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

I don't think we deserve anything legally speaking or hell, even karmakally speaking.
Cool. Then we're good.

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.
Still cool.

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).
I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system, really.
 
Imagine if this ideology was applied to everything you purchased. That new car you bought? Yeah, you can't resell it because it would impact our sales. This is nothing more then another revenue stream they want to suck on.
 
He does make sense however if what we heard about MS is true then its not the type of system he is implying. Then, we can tell them to fuck off but we really don't have a choice.

Don't buy the console. If PS4 does it too, don't buy that one either.
 
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.

Isn't Nintendo already demanding ad revenue from YouTube channels that feature its games in Let's Play videos?
 
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.


If devs take a cut, that will be put the added cost on the consumer, not the retailer. If you lessen/remove the liquidity gamers get from the 2nd hand market(for those who rely on it), you lessen their disposable income. The assumption that taking a cut will actually increase profits is playing with fire, since this has never been proven. The opposite is more likely to happen if you get what you want, this line of thinking is going to contract the market, imo.
 
Don't buy the console. If PS4 does it too, don't buy that one either.

Right, but it's not like PC is an option either if you're interested in "really owning" games. So "we don't have a choice" is pretty accurate unless you're willing to only play whatever gets released on the Wii U.
 
I'm not sure that deserve is the right word. More like "would like."
While publishers are gonna try to get as much money out of their product as they can.

There's no moral ground to stand on with second hand sales, but it's an industry where there is a possibility for the developers and publishers to benefit off second hand sales. Unfortunately it's not sounding like that's being handled ideally thus far.
 
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.


Agree and that is all some hardware makers seem to be saying: they are going to not break laws and try something new that- within the free market system- allows them to make more cash. And like any free market adventure, if the customer rejects the new for the established, so be it. Why is it ok for GameStop to try to benefit from used game sales but not the folks who make the games?!?
 
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.

I... don't get this line of thought.

If publishers got a cut everywhere, there would not be a sudden surge of publishers and developers taking creative risks; if anything, they would be less inclined to take creative risks when considering that safe COD-esque practices merits the highest return for the least amount of risk of loss, for the path of least resistance.

If anything, I very much disagree with any scenario where having the publishers pass off risk to their customers and completely bleed them dry is a condition precedent to getting games that the gaming public might want to see over annual franchise releases.

And as said in countless other topics, the fact that the big publishers have made a virtually unhealthy, unsustainable model is not our concern. Like every other market that has ever existed, it should learn how to adapt or it should fall to the side, not find new ways to screw the consumer base that sustains it in the first place.

Agree and that is all some hardware makers seem to be saying: they are going to not break laws and try something new that- within the free market system- allows them to make more cash. And like any free market adventure, if the customer rejects the new for the established, so be it. Why is it ok for GameStop to try to benefit from used game sales but not the folks who make the games?!?

It's "OK" because that's just how the second-market works. I mean, used car sales establishments benefit from used sales, but car dealers and distributors would fight a losing battle if they tried to get cuts at the expense of the consumers. Yeah, it sucks that GameStop is essentially the dominant entity in this area, but publishers should find ways to go after GameStop that do not necessarily pass off the consequences to the consumers.
 
They are working with a limited user base, and they have to get the most out of them. The type of gaming we are interested in might not be growing. There are bad signs.


I would rather see what a $20 price point would do to the industry. People would resell as much because they wouldn't get as much back. People would impulse purchase a lot more games, and you would have to act like everything has multiplayer legs to convince someone to buy a game.
 
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

David, is this all just greedy pub thing or are they legitimately being hurt by used sales?
 
1) It's the publishers, not the devs. If devs complain, it's because the publishers complain and that affects the health and job security of the devs.

2) They blame used games because they refuse to blame themselves. They are the ones who ballooned budgets. They are the architects of the unsustainable business model where one can't break even on millions of sales. They simply want to deflect blame onto something else. It also helps that they believe that removing used games will make them more money. Which is a dumb assumption considering that 70% of trade-in value goes towards new games. Removing used games is just as likely to cause no change or a net negative to a publisher's bottom line as it is to increase it.
 
Right, but it's not like PC is an option either if you're interested in "really owning" games. So "we don't have a choice" is pretty accurate unless you're willing to only play whatever gets released on the Wii U.

Or wash your hands off gaming and go do something else. Always an option.
 
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.
This unfortunate truth.
 
Look at the blu ray and DVD market. Sales are still healthy, and there's virtually no used market. Why? Because prices start lower and stabilize at 10 and under. No one feels the need to buy used.

Add in a higher price point and a greater sense of urgency to get in early because of online communities, and you see why the used market exists. I bet if prices halved it would be a huge blow to the used market.
 
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.
The other issue is the game industry is pretty much the only entertainment medium that has a single source of potential profit, which is the first 90 days of release.

Compare that to movies which have box office, second box office, bluray/dvd sales, streaming, premium cable, cable, general tv. all of these give the product a revenue source.

Books have hardcover release, paperback, trades. not to mention options of the work to film/tv.

music is probably the closes, but then you have cd/mp3 sales, streaming, radio, and licensing opportunities. bands typically make most of their money on tours since that is a controlled cost with high return merch (that $30 shirt was $3 to print).

Compare all that to games. The store. That is it. That is the only way for the developer or publisher to make money on the product.
 
This has always been my stance on used games. If a copy of a game sells once, they should not be paid for every time someone else sells that same copy again after buying it. Nothing else works that way, and neither should games. If such were the case with everything else, we would never really be allowed to ever own anything. It's nonsense, plain and simple.
 
Then they should be designing games and their budgets that do make a profit.

If they did that for everything, people would complain about the lesser visual and technical quality.

But they DO try doing it for a lot of things. That's what Xbox Arcade and PSN games are, usually. But the thing is, those games are not as big, long, or technically impressive, and what do you know? They sell less. So they can't justify making the switch entirely over to them.
 
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.

Its a good example you are using but the car example still works. Used cars sell just as much as new ones. Direct owner or dealership doesn't matter. If I sell my Altima or trade it in Nissan never see's a dime in that. To combat this, you have all this certified per owned now. They don't disable the car so you can't sell it.
 
used game buyers are not their customers on that sale. they have no responsibility to them.

platform holders probably are the only ones that benefit in any from used games, really.
 
If they did that for everything, people would complain about the lesser visual and technical quality.

But they DO try doing it for a lot of things. That's what Xbox Arcade and PSN games are, usually. But the thing is, those games are not as big, long, or technically impressive, and what do you know? They sell less. So they can't justify making the switch entirely over to them.

Then the industry is fucked and so be it.
 
On monetized ones that were uploaded without their permission?

I'm a little unclear on why they deserve ad revenue over just footage of their game. Let's Play videos do not really damage the viability of their retail products. They are literally free advertising.
 
Agree and that is all some hardware makers seem to be saying: they are going to not break laws and try something new that- within the free market system- allows them to make more cash. And like any free market adventure, if the customer rejects the new for the established, so be it. Why is it ok for GameStop to try to benefit from used game sales but not the folks who make the games?!?

Because the 2nd hand market isn't a simple "Person A sells X, Person B buys X". It is fine(technically/morally) to want the money from used games, however to assume getting money from used games will actually increase a publisher/developers bottom line is guess work. The only thing we do know is the 2nd hand market increases disposable income. Lessen the disposable income and you have a good chance of lowering game demand as a whole.
 
The other issue is the game industry is pretty much the only entertainment medium that has a single source of potential profit, which is the first 90 days of release.

Compare that to movies which have box office, second box office, bluray/dvd sales, streaming, premium cable, cable, general tv. all of these give the product a revenue source.

Books have hardcover release, paperback, trades. not to mention options of the work to film/tv.

music is probably the closes, but then you have cd/mp3 sales, streaming, radio, and licensing opportunities. bands typically make most of their money on tours since that is a controlled cost with high return merch (that $30 shirt was $3 to print).

Compare all that to games. The store. That is it. That is the only way for the developer or publisher to make money on the product.

Games also cost five times the cost of a movie ticket or book. Forget that bit, did you?
 
I'm a little unclear on why they deserve ad revenue over just footage of their game. Let's Play videos do not really damage the viability of their retail products. They are literally free advertising.

I'm a little unclear why the original uploaders deserve the revenue.
 
I... don't get this line of thought.

If publishers got a cut everywhere, there would not be a sudden surge of publishers and developers taking creative risks; if anything, they would be less inclined to take creative risks when considering that safe COD-esque practices merits the highest return for the least amount of risk of loss, for the path of least resistance.

If anything, I very much disagree with any scenario where having the publishers pass off risk to their customers and completely bleed them dry is a condition precedent to getting games that the gaming public might want to see over annual franchise releases.

And as said in countless other topics, the fact that the big publishers have made a virtually unhealthy, unsustainable model is not our concern. Like every other market that has ever existed, it should learn how to adapt or it should fall to the waste-side, not find new ways to screw the consumer base that sustains it in the first place.

I disagree, lots of games are chasing that CoD crowd but are they really successful? not really, so many games bombing left and right, I believe what would happen is dev more inclined to make something different.

it's a balancing act, right now the risk of trying something new is bigger than if they simply clone CoD, if we could somehow lower those risk for dev and publisher, it might reach the point where the trying for something new may be more worthwhile than chasing the CoD clone. CoD clones market are very crowded right now.
 
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

I love Twisted Metal, but I didn't get into Gow until Origins (unfortunately), and boy was that double pack great! I got it for $19.99.

How do you feel about games getting marked down considerably?

Man, it's like Christmas hearing from you.
 
Agree and that is all some hardware makers seem to be saying: they are going to not break laws and try something new that- within the free market system- allows them to make more cash. And like any free market adventure, if the customer rejects the new for the established, so be it. Why is it ok for GameStop to try to benefit from used game sales but not the folks who make the games?!?
Because they're shitting on their customers to do it?

Why do they get to decide who I sell my games to? Why do they deserve money for something they've already been paid for?

Next they'll want a cut of my money when I sell a used console. And I'll only be able to sell my console to approved vendors. It's bullshit.
 
Look at the blu ray and DVD market. Sales are still healthy, and there's virtually no used market. Why? Because prices start lower and stabilize at 10 and under. No one feels the need to buy used.

Add in a higher price point and a greater sense of urgency to get in early because of online communities, and you see why the used market exists. I bet if prices halved it would be a huge blow to the used market.
jschreier suggested this as well.

If game prices dropped to $35 the used market would crash over night.
 
Because the 2nd hand market isn't a simple "Person A sells X, Person B buys X". It is fine(technically/morally) to want the money from used games, however to assume getting money from used games will actually increase a publisher/developers bottom line is guess work. The only thing we do know is the 2nd hand market increases disposable income. Lessen the disposable income and you have a good chance of lowering game demand as a whole.

You're ignoring the fact that the marginal cost of making more copies of a game is basically zero. it's beyond silly to assume that the publishers won't run their own price discrimination schemes in the absence of a used market. Look at Steam.
 
Sorry to bring this up again, but what makes video games so unique in all the world that they need to be sold twice?

Seriously?

I mean, isn't this a conversation stopper? Because I feel like it's the biggest damn elephant in a room I've ever seen.
 
jschreier suggested this as well.

If game prices dropped to $35 the used market would crash over night.

no. gamestop pushes you to get the $33 dollar used game anyway.

not to mention $35 is still expensive. movies are priced at 20 when they come out and quickly drop the next month.
 
Games also cost five times the cost of a movie ticket or book. Forget that bit, did you?
Cost wasn't my issue. People still trade in $20 games. My point is that games only have a single way to generate revenue in the current model. There have been attempts with season passes, and DLC but they have been inconsistent in their benefit.

not to mention $35 is still expensive. movies are priced at 20 when they come out and quickly drop the next month.
That is because the studio already made money on the box office release, and still have multiple streams of revenue after the release of the bluray/dvd.
 
You're ignoring the fact that the marginal cost of making more copies of a game is basically zero. it's beyond silly to assume that the publishers won't run their own price discrimination schemes in the absence of a used market. Look at Steam.

Or I could look at MS and Sony and their wonderful handling of prices on their own digital platforms.

Steam is on the open platform called the PC. Just a bit of a difference.
 
We already pay $60 freaking dollars for a new game, it's bullshit that they think they can do whatever they want with our consumer rights, the least they could do is have steam-like sales if they want to compete with used games.
 
If they did that for everything, people would complain about the lesser visual and technical quality.

But they DO try doing it for a lot of things. That's what Xbox Arcade and PSN games are, usually. But the thing is, those games are not as big, long, or technically impressive, and what do you know? They sell less. So they can't justify making the switch entirely over to them.

They don´t have to copypaste Uncharted. Angry Birds, Pokemon, Tetris and Minecraft sold pretty well as far as I know.

I'm a little unclear on why they deserve ad revenue over just footage of their game. Let's Play videos do not really damage the viability of their retail products. They are literally free advertising.

You are confused. And this story doesn´t belong here. This thread is about used games.
 
Because the 2nd hand market isn't a simple "Person A sells X, Person B buys X". It is fine(technically/morally) to want the money from used games, however to assume getting money from used games will actually increase a publisher/developers bottom line is guess work. The only thing we do know is the 2nd hand market increases disposable income. Lessen the disposable income and you have a good chance of lowering game demand as a whole.


Fine- but let them take that risk is all I'm saying. I guess for me all the complaining is pointless: don't like it, don't buy it and if enuff agree, the idea tanks and the industry learns. Super super simple.
 
You're ignoring the fact that the marginal cost of making more copies of a game is basically zero. it's beyond silly to assume that the publishers won't run their own price discrimination schemes in the absence of a used market. Look at Steam.

And this right here is essentially the argument. I understand it, but I in no way understand how you believe the companies will actually do it, specially in the console market. Do you have faith in the big publishers and console makers to properly adjust value for the consumer to maintain the same amount of liquidity to disposable income ratio, is the question.

Sony/MS/Nintendo/Big Pubs are not Valve, they are publicly traded companies, their goals and market models are not even in the same ball park as Valve nor is steam under the same pressures from the market as these other guys. We have decades of proof on our side that says that cant be trusted with keeping disposable income and liquidity of the game in check.
 
Its a good example you are using but the car example still works. Used cars sell just as much as new ones. Direct owner or dealership doesn't matter. If I sell my Altima or trade it in Nissan never see's a dime in that. To combat this, you have all this certified per owned now. They don't disable the car so you can't sell it.

I don't know enough to speak knowledgeably about whether or not used car sales at a Honda dealership actually contribute to Honda's bottom line. Even if they don't having used cars is going to help keep the dealership afloat and profitable during times when it becomes difficult to sell new product -- when new models are a couple months away from release, or during a recession. They also introduce new users to the Honda ecosystem. That person that bought a used Honda might not be giving Honda any money, but he'll certainly be buying the parts they manufacture and maybe next time he'll buy a new Honda if he likes it.

By the same token, you rarely see Sony or Microsoft complaining about used consoles, because the people buying them are still going to buy games they get a cut on.
 
Yes, but the person who sold it no longer has access to that experience. This is called "exchanging goods and services"

The person who sold it, already had that experience. It would be the equivalent of buying a movie ticket for 10 dollars at let's call it "moviestop", then after you watched the movie sell it "moviestop" for 2 bucks, then "Moviestop" sells the ticket to another person at 8 dollars.

The person that bough the ticket new and the person that bough it used, got the same experience. The movie creator only got his share for one ticket, while Moviestop got the profit from two.
 
The other issue is the game industry is pretty much the only entertainment medium that has a single source of potential profit, which is the first 90 days of release.

Compare that to movies which have box office, second box office, bluray/dvd sales, streaming, premium cable, cable, general tv. all of these give the product a revenue source.

Books have hardcover release, paperback, trades. not to mention options of the work to film/tv.

music is probably the closes, but then you have cd/mp3 sales, streaming, radio, and licensing opportunities. bands typically make most of their money on tours since that is a controlled cost with high return merch (that $30 shirt was $3 to print).

Compare all that to games. The store. That is it. That is the only way for the developer or publisher to make money on the product.

Damn I guess Capcom makes zero money off the Resident Evil movies, and Konami nothing off the Silent Hill ones.

And damn I guess harcover, paperbacks have no parallel in limited edition cat helmet versions of games.

You are just ignorant or daft.


The real question is one of consumer ownership. Do we own the games (the actual disc) or do we just own the license to use it? That conversation is ongoing from a legal standpoint but many businesses prefer moving to a license model for sure.

Everything else you talked about is just stupid, why does gaming have to mirror other industries that have naturally more channels of monetization? That's just how those things work, why don't you draw parallels instead to industries like fishing, mining, or for something closer to entertainment like broadway theatre or live concerts? Why are the comparisons against film/music and why are they such selective comparisons?
 
Top Bottom