Support NeoGAF

[Burai]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

 

[element]

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.

That is the challenge, because expectations are so out of whack. What is an acceptable amount of enjoyment for a $10 to $15 game? Sadly people expect it to have a similar ratio to Call of Duty, even though COD costs 6 times as much.

 

[Jabba]

Another reason the pubs want to fuck the consumer is it's easier to do in a way. The consumer has no real "central voice" that has power enough to say fuck you, you're not doing this or that. After hearing the reaction, they go ok. We have to wait and the decide whether we like it. Guess what? Used games speaks volumes but again, industry not listening.

All these players sit at the same table. MS,Sony,Nintendo,Pubs,Gamestop and to some extent some high profile devs.

Since there isn't a voice at the table for us Jaffe, we can only complain.

 

[Yagharek]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

One of the best posts today.

 

[FlyFaster]

Yup, Gamestop's method isn't restricting how I choose to recoup my cost when I sell my copy of a game. I can sell it on ebay, Craigslist, directly to a friend, or hell, I can even gift it to someone (what a concept!). And on the flipside, I can seek out the best deal for myself when purchasing through those very same channels. So far, the rumblings bandied about from MS indicate they want to restrict my options, while simultaneously allying with the industry's supposed villain: GameStop. If the "folks who make the games" have a different idea, I'm all ears.

woody pretty much just summed up the entire situation:

-- blocking used games takes options away from gamers.


How is giving us less options as consumers in our interest? It doesn't add up.

 

[2MF]

I am a games developer and I don't think I'm entitled to money from 2nd hand sales. Not everyone in the industry agrees though.

I also think the industry could suffer negative impacts if it's true that used games will be severely restricted.

 

[GraveRobberX]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

Can I have the honor of breeding more Burai's?

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

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.

Halo is 1st party an owned by MS, the others is just the cost of doing business. Ubisoft has online passes. EA did too. How does that factor in with the fact that basically the pub did get paid for both players to play on those servers?

 

[Kickz]

Greed is what will ultimately do this industry in.

 

[Xenon]

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.

Movies have a run in the theaters first though where they get paid for every person viewing. DVD and Blu Ray sales are on top of that. Games have similar production times and budgets but don't have something like that initial theatrical run to recoup their costs. Gamestop's has almost immediate access to the revenue stream of a new game. Maybe a week or two before people start trading games in. How the hell is that fare? A business should be able to protect itself from a company like Gamestop. If that means changing the model, so be it.

People have turned this into the industry vs the consumer when it's really the industry vs Gamestop.

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

This is a crock of shit. You act like companies didn't try to provide new and deeper experiences this generation. Many tried and ended up going out of business. The AAA games were the only sure fire bets studios had. Sure you may have had a lucky title break out and find success but it was the exception and not the rule. The same people bitching about the current state of gaming being the result of inflated budgets would be the first in line to tear a game apart for bad graphics or amateurish cut scenes. Nobody forced gamers to buy these AAA games. They have been been driving the market with the cash since the generation began. Now gamers want to turn around and a looks at these companies and say "Look what a mess YOU made of things. Now if you'll excuse me I'll just sit back here and watch you burn."

To be truthful this industry needs AAA games the same way the movie industry needs big budget summer blockbusters, they provide an influx of cash that enables more meaningful games and movies to be made. I'd much rather see them try to adjust to survive than sit back with some smug notion that they're getting whats coming to them. Seriously whats the point of preserving the right to trade if the industry goes to shit.

 

[quest]

That is the challenge, because expectations are so out of whack. What is an acceptable amount of enjoyment for a $10 to $15 game? Sadly people expect it to have a similar ratio to Call of Duty, even though COD costs 6 times as much.

Come on you are going a little to far now. I do not hear many people bitch about the awesome XBLA and PSN games in that price range. The only time people complain is when they are forced to pay a huge console tax compared to other platforms for those titles. As far as I am concerned XBLA/PSN was the best part of this generation. Waking dead was easily my GoT last year and maybe my favorite game of this generation. Just wish those kind of titles got more exposure and sales.

 

[DarkFlow]

Other industries never had a nationwide retailer that so insidously undercuts them at the point of sale though. Right next to a new game, there's a used copy selling for less that is arguably just as good. Gamestop devotes probably 50% more shelf space to Used titles than to new ones. You do not see the same thing for movies or stereos or books or music. The used car business is good for the auto industry, since their dealerships make quite a bit of money from used car sales.

If the film/music/publishing industries had some kind of equivalent to Gamestop, I suspect there might be a similar outcry. Gamestop is a pretty viable competitor, whereas used shops for books and movies and music are not really viable either.

Whole it's not nationwide, in Arizona there is a place called bookmans that let's you trade in everything from movies to books. I don't see the movie or book industry getting all bent out of shape over them.

http://www.bookmans.com/buy-sell-trade

 

[Vargavinter]

I see it like this, major game releases like CoD, GOW etc will always survive on firsthand sales they dont need a cent when it comes to sencondhand sale. But lesser developers dont have the same margin to survive and to be able to release a second game, they deserve to get a little cut from second sales to not going under and having to shut down. I would support a system that would work like this.

 

[border]

lol, you believe this crap? what was blockbuster and hollywood video then? what's redbox now?

The movie industry made a lot of money selling DVDs and videotapes to Blockbuster and Hollywood and Redbox. Rental companies did not entirely cut out the source of their revenue like Gamestop does. If Blockbuster got all their rental copies as a result of trade-ins, you can almost certainly bet that Hollywood would have made a huge stink about it.

 

[Shinta]

Movies have a run in the theaters first though where they get paid for every person viewing. DVD and Blu Ray sales are on top of that. Games have similar production times and budgets but don't have something like that initial theatrical run to recoup their costs. Gamestop's has almost immediate access to the revenue stream of a new game. Maybe a week or two before people start trading games in. How the hell is that fare? A business should be able to protect itself from a company like Gamestop. If that means changing the model, so be it.

People have turned this into the industry vs the consumer when it's really the industry vs Gamestop.

Theaters aren't a right. They made a product that people find compelling. I remember playing games in the arcades, and then buying the games at home. That fell apart as people neglected it though.

They could invest in providing other services but they don't want to. Sony made PS+ which is a way for publishers to get a 3rd revenue stream now: 1) retail, 2) DLC, 3) PS+. Gaikkai may turn into the first gaming Netflix.

You can't wait around and complain that there aren't multiple revenue streams if you don't build multiple things to offer to consumers.

Also, there are HD remakes, and ports to other systems, and ports to mobile. I've bought some games up to 4x new before, like FFIV or Ninja Gaiden.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

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.

The industry is unhealthy because the big pubs are only looking for the next huge annual franchise. Do they really look at innovating small IPs anymore? How many AAA games are FPS now? The Pubs made their lunch and now they are trying to eat each other. Force this down everyones throat and you will not get the DLC sales like before.

Look, the key here is also that people are going to have to pay big money to buy new consoles to play these games. Its not like we are talking about a mid gen change. Especially when the big 2 are launching in the same holiday season.

 

[quest]

Movies have a run in the theaters first though where they get paid for every person viewing. DVD and Blu Ray sales are on top of that. Games have similar production times and budgets but don't have something like that initial theatrical run to recoup their costs. Gamestop's has almost immediate access to the revenue stream of a new game. Maybe a week or two before people start trading games in. How the hell is that fare? A business should be able to protect itself from a company like Gamestop. If that means changing the model, so be it.

People have turned this into the industry vs the consumer when it's really the industry vs Gamestop.

If they were truly that evil then publishers would pull all new games/consoles from them. It would basically turn them into a second rate store and hurt them badly. Instead they bend over backwards to gamestop and give them exclusive DLC. If used games were that much of an issue they would not be kissing gamestops ass like they do.

 

[Dalthien]

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.

If the publisher expects players to only use the servers for a limited time, then sell the game that way.

That's how the all-you-can-eat buffet model works. It's not an unlimited, come back as many times as you want deal - it's limited to that visit to the restaurant. Once you leave the restaurant, your purchase is complete.

Sell the online server access for 90 days (or whatever the publisher expects the typical user to use the service for) following purchase. After that, you have to pay a monthly fee for online play. That way is fair to everyone, and publishers know how long they have to support the game, regardless of whether it is sold used or not.

That's assuming that having to service used customers vs. the expected use of the original customer is actually relevant to the publisher anyway. Having used customers keep the online community active (and purchasing DLC maps, etc.) after the new customers have given up on the game can help keep a game alive and active - so having the used customers online isn't all negative for the publisher anyway.

 

[Freshmaker]

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

Most of the stuff available now as DLC used to come already available in the game.

Capcom vs SNK2 for example. Large roster out of the box. ALternate costumes. Alternate Colors. *Color edit* available out of the box. Extra modes included for no extra charge etc.

The game also cost $10 less brand new.

 

[quest]

I see it like this, major game releases like CoD, GOW etc will always survive on firsthand sales they dont need a cent when it comes to sencondhand sale. But lesser developers dont have the same margin to survive and to be able to release a second game, they deserve to get a little cut from second sales to not going under and having to shut down. I would support a system that would work like this.

It is the pricing structure. People are reluctant to give anything new a chance at such extreme prices. Even if they get a cut it is only delaying their collapse. It will come to pass if/when MS/Sony try and destroy the used market. They will find out pretty fucking fast how few people are willing to pay 59.99 for any game that is not COD or Madden.

 

[flattie]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

Excellent post and worrying at the same time. I think it's clear to see that times are changing and god knows where gaming will be in another 5/6 years.

Edit: Or maybe not that worrying, if a crash ends up breaking the hegemony enjoyed by certain sub-genres and breaks the drive for cinematic experiences in place of interactive gameplay.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

The movie industry made a lot of money selling DVDs and videotapes to Blockbuster and Hollywood and Redbox. Rental companies did not entirely cut out the source of their revenue like Gamestop does. If Blockbuster got all their rental copies as a result of trade-ins, you can almost certainly bet that Hollywood would have made a huge stink about it.

who do you think sells the most new games? the answer isn't best buy or walmart.

 

[unbias]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

This post is dead on. You deserve a medal.

 

[element]

Come on you are going a little to far now. I do not hear many people bitch about the awesome XBLA and PSN games in that price range. The only time people complain is when they are forced to pay a huge console tax compared to other platforms for those titles. As far as I am concerned XBLA/PSN was the best part of this generation. Waking dead was easily my GoT last year and maybe my favorite game of this generation. Just wish those kind of titles got more exposure and sales.

Sure, Walking Dead is amazing. I love Shadow Complex, but you are using the best of the best. I actually think those games are under priced.

From my own experience and talking with others who make games on PSN/XBLA it is surprising the amount of people who feel "ripped off" because the game isn't COD or Assassin's Creed or some other AAA game.

 

[jblank83]

Why do people believe they're entitled to buying and selling used games?

There's no "right" here. It's just economics. Publishers/developers want safer development and more profit. Consumers want better product for less money. Publishers/developers are fighting for their interests with technology such as online DRM, via PR, and media influence. Consumers are fighting back with public awareness, consumer action, and community education.

Pubs/devs will only get away with what you let them get away with, be that $15 map packs consisting of 4 maps, $50 season passes, or online DRM. It's up to you to vote with your dollars and speak out on the issues.

 

[Yasae]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

And unfortunately the big budgets didn't amount to much in terms of output. The industry has to learn the hard way again.

 

[quest]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

God damn it that was beautiful. I feel the same exact way but could not put it in such awesome words.

 

[GraveRobberX]

I see it like this, major game releases like CoD, GOW etc will always survive on firsthand sales they dont need a cent when it comes to sencondhand sales for survival. But lesser developers dont have the same margin to survive and to be able to release a second game, they deserve to get a little cut from second sales to not going under and having to shut down. I would support a system that would work like this.

Why business is a dog eat dog world

Why should their be compensation to make everybody winners, that shit is just complacent kind of thinking

Oh hey you didn't do so well chap, here take some more money, try again
Sorry Gears you made too much, you don't qualify

Then you'll just have publishers use accounting tricks like movie houses who make billion dollar profit movies like Harry Potter look like losses on their financials


If the industry wants to be taken seriously, why not the big boys put money where the ir mouth is and expand their industry rather than contracting it

All games sold, a % say 2% go into Dev Guild Fund (almost SAG [Screen Actor Guild])
Dev's are now covered, they have a say, pubs look more noble, and not the greedy fucks they are

That's the thing most of you people miss about the movie analogy

There is a check and balance to greed on both sides, the Guilds and Movie Pubs battle it out for %'s and keep everyone in check

In the Gaming Industry so far Pubs hold all the power
They aren't going to relinquish it

If the Movie Industry had the Power Gaming Publishers have... HOLY SHIT!, every fucking movie would be such generic, focus tested, pay per viewing for fucking ever
2nd hand sales/used movie would be non-existant, archaic DRM would run a muck
Artist would be making in teh thousands, not commanding the millions
Directors would getting ousted like pez dispensing candy if they try to go against the grain
Editing would be supervised to such lengths that the craft would never evolve and stay stagnant
The movie theaters chain would have no say and would be held at the mercy of the providers of content
(This is analogy to retailers here)

 

[Open Source]

If the publisher expects players to only use the servers for a limited time, then sell the game that way.

That's how the all-you-can-eat buffet model works. It's not an unlimited, come back as many times as you want deal - it's limited to that visit to the restaurant. Once you leave the restaurant, your purchase is complete.

Sell the online server access for 90 days (or whatever the publisher expects the typical user to use the service for) following purchase. After that, you have to pay a monthly fee for online play. That way is fair to everyone, and publishers know how long they have to support the game, regardless of whether it is sold used or not.

That's assuming that having to service used customers vs. the expected use of the original customer is actually relevant to the publisher anyway. Having used customers keep the online community active after the new customers have given up on the game can help keep a game alive and active - so having the used customers online isn't all negative for the publisher anyway.

Fair or not, people would throw fits about something that was previously free no longer being free.

It's true that there are benefits just to keeping the community alive...as long as that life is monetized somehow. That's the whole theory behind f2p - let the peasants play for free so that other people can pay a lot to lord it over them.

If you're keeping alive a community that is not paying you anything, you're actually losing money.

 

[FlyFaster]

People have turned this into the industry vs the consumer when it's really the industry vs Gamestop.

If I have less options when selling a game I paid for, that's when it becomes industry vs consumer.

It's not about used games and it never really has been...

The entire post was excellent and clearly written.

 

[Yasae]

Sure, Walking Dead is amazing. I love Shadow Complex, but you are using the best of the best. I actually think those games are under priced.

From my own experience and talking with others who make games on PSN/XBLA it is surprising the amount of people who feel "ripped off" because the game isn't COD or Assassin's Creed or some other AAA game.

Yet we're not really seeing what costs so much. That's the problem. And consumers aren't meant to see and will never see.

Very hard lesson to learn.

 

[xelios]

...

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. ...

Great post and, you know what, this doesn't bother me. It's not sustainable and I hope the bubble bursts gloriously. 95% of the games I've enjoyed this past year were not, and did not try to be, AAA titles. It's time to make more games people will buy because they're good games, not because you spent a stupid amount of money on developing, marketing and making sure your mediocre game was as pretty and as hype as possible.

 

[mujun]

The industry is unhealthy because the big pubs are only looking for the next huge annual franchise. Do they really look at innovating small IPs anymore? How many AAA games are FPS now? The Pubs made their lunch and now they are trying to eat each other. Force this down everyones throat and you will not get the DLC sales like before.

Look, the key here is also that people are going to have to pay big money to buy new consoles to play these games. Its not like we are talking about a mid gen change. Especially when the big 2 are launching in the same holiday season.

I think it is more to do with them not trying different price points enough and getting caught up in trying to be cinematic.

Heaps of new IPs have been tried and bombed. I wouldn't say they've failed to try there.

 

[noquarter]

Movies have a run in the theaters first though where they get paid for every person viewing. DVD and Blu Ray sales are on top of that. Games have similar production times and budgets but don't have something like that initial theatrical run to recoup their costs. Gamestop's has almost immediate access to the revenue stream of a new game. Maybe a week or two before people start trading games in. How the hell is that fare? A business should be able to protect itself from a company like Gamestop. If that means changing the model, so be it.

People have turned this into the industry vs the consumer when it's really the industry vs Gamestop.

The industry made this into us against them. We didn't give Gamestop preorder bonuses to get people into their den of sin, the industry did that. We don't give Ganestop the number one selling (yeah I know it really shouldn't count, but it does) magazine, the industry did, they give them scoops and stories and invite them to events. We didn't say that used games are evil, the industry did.

What many people have done is treat this like any other market that they take part in, they enjoy the product and if they tire of it try to recoup some of their cost.

If the industry really wants to try to regulate its own economy (which we've seen they are bad at) I will stand on the sidelines and watch it crash. I don't ever sell my games, but I would like to know that if I want to play a game ten years from now Im not relying on someone else servers allowing me to.

 

[Dalthien]

Fair or not, people would throw fits about something that was previously free no longer being free.

Kind of like the fits that people are throwing now about used games, or the fits about online passes?

It's true that there are benefits just to keeping the community alive...as long as that life is monetized somehow. That's the whole theory behind f2p - let the peasants play for free so that other people can pay a lot to lord it over them.

If you're keeping alive a community that is not paying you anything, you're actually losing money.

It's a trade-off that is far more complex than that. First off, the original owner has unlimited access now as it is, so even with no used sales, there's nothing stopping that original owner from using the service until they pull the plug on the servers.

But used gamers online help keep the community alive - which means more DLC map pack sales, more potential new game sales from word-of-mouth, etc. A stronger community definitely results in more opportunities for continued revenue than a dying community, even in non-F2P game structures.

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

Publishers see it as a problem with the consumer.

Rather than investigating why people would be so willing to sell their wonderful AAA creations after just one play through.

 

[Yasae]

Great post and, you know what, this doesn't bother me. It's not sustainable and I hope the bubble bursts gloriously. 95% of the games I've enjoyed this past year were not, and did not try to be, AAA titles. It's time to make more games people will buy because they're good games, not because you spent a stupid amount of money on developing, marketing and making sure your shitty game was as pretty as possible.

I agree. I can't believe how many I passed over this year. CoD, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, Halo 4, on and on and on.

They're very expensive retreads and bring nothing new to the table. Sadly the budgets aren't going to justify this kind of (intentionally) low brow development forever.

 

[HoodWinked]

people who just state "greed" as the only factor are incredibly ignorant and laughably entitled.

 

[Dunan]

In the Gaming Industry so far Pubs hold all the power
They aren't going to relinquish it

If the Movie Industry had the Power Gaming Publishers have... HOLY SHIT!, every fucking movie would be such generic, focus tested, pay per viewing for fucking ever
2nd hand sales/used movie would be non-existant, archaic DRM would run a muck

With the subscription-based model that Adobe (with Photoshop) and Microsoft (with Word) are trying to bring in now, they're skipping right over the pay-per-use stage of consumer rights denial, and going directly to the "pay per unit of time that you have access to the product, whether you actually use it or not" stage.

This industry is going to crash. Those of you with big backlogs, don't feel guilty. You'll get your chance to enjoy them at leisure.

 

[ArtHands]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

Wow, you speaked my mind there. Personally the industry could have taken its time and let the high increasing cost of development of current gen sink in slowly. Too bad everything swell up too fast and numerous studios, especially those of mid tier, got closed as a result. Push turns to shove, and while everyone is struggling to settle in; here comes next gen.

 

[Dead Man]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

The big budget linear game is the biggest waste of money this gen has seen. All the options for true interactivity, and they chase making a cg movie. MP only works to extend value if it is popular after release, bugger all games are. Non linear gaming is what pubs should throw money at if they don't want people to trade games in after a week.

 

[Shinta]

For all the criticism Nintendo gets, they are really our best hope. They are profitable (usually), don't spend insane amounts on AAA production values, made attempts to broaden the market and offer new gameplay types, and have demonstrated commitment to not gouging the consumer quite as mercilessly.

They're not behind at all, but possibly the most forward thinking in many ways. It would be nice if more people got Wii U's and 3DS's.

 

[JABEE]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

I love this explanation. It really is true for the most part.

 

[jetjevons]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

It's been a long gen. We're all a bit frumpy. But videogames are going to be just fine. Oh and how dare you compare the transcendent masterpiece that is Crank to Transporter 3.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

Once again nailed it to the core.

Just wait for being called out entitled. You are supposed to buy this amazing 60$ AAArtform new and all DLC with it, damn it.

 

[Mael]

I don't think Devs do believe that. Publishers do. The only reason a dev studio might believe that is if they were paid royalties and, well...

1rst post and all that.

 

[Absinthe]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

I agree with most of what you posted except for this.

2012 saw the release of a great list of games that have proven the industry is not dead:

The Walking Dead, Journey, Dishonored, Mark of the Ninja, Far Cry 3, XCOM: EU, Hotline Miami, Trials Evolution, Torchlight 2, FTL, Fez, Sleeping Dogs, ME3, GW2.

There are plenty of ways the industry can thrive without the "Jason Statham" throwaways or COD spinoffs. Maybe the EA/Activision/Ubisoft "version" of the industry will die, and to that I say good riddance.

Also, the fact that Square Enix can sell 3.6 million of Hitman, and 3.4 million of Tomb Raider and "sales still came up short" speaks to the actual process and not the first sale or used game sales.

 

[Raxus]

The big budget linear game is the biggest waste of money this gen has seen. All the options for true interactivity, and they chase making a cg movie. MP only works to extend value if it is popular after release, bugger all games are. Non linear gaming is what pubs should throw money at if they don't want people to trade games in after a week.

I think the biggest black mark on today's game is the FPS market. We have Bioshock Infinite, Killzone, CoD, and a billion CoD clones. Funny enough CoD4 was lightning in a bottle that even the sequels failed to capture (not saying they didn't do well because Jesus) while few others have diverted from the formula. The only other shooters that broke from their fold did well by establishing a niche and catering to it. Spec Ops took a story driven FPS and it garnered praise, but sadly no success. Bioshock took SS and updated it while not alienating it's fanbase. Killzone offers a huge battle experience.

Halo would be on that list but ever since 343 took over they shifted way too close to CoD and ultimately got burned for it.

 

[lemonade]

For all the criticism Nintendo gets, they are really our best hope. They are profitable (usually), don't spend insane amounts on AAA production values, made attempts to broaden the market and offer new gameplay types, and have demonstrated commitment to not gouging the consumer quite as mercilessly.

They're not behind at all, but possibly the most forward thinking in many ways. It would be nice if more people got Wii U's and 3DS's.

the one thing i hate about nintendo is their unwillingness to expand and to accept the times that we live in. i've always love their creativity, no doubt, but they are to aggressive in relying on themselves instead of branching out and letting others in. example: wii u os infastructure, friend codes, hardware... etc.

 

[woodypop]

For all the criticism Nintendo gets, they are really our best hope. They are profitable (usually), don't spend insane amounts on AAA production values, made attempts to broaden the market and offer new gameplay types, and have demonstrated commitment to not gouging the consumer quite as mercilessly.

They're not behind at all, but possibly the most forward thinking in many ways. It would be nice if more people got Wii U's and 3DS's.

Now I just might get a Wii U out of principle.