. Developers and publishers need to stop whining and suck it up. The used market exists and gets their product into more people's hands than it would have done without used games. That gives them the opportunity to sell DLC and online passes to them creating a revenue stream from nothing.
2. Online passes. Don't have a problem with them, it costs money to keep servers running and used gaming increases server utilisation and their running costs. Sure, people will say that the revenue for the game has already been taken, but really the cost curve for servers will be changed by used gaming and online passes will help address that.
3. Publishers need to start looking at non-traditional methods of distribution including f2p and microtransactions which will essentially devalue the game disc. I wouldn't mind the microtransaction model if publishers sold the games for £15 and put a microtransaction cap of £30 on their games to unlock all of the content.
Mailenstein
Member
Why is this even a thing now?
MS got away with paid online multiplayer and people happily supported that. Sure, throughout the year thats a few cents per day, but still. The same thing will happen to the XBone and nobody will give a fuck about it in two or three years. No effin' way that it will "tank".
MS got away with paid online multiplayer and people happily supported that. Sure, throughout the year thats a few cents per day, but still. The same thing will happen to the XBone and nobody will give a fuck about it in two or three years. No effin' way that it will "tank".
What if instead of 'encouraging' people to buy new with bullshit day-one DLC publishers just released good, non-disposable games with post-release support? That way nobody would want to sell their games in the first place and there wouldn't be as many used copies on the shelves!
dragonelite
Member
Cd project did that with The Wither 2 if im not mistaken and good timed discounts..
dreamcastmaster
Banned
The speed and amount of used games of certain titles let's me know how good a game is. If I see a lot and quickly it's either not that good or niche and hyped.
Open Source
Banned
Monetizing used game buyers creates a lot of other problems, such as games being sold essentially incomplete to incentivize DLC purchases, and the rise of exploitative f2p models. And also the decline of game designs that aren't as suitable for DLC/f2p/multiplayer/etc.
I think that the majority of customers, who don't buy games used or trade them in, will have better games (and a greater variety of games) for a better price if used games go away and they don't have to subsidize used game buyers.
You understand why you get royalties for that don't you?
You're not getting royalties for your music; your getting royalties for the public broadcast and licensing of your music.
That is some crazy, blue sky thinking you've got there, son.
Scalemail Ted
Member
I'd rather see the devs get back money for resells then companies like gamestop
And the actually relevant example: when I sell a used media containing your work to someone, you get nothing.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
As long as they cut the cost of new games to reflect "additional content" then it's not a big deal. It would also make the base game more accessible to people.
hooijdonk17
Member
Amazon sells everything in this manner and I haven't seen anyone but game publishers whine about it. I'm sorry but your whole argument is based on a false premise.
Open Source
Banned
It's funny how many of the "you didn't build that" types are fine with GameStop profiting on the backs of the people who contributed a far greater amount to their business - the game creators - than government ever did. I mean, at least GameStop pays taxes to the government. The people who made their most profitable product get nothing.
Amazing how fast they are willing to abandon their support of "the workers" in favor of an exploitative corporation when it means a few more bucks in their own pocket.
Amazing how fast they are willing to abandon their support of "the workers" in favor of an exploitative corporation when it means a few more bucks in their own pocket.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Stolin said:
This is exactly what I and plenty of other people in the development community have a massive problem with. Its also why most of us are extremely wary of what MS are considering.
Private sales between gamers should *NEVER* be prohibited, because that's not the problem. The specific problem is the prominent placing of used titles in retail establishments so as to directly compete against new titles.
We're not stupid and not so disconnected from the real world to fail to understand the need for consumers to seek out the best value for their gaming dollar. We are consumers too.
That said, placing big, used, titles at discount in direct competition with all new product is obviously unwelcome competition, not to mention unfair as there's no way we can compete when the retailer controls both the procurement and sales price. However low we go price-wise, they can always undercut us.
This is a problem for games in particular as they have a relatively short shelf-life in the first place, and this sort of predatory competitive practice further curtails the ability for the product to make sufficient return on investment to justify the risk.
This in turn disincentivizes publishers from green-lighting any product that isn't super mainstream, with the end result that creativity and quantity of titles produced suffers.
Wow, you have run off the rails now man. You do know that retail stores employ people to, right?
Open Source
Banned
And the value they add to used games, compared to the value the creators add?
It doesn't matter. You want an economy to work one way, but it doesn't work that way.
Open Source
Banned
I'm satirizing the hypocritical Marxists here. GameStop controls the means of production (well, as it applies to used games, anyway) and exploits game creators! You didn't build that, GameStop!
Of course it doesn't work that way. GameStop, consumers who buy used games, etc. are simply responding to economic incentives. It's just a matter of changing the business model to change those incentives.
Jean Valjean
Member
If the problem is Gamestop, the publishers should go after them, not used games. This shouldn't affect gmaers that want to trade, sell or give away their discs to another gamer.
They could have done that by not providing GS with pre order exclusives :/ Then less people would buy a game from GS, providing less incentive to trade the game at GS, reducing the number of used games available at GS.
kurtrussell
Banned
This is what 95% of NeoGAF doesn't understand:
I have a friend who works for Team 17 and he told me explicitly that within the RRP of a console game is the expectation that the game will be loaned to two other people, and sold pre-owned once.
So... devs already do get a cut of second hand sales - it's built into the original price!
I'm waiting to see if the games released for XBoned actually reflect this and are reduced appropriately. Unfortunately, I already know what the answer will be :-\
I have a friend who works for Team 17 and he told me explicitly that within the RRP of a console game is the expectation that the game will be loaned to two other people, and sold pre-owned once.
So... devs already do get a cut of second hand sales - it's built into the original price!
I'm waiting to see if the games released for XBoned actually reflect this and are reduced appropriately. Unfortunately, I already know what the answer will be :-\
Open Source
Banned
The horse has left the barn door. GameStop has proven how profitable the model can be, and the bandwagon is in full swing. If you strike down GameStop, another will take its place.
I agree that small-time trading among individuals should be possible. But how do you make that possible without making it possible for someone to make a business out of it?
A guarantee it works? A lot of used sales are "as is".
Open Source
Banned
Sure, GameStop provides some value by ensuring quality, providing the storefront, handling trade-ins, etc. But in most cases, it's a small fraction of the total value, which is why used games are such a huge money-maker for them.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Wrong. The consumer is ALWAYS the loser. Retailers are the scumbags? No, they're the ones giving me great discounts on games, while Microsoft rarely gives anything worthwhile unless I'm a paying member of their online service crap.
Under this new trade in program consumers will only be able to trade games in to outlets that utilize Microsoft's trade in program. Now consumers will have fewer options to trade/sell games (goodbye ebay). Worse yet both the greedy publishers AND Microsoft will BOTH be taking a cut of your trade in credit, while the retailer will be unaffected. It's complete BS, and just another way or these greedy bastards to keep making money on a product after the initial sale. NO other industry does this but gaming, but stupid gamers care more about the publishers than themselves.
Lucifersam
Banned
I just don't think they have a RIGHT to if we are talking about a physical product. They obviously don't see it that way and the industry is moving toward renting a game but paying full price for it.
To me it is a little absurd that out of all the industries in the world that produce a physical product it is the gaming industry that feels it is above the "used" market that EVERY other physical product has. Even the crazy RIAA and MPAA didn't seriously try and kill used CD sales or used DVD sales.
Right. That's how the used market works for almost every product out there. Steam works because you can amass a huge library through sales. Can't resell steam games, but who gives a shit? It was only $5-$15 dollars . Unless this decreases the price of retail games I will not be buying an Xbone .
Lucifersam
Banned
The publishers want their cake to. They can't go after gamestop cause gamestop actually does a lot of marketing and promotion for their games. So instead of trying to work something out with them they try and screw us over.