Support NeoGAF

[woodypop]

If only they would.

The thing is, even if gamers did reject it, the One could still be a success by selling to the non-gaming-centric customers (and less rights-ardent gamers), and its methods/restrictions could gradually become accepted as a result.

EDIT: Nuts, top of the page again. I SWEAR this isn't intentional.

 

[Biker19]

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

This. If 3rd party publishers/developers dislike Gamestop & used games so much, why keep dealing with them with pre-order stuff & more?

They're just hypocrites.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

If publishers and developers fear of being undercut by second hand sales, why not raise your game prices to $99.99 and cover your ass

You'll earn an extra $30 from the first hand sale to cover those budgets that they already have no handle over

Then we'll see what happens next

Rather than the Industry try out multiple insane pricing factors, all homogenize to certain thresholds and make their product get stuck in those few price points

Why does a $15 FPS shooter like Section 8 prejudice (DD Title) can be sold for that, yet the FPS #43678 Wub-Wub-Dub Edition has to be sold for $60, no matter fucking what

B2P (Buy 2 Play) can be such a Huge Fucking Cash Grab going into next gen
I seriously think Destiny and Activision are going to corner that market too, and then the EA's and Ubisoft's of the world will start shifting or wedging their franchises to fit that mold too

They kind of have, haven't they? Is CoD really complete without the maps? Halo 4 had a limited edition that was pretty much the game and the season pass for $99.

Not only that but they keep saying, vote with your wallet. Gamers do, they want to take it away. If the guys game sold 2 million but has 5 million on the leader boards, are all those users active? You can't just assume you lost 3 million sales.

There were times on PGR that were still there even though I knew 15 of my friends didn't play anymore. Add that all up, come up with a real number.

Secondly, maybe your price point is TOO high. That's what the above tells me. Last gen I bought about 66 360,37 PS3 games. About 7 were used.

I haven't bought a new console game in over 3-4 years. I have used Steam but not lately. No used console games either.

Many gamers HAVE voted with their wallets, by buying used. So stop telling them to do so as if they haven't already. The industry isn't truly listening. People are complaining because silence would mean full on ahead. The more noise made, the better.

Not to mention, on the 360 those 3 million have to pay to play online with a subscription that still has ads! I mean talk about getting you coming and going. The devs need to understand it the whole picture that has soured the gamer. The pubs just need to fuck off.

 

[jetjevons]

These publishers need to be talking to Gamestop, not the consumers

How do you know they're not? How do you know that Microsoft's lack of clarification regarding their used games policy isn't 100% intentional, and is actually part of a covert game of corporate chicken that they're playing with GameStop, Gamefly and the like. Cut us IN or we'll force you OUT. Don't you see?! All of this furor on Neo-Gaf is actually helping MS with their bluff!! You saw what happened to Gamestop's stock after the Xbone's announcement?! That's just the beginning! Everything is going according to plan!

I've already said too much. Oh God. The green ninjas are inside the

 

[GraveRobberX]

Hey element this is my backlog man

Now how many titles do you think I bought used?
Answer:

Spoiler

Less than 10

How many did I buy new @ full $60 price?
Answer:

Spoiler

Less than 10

How many did I buy new at different price point thresholds where I thought the game = price ratio was good enough for me? Mostly < $10-20
Answer:

Spoiler

All the others that aren't the 20

Still missing are PS+ title, D1D PS3 Retail Titles, DD PS3 titles, PSN Games, PS Vita DD Games
Then my Steam backlog... Jesus, soon I'll have PS4 backlog the way I'm going

 

[sono]

You point is made well op

 

[lord]

I'm Going to play the devil's advocate here so bear with me a little. Games are software, software is not commonly sold as entertainment, that is, as a blu Ray. Most software is licensed, you buy a license for personal use, which most of the time is not transferable. I think it sucks not being able to borrow games, but I understand the logic, you can't lend your friend your single use Windows license.

 

[Fafalada]

B2P (Buy 2 Play) can be such a Huge Fucking Cash Grab going into next gen

Can you clarify that? B2P is what console industry has always been doing - and IMO at least, the more restrictive the DRM and user-inconvenience policies, the faster the market will decline in favor of service-oriented models.
So as far as anti-used policies being good or bad - the way I see it, they'll primarily be good for the non-purchase based business models.

 

[Dunan]

This is ignoring friction in the used market and the way that the structure of the market can influence the pricing, sales, and re-sales of particular games (not just the influence of the market structure on game design).

Can you define the bolded phrase? I can't really respond to you unless I know what you mean by it.

These sorts of Econ 101 -type analyses of the market just aren't very helpful. What percentage of games do you think would actually be re-sold two dozen times in the real world, no matter how fun the game looks at first and no matter how crappy it ends up being after you've played for an hour?

"Two dozen" if you apply it to video games is an exaggeration; the "2" and "5" are the realistic numbers. I think in one of the other used-game threads someone estimated that a typical game is played by an average of four people. The exact number is immaterial; what matters is that durable goods pass through a number of hands but only the first person to buy them covers the entire profit of the producer.

Plus I think your analysis of the incentives of game makers is really incomplete. New IPs are basically sold on advertising and word of mouth. Sequels are sold on the basis of fond memories and advertising and word of mouth. There's always an incentive to make a game that people enjoy past the first hour.

I'm not saying that this is what their incentives are; rather, this is what their incentive could come to be if they get the wholly-unnatural remuneration model that they want.

In bringing up "new IPs" and "sequels" you continue to focus the conversation on games specifically, as if they were somehow special and that the debate must center on games as distinct from other products. My opinion, as stated above, did not include the word "games" a single time, and applies to anything that is produced and sold.

 

[charsace]

idk, CoD, Gears, Madden, AC. Do these games that use essentially the same engine really have that much overhead in sound and graphics? Maybe composition of the soundtrack but graphics. Didn't activision pretty much make back their money in the IW engine used in CoD4? Hasn't every other CoD used that engine?

CoD every CoD has new audio and art assets every year. Every Madden takes better motion capture, and improves the audio and graphics every year. AC also improves the assets with every release. All these games spend money on improving the engines every year. It isn't cheap at all. The better graphics and audio that gamers want to see every holiday is causing the budgets of games to continually rise. Gamers have been fiending for more powerful consoles to get better looking games that what the PS3/360 offer.

 

[border]

I didn't know it wasn't everywhere, but that second paragraph makes me think you've never been in one. They most certainly have multiple copies of new releases for sale used shortly after release.

I've been to MovieStops in Florida, but didn't really bother to note how many new copies were competing with used copies. I just looked for stuff I wanted and often found they had no used copies of it.

As a comparison with GameStop though, you can almost always find a used copy of whatever you want there whether it's new or old. With MovieStop it tends to be different...often they would only have new copies of something I wanted. Their ability to provide a good quantity and variety of used titles seems hampered by the psychological and economic problems associated with used movies ("I might want to watch this again, what's the point in trading it in for two dollars?")

 

[Pureauthor]

Umm. Someone is buying all those crappy direct to dvd movies and tell that to Netflix with the 100's of movies that would fall into that category.

And you think that's comparable to the numbers that a blockbuster like Iron Man 3 pulls in? He wasn't claiming they got nothing, it's that what they get isn't much unless they're a big name. Same thing in movies.

 

[Forceatowulf]

So why haven't publishers dabbled in the online trade-in business? Wouldn't that solve a lot of this?

I'd be more than happy to trade in my shitty broken copy of skyrim right back to Bathesda if they were at comparable prices as Gamestop. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Am I missing something important? I'm no business man.

 

[Wensih]

because people don't like seeing work they did used to profit others w/ no benefit returned to them?

was this concept just invented today?

They were paid for the work they did already. What I do with my property is not their concern after the initial transaction.

 

[Tertullian]

I doubt I'm going to be able to successfully educate you in a forum thread given the deficit we're clearly looking at and how sure you seem to be of your own position already. I was mostly pointing out to un-careful readers the gaping hole in your argument, which I trust is obvious to basically everyone who has the slightest understanding of economics beyond efficient, micro-scale Econ 101 bullshit and who knows what Steam is. Economics is actually a whole field, and I don't know why you'd expect that I'd be able to teach it to you easily over the internet. Go take some courses.

But sure, GameStop and grocery stores are middle men. There's value in that relative to not having middle men, assuming that nothing else at all about the structure of the market changes as a result of not having those middle men. I bolded where I think you've completely missed the point.

I think you're attacking a straw man. I didn't at all mean to claim that GameStop's valuable role as a middle man will continue to be valuable for all eternity, no matter how the digital market shapes up. I was attacking a very specific argument that I've seen thrown around a few times, the argument that there is somehow something unjust and troubling about the fact that GameStop makes money on game resale while the original publishers and developers don't. There is nothing unjust or troubling about that fact; it is exactly as things should be (for the time being). No one is saying that Steam (and Steam-like systems on consoles) couldn't obsolesce GameStop while actually benefitting consumers. At least, I was not saying that in my original post.

I suppose my original post could be taken to imply that it would be "bullying" for publishers to try to eliminate the used game market completely through a Steam-like system. I didn't mean to imply that. When I said that publishers wanted to bully their way into profits from used games, I was referring to the statements you occasionally see from devs or publishers implying that it is somehow fundamentally troubling that they don't get a cut of used game sales, and that if all were right with the world they would. That is bullshit.

 

[Om3ga]

five dollars lower than full price (off of something they already gained profit from) is NOT acceptable.

$5 off + an additional 10% if you have their edge card. Saving you $10 or more per game if you frequently buy used. They also have plenty of used games sales where you can get upwards of 60% off even newly released games.

I guess that devs feel entitled because well the used game industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. They want a cut of that. If funny how developers call us gamers entitled.

 

[Satchel]

Because game development is a unique beast in the tech/entertainment industry.

Yes, you can sell a movie, but realistically, how often does that happen? Honestly. Not only that, the movie industry generates more money than we're led to believe.

Box office sales, DVD/Blu-ray sales, Streaming, royalties via TV/Cable. There's far more opportunity for repeat sales.

In the tech industry, margins tend to be higher in most cases, and the cost of development on an individual product isn't generally what it is with a game.

How many people buy second hand TVs in comparison to games? How many people buy second hand movies?

I can fully see why devs and publishers want to squeeze every sale out of the customer base.

I may or may not agree with the methods, but I can understand why they feel entitled to the lost sales.

 

[Dalthien]

And now the elephant is in the room...

Umm. Someone is buying all those crappy direct to dvd movies and tell that to Netflix with the 100's of movies that would fall into that category.

The direct to DVD movies aren't alternate revenue streams - that is the primary revenue model - and the movies are usually budgeted accordingly. Either that or they were so bad that there was no way of releasing them theatrically, so the studio was just trying to minimize their losses by getting something back for them.

The Netflix deals are usually bundles of dozens of shitty properties all thrown into one big pool. It gives Netflix a wide range of content at an affordable price, and it gives the studios a chance to get something back for those crappy properties. But once you break it out to a revenue/crappy movie ratio - the crappy movies aren't bringing in much of anything at all individually.

 

[Yasae]

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.

Unfortunately only one of those amounts to anything. I'd go much further and say music is very, very close.

 

[squidyj]

They kind of have, haven't they? Is CoD really complete without the maps? Halo 4 had a limited edition that was pretty much the game and the season pass for $99.



Not to mention, on the 360 those 3 million have to pay to play online with a subscription that still has ads! I mean talk about getting you coming and going. The devs need to understand it the whole picture that has soured the gamer. The pubs just need to fuck off.

so you're upset at the mere existence of dlc then?

 

[element]

And you think that's comparable to the numbers that a blockbuster like Iron Man 3 pulls in? He wasn't claiming they got nothing, it's that what they get isn't much unless they're a big name. Same thing in movies.

When you look at return ratios, they are similar, if not better. The company that makes all those knockoff movies makes a 5:1 return. Their budgets are far less, but the needed return is also that much lower.

I personally would love to see more sensible budgets in games, but as others have said will consumers accept that. Even with all the technology we have, there is still a bottleneck and it is talent. You need people to make games and people aren't cheap.

Unfortunately only one of those amounts to anything. I'd go much further and say music is very, very close.

And how did they solve their issue? Moving to digital license and subscription models.

 

[quest]

Budgets can be lowered. he question is whether or not consumers would accept that? To lower the price of games you would have to lower money put into graphics and audio since these are the things that are causing the cost of development to rise.

I think sales would be much higher and the second hand market would naturally go away if prices of games were reduced to what people actually thought they were worth. Reduce the price of games and used games become less profitable and people less likely to sell/trade since it not really worth the trouble. Why is the second hand market so large right now? It is because games are to much money for many people. So they need to trade/sell games to afford new ones. Console game makers are not just competing against each other. But against mobile games and other forms of entertainment. There are so many forms of cheap entertainment these days it is easy for someone to say fuck it I will skip that 59.99 dollar game. A person can get 7 months of Netflix for the price of a game if you don't count resale value for fucks sake. They had 8 years of this generation to try new pricing on the digital stores to see how it would work. Instead they were greedy and basically leave games MSRP for a very long time. I hate gamestop and think they are a parasite but with the price of games they help millions of gamers afford new games.

 

[Jabba]

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.

The console business shouldn't be allowed to stomp consumer rights just for the sake of "trying it". If that's what you are saying. Maybe you aren't.

 

[Fafalada]

It isn't cheap at all.

It isn't efficient at all either. But it doesn't matter, because relative to the money COD or other annual franchises make - it's more than cheap enough - there's far more incentive to drive monetization aspects and focus on the yearly deadlines than trying to be more cost efficient.

Mind you I'm talking specifically about AAA productions here - there are other games where budgets are no less of a problem, but the scale and potential for cost optimization is very different.

 

[werks]

If gamestop is such a lucrative business with no risk, then step in a compete with them. Jaffe, if you think it isn't fair for gamestop to buy your latest game from me for $25 and sell it for $55, then fucking offer me $30 for it and you can sell it for $55. Otherwise, take your own advise and fuck off.

Gamestop isn't the boogeyman, it's the game industry that it proposing the worst DRM to exist yet. DIVX 2.0.

 

[mujun]

I think it is because of two things:

1. The value of the entertainment they provide. Many games these days have 30, 50 or even hundreds of hours worth of content in them. That is far more than your average CD or movie. Books are similar but that leads to my second point. Books don't cost near as much to create.

2. The health of the industry as a whole. Aren't they trying to get more money because it is very very hard to turn a profit these days. From casually following sales it seems to me that it is a very risky business to be in and even a well marketed and well made product is no guarantee that you'll see a good enough return to continue on.


I do however question the decision to go more "cinematic". Was that the point at which games headed down the path of "hard to make a profit"? If games hadn't tried to be movies so early on (read ahead of the pace that graphics improved) would the market as a whole be more profitable today?

 

[border]

Yeah, my big question is why the game industry hasn't banded together to start their own retail chain that sells used games. You want a cut of every sale? Then fine, do all the legwork that Gamestop did and compete with them. Instead of giving Gamestop exclusive DLC, give your own chain the exclusive DLC.

At the very least why not exert some leverage over Gamestop? "No exclusive DLC for Bioshock Infinite unless you give us 10% of the revenue on every used copy of Bioshock Infinite!"

Used games have been an identifiable problem for at least 5 years now, but it just feels like sour grapes to hear them complaining about it when they've done nothing to be competitive. Movie studios got cool with video rentals once they realized they could make some nice revenue off of them, but game companies have done little but complain and issue online passes.

 

[Noisepurge]

not to mention $35 is still expensive. movies are priced at 20 when they come out and quickly drop the next month.

Its not expensive when you compare the bang for buck value. On most games i mean. If a game gives me a 12 hour campaign and a solid 100 hour multiplayer. Its worth 60 bucks compared to a good 2 hour movie i want to watch maybe once a year.

But more games should go for that 15, 25 or 35 $ pricepoint to begin with if the content does not meet a certain criteria. Publishers could work out a system to set these standards.

 

[daninthemix]

so you're upset at the mere existence of dlc then?

We've had a few years to swallow it, although in my opinion its no less bitter.

But at least with DLC we have the choice, whereas this no-used shenanigans is effectively removing our choice, by removing the financial incentive to buy used.

 

[Guevara]

The high initial prices of games are what allowed GameStop to become so ubiquitous.

The resell value of a $60 game is far greater than a $15 DVD. If games were also $15 at releas, there'd be a lot less incentive to trade them in or buy used.

 

[robertsan21]

This is crazy, devs/ publishers need to shut up and be happy for the money we paid for the new game. Comparing this industry to the used car industry is just fine, it is the same thing!

If you can´t make a living out of selling NEW games, then you should look at your business model and not try change the way the world works.

 

[flatearthpandas]

I'm Going to play the devil's advocate here so bear with me a little. Games are software, software is not commonly sold as entertainment, that is, as a blu Ray. Most software is licensed, you buy a license for personal use, which most of the time is not transferable. I think it sucks not being able to borrow games, but I understand the logic, you can't lend your friend your single use Windows license.

Speaking of licenses, I couldn't believe what MS is trying to charge for the new office when it was time for me to upgrade. Monthly fee for Word, what the fuck?

Your point stands that software in general does work like this. I think most people would agree that software has a pretty unfriendly model in general though.

If the thing I paid for isn't grafted onto my fucking body or soul, I should have the right to sell it. Software-wise, DRM it up so I can't sell copies of it. Make it so if I want to sell it, I lose my copy (like how all other goods work). That's fine with me, as long as it is still reasonably usable i.e. no always online. But don't tell me I'm not allowed to resell it. And don't tell me you deserve to have your hand in my pocket when I sell the thing I already paid you for.

 

[Subxero]

So instead of subjecting customers to horrible drm how bout they deal with used retail.

They could just put a 90 day mortuary on buying of used games. That would keep all the retailers from buying used until then.

Would they not potentially see more initial sales that way?

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Utter greed, that's all.

 

[daninthemix]

They could just put a 90 day mortuary on buying of used games. That would keep all the retailers from buying used until then.

I endorse this message.

 

[Open Source]

Because game development is a unique beast in the tech/entertainment industry.

Yes, you can sell a movie, but realistically, how often does that happen? Honestly. Not only that, the movie industry generates more money than we're led to believe.

Box office sales, DVD/Blu-ray sales, Streaming, royalties via TV/Cable. There's far more opportunity for repeat sales.

In the tech industry, margins tend to be higher in most cases, and the cost of development on an individual product isn't generally what it is with a game.

How many people buy second hand TVs in comparison to games? How many people buy second hand movies?

I can fully see why devs and publishers want to squeeze every sale out of the customer base.

I may or may not agree with the methods, but I can understand why they feel entitled to the lost sales.

This, but it's not so much feeling entitled to that money. It's the feeling that they can't make anything but AAA games, mostly shooters and sports, with the current model. Almost all people working in game development could be making more money doing something else, with a far more secure job, with a choice of far more locations to work. It's not about the money - they get into games to work on something cool or creative, and being forced by the economic realities attached to ubiquitous used games to work on the same boring shit project after project takes away the main reason to work in this business.

Why do you think there's such a mass shift of developers, larger than any in game industry history, to platforms where used games do not exist?

 

[element]

They could just put a 90 day mortuary on buying of used games. That would keep all the retailers from buying used until then.

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been something like this. Movie companies have attempted to do this with Redbox on DVD/Bluray releases.

 

[Biker19]

So instead of subjecting customers to horrible drm how bout they deal with used retail.

They could just put a 90 day mortuary on buying of used games. That would keep all the retailers from buying used until then.

Would they not potentially see more initial sales. That way?

Won't work, as people will be reluctant to buy new copies of a certain game not knowing whatever it's good or bad. That'll fuck publishers even more.

Average consumers aren't like us that constantly go on gaming messageboards like this one to look for reviews of games.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

so you're upset at the mere existence of dlc then?

No, unless its obvious content is ripped from the game to be sold later. I am upset that on top of a DLC model that is extremely lucrative for Pubs that they would even dream of messing with used games. This was the "reason" for DLC, online passes and live subs to play online right? So does that mean all DLC is free since used games in the conventional sense will be dead?

 

[charsace]

It isn't efficient at all either. But it doesn't matter, because relative to the money COD or other annual franchises make - it's more than cheap enough - there's far more incentive to drive monetization aspects and focus on the yearly deadlines than trying to be more cost efficient.

Mind you I'm talking specifically about AAA productions here - there are other games where budgets are no less of a problem, but the scale and potential for cost optimization is very different.

what do you think devs should do? Reuse assets to build new levels and put it out as a sequel?

 

[Fularu]

They cannot really compete on price when the margins on used games are so huge that Gamestop can almost always price used titles $5 lower than new titles. If Activision decides to lower the price of Call of Duty from $60 to $40, Gamestop immediately lowers the price on their used copies from $55 to $35.

Well... It wouldn't be an issue if Gamestop was actually making money off of new games. When your profit per 60$ game is about 1$, it's no wonder they have to go the used games way.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Can you clarify that? B2P is what console industry has always been doing - and IMO at least, the more restrictive the DRM and user-inconvenience policies, the faster the market will decline in favor of service-oriented models.
So as far as anti-used policies being good or bad - the way I see it, they'll primarily be good for the non-purchase based business models.

Buy 2 Play means it almost MMO without the sub, Faux-MMO

You will get updates non stop, hotfixes on the spot, but you will not be paying on a monthly basis and most of the time Add-On Content/DLC are more based in expansions
Rather than a company sell their product at the start and go away for a few months only to reappear to sell you the next map pack, then repeat process until next one till the yearly franchise refresh, the game would (hopefully) get supported hard

Just look at Guild Wars for reference
Buy the base game, get the MMO aspect, get updates/fixes/content free of charge, and to expand on the experience purchase the expansions that keep furthering the world/franchise

I'd rather have my character traverse through all Destiny titles as the main entity through my account, rather than get hampered down by yearly refreshes by almost going back to step 1 of the process

What looks more feasible and worth it:
Destiny + Expansion which moves your character over to Destiny 2 + Expansion which prolong your career in that franchise and then eventually Destiny 3 + Expansion, etc.
(Migrate, Carry-Over, Continuity)

or

Destiny + Expansion, once that parts done, Destiny 2 + Expansion arrive you start at the beginning all over again, then again at Destiny 3 + Expansion
(Stop-Gap, Leveled Playing Field, Restart)

 

[Shinta]

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.

"Complaining" is not pointless here, at all. It's how we communicate what we like and don't like to others. It's how we convince others that this is unacceptable. It's how we spread awareness and gain support for our positions. It's literally the most effective and important thing we can do as consumers.

What you're saying is the same as saying marketing for games is pointless. The game will either succeed or fail in the free market and publishers will learn, so why market anything? It's just a really stupid thing to say.

 

[border]

They could just put a 90 day mortuary on buying of used games. That would keep all the retailers from buying used until then.

I'm not sure if I would approve of these tactics, but I'd like to hear an executive at a major publisher explain why they haven't tried strongarming GameStop.

Movie studios got pissed at RedBox because they were renting newly-released DVDs. They threatened to stop selling DVDs to them if they did not adhere to a 30-90 day retail/digital exclusivity window where movies could not be rented. And RedBox almost immediately caved.

Why not do the same to GameStop? "We will not sell you any copies of Call of Duty Ghosts unless you promise not to sell any used copies for 60 days after the release date."

I guess the problem might be that Gamestop's margins on new games are so low that they probably don't give a fuck if they sell any new copies of Call of Duty.

 

[element]

You want the industry to change. Don't buy $100m games.

The difference between the ten pole games vs the rest of the industry is huge. When the difference between #1 and #10 best selling games is almost 10 million units it is pretty shocking.

 

[charsace]

This is crazy, devs/ publishers need to shut up and be happy for the money we paid for the new game. Comparing this industry to the used car industry is just fine, it is the same thing!

If you can´t make a living out of selling NEW games, then you should look at your business model and not try change the way the world works.

they can change the business model. would you be willing to give up the expensive art and audio assets? because those two things are what cost a lot.

 

[lemonade]

of course the publishers deserve something if that is what satisfies them... why not? its their creation. too many people are blaming the pubs/devs for wanting a bigger cut for whats theirs. it simply doesn't make sense. consumers have rights to neglect the terms and agreements or not. even while i had a minimus wage job i still was able to buy tons of games at full price (i've never brought a used game) simply to put money into the right hands. i understand and agree that having used games available can infuse profit into the gaming market, but giving money to the people who produced the game is just the right thing to do. even if they have made a killing off the game.

 

[GraveRobberX]

You want the industry to change. Don't buy $100m games.

They're so Shiny!

=3

 

[mujun]

Utter greed, that's all.

How can it be greed with so many companies shutting down, though?

Isn't it desperation?

 

[quest]

what do you think devs should do? Reuse assets to build new levels and put it out as a sequel?

If the prices of games were much lower they could do exactly that. But at 59.99 they have to go all out to get a sale. I think the standard 59.99 for basically every game is an albatross around the neck of the industry. There needs to be much more flexibility of pricing. I honestly think if most games were 29.99 used game sales would dry up and people would buy more games. Then they would not waste so much money to add multiplayer to basically single player games.