This needs to be known to everyone.
If you support it then there's a marekt for it and they'll keep pushing.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
This needs to be known to everyone.
If you support it then there's a marekt for it and they'll keep pushing.
I am not sure why this hasn't sunken in with people. When I try to talk to other gamers, they have already accepted defeat and start rationalizing why they are still going through with the purchase. It inevitably returns to them complaining about something and I swiftly remind them that they supported it by purchasing the offending item.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. How basic can you get in that concept?
If this continues I will end up a steam sale bargain bin $5 gamer or just quit altogether.
This is true, but I have no sympathy for most publishers.
They want to butter GS up with exclusive DLC that, at times, you cannot get from normal retailers, and then want to act all surprised when a significant amount of people who bought their new game from GS also want to take advantage of the used game market at the exact same store.
If there was not gamestop some other company would of done it. There is a huge demand to trade/sell games plain and simple because they cost so much. So few games are worth keeping for 59.99 to most gamers. They rather sell/trade for another game. Another post nails this much better than I could have.
This is at the heart of the issue tho. How many people do we each know that say they will wait to buy a game until they can get it used? It's one thing to borrow or buy a used copy of a game from a friend, but it's a different issue when there are corporations buying another corporations products en masse and re-selling them artificially inflated prices(the whole $5 less than new issue at Gamestop).
If I were Microsoft or Sony or any publisher, I would have a major issue with this. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but does it influence the decision making of potential customers who might just wait to buy it used? Maybe, and there lies the issue.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Devs/Pubs are the most entitled group in all of gaming.
I take it you have never worked to create something to sell before. Understanding where a creator is coming from doesn't necessarily mean you're against used sales.
Then they could....you know....stop dealing with Gamestop instead of crippling their products?
No the issue is that it never is about used games more than it is about control.
It's about control in that it's about money. Microsoft's apparent stance against used games is a ploy to get game re-sellers to cave and share profits, both with themselves and the publishers.
Microsoft bet that Gamestop(and others) would cave if they(MS) came out publicly with a possible no used games stance. And apparently Gamestop(and others) caved.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I hope nobody minds but ive started collecting some of the best arguments in this thread and posting them here:-
http://ps4nodrm.tumblr.com/
I put your username and the date you posted your comment, but if you want to add more please feel free to post directly @ http://ps4nodrm.tumblr.com/submit
http://ps4nodrm.tumblr.com/
I put your username and the date you posted your comment, but if you want to add more please feel free to post directly @ http://ps4nodrm.tumblr.com/submit
Photolysis
Banned
Every time you buy a console game, a large cut of that goes to the manufacturer of the console, which is how they make their money. PC games don't have to worry about this since there are no licensing fees for the platform, and the price reflects that.
Games not going on sale or having the price reduced over time is just poor business.
Omegasquash
Member
Well put. If we don't buy it, they won't continue to sell it. Publishers and developers, for the most part, exist to profit by getting our money. If what they sell doesn't meet our needs, then they'll find another way.
It's one stone and many birds in this case, because quite clearly with this system they control what their customers do with the software they own.
It's a dream come true, they only need to have a total control of your bank account to make it worse.
Seriously GSpot will live off that and they know it, customers will have to do as MSFT see fit.
HarryHengst
Member
Perhaps its not console games that should change, but pc games?
Pubs need to understand that a used game isn't "another sold game" or "potential lost sale" simply because it is a TRANSFER of ownership of the license. Not an outright copy or piracy. A transfer of an already sold license.
When I sell a used game - I give up my copy and the person buying it gets to use it. 1st sale is still in circulation. Still just 1 disk in circulation with only 1 person playing it.
I lose the ability to play a game once I give it up via trade. I don't get to keep it which pubs seem to think happens because they are batshit fucking crazy to beg for 2nd hand sales.
When I sell a used game - I give up my copy and the person buying it gets to use it. 1st sale is still in circulation. Still just 1 disk in circulation with only 1 person playing it.
I lose the ability to play a game once I give it up via trade. I don't get to keep it which pubs seem to think happens because they are batshit fucking crazy to beg for 2nd hand sales.
If only it were that simple.
MS's One reveal shows they're courting a much broader audience than just us gamers. (Did you see the emphasis on non-gaming features/content?) Even if we, the vocal gaming minority, avoid the One, it could very well still succeed, despite our rejection. And that's what they're banking on. MS will still get a sizable install base, the developers jump on board, and the the restrictive measures we loathe slowly become the norm via part-and-parcel acceptance by the general masses. So I don't think it's enough to just vote with our dollars once the console's released; by then it's too late. We should continue to make ourselves heard, to get the message out, to let everyone know that this is unacceptable.
My point is the used market is not a content creator's enemy. Budgeting, time management, quality, word of mouth, consumer interest - these are the things that creators need to focus on, not the used market. Fact of the matter is that people sell stuff they no longer have need for. And at least in gaming, a lot of that goes towards new games.
Sickboy007
Member
GuitarAtomik
Member
Here's the thing. A lot of games just aren't conducive to coming back and playing it over and over. Mario Kart is. Elder Scrolls is. Uncharted isn't. Some games are just meant to be experienced once and these are games that most people are just not going to play over and over no matter how good they are. So to compensate, they try to put in multiplayer modes or DLC a month out from release to try to keep you from trading it in so fast. Then people bitch about these shoehorned modes or cut content and wonder why developers bother while they trade in the singleplayer only game they bought and beat in a week. The fact is the only way certain games can keep you coming back is if they include a multiplayer mode or release DLC in a timely fashion (ie before you trade it in). This is their attempt to keep you as long as possible and, for certain types of games, I don't know what they could do otherwise.
Waylon Drums
Member
Yeah, I watched the Jimquisition this week too.
catapult37
Member
While I agree with jaffe on the "vote with your wallet" angle (and I won't buy Xbox One), I think the thing we all fear is that the public at large is too ambivalent to care.
Remember, Gamestop has millions of customers who don't realize they can do much better on ebay / amazon / craigslist. Will they care as long as they can still trade to GS?
I am hopeful that the general public will get angry when they try to lend / borrow games, and maybe the online requirement will result in a SimCity-esque debacle, but who knows.
The only thing we can really do is try to educate our friends and get them more invested in this issue.
Remember, Gamestop has millions of customers who don't realize they can do much better on ebay / amazon / craigslist. Will they care as long as they can still trade to GS?
I am hopeful that the general public will get angry when they try to lend / borrow games, and maybe the online requirement will result in a SimCity-esque debacle, but who knows.
The only thing we can really do is try to educate our friends and get them more invested in this issue.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Awesome post indeed.
Chuck Norris
Banned
The car comparison is off. It would be more like if car sellers sold you a car at full price, then a couple months later they bought it back and sold it for less than a new car while pushing buyers towards the refurbished model instead of the new model
Essentially the market is recycling the same product, creating a transaction cycle between customers and retailers while cutting out the manufacturers
Your comparison doesn't work because no other industry has such an aggressive used market as games do
Essentially the market is recycling the same product, creating a transaction cycle between customers and retailers while cutting out the manufacturers
Your comparison doesn't work because no other industry has such an aggressive used market as games do
catapult37
Member
Oh, also, it's an extremely bad idea from a customer POV to give anyone a monopoly on game prices.
DryvBy
Member
To all of you against used games because big publishers tell you they're not making it, how does it feel to be brainwashed and give up your reselling rights?
How about this, game creators. How about we get the right back to return games again? You make a crappy game, I'm allowed to return it for a refund. You make a short game? Refund. Oh no? Well then don't whine when I sell my game. It makes nil difference if I'm playing your game vs my friend is playing. How about your quit budgeting your games like the government budgets tax money? That will fix most of your problems.
I worked for a major Fortune 500 company years ago. I never understood the business honestly. They'd ruin relations with customers to squeeze a few more dimes from their wallets so the stock would go up a quarter of a cent. We'd bring in millions in profits but because we promised stockholders we'd bring in millions plus a few extra thousand, they'd consider the profits a loss. Bunch of greedy idiots running companies...
How about this, game creators. How about we get the right back to return games again? You make a crappy game, I'm allowed to return it for a refund. You make a short game? Refund. Oh no? Well then don't whine when I sell my game. It makes nil difference if I'm playing your game vs my friend is playing. How about your quit budgeting your games like the government budgets tax money? That will fix most of your problems.
I worked for a major Fortune 500 company years ago. I never understood the business honestly. They'd ruin relations with customers to squeeze a few more dimes from their wallets so the stock would go up a quarter of a cent. We'd bring in millions in profits but because we promised stockholders we'd bring in millions plus a few extra thousand, they'd consider the profits a loss. Bunch of greedy idiots running companies...
GuitarAtomik
Member
The car comparison doesn't work anyway because a used car will have wear and tear compared to a new one. It is literally a degraded product and buyers would be more weary of purchasing it over a new one. A game is either going to work or not work. You will get the same experience used as you would new.
EsotericManiac
Banned
If they can get away with it, why wouldn't they? It's really up to the community to decide as a whole that they won't put up with it.
And evidently the disc you buy comes perfectly clean and there's no degradation to the packaging either...
GuitarAtomik
Member
The actual game is either going to work or not work. If it doesn't due to physical degradation you can return it.
DryvBy
Member
News flash: you buy a car new, don't like it and trade it in, even if you only drove it one time, they sell it used at a lower price.
If I buy used, I might not get a good case or a manual (lol). So it's not mint anymore. If it's the same as buying new, just list it as new.
Car is either gonna work or not... so what else ya got?
Yeah I'm aware of this thank you very much. It's still a law across the EU and elsewhere though.
Anyway, it wasn't a justification that devs should be getting a cut out of used games sales, but merely an indication that throwing out random analogies is rather silly, because different markets have different regulations and different issues.
I think the main problem with the X1 is that it's not only a reflect of publishers being annoyed with the ridiculously large second hand market, it's also a direct consequence of full install on the 360. people loved it but were annoyed that they had to keep the disc in. This has been discussed to death back then on GAF and elsewhere. Now if you removed that restriction, there's no way around but put an online verification in place to ensure that the game doesn't get installed on 50 systems.
At the same time, nowadays there is no need for discs at all for people who want full installs. Just buy the damn game online (as in DD). People know already they won't be able to resell it and it never seemed to be an issue. Physical versions should be kept, with non of that online activation / blocked used sales.
Harrison said it himself, it's exactly like having the game on a disc only, 2 people can't play it at the same time. So there's no issue to begin with. It only becomes a problem if you allow full installs.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Say what? People buy software to use for a long period of time, not to play for 10 hours and be done with it.
Some people just want to 'rent' the damn game for long enough to beat it, then move on to the next. But they do this buy buying a new copy then reselling it to recoup some of the cost that they end up putting towards their next purchase. It is clear that these people will either have to chose to spend more money on games in total if they want to play the same number of titles or change their behavior such as waiting for price drops moving to PC, etc. Publishers are hoping the former, but the people that buy used or sell games don't have unlimited funds for gaming.
GuitarAtomik
Member
I don't think you're understanding this. A used car has wear and tear. The life on a used car is lessened the more you use it. Perhaps it runs, but maybe now the AC doesn't turn on. Maybe the brakes need to be replaced. Maybe your stereo stops working. These are things that become more and more likely to happen as it is used. Technically it still functions but not as well as it did new.
A game on the other hand is either going to work or not work. The experience will be the same the 100th time it is played as it was the first. When it stops working (due to degradation) it will be completely unusable. A more apt comparison would be to DVD/BluRays or books but even those are slightly different situations.
This. This is the entirety of the issue and the reason we are even having this discussion is due to the opportunity that Gamestop saw in the market and took advantage of. Period. The desire from devs, I would imagine, in getting a cut of used sales is that Gamestop is ACTIVELY selling a publisher's product against itself (telling the customer to buy a used copy vs. a new one at the POS). Not to mention the buy back conditions that still exist with many publishers and their distribution channel. Gamestop has figured out how to get enough product into its channel that they can continue to monetize it while cutting off new sales as quickly as possible.
Fantastic business for Gamestop, but comes at the price of overall health in the distribution channel.
A different discussion for a different thread, but this had less to do with abject greed than masking sure you present to the street what they expect. Unfortunately, when you are a public company you are at the whims of the market, analysts (who may not even understand the business you are in but still present and opinion or recommendation), and public perception. Not defending all big business, but it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be
Assuming that you would go an buy new or just wait to get a used copy. We all know of at least one person (amirite) who only buys used. Always. At any rate, you can't make that assumption that selling old games drives the purchase of new. It is most certainly a mix.
As for the other comments above regarding the stupid developers who don't know how to budget and spend too much on making games....seriously? Companies are about retaining revenues, not blowing through them. To a large extent, they are placing bets on big budget titles and the costs that go along with those games are significant. We, as gamers, want more (more graphics, more content, more levels, etc.) but complain when we hear about the cost of such development? Come on....
Don't forget games don't live forever.
Apart from pure physical degradation, platforms die and disappear. If you get a NES game today it's not clear you can play it unless you find the right hardware, which will be increasingly hard and expensive.
It's not indifferent to cars.
TheBaldEmperor
Member
Game makers already benefit from the current system. I sell my old games and use that money to buy their new games. Otherwise, I would buy a lot less games. They also benefit that when someone buys used and really enjoys that experience. They may be more likely to buy new because they want that new experience on the day of release. The system isn't broke. Devs and pubs seem to be ignoring the benefit they do get already.
It's the industry's own damn fault if they stopped making lush manuals that people were willing to keep and extend the experience beyond the bits.
Who would buy Ultima <Number> without a cloth map anyway?
Well they stopped making interesting packaging it's their faults.
travisbickle
Member
I used to run my own bespoke furniture business.
And I wouldn't care if a customer who had bought one of my tables two weeks prior stood outside my shop trying to sell it at a slightly reduced price to people walking past.
I'd think very carefully about why I'm producing tables for a high price that people want to get rid of after two weeks.
I definitely wouldn't tell that customer that they had "experienced" my table and they should sell it back to me, and only me, at a price I see fit so I could sell it to someone else to "experience".
diffusionx
Gold Member
The funny thing is that the MPAA/RIAA talked a lot about this in the early 2000s and late 1990s. They got KILLED for it online. Microsoft got killed for it when they talked about building tech for it into Windows (Palladium?). Note: the exact same thing here. Having to pay content makers when you transfer content you already bought.
But now that it is an industry "people like", they are cool with it.
But now that it is an industry "people like", they are cool with it.
DryvBy
Member
You're trying to lie and say used games are mint condition when they're not. That's not the case.
Here's something though. If I buy a car and it doesn't work, I can get my money back. If I buy a game and it doesn't work, I'm expected to hope they patch it because I can't return it. Take away my right to sell it and you've just sold me a broken product and then flipped me off. Why are you flipping me off, man? So quit pretending that removing the right to resale is moral and just. It's not.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
I hate to blindly agree but really, its the truth. Catching up on this thread you can see the pure venom Devs have towards used games. I asked in the OP, doesn't the Dev already get paid for working on the game? They don't own the IP, the pub usually does.
Agreed.
I understand we as consumers need to stand up for our rights, but we are still getting the used games that everyone seems to be up in arms about.
But, I personally don't care if MS gets a cut of the second hand market or not, if it allows me to install all my games to the hard drive and I don't need to switch out game discs then it's a win for me. I'd rather have direct download of all games, but with a 100gb(? I think that's what it is) data cap on my Uverse service, it doesn't seem feasible.
I'd rather be all up in arms over data caps on internet service.
^double agreed, sounds far nicer than the second market argument.
What's stopping you from selling the disc?
angelcage87
Member
I'm copypasting something I wrote in another thread, related to the subject in question:
So, after reading the Jaffe's comments, it seems that the Pubishers real goal is to, basically, steal all of Gamestop used sales revenues, but not to limit the gamers when it comes to sharing and private trading; but, as far as we know of Microsoft plans, consumers seem ultimately be losers in this game of greed.
But what if, by chance, there was some kind of DRM that could both secure publishers a cut from retailers used sales, while giving the opportunity to players to continue to share their games, privately trade them, playing offline, and also (marginally) prevent piracy?
Well, I thought about some DRM system, tied to an agreement between publishers and retailers, that could somehow cater to everyone, while not immensely raping consumers.
Let's say, Publishers form some sort of association, union, or whatever you want to call it; this union would be regulated by a Term of Agreement between publishers themselves, and also retailers.
Among the various bullshit, there is a policy that says that all registered games (second hand games) must be scanned,catalogued and sold by the publishers own rules, defining percentages for both, etc.
In case the retailer does not agree to the TOA, it will not be supplied with new games.
Small fish will be pretty much forced to suck it up, consequently leading to Gamestop either agreeing or cut out of the business.
To the user, this will mean that a registration process will be required when playing the game for the first time. If the game is registered, the consumer has full control over the physical disk. No more bullshit.
If the user does not register the game, the game is still playable, but thanks to the account and system infos will be written in the game (or perphaps, some kind of script is activated), which "ties" the game to the console and account. If later registered, the game is unlocked.
If, after a certain number of days, the game is still unregistered, the game will STILL be playable, but it will be force-installed to the system, and it CANNOT be uninstalled, unless it is registered.
What does this mean? Eventually, if you used pirated copies of games, your harddrive will fill up, and you'll have to either buy the license (pay full price+fee), go to customer care and be outed, or simply buy a new system (the harddrive can't be "deactivated" if all games are not registered).
This could potentially lead to new ways to spill some coins from either pirates, inept people, or simply people who don't have an internet connection.
I made some diagrams (I'm sorry if I give you an eyesore), I hope someone read this fucking post :
Is this a possible option, GAF?
So, after reading the Jaffe's comments, it seems that the Pubishers real goal is to, basically, steal all of Gamestop used sales revenues, but not to limit the gamers when it comes to sharing and private trading; but, as far as we know of Microsoft plans, consumers seem ultimately be losers in this game of greed.
But what if, by chance, there was some kind of DRM that could both secure publishers a cut from retailers used sales, while giving the opportunity to players to continue to share their games, privately trade them, playing offline, and also (marginally) prevent piracy?
Well, I thought about some DRM system, tied to an agreement between publishers and retailers, that could somehow cater to everyone, while not immensely raping consumers.
Let's say, Publishers form some sort of association, union, or whatever you want to call it; this union would be regulated by a Term of Agreement between publishers themselves, and also retailers.
Among the various bullshit, there is a policy that says that all registered games (second hand games) must be scanned,catalogued and sold by the publishers own rules, defining percentages for both, etc.
In case the retailer does not agree to the TOA, it will not be supplied with new games.
Small fish will be pretty much forced to suck it up, consequently leading to Gamestop either agreeing or cut out of the business.
To the user, this will mean that a registration process will be required when playing the game for the first time. If the game is registered, the consumer has full control over the physical disk. No more bullshit.
If the user does not register the game, the game is still playable, but thanks to the account and system infos will be written in the game (or perphaps, some kind of script is activated), which "ties" the game to the console and account. If later registered, the game is unlocked.
If, after a certain number of days, the game is still unregistered, the game will STILL be playable, but it will be force-installed to the system, and it CANNOT be uninstalled, unless it is registered.
What does this mean? Eventually, if you used pirated copies of games, your harddrive will fill up, and you'll have to either buy the license (pay full price+fee), go to customer care and be outed, or simply buy a new system (the harddrive can't be "deactivated" if all games are not registered).
This could potentially lead to new ways to spill some coins from either pirates, inept people, or simply people who don't have an internet connection.
I made some diagrams (I'm sorry if I give you an eyesore), I hope someone read this fucking post :
Is this a possible option, GAF?
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
This mentality nearly killed PC gaming. Steam helped a lot bringing it back.