davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Sure they do. But I would prefer then they just said 'I am really upset about this possible decision' ' vs. trying to argue about used cars and Cd resales and what not. But that may just be me.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
Sure they do. But I would prefer then they just said 'I am really upset about this possible decision' ' vs. trying to argue about used cars and Cd resales and what not. But that may just be me.
I really don't think you want a world where every copyright holder gets to approve every video review or Let's Play video. Suddenly everyone with a negative opinion of the game might not be getting permission. Not only would it reduce the number of helpful negative reviews, but it would ruin the credibility of every positive review.
Neither the courts nor Google have the time to review every video on a case by case basis. Either you have to allow streams and Let's Play videos or you don't. I'd argue that there enough good commentators that the bad ones should have to stay as well.
So long as some kind of commentary is being provided it's probably protected under fair use anyway. An unplayable video that covers 20 minutes of an 15-hour game does not really damage a publisher's copyright.
I wanted to say something like that but you said it much better lol. Thanks.
The copyright laws make no distinction.
I honestly wonder if they think the absence of used games would have made Dead Space a flop or a bigger success. Without the million+ people who bought it used or rented it, nobody would have bought the sequel.
Of course then they went ahead and made a terrible game to finish off that mediocre series so who knows.
Of course then they went ahead and made a terrible game to finish off that mediocre series so who knows.
Callibretto
Member
you should at least think about it, because these dev are the one making games we might/might not enjoy.
Jake Tower
Banned
We are providing valuable marketing data.
You could have picked a more economically stable time to experiment with a 2+ billion dollar industry, specially when the game industry has bigger issues to tackle then used games.
Bullshit.
Games can have all kinds of chances for revenue - just like all the other mediums you listed. How many times has Super Mario Bros. been repackaged and sold through the years? Or all the Namco compilations where the same games are sold over and over again every generation. Or all the HD re-releases we saw this gen. Or Virtual Console/PSN/XBLA/Steam re-releases. Or the same Super Street Fighter game being released countless times with some minor tweaks. Or Resident Evil 4 being released on GC, then later on PS2, then PC, then Wii, then mobile, then PS3/360. Or on and on and on...
And this isn't even anything new. Going all the way back to the beginning, games would come out on arcade, then get ported to the 2600, 5200, 7800, Intellivision, Colecovision, C64, C128, Apple II, Amiga, Spectrum, NES, Sega, MSX, etc.
Publishers have a whole host of options for getting multiple revenue streams off a game - it's up to the publisher to handle the process appropriately.
Oh, sure, then I agree with that. I find the moral arguments really weird.
Schnozberry
Member
I think it really is a conflict of perspectives. Gamers tend to view the games they purchase as a product they own, and not a license that is subject to arcane terms and evidently not "owned" in the way that is normally assigned to consumer products. The developers and publishers of video games view the second hand market as a direct threat to first hand sales, and they are completely cut out of the repeated buying and selling of the same software.
I can see why some would bristle at that fact, considering the large scale risk and slimming profit margins of even the largest software houses over the last several years. I also completely get the consumer side of things, because the DRM schemes produced by major gaming companies have been ham fisted and tone deaf to the inconveniences they have placed on gamers, so there is little reason to expect that the transition to a different type of used games business won't be fraught with fuckery.
I expect if Microsoft and Sony want to find a way to profit off of second hand sales, it will need to be seamless and not have an adverse effect on consumer value. If it's a pain in the ass and it drives down the value of used software, it is going to be a massive backfire and some major backpedaling will be in order.
I can see why some would bristle at that fact, considering the large scale risk and slimming profit margins of even the largest software houses over the last several years. I also completely get the consumer side of things, because the DRM schemes produced by major gaming companies have been ham fisted and tone deaf to the inconveniences they have placed on gamers, so there is little reason to expect that the transition to a different type of used games business won't be fraught with fuckery.
I expect if Microsoft and Sony want to find a way to profit off of second hand sales, it will need to be seamless and not have an adverse effect on consumer value. If it's a pain in the ass and it drives down the value of used software, it is going to be a massive backfire and some major backpedaling will be in order.
Entitled developers/publishers release games full of glitches, significant performance problems, re skinned and recycled content through the roof, broken online modes, no server browsers, cut out content to sell as DLC and complain when do not get a 9/10 metacritic. All while wanting you to pay full price, never get a discount and not even think about renting from a store of lending to a friend.
Now they feel like they deserve a cut of pre owned sales also. They can go fuck themselves.
David Jaffe should also take note, we are still waiting on that online fix for Twisted Metal.
He sure felt entitled to consumers money for releasing a broken product and begging and pleading with buyers that it would be fixed when it never was. What a crook.
Developers who release good games will be rewarded with sales, there are many titles that are hard to find second hand because few people trade them in. That is a sign of good quality.
Now they feel like they deserve a cut of pre owned sales also. They can go fuck themselves.
David Jaffe should also take note, we are still waiting on that online fix for Twisted Metal.
He sure felt entitled to consumers money for releasing a broken product and begging and pleading with buyers that it would be fixed when it never was. What a crook.
Developers who release good games will be rewarded with sales, there are many titles that are hard to find second hand because few people trade them in. That is a sign of good quality.
StreetsAhead
Member
Reviews are fine under copyright.
Regardless of whether the above is true or not, Youtube's policy on monetizing says to check with the copyright holder regarding uploading footage of video games.
The copyright laws don't give software made for video game systems any special distinction over any other copyable medium. That's why people bring up CD sales.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
Yeah honestly year after year its hard to tell one CoD game from another, Madden, AC. If those game cost that much to make then they are doing something really wrong. Again, they need to adjust their production costs instead of trying to push something out annually for full price with DLC etc. I can argue CoD makes money all year from release well into the second year when another CoD has already come out.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
Then how do all other industries that deal with it cope?
Games aren't that special little snowflake that deserve to change the rules
How does an artist who paints a beautiful portrait, sells off their painting, then in the future the buyers sells it off again making a hefty profit, does the artist see any money there, No...
What he does get is now his art stands out more, more recognition, more investment into their portfolio
There's a reason Second Hand Hondas sell really well, they get stigmatized with great performance even after second/third hand sale
BlastProcessing
Member
Also, it seems odd to say that consumers should just be silent about their expectations for a product.
A hypothetical extreme senario:
1. A company invests a billion dollars on a console that consumers absolutely do not want.
2. Everybody stays quiet about it.
3. Product flops completely, even the CEO's kids won't buy one.
In that situation I would argue the consumers wronged the company by not signaling to them their displeasure. Negative feedback is annoying, and thus easy to ignore, but it is extremely valuable. Especially in markets where companies can't be very nimble like the console market.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
haha, as if people pay attention to who makes their game?
i know i do, and i know that i am buying a game from a developer i like.
normal people -- the people who actually drive the business and make these games possible -- all they see is "cool dude on box art with a gun that i heard is cool from my dudebro friend"
that's getting away from the point though. unfortunately most games are treated as throw-away items. Once you're done, you sell it back to the store and get another one. Movies are kept and watched again, start to finish, and its easy to get your value out of it without "getting stuck" due to game balance etc etc etc.
Wickerbasket
Member
Why would you prefer that?
If customers want to complain about how greedy manufacturers/publishers are being then they should be able to. Even if that means pointing out all the other successful markets that don't see second hand sales as a threat.
If people don't want to hold onto your product, then maybe that's the real issue that should be looked into.
vpance
Gold Member
Interesting. We need more figures like these to know the true scope of the situation.
GillianSeed79
Member
I think publishers have this insane idea that everyone who is buying a game day one is opting for the $55 used game instead of the $60 new game. That's not how it works for me. If I'm super excited about your product, I am there day one and willing to pay $60 up front. If it's a case of I really want a new game, but I can't afford it I might trade in some games. But I like games. I hate parting with any of my collection. If I see a $60 new game I'm really interested in and can't afford I'm looking at my game shelf and looking at CAG to see what five or six year old game I have there collecting dust that I will never play again and that probably won't sell another copy that I can trade in to bump $20 off that $60 price tag. A lot of times, this is the only way I'm going to experience your brand new hotness unless I wait six months for retailers to start selling it at a hugely reduced price just to get it off the shelves.
I might be in the minority. If I was a kid again and didn't have a job, sure I might be that person that buys a new game and tries to beat it as quickly as possible to trade in. I think those people are a small minority when it comes to the second hand market. I could be completely wrong. I'm just saying used games help me buy new games and if I do buy a used game it's usually when it's not going to sell anything anyway and publishers are still pricing at $40 six monts or even sometimes more than a year later.
I might be in the minority. If I was a kid again and didn't have a job, sure I might be that person that buys a new game and tries to beat it as quickly as possible to trade in. I think those people are a small minority when it comes to the second hand market. I could be completely wrong. I'm just saying used games help me buy new games and if I do buy a used game it's usually when it's not going to sell anything anyway and publishers are still pricing at $40 six monts or even sometimes more than a year later.
When you think about it, it's fucking despicable what these publishers try to do to their consumers. They are trying to take away what essentially is an item belonging to the consumer after money has changed hands and claim it as theirs. If they want the consumers' money but are not willing to part ways with their goods then they shouldn't be in the business in the first place.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Why is it only this industry that gets upset about people reselling their products?
The number of publishers with a catalog of titles that can do HD re-releases or XBLA retro titles is pretty small. And I'm pretty sure that the number of HD re-releases we saw this generation was comparitvely quite small.
Capcom milks the crap out of Street Fighter and Resident Evil, but not every company has franchises of that magnitude.
BlastProcessing
Member
Despicable is a strong word. I would say unappealing.
Games also sell far less quantity than movies
Some developers think this. Most don't. It's like when Metallica became the figureheads against music piracy. Even if music piracy sucks, it's the height of douchebaggery to speak openly and directly against it. It makes you look like a corporate stooge.
Same thing with used games. Any developer with half a brain understands that used games aren't the real issue. It's just a way for publishers to squeeze more out of consumers in a growth-starved and overgrown industry. For developers to come out as being against used games makes them look like big douchebags who also only care about squeezing additional profits from their players. Not cool. Publishers at least have the excuse of being on the business side of the industry. Developers have no such excuse.
Anyway, in my experience, most developers don't think this.
Same thing with used games. Any developer with half a brain understands that used games aren't the real issue. It's just a way for publishers to squeeze more out of consumers in a growth-starved and overgrown industry. For developers to come out as being against used games makes them look like big douchebags who also only care about squeezing additional profits from their players. Not cool. Publishers at least have the excuse of being on the business side of the industry. Developers have no such excuse.
Anyway, in my experience, most developers don't think this.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
Here, here.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Sure they can complain- I am just saying I don't like a lot of the way some folks are complaining about it
.Also: while many folks are greedy this is a real issue, not just greed. THAT SAID: games cost too much to make and to sell and this is the REAL ISSUE driving ALL of this and so if the console biz gets the shit locked out of it next gen then it will be a good lesson that the console biz needs to learn.
Duxxy3
Member
So why don't publishers get a cut from used books, movies and music?
Why are video games so special that publishers are allowed to double dip?
ah you beat me to it.
why is it not preferable to compare the video game industry with every single other mainstream market out there, where the product manufacturer sees no profit on resale? the only answer i can see is simply that you want money. you want money no matter how ridiculous the justification. gamestop is making money and even though you made your money on the used product they're selling, you want their monies too.
Pureauthor
Member
Gamestop offers a service many consumers apparently want, at prices acceptable to both parties. That's how a business works.
Jake Tower
Banned
Perhaps those facts are related in some way?
But what is the difference between used car sales and used videogame sales? Also, I think people should make as much noise about this as possible. Just stating that you are unhappy about a decision doesn't say much. To say that you are unhappy and will not support a console because of this decision while also pointing out how absurd you are making your industry look compared to other industries is much better in my opinion. We make these comparisons because we see how used sales work in other areas. We have something to compare it too.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
Why blame themselves and make themselves look bad, pass on the blame buck to someone else
Cover yo' ass first, worry about everyone else later
Jim Sterling said it best
"In the early 90's the boogeyman was Rental, late 90's/Early Aughts it was Piracy, now it's Used Games"
Sooner or later you will run out of boogeymen to save face by saying such and such scared us, I mean the last boogeyman they will have is their own GODDAMN customers, blaming them for high budgets, low sales, not subsidizing their game to COD levels... Oh Wait!
Then why do publishers keep providing Gamestop with pre-Order incentives, tell me this
They go lie with the enemy and turn around and say they touch them weirdly
No shit
Even David Jaffe can't say he hates Gamestop when he had Axel as a GODDAMN Pre-Order Bonus incentive
So now we have dealt with those points we are back at the fact that developers dont deserve a cut of second hand sales.
element
Member
Again, you use pretty much the biggest brand in the entire medium as your example of "if they can do it". Super Mario Bros is about as close to Mickey Mouse as you can get, not to mention it crosses almost 30 years now. How many people do you think TODAY want to buy Bubsy 3D if it were released on XLBA or PSN? How about you use some of the 99% of games that aren't household names, give them 5 years and see how well a re-release would sell.
As for the HD re-release? Work was done of those games and IMO that is a new game. Do you think they did a simple recompile on that and it magically worked on PS3?
As for other revenue streams? Yes, publishers and developers have explored DLC, IAP, season pass and other methods but none have been consistent across all games. Just because everyone and their mother buys the DLC for Call of Duty doesn't mean it works for everything.
five dollars lower than full price (off of something they already gained profit from) is NOT acceptable.
Waiting for my day 1 DLC movie. With additional skins.
Gamestop is not the only one who can do second hand sales
The line between a review and a Let's Play can be kinda hazy, since there can be plenty of critical or negative commentary during a Let's Play.
And if Nintendo gets revenue from every unapproved video, exactly what motivation is there for them to approve any critical videos? If you were in their position, you would deny every negative video and hope it gets uploaded anyway so you can make money off it. If they don't upload, then that's awesome since you've silenced someone saying bad things about your game. You would approve only the ones you perceive as positive advertising or word of mouth.
BlastProcessing
Member
Sure they can complain- I am just saying I don't like a lot of the way some folks are complaining about it
Also: while many folks are greedy this is a real issue, not just greed. THAT SAID: games cost too much to make and to sell and this is the REAL ISSUE driving ALL of this and so if the console biz gets the shit locked out of it next gen then it will be a good lesson that the console biz needs to learn.
That could be a very, very expensive lesson.
daninthemix
Member
Isn't the concern here ultimately about cost? Right now I can go into a second hand store and buy some 360 game I couldn't care less about a few years ago for £4.
But if that option wasn't available to me, the only one that is is the Xbox marketplace where Microsoft will still charge me £30 or more for it.
As a result, I won't buy it. But who benefits, then, from that non-transaction?
At least if I spent £4 on it I might enjoy it, my 360 is getting a workout rather than sitting there doing nothing, and I am exposed to that developer's work whereas I othermise might not have been.
But if that option wasn't available to me, the only one that is is the Xbox marketplace where Microsoft will still charge me £30 or more for it.
As a result, I won't buy it. But who benefits, then, from that non-transaction?
At least if I spent £4 on it I might enjoy it, my 360 is getting a workout rather than sitting there doing nothing, and I am exposed to that developer's work whereas I othermise might not have been.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
You are unique in this but there is no FUCKING way Activision, EA, Capcom or Ubisoft feel as you do. The other thing is there is no way an MS/Sony run used game trade can be other than full price. If creates the same problem as Gamestop does, why would I buy new? Well the same problem according to them. My day 1 games are bought new. Some people support the devs, for example I was not thrilled at how TM PS3 released but if (WHEN JAFFE!) TM PS4 came out I would be there day 1, new not questions asked.
However you as a Dev are unique. I don't feel the same way about Activision or EA because they put it up my ass year after year. So I might just buy that copy of Madden used.
The more time passed, the more the game budjets went up at a dramatic speed. Much faster than sales in general. What did this cause to game publishers? Fear.
Seeing an inevitable wall before them, they started looking around for new cash making avenues INSTEAD OF FIXING THEIR SICK DEV AND PUBLISHING CULTURE. There is the problem. Instead of making shorter but better games, trying to find ways to sell games at max 39,99$, they jump on stuff that appear an "easier way to make money" in their point of view.
Its hard to look at yourself and say "well, my business practices makes no sense and we will crash, let rebuild ourselves instead of finding a scapegoat elsewhere".
Still, the true way out would be for those publishers to stop fighting for keeping their 80s and completely dated ways of making games. And if you can't allie with the ennemy (GameStop), then compete with it! Yet again another logic that fails in publishers minds. Where are the game stores funded and owned by game publishers??
Seeing an inevitable wall before them, they started looking around for new cash making avenues INSTEAD OF FIXING THEIR SICK DEV AND PUBLISHING CULTURE. There is the problem. Instead of making shorter but better games, trying to find ways to sell games at max 39,99$, they jump on stuff that appear an "easier way to make money" in their point of view.
Its hard to look at yourself and say "well, my business practices makes no sense and we will crash, let rebuild ourselves instead of finding a scapegoat elsewhere".
Still, the true way out would be for those publishers to stop fighting for keeping their 80s and completely dated ways of making games. And if you can't allie with the ennemy (GameStop), then compete with it! Yet again another logic that fails in publishers minds. Where are the game stores funded and owned by game publishers??
I worry that this sort of thing will lead to some really weird abuses along the lines of this for tv: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...olds-legality-of-aereos-tiny-antennas-scheme/
Suppose I put together a service where I offer membership to co-ops for particular games at a 20% discount from Steam's price. It runs a lot like Steam, and I could even be buying the licenses from Steam, except part of the deal is that you can't start your copy of the game if some large number of players are already playing it. I make money by setting the player limit to, say, 80% of sales (maybe higher for the first day after release). I can ratchet that (relative) player limit down as time goes on without impacting player experience and without having to buy new licenses as I get new members.
Essentially I'd be sharing some large number of licenses across a larger pool of players, satisfying the "you have to render your copy inoperable" requirement using something like modified Steam DRM.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Theory: they have digital metrics like online activity and torrents which constantly stick the "lost sales" in their face.... Authors are practically oblivious to how often their books are re-sold.
That, and digital technology can make reselling impossible through DRM schemes, so there is this constant trend to push the industry and public into seeing it as wrong, in order to shore up support for DRM.
Also, to concede a legitimate difference: GameStop is a pretty unique example of a megachain selling used priducts alongside new ones in every mall in the country.