Because they assume we'll just take it and they may be right. If production houses tried to do this with movies Congress would be on it almost instantly.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
Because they assume we'll just take it and they may be right. If production houses tried to do this with movies Congress would be on it almost instantly.
Good points OP.Its piracy that needs to be fought in every way.Used games however, not so.The games already been paid for once to be sold in the first place.I do believe that gamestop don't deserve this massive % of profit when they did really work or fund the game at all. I think its better to find a way to give these profits to publishers and devs rather than game freakin' stop.
The majority of the revenues come from movie theaters, which has practically no "used" market.
Because it isnt as simple for me as "consumer rights" like it/buy it. This line of thinking has a legitimate chance of hurting a industry I enjoy by hurting both the developer and the consumer. That is why it is a big deal to me. Games in the grand scheme of things isnt a big deal, but it is a big deal to me if the market contracts because the malinvestment and market decisions continue ,everyone loses in this case.
I'm not looking at this like most of the others, personally, it is less about consumer rights and more about industry health, and this doesnt sound very healthy, to me. Specially in this economy and with the amount of malinvestment already in this industry.
So, if it gets bad enough are we going to bail them out as well? Hand them a stack of cash and watch in horror as they hand it to an exec as a bonus?
Fuck that. There isn't a single publisher that's so important we can't lose them. I couldn't give less of a shit that their $50 million+ game with garbage gameplay bombed. Have some fucking respect for your products next time.
Fuck that. There isn't a single publisher that's so important we can't lose them. I couldn't give less of a shit that their $50 million+ game with garbage gameplay bombed. Have some fucking respect for your products next time.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
They only get to if you buy a console that forces you to use that behavior. Easy solve: don't buy a console that doesn't give you a used game system you like. Unless you are just complaining to complain- which is a valid form of entertainment. But if you are talking about a real solve, I'm excited to see a few shake ups to the used game system- I have no doubt the customer will vote with their wallets and let us game makers know what they like and don't like.
bigboss370
Member
I think the most comparable industry to video games is movies/tv. Because they are all visual entertainment mediums.
-Cars don't really apply; different industry, products deteriorate with time, sale price varies model to model, and I'm not sure how much their sale price is compared to production price.
-Books are usually by a single author or mulitple ones but don't cost millions to create. Also, a reputable book store like Indigo/Coles don't sell used books in the same store. And books also deteriorate with time/use.
Movies though involve hundreds of people working on projects (comparable for high budget games) for years at a time. The difference is that movies have multiple streams of revenue. On average a movie makes majority of its money at the box office. TV has ad revenue and then dvd sales. Neither have a monopolistic retailer selling their dvds used.
-Cars don't really apply; different industry, products deteriorate with time, sale price varies model to model, and I'm not sure how much their sale price is compared to production price.
-Books are usually by a single author or mulitple ones but don't cost millions to create. Also, a reputable book store like Indigo/Coles don't sell used books in the same store. And books also deteriorate with time/use.
Movies though involve hundreds of people working on projects (comparable for high budget games) for years at a time. The difference is that movies have multiple streams of revenue. On average a movie makes majority of its money at the box office. TV has ad revenue and then dvd sales. Neither have a monopolistic retailer selling their dvds used.
wumster3000
Member
Used games are on the way out. It's not of matter of if, it's a matter of when. We all know that it is going to happen.
But on topic, it's hard to say. Developing software is nothing like building a car, where most of the assembly is mechanized. Programming a game is very difficult, and while game studios are closing/laying off , I don't see many car manufactures closing.
I'm not defending all publishers and developers, but some of them need every penny they can get to remain open. You have to sell a million plus to stay afloat now. With the introduction of new technology, the cost of training goes up. You want to add more polygons to that character? it takes a lot more time to do that. We want new innovative games, but publishers are afraid to try anything because they need to meet that bottom line.
I am for developers getting something from used games if this means that they are willing to take more chances a step outside the box.
But on topic, it's hard to say. Developing software is nothing like building a car, where most of the assembly is mechanized. Programming a game is very difficult, and while game studios are closing/laying off , I don't see many car manufactures closing.
I'm not defending all publishers and developers, but some of them need every penny they can get to remain open. You have to sell a million plus to stay afloat now. With the introduction of new technology, the cost of training goes up. You want to add more polygons to that character? it takes a lot more time to do that. We want new innovative games, but publishers are afraid to try anything because they need to meet that bottom line.
I am for developers getting something from used games if this means that they are willing to take more chances a step outside the box.
Wickerbasket
Member
Why didn't you use the examples of DVDs or blu rays? They fit as a better comparison.
Or would that ruin your point?
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
Again this is fair as long as in the spirit of competition they don't break the game by forcing you into some kind of system. GS is being used here but there is also borrowing with friends, giving a game to my nephews when I am done, ebay etc.
I am responding strictly from the perspective of the Microsoft rumors (which have all come true) and the #PS4noDRM campaign. Realistically though, GAF hates GS but any sort of imposing control of what they feel are there rights as consumers they hate even more. Retail prices for gaming in general need some kind of reform, if at any point the publisher passed on a break to the consumer I think people might see this different.
I have a hard time seeing DL versions of games at full price months after release. It isn't hard to understand why the consumer wants all his options. Not to mention, If I buy CoD uses and get the season pass that goes right to the publisher. Themes, Avatars, Maps, Passes. I'd say its tipped pretty favorably towards the pub this gen based on raw sales alone on annual titles.
Becuase they've created entertaining and informative content that generally goes beyond silent footage of a game-in-progress?
Someone like that Angry Video Game Nerd or Nostalgia Critic or even *sigh* Total Biscuit more than deserves revenue from videos.
Direct to DVD market is a thing.
fatgamecat
Member
Deserve has nothing to do with it, in the end. It's all about what the market (aka consumers) will bear. And it looks like we're willing to bear quite a lot, if this generation is any indication.
See books, cars, paintings.
Do you expect the Van Gogh estate to take a slice of paintings being auctioned off by a middle party, just because one painting owner had the 'experience' and the other is about to have the same?
What about paying Disney royalties when you pass a Mickey toy from your elder son to your younger one?
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're talking about major retail games also sold as digital downloads, you're talking about games for which the used market is important. The whole reason publishers don't like the used market is that it makes it difficult for them to effectively price discriminate. Of course no one's trying to get into a price war using digital distribution when the used market exists; they'll always get undercut. It makes much more sense to treat the digital product almost as a premium version and hope that people are willing to pay extra for the convenience of not having to go out to buy the game or wait as long to ship it.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
It's like a devilish, unending circle with roots that, I think, can be traced to how expensive these days to make a game. Or perhaps to be more precise, the thinking that to create a successful product you need to throw a lot of money towards its creation.
Spend more money --> looking for ways to get money to cover cost --> dabbling in stuff that normally wouldn't be dabbled in order to get money no matter what the method --> sense of entitlement.
Spend more money --> looking for ways to get money to cover cost --> dabbling in stuff that normally wouldn't be dabbled in order to get money no matter what the method --> sense of entitlement.
Callibretto
Member
because.. software? most software sales as far as I'm aware of are one activation only. you get cd key or something similar when you bought windows os or other software.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
You also have the choice of a matinee movie at half price.
BlastProcessing
Member
Agreed, the dance between buyer and seller is just part of a free market. Each one should act in it's own best intrest. I will say that, for me, any system that requires a server check to play an offline game is a bridge too far. When I buy a game I want to know it will work in 20 years the same way my current 20-year-old games still work.
It just sucks to see publishers react to a situation by devaluing their own product. It really bothers me to see the people who are making games treat games like some temporary entertainment instead of a lasting form. When a publisher attaches a game to a server check DRM system, it signals to me that they aren't concerned with the idea that games could have lasting cultural impact the way other art forms do.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Im not disagreeing that devs should get money from used games, I like the idea however it also sets an ugly precedent. That said- and honest question- do you really think a company like MS who has seemingly backed a TON of money into this idea and philosophy will back off? Or that gamers will stop gaming if they aren't happy with their only option? I feel the current DRM situation forces gamers to choose between buying games or not buying them at all if they aren't happy.
I'm not sure what I would suggest in its place.. I think I would prefer something closer to PC: One time use codes that need internet once, with no always on DRM and that would block trade ins (due to the code being needed).. but to help offset the change, sell the game at a cheaper price.
Or just stick with what we have, but try to get big companies like GS to play nice and share a percentage of used game sales with the devs/publishers.
Wickerbasket
Member
I'm complaining so they know why I'm not going to be buying their games or consoles. People complaining lets them know where they've gone wrong.
I honestly don't think there is an issue to solve. There have always been second hand markets in nearly every industry. I think big publishers are trying to destroy the second hand market purely out of greedy and I won't support anti consumer practices.
Arc Christelle
Member
I think that's a bit over exaggerating. The point that I'm making is that a lot of money is lost from second hand sales. These things bring the end to a lot of companies.
Some of you may feel that the game must be "good enough" to buy on day 1, but those sales are never guaranteed despite the possible quality of a game, especially if that game was good/decent but wasn't marketed well or didn't catch on the first time.
Those games may become gems later on, but it's no use to be appreciated once a studio/company with potential is now dead and gone.
To be honest. Despite being a consumer and even though I think it could've been handled better than it is now, (which we have still yet to experience ourselves). I actually support this.
Either way would allow developers to step outside of the safe route since their efforts would still be seen and publishers rewarded.
I think about every game I have that was either underrated or considered a gem and how rare it is to have these types of designs because of the current state of the industry. It may not be favored, but something has to change.
Goddamn, you said it perfectly. I love how they refuse to reexamine their business plans opting instead to blame consumers and violate the secondhand market for money they feel entitled to.
If your game is so disposable and forgettable that people are willing to sell it for 1/2 the purchase price (if they are lucky) immediately after finishing it, isn't that the actual problem? Not the fact that they are able to sell it.
Games that offer lots of content, are exceptionally good, or are very replayable tend to be traded in less. There's a reason that games like CoD, GTA, almost all first party Nintendo stuff, Elder Scrolls, Red Dead, etc. still sell for $30 or $40 used a year after release. People want to keep those games.
StreetsAhead
Member
Arguable. It would be case by case and they still should be asking permission from the copy right holder as part of Youtube's policy.
Not seen the others but AVG does comedy, critique,, parody and doesn't just stream footage with him talking over it. There's a difference.
Budgets are usually very low so tapping into the used DVD market is not economically feasible nor justified.
If the AAA game market did not exist, we wouldn't be even discussing this topic.
Are there any non-media (video, music, game) products out there where you can get the full and complete experience, sell it, have the next person get the full and complete experience, and repeat indefinitely? The used car analogy is often brought up but the wear/tear and mileage of a car is a huge factor where as getting a game like Heavy Rain used is virtually identical to getting it new.
I suppose there's a lot of gray in all of this but I'm not really on the side of folks being entitled to used games. I just hate when DRM measures are put in place that affect non-used buyers (like daily online check-ins). Steam works well and if we can end used games properly (not what Microsoft currently has hinted at) we could possibly see similar sales on the console when the console company has no fear of a game bought cheap being resold later.
I suppose there's a lot of gray in all of this but I'm not really on the side of folks being entitled to used games. I just hate when DRM measures are put in place that affect non-used buyers (like daily online check-ins). Steam works well and if we can end used games properly (not what Microsoft currently has hinted at) we could possibly see similar sales on the console when the console company has no fear of a game bought cheap being resold later.
Yup, Gamestop's method isn't restricting how I choose to recoup my cost when I sell my copy of a game. I can sell it on ebay, Craigslist, directly to a friend, or hell, I can even gift it to someone (what a concept!). And on the flipside, I can seek out the best deal for myself when purchasing through those very same channels. So far, the rumblings bandied about from MS indicate they want to restrict my options, while simultaneously allying with the industry's supposed villain: GameStop. If the "folks who make the games" have a different idea, I'm all ears.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
I hear u but biz will be more than fine overall even if all three consoles die. If they die it means PC and tablet and phone are giving customers more of what they need/want and this deserve to die. I love that about biz: give your customer something great and they take care of you; offer then too little and they walk away. To me, this is as it should be.
ParaCanKor
Member
I'd prefer the publishers just think of creative ways to get us to buy their games digitally.
All digital versions should be at least 10% cheaper.
Have season passes on whole publishers, not just DLC (All EA Sports games this year for $150)
Group up some games like the humble indie bundle.
An all digital future is the end goal
Get creative and expedite the process
All digital versions should be at least 10% cheaper.
Have season passes on whole publishers, not just DLC (All EA Sports games this year for $150)
Group up some games like the humble indie bundle.
An all digital future is the end goal
Get creative and expedite the process
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Then don't buy the Xbone.
You can't resale or loan a digital copy of a movie at this moment. That's essentially what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft undercutting the protections of the first sale doctrine by forcing you to install a digital copy of a game in order to play it. It's legally dubious at best.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Not surprised they're trying to claw some money back, these so-called 'AAA' games sound like they cost hundreds of millions to make. These places must be pissing money away.
I've bought SO many terrible, forgettable big-budget games this gen. All a used-game policy would do is make me far, far more careful of what I spend my money on.
I've bought SO many terrible, forgettable big-budget games this gen. All a used-game policy would do is make me far, far more careful of what I spend my money on.
BlastProcessing
Member
Money isn't the only signal in an economic system, it's just the most important one. Consumers being vocal about what type of goods they want is obviously useful.
You say "complaining"; I say "communicating".
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
I can get behind that. Obviously I would try to make as much money off my product as possible. That doesn't mean I deserve that money, of course.
Wickerbasket
Member
Pretty much anything manufactured well can be resold indefinitely while maintaining the same experience; houses, furniture, even watches. The games industry seems to be the only one that takes issue with customers owning the things they've bought and paid for.
If publishers want to release games like films, it shouldn't be too hard.
1st release: Straight to digital, download only, non transferable like a ticket.
2nd release: 3 months later, release the retail copy, just as a film would.
Of course we all know it wouldn't make any goddamn difference, but they should try it if they think it could work.
1st release: Straight to digital, download only, non transferable like a ticket.
2nd release: 3 months later, release the retail copy, just as a film would.
Of course we all know it wouldn't make any goddamn difference, but they should try it if they think it could work.
Sure, but people still have a right to be upset. If you really love Halo, and you really hate MS' used games policy, you're screwed. Other systems aren't perfect substitutes.
Pureauthor
Member
Yes, movie tickets delineate a single time and a single particular place that you can go to experience a movie. I can always sell/give the ticket to someone else before the appointed time, but once it passes, even a 'new' ticket is useless to the owner.
Now imagine movie tickets cost USD 60 at minimum. How would movie sales fare, I wonder?
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
not the concern of the consumer.
Jawmuncher
Member
All I know is the problem is overdone budgets on games. To say its because of used sales that a game didnt sell some ridiculous number is beyond ridiculous.
I want the creators of things to get the money they deserve, but I also believe its not the consumer's responsibility to make that happen. If they want Game Stop to "share the wealth" off the used game market then work out a better deal with them, don't choose the path that hurts the customer the most just to avoid a fight.
ShinobiFist
Banned
The industry notice that gamers are worst addicts than those hooked on heroin, that's why.
They already got their pay on the initial purchase. They don't deserve the portion from a used sale.
Not every system will get every game, it's not a perfect solution. You may miss out on a game you'd normally like, or a publisher could show a bit of preference toward the Xbone with DLC or release dates. We know publishers don't always support the highest selling console just because.
element
Member
Yes, because every game publisher/developer is getting their doors knocked on to have their properties licensed for film and tv. Out of the thousands of games, you have 10 movies in the last 10 years?
books typically release with hardcover FIRST. Higher price point, higher return for publishers. Then they move to paperbacks. They don't release both at the same time.
No I'm the person that looks at the units sold of many of the games I have worked on and then look at the leaderboards. Do you know how disappointing it is to see a game you spent 3 years on have 5 million users on the leaderboards, but your unit sales are under 2 million? I don't know the answer, but as a developer used games does affect me and the people I work with.
Because I'm not the only one, I'm just saying that those types of entertainment have multiple revenue streams, so comparing them to games isn't apples to apples. I wasn't even suggesting that games have to follow that model.
In the end most publishers are going to find ways to sell digitally, like Steam, which is a license. I also see a growth in subscription model, similar to Spotify.
Also, why don't you get the fuck off yourself.