Cool. Then we're good.
Still cool.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system, really.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
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.
Isn't Nintendo already demanding ad revenue from YouTube channels that feature its games in Let's Play videos?
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.
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.
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.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
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?!?
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.
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.
Majima Everywhere System
Member
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 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.
StreetsAhead
Member
On monetized ones that were uploaded without their permission?
vpance
Gold Member
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.
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.
Pureauthor
Member
Or wash your hands off gaming and go do something else. Always an option.
This unfortunate truth.
anexanhume
Member
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.
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.
element
Member
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.
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.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
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.
SolarPowered
Member
Developers will just make games if given the money. Publishers are the ones with the clout and the will to take away second hand sales.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
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.
platform holders probably are the only ones that benefit in any from used games, really.
Version 3.0
Member
This is the most hilarious answer possible, given the most common developer/publisher relationship.
element
Member
on all Let's Play videos using Nintendo products.
StreetsAhead
Member
Then the industry is fucked and so be it.
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.
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.
Games also cost five times the cost of a movie ticket or book. Forget that bit, did you?
StreetsAhead
Member
I'm a little unclear why the original uploaders deserve the revenue.
Callibretto
Member
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.
SMT
this show is not Breaking Bad why is it not Breaking Bad? it should be Breaking Bad dammit Breaking Bad
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.
Wickerbasket
Member
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.
Arc Christelle
Member
When I read stuff like this I start to think that some of you people actually believe this shit should be free.
jschreier suggested this as well.
If game prices dropped to $35 the used market would crash over night.
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.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or making a statement you believe. But I agree.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
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.
element
Member
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.
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.
Pureauthor
Member
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.
They don´t have to copypaste Uncharted. Angry Birds, Pokemon, Tetris and Minecraft sold pretty well as far as I know.
You are confused. And this story doesn´t belong here. This thread is about used games.
And when people defend it I start to think the industry wants to work under a coin op model. $2 per game, every time you play it.
Peter Bazooka
Banned
I suppose if you ignore DLC that's true.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
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.
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.
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.
Winterfang
Banned
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.
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?