I think you're comfortable saying that because you know you're addressing a small vocal minority who are probably a drop in the bucket for MS's target market with the One. You tell us the market will decide if it's viable. Thing is, if the larger market as a whole accepts the One because all of its other non-gaming related features (which MS pushed heavily) make it worthwhile for those people, the console will be a success despite the more restrictive measures to gamers. I see the distinct possibility that the One is a Trojan horse (under the guise of an all-in-one media hub) that is also used to ease the public into getting used to and gradually accepting fewer rights down the road. And that concern is why I (and others in this thread) lend my voice opposing it, instead of taking a wait-and-see attitude and simply letting the situation crystallize.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
DigitalRicket
Member
Don't singers want the same? They want royalties with each sale. Cars and games are not the same. There ARE other types of media out there that are more like games.
Software also works the same way when it comes to activation keys.
What about apps for tablets and phones?
I think games have more in common with digital media than with other types of physical goods.
Software also works the same way when it comes to activation keys.
What about apps for tablets and phones?
I think games have more in common with digital media than with other types of physical goods.
Jake Tower
Banned
Fuck Selloutica.
The supreme irony of their position was their origin in punk/metal, and two very important facts to their success: 1. they could get no radio airplay, and wide circulation of bootleg tapes of their music spread and created their popularity; 2. most of their earliest recording were covers of NWBHM and punk bands like Budgie, which Metallica intentionally did not credit and were perfectly happy letting people think were original compositions.
Pureauthor
Member
To who? You? In which case you can take your business elsewhere (and complain about it, nobody's stopping you).
It's quite obviously acceptable to many consumers, since Gamestop apparently does good business at those prices.
JasonUresti
Member
Making your industry have a high cost of entry for the consumer (60 dollar games, 300+ dollar consoles) and combining that with restrictions set in place to eliminate any other avenues for someone to experience your products (no lending, renting, no cheaper used alternatives) sounds like a recipe for disaster.
element
Member
Not sure why that is a new low. You see that people are becoming more comfortable with the concept. Not to mention the massive growth with IAP games.
I personally see the entry price lowering (if not free) with IAP or straight monthly service like Spotify.
What I am interested in will be when games with huge services models are retired or closed and how that will be handled.
Some singers want it with each person listening, it's disgusting! Some game devs/pubs are just as bad.
The people who buy those titles disagree, and that's about all that matters.
From data with indies and the stuff that seems to drive Steam sales, do you think advertising discounted prices on games would help with this in the future?
I've seen multiple charts that show giant spikes on Steam sales. Does having a large retail presence impede this? Do publishers not like the idea of promoting a game under $60?
It might be my ecosystem, but I can't recall the last time I saw advertisements for discounted physical game media. I've seen a good amount of PSN deals, and obviously a ton of PC focused deals.
Basically my question is why haven't I seen ADVERTISING of lower price points later on in a product's life cycle for PS3/360 games, and do you think this could help alleviate some cash woes?
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Fucking preach.
Bathesda sold me a broken game that I paid in full for. I was not compensated for this bullshit either (they haven't even so much as issued an apology the cunts). And these motherfuckers have the audacity to want to prevent me from getting rid of their garbage for a few bucks towards better games?! But oh no, I'm the entitled jerk in this situation. *rolls eyes*
And why are these developers like Jaffe and Cliffy B who cry and fucking moan about Gamestop and used games not bitching to the higher ups who are doing a shit job with their business models that are a complete clusterfuck in this industry? Where is their accountability? Why are the consumers being partly punished for their bullshit?
AzraelKans
Banned
Hmm.. is an interesting concept, but here is the deal.
Yes there are greedy companies that rehash the same titles over and over, charge for DLC thats already in the game, charge for online passes, premium version, charge for looking at the game the wrong way. etc.
However there are those who dont, lets take per example journey and portal, they are great games, however they are also extremely short (compared to other titles) lets imagine you bought one and finished it, what are you going to do with it? well it turns out you can trade it in and use it as credit for another game you want! So far so great, but there is a catch, once you do that, when someone buys that game instead of a new copy. NONE of that money goes to the developer. not a dime. the store get all the money from the sale.
If it were one of those greedy games, it would have DLC, multiplayer mode, season pass, etc. But we are talking about journey and portal. They dont have any of that. Therefore instead of receiving 90% of the income on sales, they receive 20%-10%
Have you wonder why you cant find good single player games on sale anymore? specially if they are not 900 hours rpgs? well, thats the reason.
Im not saying I support used games fees, specially if part of the money goes to Sony and MS (thats terrible! that money should be for the developer only) but is naive to think used games are not a problem.
And yes whatever the solution is, you can be certain that Greedy companies will abuse it. after all thats what they do.
Anyway, steam, iOS and Android (XBLA and PSN in lesser degree ) do not have that problem because there is no such thing as a used game market and thats one of the reasons why Indie Gaming has flourished in it.
Yes there are greedy companies that rehash the same titles over and over, charge for DLC thats already in the game, charge for online passes, premium version, charge for looking at the game the wrong way. etc.
However there are those who dont, lets take per example journey and portal, they are great games, however they are also extremely short (compared to other titles) lets imagine you bought one and finished it, what are you going to do with it? well it turns out you can trade it in and use it as credit for another game you want! So far so great, but there is a catch, once you do that, when someone buys that game instead of a new copy. NONE of that money goes to the developer. not a dime. the store get all the money from the sale.
If it were one of those greedy games, it would have DLC, multiplayer mode, season pass, etc. But we are talking about journey and portal. They dont have any of that. Therefore instead of receiving 90% of the income on sales, they receive 20%-10%
Have you wonder why you cant find good single player games on sale anymore? specially if they are not 900 hours rpgs? well, thats the reason.
Im not saying I support used games fees, specially if part of the money goes to Sony and MS (thats terrible! that money should be for the developer only) but is naive to think used games are not a problem.
And yes whatever the solution is, you can be certain that Greedy companies will abuse it. after all thats what they do.
Anyway, steam, iOS and Android (XBLA and PSN in lesser degree ) do not have that problem because there is no such thing as a used game market and thats one of the reasons why Indie Gaming has flourished in it.
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
There are tons of obscure games from the past that are re-released. Just look at the GOG catalogue. Even then, an HD version of Bubsy 3D is a bad example because as I remember it, it was a terribly reviewed game. It's like asking why there isn't a Criterion release of Tom Green's Freddy Got Fingered.
Tertullian
Member
I hate the argument that GameStop is making big bucks on the used game market, but GameStop is bad and not valuable to anyone, so publishers and developers should be getting that cut instead.
You know why GameStop makes big bucks on the used game market? Because they create value for their customers. They create value by lowering transaction costs. That's what all middle men do. Middle men are not bad. The grocery store is a middle man. You could get a slightly better price on your corn and lettuce and milk if you drove around to the individual farmers and herders and bought from them directly in bulk. But you don't. You just go to the supermarket. Why? Because the slight increase in price is worth the massive savings in convenience.
People sell and buy used games at GameStop because they consider the somewhat worse prices they get to be worth the convenience of not having to buy and sell those games on Ebay and ship them themselves. Now, I don't use GameStop because I do not find that the convenience justifies the price differential. But many millions of people do.
So who really deserves a piece of that fat used game pie? GameStop does, because GameStop is the one creating value for those who want to buy and sell used games. Developers do not deserve the profit from used games. Publishers do not deserve the profit from used games. GameStop does.
Publishers want the profit from used games, but they don't want to do anything to earn it. They want to bully people into giving it to them. But that's not how the market works. In a market economy, if you want profits, you create value. If publishers want to make money from used games, then they need to create a business which provides value to those who buy and sell used games. Then, and only then, will they deserve to profit from the secondary market.
You know why GameStop makes big bucks on the used game market? Because they create value for their customers. They create value by lowering transaction costs. That's what all middle men do. Middle men are not bad. The grocery store is a middle man. You could get a slightly better price on your corn and lettuce and milk if you drove around to the individual farmers and herders and bought from them directly in bulk. But you don't. You just go to the supermarket. Why? Because the slight increase in price is worth the massive savings in convenience.
People sell and buy used games at GameStop because they consider the somewhat worse prices they get to be worth the convenience of not having to buy and sell those games on Ebay and ship them themselves. Now, I don't use GameStop because I do not find that the convenience justifies the price differential. But many millions of people do.
So who really deserves a piece of that fat used game pie? GameStop does, because GameStop is the one creating value for those who want to buy and sell used games. Developers do not deserve the profit from used games. Publishers do not deserve the profit from used games. GameStop does.
Publishers want the profit from used games, but they don't want to do anything to earn it. They want to bully people into giving it to them. But that's not how the market works. In a market economy, if you want profits, you create value. If publishers want to make money from used games, then they need to create a business which provides value to those who buy and sell used games. Then, and only then, will they deserve to profit from the secondary market.
That is a whole different story. Used game is: 1 game is sold. That 1 game can be resold.
Music: Musician creates a song. That song is constantly reproduced.
Are you still confused and clueless?
Then they need to figure out a way to either de-escalate production costs, or find better ways to really compete against the second-hand market.
This might be hard for publishers, but that's just the reality of a market situation they are largely responsible for creating.
daninthemix
Member
Some work their asses off to make good music so I kinda don't blame them
Billions of people work their asses off every day and only get paid for that day.
Games depreciate over time. People paying for day 1 full price are paying for luxury versus time. It is no different than anything else.
IAP games make me sad. It took us 15 years to get rid of arcade games, and somehow we have come back to a model where you have to pay money every time you want to play for an extended period.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
There are options for the game industry to evolve in, you are not stuck to one revenue stream as most of you claim to be (Industry)
Everyone is the me too crew, no one takes risks, the one that do and prosper damn well get to earn their keep
Ubisoft showed how amazing a 6 hour SP campaign in the way of Blood Dragon can be prosperous for them at the $14.99 price point
It was a gamble/risk, it paid off ten fold for them
Just because most of these band-wagoners just attach themselves what the hot shit running through the industry is, doesn't mean all revenue streams are exhausted
DLC's for game can become Episodic Content
Add-Ons can go from morsels to huge ass expansions
There are avenues not yet tried due to most being scared, their hoping others try first, if it work they take the plunge
The industry is in safe bet mode, everything is sequels, a few sprinkle of continued support, see you in 2 years, have money waiting for us, and don't you dare sell our title, if you love us, you would care and protect thy devs/pubs honor
I can't believe that you managed to type all that out without ever once thinking about what the existence of Steam means for your argument, so I assume you just found it inconvenient and hoped no one would notice the omission.
Edit: Oh wow, and have you ever missed the point by comparing Gamestop to a grocery store. Go take some economics courses.
Publishers are being dishonest about how the remuneration structure works.
The initial retail price of any product includes the publisher's/developer's cut in its entirety. They're being paid up front by the original purchaser on behalf of all future owners of the product. In some cases that number is zero (the original owner keeps it forever) and in other cases it's 2 or 5 or two dozen.
Take this to its logical conclusion: if the publisher gets a "cut" every time the product changes hands, then the publisher has no incentive to make something that the first purchaser will want to enjoy forever, and instead has the perverse incentive to produce something that almost everyone will want to sell onward (so that the producer gets paid many times instead of once).
Does anyone really want to live in a world where that kind of incentive exists?
If you really wanted to align producer remuneration with product ownership as closely as possible and have each subsequent buyer pay a "cut" to the producer, you'd have to set up a complex system where the original owner pays a retail price that includes the producer's share, but then when he sells it, the producer has to take some of the secondary buyer's money and then refund the first purchaser for the producer's share that he paid, because that first buyer has paid for something that he no longer owns.
The current system is much simpler and has worked for just about every product ever produced in the history of mankind.
I think it's pretty safe to stick with it.
The initial retail price of any product includes the publisher's/developer's cut in its entirety. They're being paid up front by the original purchaser on behalf of all future owners of the product. In some cases that number is zero (the original owner keeps it forever) and in other cases it's 2 or 5 or two dozen.
Take this to its logical conclusion: if the publisher gets a "cut" every time the product changes hands, then the publisher has no incentive to make something that the first purchaser will want to enjoy forever, and instead has the perverse incentive to produce something that almost everyone will want to sell onward (so that the producer gets paid many times instead of once).
Does anyone really want to live in a world where that kind of incentive exists?
If you really wanted to align producer remuneration with product ownership as closely as possible and have each subsequent buyer pay a "cut" to the producer, you'd have to set up a complex system where the original owner pays a retail price that includes the producer's share, but then when he sells it, the producer has to take some of the secondary buyer's money and then refund the first purchaser for the producer's share that he paid, because that first buyer has paid for something that he no longer owns.
The current system is much simpler and has worked for just about every product ever produced in the history of mankind.
I think it's pretty safe to stick with it.
Precisely.
Its this or either they find ways to lower their budjets and sell their games under a more efficient model for them. So simple and yet, just like music labels in the late 90s, they are complaining while sticking to their old systems instead of evolving.
daninthemix
Member
One of the best posts I've ever read.
DirtyManos
Member
No, they aren't entitled to a cent of used games sales. I think that point has been argued well enough in this thread.
I agree with Jaffe to the extent that developers/pubs should be able to try to get some money from used sales. However, they have no right to try to forbid or control used game sales. It's against first sale doctrine, and it's as anti-consumer as it gets.
I really think their biggest problem is that the highest used game sales occur at the same locations where customers can buy new games. Regardless, they shouldn't try to punish us just because they won't/can't do anything against those retailers.
Edit: I don't think that's their biggest problem, but maybe it's one of the reasons why some of them might feel they lose out on sales (ofc doesn't take into account used games' lower prices etc). Basically, consumers are stuck in the crossfire between pubs/devs and retailers, and the reason we're so mad is that it seems both parties don't care what happens to us as long as they make some money one way or another.
I agree with Jaffe to the extent that developers/pubs should be able to try to get some money from used sales. However, they have no right to try to forbid or control used game sales. It's against first sale doctrine, and it's as anti-consumer as it gets.
I really think their biggest problem is that the highest used game sales occur at the same locations where customers can buy new games. Regardless, they shouldn't try to punish us just because they won't/can't do anything against those retailers.
Edit: I don't think that's their biggest problem, but maybe it's one of the reasons why some of them might feel they lose out on sales (ofc doesn't take into account used games' lower prices etc). Basically, consumers are stuck in the crossfire between pubs/devs and retailers, and the reason we're so mad is that it seems both parties don't care what happens to us as long as they make some money one way or another.
MovieStop. They do the exact same thing as Gamestop. Still don't see the studios being dicks. I used to go to Moviestop and buy oldish (80s, 90, and early 00's) movies because it was actually only slightly more than Redbox, lol.
Yeah, because Namco's compilations of Galaxian and Mappy, or Atari's compilations of Warlord and Missile Command are the biggest brands in the entire medium - and yet, we've seen them released how many dozens of times now.
And guess what, that shitty fix-it book by Joe Schmoe that released 5 years ago isn't bringing in big bucks with a re-release either. Or that shitty made-for-TV movie that was released on SyFy 5 years ago. The only way all the drek that nobody cares about makes any money in alternate revenue streams is when the content is packaged and bundled with a bunch of other stuff, to make it somewhat appealing to the content distributor.
If it's a valuable product to begin with, then it has access to a whole slew of additional revenue streams - whether it is a game/book/movie or whatever. If it's a shit product to begin with, then the content owners have to start getting creative trying to find some way to wring more money out of a turd.
The gaming industry isn't any different.
Winterfang
Banned
Getting less money is different than getting no money. Platinum versions, GOTY's etc... do have a lower price and some are the games that get hefty discounts but since it's still new is still a sale for them.
Artists want royalties for each copy of something that is sold. That is a right.
But after a particular copy is sold, the owner can (and should be able to) sale, rent, or dispose of their copy in any way they'd like. That is the consumer's right.
Computer software is given an exception by congress on certain aspects of the first sale doctrine. (Software for video game devices was exempted from that exception.)
Digital software and the legalese that goes with them have been treated differently by the courts than physical goods.
Does that answer all your questions?
Why is it "not fair"? If running a retail space dedicated to games were such an insignificant feat as to be undeserving of profit from used games, then why isn't every publisher opening their own shop? Saying GameStop is undeserving of their profits from used games is idiotic. They took the risk, they are constantly at the whim of the market, and they're the ones making the money. That is how capitalism works: meeting a market's demand.
Are, like, Pawn Shops undeserving of their profits too?
AcceptableGhost
Member
Entitlement
GillianSeed79
Member
The problem with this argument is that before iTunes if you really, really liked a song by a particular artist, you were forced to buy a $20 CD just to get that one song. Sure, you might end up liking the entire album once you were forced to pay a crazy price just for the limited content that you wanted. I'm not saying games are really similar, but I had more fun with Blood Dragon at $15 (which I paid full price for) that was an eight-hour vertical slice of Far Cry 3 than the $45 Far Cary 3 I purchased and spent 40 plus hours 100 percenting.
I guess I'm just saying that everything doesn't have to be the $60 go big or go home kind of thing. Who knows, maybe Xbox One forcing the DD future means that console gamers will have more varied game experiences and mult-tiered pricing. I just think if they try to get rid of the second hand market and try to keep it business as usual in the industry, there will be a contraction. Not a crash, but a contraction.
Jake Tower
Banned
Exactly. As the United States Supreme Court said, the publisher's rights in that copy have been exhausted after the first time it is sold.
element
Member
I check my Fry's ads and games are always going on sale. If anything they are being discounted far quicker than anytime I can remember. Though I am not sure if that is retailer discounting or publisher discounting, but I would assume it is more the retailer attempting to move product and get people in the store. Looking at other retailers like Target, Fred Meyers, and others they do do discounts, but not to the level we see with Steam and that is understandable. A retailer really can't do an 80% off sale on a game because of the basic logistics. It just costs them then carry the game and they need to attempt to make as much as they can while they keep it in stock.
I think the Steam sales are amazing, but that is a digital good.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
I'm with you, publishers have become extremely entitled it would appear. Not even hollywood has prevented the sale of second hand blu rays or whatever. The "you're only being sold a license" is not an excuse for this behavior either because I bought a disc I should be able to do what I want with that disc.
Although that would definitely make the digital only transition even more likely.
Although that would definitely make the digital only transition even more likely.
I back this 100%. They need to learn how to properly budget and come up with realistic sales expectations.
They tried with divx and failed, lets hope this fails. Greed will be this industries downfall.
Lambda Pie
Banned
if i buy 20 used games (which i do) for, say, 20 each, that's 400 that will fund new purchases which will turn i'll eventually buy for 20 a piece which in turn will fund even more new purchases which in turn i'll buy used for 20 a piece which in...
you get the jist (gist?) of it.
what happens in the future is, ok, there's no used games. then folks like me can't fund new purchases for the people that buy them new, people who buy new buy less, more companies sink.
simple as that.
you get the jist (gist?) of it.
what happens in the future is, ok, there's no used games. then folks like me can't fund new purchases for the people that buy them new, people who buy new buy less, more companies sink.
simple as that.
Tertullian
Member
If you have an argument to make, then actually make an argument. Bringing up the existence of Steam is not an argument. The existence of Steam does not affect the point of my argument (an argument about physical copies of games) in the slightest. This thread, and my post, are about the issue of publishers and developers implying that they should be getting a cut of used game sales, not about solutions that eliminate the used game market entirely.
And GameStop is exactly like a grocery store, in the limited sense in which I compared them. They are, in fact, both middle men that create value by lowering transaction costs. Saying "take an economics course!" does not magically make me wrong and you right. If I'm mistaken and the comparison doesn't hold, explain why.
This would be a very hard sell for some of the more niche franchises (because making a product one would want to resell could only come about by making a game of lower quality; in which then you would have problems convincing retailers to stock your game in future releases if no one is going to buy it to sell it in the first place).
Annual franchises like AC, BF, and COD? Yeah, this is a very big problem; publishers can afford to cut corners tremendously because they can convince retailers to buy multiple copies because they're going to move said copies on brand-recognition alone, regardless of future consequences. And if the game gets resold, that's more bang for the publisher's buck for a less amount of effort and budget.
This is the worst case scenario, and definitely would have some consequences, but this is a very important point in this discussion.
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
We aren't really quite hit a post scarcity market with console gaming though. You still have to buy physical games on the Big 3 Consoles to play them. With PC games, yes, that argument holds water because PC gaming is ahead of the curve on this front. But console gaming for the most part is still sticking to selling people disks. In that respect, they are no different from the CD industry back in 1999. Console gaming hasn't had to embrace digital distribution yet in the same way that PC gaming has.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
Hey Developers you want more money for your games, GET BETTER FUCKING CONTRACTS/DEALS WITH YOUR GODDAMN PUBLISHERS
Customers aren't your subsidy
Just because you create content does not give you carte blanche to receive adulation from all sides
You earn it
Working in the Game Industry as a job is just a job, just like any other profession
You haven't transcended into some new form, where shit you do has a higher meaning
Customers aren't your subsidy
Just because you create content does not give you carte blanche to receive adulation from all sides
You earn it
Working in the Game Industry as a job is just a job, just like any other profession
You haven't transcended into some new form, where shit you do has a higher meaning
MovieStop only exists in about 10 states, according to their website. It's hard to consider them a nationwide chain, let alone equivalent to Gamestop (who thanks to their EBGames/Rhino buyouts now often has 2 stores in every mall).
The used DVD/BluRay industry is inherently less competitive, because people are going to get so little for their trade-ins and most people plan on rewatching movies they have purchased. There's not much incentive to trade in, therefore you don't run into a situation where the MovieStop already has 5 used copies of a disc that just came out a couple weeks ago.
element
Member
Trust me. I'm all for more self sufficient design and development. If Kickstarter has shown us anything is how LITTLE you need to sell to be profitable. If you know your market and can release a product priced correctly and is targeted to the right people, it works out for everyone.
I rather make a game I know 250,000 will love and do P&Ls to support making the best game possible to hit that 250k, then attempt make a game that NEEDS to sell 5 million copies to break even.
Pureauthor
Member
Maybe videogame publishers could use that as a yardstick on how to price their shit, then.
Callibretto
Member
$15 Blood Dragon probably wouldn't exist if not for Far Cry 3 existing first. games development seems to have a huge upfront cost, a game with one fourth amount of content doesn't mean they cost a quarter of the budget.
DigitalRicket
Member
Can you direct me to any site's where I can sell my mp3's? I have thousands of them!!! I could make some bank by selling my used songs.