CreateNowSleepLater
Member
Because they don't want 10%, They want it all. They may use the work "used" and "trade" but its obvious they believe in no such thing.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
Because they don't want 10%, They want it all. They may use the work "used" and "trade" but its obvious they believe in no such thing.
Is the way the Xbox One handles software similar to the way Microsoft handles boxed copies of Windows? Yep.
Does that make it right? Well, the 9th Circuit seems to think so (see Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.), but consumers get short changed a whole hell of a lot in that deal.
element
Member
It is a silly statement, but those $100m games just drive up the cost for the rest of us to compete.
robertsan21
Member
DLC is also according to me just a fucking way of making more money.
Look at the iPhone games, you buy a game for 7 then when you start playing the game you relise that oh shit, the game is gimped, I need to pay another 7 o get all the characters or open the last level etc etc. this is getting out of hand.
This is according to me destroying the enjoyment of gaming.
I have a feeling that this next gen gaming, will have a lot more gimped games that you buy for 69, and when you load it up you need to pay for more shit.
They need to stop this right now or they are losing at least one gamer.
Look at the iPhone games, you buy a game for 7 then when you start playing the game you relise that oh shit, the game is gimped, I need to pay another 7 o get all the characters or open the last level etc etc. this is getting out of hand.
This is according to me destroying the enjoyment of gaming.
I have a feeling that this next gen gaming, will have a lot more gimped games that you buy for 69, and when you load it up you need to pay for more shit.
They need to stop this right now or they are losing at least one gamer.
michaelius
Banned
Greed - they were already paid once but since the medium allows for some opresive drm unlike books/music/cars/any other psychical items there's the temptation to use it.
Wickerbasket
Member
They don't deserve anything because, once I've paid them for it, it becomes mine.
They dont deserve a share of my money when I sell something I own.
If they insist on trying to steal my money then I'll avoid buying their products.
They were paid initially when that copy was sold. I personally wouldn't have bought the game at $60 new. I see it for $30 used I buy it. Did they lose my sale? Yes and no. They lost my sale because it wasn't priced competitively enough, but they didn't lose my $60 day one as I wouldn't have bought it at that price as I don't trade in games.
Most gamer's (not on GAF), buy games at $60 because they know that initial purchase actually turns into $20-$30 if they trade it in quick enough or they only buy 1-2 games a year anyway. If developers think they can still charge $60 and not have a used game market they got to be kidding me. If they think they can still charge $60 and get a cut of the used game market pie they got to be crazy as well. Most people only tolerate the $60 price point because the TiV of games is high. I can trade 2 older games (or 1 and $20) for a new release. If second hand tax effects used game sales, trades and pricing it will also effect new games sales negatively unless the pricing comes down.
Live Free or Die
Banned
Agreed.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
Why are they shutting down? Do you think MS or Sony are caving to those little companies? Your point is valid except they are not doing this as some heroic deed. If a studio shuts down maybe it deserved too. If a pub shuts down, maybe the same thing. Look at THQ. They were fine to put out the same WWE game every year, with graphics that somehow got worse. Then they started season passes and back to back years online was broken. WWE 12 servers could barely be accessed for caws.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
lol, you believe this crap? what was blockbuster and hollywood video then? what's redbox now?
element
Member
How about for the services the game provides? Servers aren't free. If you sell a game that requires you to connect to a server for services specific to that game do you think the second owner should pay for those services?
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
MS already charge for online.
Problem is the B games from major developers cost the same as that 100 million dollar game. It is natural people go for the high production game if they cost the same. It be like ford making the price of all their cars the same. You can guess which one people would pick.
robertsan21
Member
MS is charging with xbox live.
Used games are 1 in 1 out system. There can never, ever be more people online than the exact amount of people that paid for the game new. Unless people who pay $60 aren't entitled to server support, then it's a complete non-issue.
There's already online passes too, or single player games without servers, or subscription based MMOs.
element
Member
MS charges you for THEIR services, not game specific.
Take Defiance. Trion runs their own servers for that game to live. All that XBL does is connect you to their servers that hold all your game specific data.
Strange thing happens with games that have lower price point, they are instantly viewed as budget games and considered just that.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
I thought that is why you pay for Xbox live, take it up with MS. Do pubs get a cut of that? No, I bet you want it though. Remember the consumer, we already pay for the servers from our point of view.
Actually right now If my 8 year old wants to play Minecraft online I have to pay twice. Where exactly does that Avatar and themes money go. Does that cost 100m or does that go to the pub? That is more than enough to pay for servers.
This is pretty much how I feel and I have only bought 10 games used (all previous gen) in the last 5 years. I'm a collector (just over 200 X360 and just under 100 PS3) and I share games with my siblings. So the whole used/drm debate affects me too in the end.
Which most of the servers are P2P servers that you're paying for.
Of course not, because the first owner already paid for those services, but now can no longer use them because he doesn't have the game anymore. Unless you want the publisher to refund the first owner and then have the second owner send in money instead.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
Of course pubs/devs should prosper off their games and franchises
It's not the customers fault, they budget so obtusely
Or how about publishers who have contracts with Retail chains, where the Retail have more power just due to clout or contract negotiations
I bet you fucking money Activision must have some power over retail now, retails will bend-over backwards to house the new COD and work out solutions that help both parties, whatever they maybe
Others not so much, do you think the absurd overflow stock of "Generic Game #635" that has been on shelves for 4+ months and is moving 1 copy a week from their chain is good bargaining chip for publishers of that game?
There are too many overlaps to even balance out where this industry thinks it's should be heading in
You can't destroy one aspect, with hurting the foundations of the others
Where was this outcry of devs/pubs in the early '90's, there was 2nd hand sales back then too, but it wasn't the top priority, Blockbuster and it's rentals were
They were the main bane of existence, something that cut too deep into the pockets of publishers
Then piracy with 1 pirate copy = 1 lost sale, 2nd hand sales still were not a primary concern
Now those other two have been dealt with, 2nd hand sales have now become the new target
Next will be how long that license can be used for, battle line drawn again from unlimited lifetime use to yearly use
Then it will just be the account, do they have permission to even start up the title, have they invested enough into the industry pot to be privileged enough to play the title at hand
Wickerbasket
Member
MS charges me and the second owner a small fortune for providing online, maybe publishers should look into getting a cut of that off MS instead of trying to fuck consumers over with online passes.
I don't agree with online passes either, but its less worse than what they're trying to push down consumers throats this time.
Sounds like online passes and I never really had a problem with them to be honest. I like that solution a lot more than the proposed one. I still think price would be the best solution to the problem especially for B level games.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
See Shinta's post.
And it's a shame lower priced games are seen as lower quality.
edit : That made no sense
At that point though the seller is no longer using those services. The originally bought copy already paid for one person to use them through that copy. So transferring that copy incurs no more costs to the devs than if the original seller had just continued to own it and played it more.
flatearthpandas
Member
I hope this means you don't buy used anything. Just because Honda is doing great doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for you enjoying the utility of the vehicle the designed and manufactured, even if they alreays sold that one.
Forget about selling used. Borrowing is even worse. I really hope anyone advocating for the developers' right to ban used games has never borrowed anything and enjoyed the fruit of someone else's labor and investment with absolutely no return to anyone. I hope you've never borrowed a book or a movie or driven your friend's car when he wasn't there. Or watched someone's house/apartment for them. Ugh, that last one is particularly disgusting. Can you believe that some people actually get paid to enjoy the fruits of some architect's--not to mention entire teams of contractors and realtors'--work with none of the creators seeing any of that cash money? Not just enjoy it for free, but actually get paid to pick that architect's pocket.
Did any of that sound absolutely ridiculous? That's what it sounds like to me when someone suggests devs and publishers should get a cut of second-hand sales. And when someone suggests that Microsoft should get a cut of second-hand sales because the game is on their platform, that is beyond ludicrous.
Of course you're right. But it's perfectly understandable that he would rather we not voice our opposition, because then the One gets smoothly released as initially planned, and he and his ilk get a step closer to obtaining more money. But if we do (rightfully) communicate our displeasure, then the proposed used game measures just might get curtailed before release, and he doesn't get the additional money that avenue would have provided.
I don't know why these big companies don't just get into the used market themselves. Since they create all these games they could easily win people away from Gamestop by including bonus items and stuff. Make $100 purchase at the XBOX used game store and get the exclusive demo for Halo 5. There is all sorts of stufff like that they could do being(or working with) the content creators.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
You cannot change the rules of the game because the game cannot support itself on new sales. Don't you project making a game that covers those services and still generates a profit? What does the used market have to do with it? From the consumer perspective we pay for online and everything included. if you have a problem with that take it up with MS, instead you want to pick a fight with the smaller kid.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Publishers then use Online passes, so you have basically the second owner paying again but there is no refund for the first owner, so the publishers get the best of both worlds.
um...of course it is?
But we also benefit by getting more life out of the games we love.
DLC (when executed well) is the best thing to happen to gaming in years.
Would have loved it as a kid. More levels in Sonic, more characters in Street Fighter 2.
Are we both using the server at the same time? If you sold a million copy of the game and they require 10,000 servers for upkeep, does reselling create a million new owner? Or are the same million copies out there requiring the same server commitment?
And, at the very least, this type of complaining widely informs others about what's waiting just around the river bend.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
The first person who bought the copy, bought the server rights for all after them
If the person keeps the game, they get to use the service, if they sell it, they have paid for the server, rights, the next person just uses the same amount of data just as the first new purchaser
It's not like the first and 2nd hand sale person are using the server at the same time
The $60 price tag, the publisher set has to take into account of their game can be sold
If they think that is too much of a burden, either add an online pass or raise your price to cover it
Don't expect the next person in line to just fall in because you told them to do so
bender
What time is it?
Isn't trying to compete with those games what is getting a lot of publishers in trouble in the first place? Expectations just seem out of whack.
but thats the thing, if new terms are created things could drastically change. whats the difference between what microsoft does and what devs are trying to do? it does suck at times, but who doesn't what to get paid for what they create? unless the terms state otherwise, you can do whatever you want with what you buy.
It is because most of those games at the lower price point basically suck for the most part. If there was lots of games at those lower price levels people would not view them so badly. Especially if some of them were actually good. Hell just start with pure single player games instead of trying to shoe horn in useless multiplayer just sell it for a lower price.
Sure, that's a variation of service-based models. But be it Sub, F2P, P2P - the important thing is not how these games monetize, but the fact that they support the game as a service to their community, which is also eliminating the problem that normal games have with "used copies" - ie. player retention.GraveRobberX said:
Switching over from normal retail sales to this is not easy though, and it doesn't really change anything for the bloated budget problems either (in fact, up front costs for these games are higher than equivalent scope "traditional" game).
Asset reuse is already common place in AAA games. There are more fundamental problems with how building games is approached most of the time, particularly with large teams.charsace said:
element
Member
Publishers and developers see no money from XBL subs. That is MS providing you with a service or gateway on their platform.
Developers have access to a basic level of features that XBL provides. Friendslist, leaderboards, matchmaking, etc. If a developer wants to do anymore with their game, it is up to them to develop and manage that at their own cost.
When you sign up for uPlay or EA, you are connecting to their servers.
Dedicated servers? pub/dev cost.
Detail player stats? pub/dev cost.
User rewards? pub/dev pays.
All the things that Halo 4 does aren't part of the XBL feature set. Those are custom additions.
robertsan21
Member
when handled right it can be great. I agree, but look at iPhone games and I feel screwed every time I buy a game and there are in app purchases for basic shit like new characters etc. wtf thats not how it is suppose to work and ruines the enjoyment I get from playing games on iPhone. I fear that this will also happen on videogames.
Doesn't the amount of devs shutting down indicate that the industry is very unhealthy? I'd love to see comparisons to the movie industry (amount of companies total vs amount of companies keeping in the black), music industry, book industry, etc.
The way I see it games are pretty much the best entertainment value per dollar of pretty much any form of entertainment and something needs to change to get the industry to a healthy point again. Raise the price of games, sell MP and SP parts separately, go mainly digital to cut down on production costs, use a wider range or price points, etc, etc. Whatever works.
I suppose the blame falls on devs and pubs with feeling the need to shoehorn in MP, money spent on cinematic elements, etc, etc but I'd rather see constructive criticism leading to action and a healthier industry than, "They're greedy!"
Just my opinion, of course.
robertsan21
Member
Wickerbasket
Member
The point still stands; they've already been paid for all future use of the copy.
They don't deserve more money for something they've already been paid for.
It makes no difference if its me playing on their server, or the person I sell the game to.
Why don't they compete with Gamestop by allowing you to trade back to them. They could give you a credit to purchase directly from them and they could destroy the used game if they wanted, or they could resell it the same as Gamestop is doing. But instead they want to take the easy way out and have consumers take the hit.
All those copies of games that Gamefly buys are going to be lost sales now. All the copies that Ganestop sells by giving a trade in bonus for preordering will take a hit and possibly not be sold. All the copies of games people purchase by selling there used games on eBay will be sitting on store shelves.
Or, as they think, more money will be entering the industry be closing a market that exists within the industry. Where do they think the billions of dollars that are generated by selling games are going to come from? Are current gamers going to all get more disposable income? Is there a group of people that are not currently gaming because there is a used game market and they will start gaming now? Where does the extra money going to come from for all of us to buy the same amount of games as we do now without having an outlet to sell these games to?
They need to think of other options. If the XBox is required to be online, work with Microsoft and create an OnDemand rental service, much like Pay Per View. Give early access to your game to people who buy digitally. Do something beneficial to the costumer instead of treating the customer as the villian.
Thus industry is so backwards that it will destroy itself. They pat Ganestop on the back with the left hand and try to burn it down with the right. They give the consumer a hug and then knee us in the groin. The industry itself doesn't know who to blame for all the fuck-ups it has made so is going to blame everyone and then cry when it collapses
All those copies of games that Gamefly buys are going to be lost sales now. All the copies that Ganestop sells by giving a trade in bonus for preordering will take a hit and possibly not be sold. All the copies of games people purchase by selling there used games on eBay will be sitting on store shelves.
Or, as they think, more money will be entering the industry be closing a market that exists within the industry. Where do they think the billions of dollars that are generated by selling games are going to come from? Are current gamers going to all get more disposable income? Is there a group of people that are not currently gaming because there is a used game market and they will start gaming now? Where does the extra money going to come from for all of us to buy the same amount of games as we do now without having an outlet to sell these games to?
They need to think of other options. If the XBox is required to be online, work with Microsoft and create an OnDemand rental service, much like Pay Per View. Give early access to your game to people who buy digitally. Do something beneficial to the costumer instead of treating the customer as the villian.
Thus industry is so backwards that it will destroy itself. They pat Ganestop on the back with the left hand and try to burn it down with the right. They give the consumer a hug and then knee us in the groin. The industry itself doesn't know who to blame for all the fuck-ups it has made so is going to blame everyone and then cry when it collapses
Open Source
Banned
True, but the economics of running the servers are based on players having a limited game lifetime. If all players play forever, it doesn't work (or at least, you have to have a regular fee). It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet where you can simply hand your receipt to someone else and they can continue eating at no cost. Obviously, this does not work, and you have to switch to a different model (like sub fee, f2p, online pass) or simply not offer the service.
Developer's argument for that is, "sort of" valid. Their complaint is that if I sell 1 million copies of a game odds are only 10%* of those initial purchasers will stick with that game longer than a month. Used games means that it may never get to that 10%* and may stay as high as 50%-70%* meaning they have to continually maintain servers for a higher volume of players than thy initially accounted for. It's the argument many used for online pass justification anyway. I don't feel it's right, but *shrugs* I vote with my $$$'s.
*Yes i'm pulling % numbers out my ass lol, but just illustrating a point.
vasametropolis
Member
As much as I want to see certain devs and pubs succeed, they are not, and will never, be entitled to a cent from used game sales. End of story.
Open Source
Banned
I actually think this is a great idea and would not be surprised to see it in next-gen consoles at some point, if they do not have it at launch.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
DLC sort of pollutes the discussion but if you factor Game Sale + DLC + Paid Online + Online Pass I just don't see where the dev or publisher gets screwed. The server argument is bad because the seller no longer uses that resource and the buyer might not ever use it.
You didn't see an argument that the buyer might have bought a $30 season pass + Live sub when he bought the game. See? Goes back to what I keep saying. To the pub, there is not such thing as a used game. They want 100% of it. Then they want to charge you for DLC and the like. Show me once where they gave the consumer a break.
It started with Maps
Then map packs
Then Armor
Then Themes
Then Avatars
Then On disk content
etc
etc