• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Lancehead
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:08 AM)
Lancehead's Avatar
Is it not true that actual developers do not see any money from these online passes bought by used game buyers? My understanding is that developers get paid for finishing the project, and nothing post-project completion. So whatever money is made out of online passes, goes to the publishers.
squidyj
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:11 AM)
squidyj's Avatar

Originally Posted by Riggs

This whole argument is getting kind of ridiculous. As far as the topic of debate goes, these developers need to understand that people are buying used games because they are broke most of the time.

When I was making tons of money, I always bought new. When I was broke, I bought used. It's very simple to understand.

Gamestop has gotten so fucking big though, that this has become an issue because they constantly offer trade in deals. Ripping off the customer and gaining profit for themselves. We end up paying the price w/ online pass's and bullshit key codes must be entered when we put the shiny disc into the machine for the first time. We all know Gamestop is making cash off these dev's and the developers are not getting shit for it. I understand this, but try and think of the ladder for a second down below.

Piracy is rampant. PC releases and Xbox360/PS3/Wii. Hell I see Xbox360 releases available to download before the street date, sometimes 2-3 days. At this point I would think the developers would be happy people are buying their games. Instead of stealing them!

Listen I got cash, I pay for my shit. But I have A LOT of friends who pirate everything. PC/360/PS3/PSP/ they do not pay a dime(and don't forget about the movies). So if I was a developer, I would be happy that people are buying my game. It sounds selfish but seriously some people are just broke and a 29.99 game VS 59.99 is appealing to some folks who wait it out. Sorry for typing so much, just so tired of hearing about this shit it's all over Dtoid every week. Bottom line, blame the brick and mortar because that is the problem. Used games are not a problem, companies like GS abusing the system is the root of all this.


Far as Jim Sterling goes he is a troll but his recent 180 on piracy was an improvement. You really cannot take anything this guy says seriously, he will change his mind about anything it seems. Dtoid is a poor site, some nice folks there but I'd say 50% of traffic is driven by Sterling and his troll articles. Hard for me to respect that.

If I was a dev i'd rather players stole half my games and used their money to buy the other half new than bought all my games used. At least I'd be seeing some money that way.
Grinchy
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:13 AM)
Grinchy's Avatar
I don't necessarily want to join in the debates, but I must say that this kept my attention throughout the whole thing. Jaffe can be a bit long-winded sometimes, but I really like what he has to say.
FoxMcCloudDS
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:13 AM)
FoxMcCloudDS's Avatar
Gah, I always hate reading articles like this because it all comes back at how evil companies like GameStop and Amazon or Best Buy (trade-ins) are.

Game devs are such whiners. There is no other industry out there where companies get so angered at the sale of their used products. I get that they don't see a cut of the used game price, that I know. They just always forget that people buy used cars all the time. People buy used movies, borrow movies, borrow music, buy used electronics, sporting equipment, books, clothes.. The list can go on forever.

What I do know, from personal experience working at a game store, and being a gamer is that people will not purchase all these new games if they couldn't trade their old ones in to get some money off of it. How many people do you think would buy a new car every 3 years if they weren't able to sell their old one? No one. Same goes for a lot of gamers.

I know, devs, you are not getting a cent from your game that the gamestop employee pushed on some dude. Maybe you should have made a better game that people wouldn't have wanted to sell? Maybe you should have made a fantastic experience you would just have to go get right away on day one? I know I buy about 75% of my games the day they came out.

Best thing I love about the producers and developers are the giant relationships they have with gaming companies like gamestop and bestbuy. I mean, I can't even get Axel in Twisted Metal unless I would have pre-ordered it at gamestop, Jaffe. Maybe, just maybe I would want to purchase your games brand new and support your game if you didn't charge a ton of money for the other half of my game when I don't pre-order it, or when you purposely leave content out of a game just to charge even more than my $60 I gave you on release day. I will just save the 5 bucks so I can download axel instead :)

/rant
Kraut
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:16 AM)

Originally Posted by Lancehead255

Is it not true that actual developers do not see any money from these online passes bought by used game buyers? My understanding is that developers get paid for finishing the project, and nothing post-project completion. So whatever money is made out of online passes, goes to the publishers.

I don't know about devs making anything off online passes, but I'd guess that devs getting no profits from sales is extremely rare (or even non-existent).
bigtroyjon
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:18 AM)

Originally Posted by Vane_MagicCity

I knew that you could play on any 360 so long as you are being watched by Live but I didn't think it was relevant since I was really talking about offline play. I didn't say that so the confusion is understandable.

It's not reasonable to think that you are going to be able to put your games on an infinite number of consoles and be able to play them without logging in. You could get everyone you know to chip in a dollar a game and the group of you would only have to buy one copy between everyone.

How could that possibly be sustainable? A disc game can only be played by one person at a time, why should digital be different?
IrishNinja
(02-20-2012, 05:21 AM)
IrishNinja's Avatar

Originally Posted by ScreenSplitter

At least he's ridiculous with no pretense of taking himself seriously, and not ridiculous while believing he genuinely has some sort of level of importance. For the latter, see www.kotaku.com
What Jim also does is openly acknowledge and laugh about the intense amount of hatred he gets on the internet. When he's being so laid back about it, it makes all those who go out of their way to spread hate about him look pretty pathetic indeed.

Also, I don't know why something as divisive and objectively absurd as video gaming has to be reported on seriously. It's something Edge tries to do, and they just come off as pretentious.

so, you're saying it should be a joke, and there should be no line for professionals - even paid reviewers should treat it like 4chan.
i agree that kotaku should not see itself as important (at least critically, as it does rake in $ like IGN and co i imagine), but your defense of sterling is basically LOL, haters gon hate. the man's reviews are awful, responding to that by not taking yourself seriously is pretty weak. there's almost more to a litmus than 2 ends (sterling on one, edge on the other).

lastly, your final point can apply to movies, music, comics etc - numerous other mediums.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
(02-20-2012, 05:22 AM)

Originally Posted by bigtroyjon

It's not reasonable to think that you are going to be able to put your games on an infinite number of consoles and be able to play them without logging in. You could get everyone you know to chip in a dollar a game and the group of you would only have to buy one copy between everyone.

How could that possibly be sustainable? A disc game can only be played by one person at a time, why should digital be different?

It works out fine with Steam.
Terrell
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:27 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by bc226

here is something even better for all those who feel a need to support the developer you do know that they already got paid the instant the game was finished and that all sales already were paid for buy the folks in retail.

As has been said, if people are buying used, no or fewer new copies are sold beyond the launch window, making the sale of new games unsustainable.

Originally Posted by GrandHarrier

I often hear shit like "Well, a used car has wear and tear and doesn't have X service or Y feature..." as if a used copy of a video game somehow has no wear and tear? Sometimes is missing its case? My used DVDs sometimes have little scratches on the surface. Or the box is dirty and scuffed. But apparently this isn't true in the magic world of video games, who defy the laws of entropy.

We're talking about an entertainment product in data format. A utility purchase (aka something you USE) and an entertainment purchase (aka something you experience or enjoy) are not the same.

Originally Posted by bc226

Lets not forget that when servers go offline by by to your game has well.

My VC downloads stop working when my console goes offline? Someone might want to tell that to my Wii, cuz it doesn't do that. Just saying.

Originally Posted by StuBurns

The fact games don't deteriorate is irrelevant. Their value decreases over time, same as almost anything else.

Cars in the used market are there because they are a "gamble" purchase. You can't guarantee it won't break down, because it has been used. It is a mechanism that requires servicing and the usability of the product is lessened due to its previous use by the very nature of it being a mechanism, and thus is a package product made up of smaller finite-use products.

A game is not a mechanism or a utility, it is a disc with data. It either works or it doesn't, and provides no depreciation of the experience or enjoyment. There's nothing to distinguish it from used aside from cosmetics and packaging.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING, and any statement to the contrary is a logical fallacy, especially when you consider how much of what you pay on appliances and cars when bought new is markup and profit.

Profit margins on cars and appliances are HUGE, and it's there partly because of thriving private used markets. Video games, by comparison, don't have nearly the same profit margins as those industries, and any conversation on the impact of used product sales on any industry when comparing to games MUST account for differences such as profit margins, just like comparisons to the movie industry must account for the fact that movies have tiered distribution that offer the experience in different ways (and, more importantly, at different prices), whereas video games usually only have one.

Originally Posted by Ninja Scooter

The reason it comes up more often with games is because of places like Gamestop. There doesn't exist a market for used items like there does with games and Gamestop. If the extent of used video games was craigslist and ebay I doubt publishers would give a shit, but they see Gamestop raking in billions and are naturally going to try and get a cut of that anyway they can. They aren't trying to tell you what you can and can't do with your used games. They aren't trying to lobby politicians to pass bills banning used game sales. They are introducing things like Online Passes, and DLC and pre-order bonuses to try and get a cut of Gamestop's action and audience. Most every other non-gaming company in that position would probably try and do the same thing, don't kid yourselves.

This is, in fact, the main problem. Not even the movie or music industries had to contend with a national chain/cartel of stores selling used content, the used market was all independent or niche retailers. You also very rarely saw those retailers selling new products in the same location, drawing people into the allure of buying used over new and using new release content as a lure for their primary business. Comparing used car sales to used games was bad enough, but saying the used markets of other industries are the same when NONE of these other entertainment industries had to deal with the organized structure of a major national retail conglomerate is pretty telling of people's understanding of the situation.

Case in point: I remember that when I was younger, the only place you could sell a video game console and its games or buy used was a PAWN SHOP. After that, it was ONE store that bought/traded and sold used games ONLY. Now it's a trip to any local mall away. See the distinction?
Last edited by Terrell; 02-20-2012 at 07:17 AM.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
(02-20-2012, 05:39 AM)

Case in point: I remember that when I was younger, the only place you could sell a video game console and its games or buy used was a PAWN SHOP. After that, it was ONE store that bought/traded and sold used games ONLY. Now it's a trip to any local mall away. See the distinction?

For me that ONE shop was Babbages which I believe was Gamestop. Once upon a time EA was smaller than it is today too.
bigtroyjon
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:42 AM)

Originally Posted by Vane_MagicCity

It works out fine with Steam.

There aren't many people who are willing to keep their computers disconnected from the internet.
Zoe
(02-20-2012, 05:43 AM)
Zoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vane_MagicCity

For me that ONE shop was Babbages which I believe was Gamestop. Once upon a time EA was smaller than it is today too.

I don't remember Babbages dealing in used sales. Funcoland was where it was at.
Lancehead
Member
(02-20-2012, 05:45 AM)
Lancehead's Avatar
With online passes, there's a muh bigger issue of archival, espcially with single player content. Several years down the line, there's no guarantee that online pass codes work or that content would be available to download. There is a serious risk some of the content being lost.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
(02-20-2012, 05:48 AM)

Originally Posted by Zoe

I don't remember Babbages dealing in used sales. Funcoland was where it was at.

It was way back in the SNES/Genesis days but I think they sold used games. I could be wrong as it has been many years.
bigboss370
Junior Member
(02-20-2012, 06:21 AM)
bigboss370's Avatar
I like the idea they brought up where retailers should agree to hold the sales of used games for a certain period of time like 2 weeks or a month in return for something from publishers.
Fjordson
Member
(02-20-2012, 06:48 AM)
Fjordson's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vane_MagicCity

Online passes are CD-Keys. They are essentially activation codes though they don't yet govern the entire game, that's coming.

Well that's what I meant. One code for the whole thing, not a piece of content, game mode or unlock or whatever.
faceless007
AAA ETHER
(02-20-2012, 07:11 AM)

Originally Posted by Terrell

This is, in fact, the main problem. Not even the movie or music industries had to contend with a national chain/cartel of stores selling used content, the used market was all independent or niche retailers. You also very rarely saw those retailers selling new products in the same location, drawing people into the allure of buying used over new. Comparing used car sales to used games was bad enough, but saying the used markets of other industries are the same when NONE of these other industries had to deal with the organized structure of a major national retail conglomerate is pretty telling of people's understanding of the situation.

This weekend I stopped by a Sam Goody in San Diego, owned by FYE, a national chain. Probably 60% of all the DVDs and CDs in the store were used, prominently placed right next to if not in front of the new product, and set out in visible displays trumpeting the discounts of going used (buy 2 get 1 free or something like that).
staticneuron
Member
(02-20-2012, 07:25 AM)
staticneuron's Avatar

Originally Posted by bdizzle

This right here is the problem. I'm not CHEATING anyone out of anything. If I buy a car, clothes, sporting equipment, electronic, or anything used how am I cheating someone out of anything?

The fact that they've convinced some consumers that buying their product used is somehow unethical is nonsense.

It isn't unethical but just as jaffe says, the numbers in the first few weeks are important. Gamestop manufactures a machine that provides incentives on returns and the faster you finish a game and return it the more money back you get. His idea was that gamestop not push this tactics for the first few weeks at least.

My point of view..... is why purchase the game new at all if you are planning on selling it. That really is a waste of money and it is an action that makes gamestop rich, pubs twirl their mustache and really does skew the numbers for some devs.

Originally Posted by Kaijima

It's not nonsense... it's brilliant.

They've taken advantage of gamers' often irrational brand loyalty and obsession with identifying with developers and publishers, and idolizing game creators. Star power. Fashion.
But, gamers have psychological triggers that can be manipulated due to how fandom works. The industry is trying really hard right now to sell this new tactic and see if they can't use it to patch over their flawed development funding and business models.

I can never take it seriously when people talk about "irrational" loyalty. What I found out over these years it is simply about preference and pushing the right buttons. People who become fans of entertainment companies make alot of sense because they get something in return from these companies. Therefore some want to ensure continued success of that company so they support it in anyways possible. The support is relative as well. Some people have large budgets in which they can comfortably spend without to much contemplation but I still doubt people do it "just because".

Originally Posted by Terrell



Cars in the used market are there because they are a "gamble" purchase. You can't guarantee it won't break down, because it has been used. It is a mechanism that requires servicing and the usability of the product is lessened due to its previous use by the very nature of it being a mechanism, and thus is a package product made up of smaller finite-use products.

A game is not a mechanism or a utility, it is a disc with data. It either works or it doesn't, and provides no depreciation of the experience or enjoyment. There's nothing to distinguish it from used aside from cosmetics and packaging.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING, and any statement to the contrary is a logical fallacy, especially when you consider how much of what you pay on appliances and cars when bought new is markup and profit.

Your entire post was presented well.
Last edited by staticneuron; 02-20-2012 at 07:29 AM.
Terrell
Member
(02-20-2012, 07:29 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

This weekend I stopped by a Sam Goody in San Diego, owned by FYE, a national chain. Probably 60% of all the DVDs and CDs in the store were used, prominently placed right next to if not in front of the new product, and set out in visible displays trumpeting the discounts of going used (buy 2 get 1 free or something like that).

Recent development due to retail music being made defunct by DD. Was not the case prior to the iTunes Store.


Originally Posted by staticneuron

It isn't unethical but just as jaffe says, the numbers in the first few weeks are important. Gamestop manufactures a machine that provides incentives on returns and the faster you finish a game and return it the more money back you get. His idea was that gamestop not push this tactics for the first few weeks at least.

My point of view..... is why purchase the game new at all if you are planning on selling it. That really is a waste of money and it is an action that makes gamestop rich, pubs twirl their mustache and really does skew the numbers for some devs.

Not only that, but even more than anything, Gamestop essentially destroyed a content delivery method that DID make publishers money: RENTALS.

You hardly EVER see that anymore, primarily because most places that did rentals are closed because movie rentals tanked. Rental copies made publishers some good coin, but given Gamestop promoting this lightning-fast trade-in... THING... there was no point to rentals anymore, it seemed outmoded to rent when you could just buy, keep it if you want to and return it for credit if you didn't. But as stated, that only makes Gamestop rich and no one else benefits. At least rentals were designed as part of the content delivery setup, and YES, financial predictions for revenue included rental copies. That market would be COMPLETELY gone if it weren't for Gamefly, but their membership numbers aren't that great.
Last edited by Terrell; 02-20-2012 at 07:36 AM.
squidyj
Member
(02-20-2012, 07:29 AM)
squidyj's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

This weekend I stopped by a Sam Goody in San Diego, owned by FYE, a national chain. Probably 60% of all the DVDs and CDs in the store were used, prominently placed right next to if not in front of the new product, and set out in visible displays trumpeting the discounts of going used (buy 2 get 1 free or something like that).

Yeah and what was the used selection? because if you're getting fargo used then good on you but I doubt you'd be seeing anything from a dvd/bluray that came out a couple weeks ago. It just doesn't happen.

I don't have a problem with people buying used down the line, or trading amongst themselves whenever but right out of the gate at a retail store? you save what? 5 bucks?
Why did you buy the game? I assume it's because you like the cut of it's jib.
Do you want to see more of this jib being cut? I think you like it so probably
So you can save 5 bucks by giving all the money to people who had absolutely shit all to do with making the game you liked, or you can spend an extra 5 and give the devs another uptick on their sales count and a little more money in the war chest.
Last edited by squidyj; 02-20-2012 at 07:33 AM.
staticneuron
Member
(02-20-2012, 07:38 AM)
staticneuron's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

This weekend I stopped by a Sam Goody in San Diego, owned by FYE, a national chain. Probably 60% of all the DVDs and CDs in the store were used, prominently placed right next to if not in front of the new product, and set out in visible displays trumpeting the discounts of going used (buy 2 get 1 free or something like that).

Trans-world entertainment, the company that "owns" FYE and related stores like that, currently has less than 500 stores nationwide. GS/EB stores number 4,500 nationwide.
Even if your comparison on media was 1:1, it would still be a very poor choice to compare with.
faceless007
AAA ETHER
(02-20-2012, 07:46 AM)

Originally Posted by squidyj

Yeah and what was the used selection? because if you're getting fargo used then good on you but I doubt you'd be seeing anything from a dvd/bluray that came out a couple weeks ago. It just doesn't happen.

Wrong, I was pretty surprised by how many used movies there were from just the last year. I saw tons of used copies of Paranormal Activity 3, Hangover 2, Human Centipede 2, Super 8, etc.

Originally Posted by staticneuron

Trans-world entertainment, the company that "owns" FYE and related stores like that, currently has less than 500 stores nationwide. GS/EB stores number 4,500 nationwide.
Even if your comparison on media was 1:1, it would still be a very poor choice to compare with.

He said national chain, I gave a national chain that's neither niche nor independent, and which sells used alongside new. Not my fault he didn't define the goalposts well. Of course the industry is different today but he's grossly understating the prevalence of chains like Wherehouse Music and Blockbuster Music during the '90s which did large traffic in used CDs.
Last edited by faceless007; 02-20-2012 at 07:54 AM.
squidyj
Member
(02-20-2012, 07:51 AM)
squidyj's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Wrong, I was pretty surprised by how many used movies there were from just the last year. I saw tons of used copies of Paranormal Activity 3, Hangover 2, Human Centipede 2, Super 8, etc.

We can get back to this discussion but you were surprised to see a used copy of Human Centipede 2?
les papillons sexuels
Banned
(02-20-2012, 07:56 AM)
used games sales are already accounted for in the initial cost of sale. I dont see any reason why developers should complain.
ctrayne
Member
(02-20-2012, 08:00 AM)
I read the thread title as "two blowhards argue". I'm a jerk.
faceless007
AAA ETHER
(02-20-2012, 08:00 AM)

Originally Posted by squidyj

We can get back to this discussion but you were surprised to see a used copy of Human Centipede 2?

Well I was more surprised that many people bought it in the first place. :P
I'm an expert
Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
(02-20-2012, 08:07 AM)
I'm an expert's Avatar
Good podcast but could have been an hour shorter. There's lot of repetition and Jaffe-isms to wade through there. Still, helped me finish money grinding in RE5.

My personal opinion? Get the best deal whether it's used, digital, or new. I know, groundbreaking.
Mael
Member
(02-20-2012, 08:25 AM)
Gotta love publishers they basically killed all the retailers dealing with only new games by making deals with big retailers and having unsustainable margins and now they're actually unhappy that there's shops out there providing a service they need and expanding the market for them and they still whine because their fucked up business model isn't providing them enough.

For the record,
publishers will be entitled money from used sales when they'll provide a service. Once they've sold something they're not entitled anything especially since they don't provide a service to retailer to offload the mountains of shitty games people don't want anymore.
Basically they want Gamestop handling the used sales inventory by taking back the games people don't want anymore so that they can get more of their shitty new games that people won't want when the season will pass and they want to get paid for a service Gamespot must handle.
Yeah I'd want that too!
I make a house for someone and I want a cut for every fix wear and tear the house suffer that the buyer have to pay for that someone else repair.
Do they want money for every time I watch one of their commercial too?
Terrell
Member
(02-20-2012, 09:26 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

He said national chain, I gave a national chain that's neither niche nor independent, and which sells used alongside new. Not my fault he didn't define the goalposts well. Of course the industry is different today but he's grossly understating the prevalence of chains like Wherehouse Music and Blockbuster Music during the '90s which did large traffic in used CDs.

Considering I was a teenager in the 90s and I NEVER heard of these chains, that's telling.

Originally Posted by les papillons sexuels

used games sales are already accounted for in the initial cost of sale. I don't see any reason why developers should complain.

Ummm, no, they aren't.
Mael
Member
(02-20-2012, 09:29 AM)

Originally Posted by Terrell

Considering I was a teenager in the 90s and I NEVER heard of these chains, that's telling.



Ummm, no, they aren't.

They pretty much are, when someone pawn the game at GS, the message is that the game the pub dev made is not worth the time so they should get punished for not satisfying customers.

They don't really care though tpubs and devs customers are the retailers anyway and not the end users.
Terrell
Member
(02-20-2012, 10:26 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mael

They pretty much are, when someone pawn the game at GS, the message is that the game the pub dev made is not worth the time so they should get punished for not satisfying customers.

They don't really care though tpubs and devs customers are the retailers anyway and not the end users.

You realize that people sell back high-quality AAA titles to Gamestop, too, right? People don't trade in because the game is shit, many trade it in because they want to play EVERY game that's released on the day it's released but can't legitimately afford to without this trade-in program.

Making such a claim as you have is basically saying that people only trade in shit games, but if that's the case, how are Gamestop reselling these supposedly shit games to a point where they're making scads of cash? There's a total breakdown in the logic of your statement.


Maybe it's just me, but I remember a time when gamers DIDN'T buy almost every damn game, just the ones you were 100% sure about, and you rented the rest to try them first. And most of the games you DID buy weren't bought in the first few weeks of release, either, but sometimes MONTHS later. We talk about "legs" in Sales-Age threads, but there was a time when MOST games had legs because there wasn't this front-loading bullshit with every single game.

Originally Posted by Mael

They don't really care though tpubs and devs customers are the retailers anyway and not the end users.

Once again... more used games in the field means less chance for follow-up purchases from retailers due to less demand for new games. So yes, devs and publishers are still affected by this, unless you think they'd FORCE retailers to carry games they don't order because of a shrinkage in demand for new copies.
Last edited by Terrell; 02-20-2012 at 10:31 AM.
Mael
Member
(02-20-2012, 10:33 AM)

Originally Posted by Terrell

You realize that people sell back versions of high-quality AAA titles, too, right? People don't trade in because the game is shit, many trade it in because they want to play EVERY game that's released on the day it's released but can't legitimately afford to without this trade-in program.

Making such a claim as you have is basically saying that people only trade in shit games, but if that's the case, how are Gamestop reselling these supposedly shit games to a point where they're making scads of cash? There's a total breakdown in the logic of your statement.

they ARE trading shit games, if you don't keep a game it's because they're not worth your time.
It's basically a toaster for the customer irregardless of the budget behind it.
It's disposable.
There's games out there that people keep that you never see in the used bin.
These games ARE the good product. You don't see the devs of these games cry about the used market.

Originally Posted by Terrell

Maybe it's just me, but I remember a time when gamers DIDN'T buy almost every damn game, just the ones you were 100% sure about, and you rented the rest to try them first. And most of the games you DID buy weren't bought in the first few weeks of release, either, but sometimes MONTHS later. We talk about "legs" in Sales-Age threads, but there was a time when MOST games had legs because there wasn't this front-loading bullshit with every single game.

The pubs and devs pushed for front loading games to make big bucks, they have NO rights to cry about a situation they basically created.

Originally Posted by Terrell

Once again... more used games in the field means less chance for follow-up purchases from retailers due to less demand for new games. So yes, devs and publishers are still affected by this, unless you think they'd FORCE retailers to carry games they don't order because of a shrinkage in demand for new copies.

And the retailers are affected by the games the devs and pubs pushed months ago and are now filling the inventory of the stores.
What are they going to do with these games? Destroy them?
If the devs and pubs want these games out of the equations, they're more than welcome to buy them back.
staticneuron
Member
(02-20-2012, 11:05 AM)
staticneuron's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

He said national chain, I gave a national chain that's neither niche nor independent, and which sells used alongside new. Not my fault he didn't define the goalposts well. Of course the industry is different today but he's grossly understating the prevalence of chains like Wherehouse Music and Blockbuster Music during the '90s which did large traffic in used CDs.

Blockbuster had a music store too? Damn, did that company fall hard.

Where I grew up (in south FLA) most of the stores sold new even Camelot/FYE. There was one Warehouse Music store that I could recall in my area. So I would like to think that saturation has a big part to play in this as well. So when discussing about store practices that can really shake up an industry, saturation and popularity of those stores should also be under consideration.

All this comes down to is numbers anyways. Even though we are missing bits and pieces, we are still all talking about a market that is basically fixed.
Terrell
Member
(02-20-2012, 11:18 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mael

they ARE trading shit games, if you don't keep a game it's because they're not worth your time.
It's basically a toaster for the customer irregardless of the budget behind it.
It's disposable.
There's games out there that people keep that you never see in the used bin.
These games ARE the good product. You don't see the devs of these games cry about the used market.

Let's play a little game then, shall we? If you're willing to make this statement, after all, I assume you're willing to back it up.

Name a game that you have bought in the past 3 months that you could never conceive of parting with. I will then go to Gamestop's website and see how many used copies each location has in a random major city. If your theory pans out, it should be incredibly hard to find, but I doubt that highly.

And for the bonus round of this game, I'll even look up quotes from the developer of such great product having a good ol' fashioned whine about used games.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you didn't realize how Gamestop/EB structures its used business.

Originally Posted by Mael

The pubs and devs pushed for front loading games to make big bucks, they have NO rights to cry about a situation they basically created.

They created that business model in DIRECT RESPONSE to the used game market, dude.


Originally Posted by Mael

And the retailers are affected by the games the devs and pubs pushed months ago and are now filling the inventory of the stores.
What are they going to do with these games? Destroy them?
If the devs and pubs want these games out of the equations, they're more than welcome to buy them back.

Forget just the used market, I'm starting to think you don't know how the entire current ecosystem of the games industry works.

Could someone fill him in? I'm going to bed.
Last edited by Terrell; 02-20-2012 at 11:35 AM.
mclem
Member
(02-20-2012, 11:20 AM)

Originally Posted by mugwhump

I think digital distribution should make everyone happy*. Pubs/Devs don't need to worry about used game sales, and customers don't mind because the price is lower**.

*except Gamestop
**assuming the prices actually are lower.

That is fundamentally what publishers are *trying* to do with online passes; they want to sell digital product, but the infrastructure isn't there to do so yet. So instead they're including a small digital product (which some people are regarding as essential) with every physical product.
mclem
Member
(02-20-2012, 11:30 AM)

Originally Posted by Lancehead255

Is it not true that actual developers do not see any money from these online passes bought by used game buyers? My understanding is that developers get paid for finishing the project, and nothing post-project completion. So whatever money is made out of online passes, goes to the publishers.

While that's generally true (although performance bonuses allegedly exist... not that I ever saw any!), it's important to bear in mind that if a game proves profitable, a publisher is more likely to approach that dev again in the future.

Originally Posted by Kraut

I don't know about devs making anything off online passes, but I'd guess that devs getting no profits from sales is extremely rare (or even non-existent).

It's not.
Last edited by mclem; 02-20-2012 at 11:33 AM.
neorej
ERMYGERD!
(02-20-2012, 11:30 AM)
neorej's Avatar
I bought The Old Republic retail this weekend for 50 euro.

The price on Origin was 55 euro.

Digital Distribution Only is going to fuck consumers up the ass.
mclem
Member
(02-20-2012, 11:32 AM)

Originally Posted by FoxMcCloudDS

Maybe you should have made a better game that people wouldn't have wanted to sell?

I wonder how many copies of Ico were kept by their original purchaser?

Just because something's a fantastic game doesn't necessarily mean that people won't sell it when they're done with it.
Shorty11857
Member
(02-20-2012, 02:36 PM)
Shorty11857's Avatar

Originally Posted by mclem

While that's generally true (although performance bonuses allegedly exist... not that I ever saw any!), it's important to bear in mind that if a game proves profitable, a publisher is more likely to approach that dev again in the future.



It's not.

I imagine that would depend on the situation though right? I mean I imagine there'd be a massive differnce in how profits are handled between
1. Dev being published by EA
2. Dev owned by EA
3. Dev hired by EA to make a game

I'd imagine the third option has the least incentive to offer performance based pay
CadetMahoney
Member
(02-20-2012, 08:27 PM)
CadetMahoney's Avatar

Originally Posted by StuBurns

The fact games don't deteriorate is irrelevant. Their value decreases over time, same as almost anything else.

Originally Posted by Terrell

Cars in the used market are there because they are a "gamble" purchase. You can't guarantee it won't break down, because it has been used. It is a mechanism that requires servicing and the usability of the product is lessened due to its previous use by the very nature of it being a mechanism, and thus is a package product made up of smaller finite-use products.

A game is not a mechanism or a utility, it is a disc with data. It either works or it doesn't, and provides no depreciation of the experience or enjoyment. There's nothing to distinguish it from used aside from cosmetics and packaging.

But the value does depreciates over time. Only a fool would pay a full $60 for a 3 year old game outside of collector reasons. The consumer puts value into what they buy, not the manufacturer. The general consensus is that the value is not the same as when it was new, the reasons you listed don't matter to the value put on it by the consumer. In longer timelines the hardware to play it on will eventually not be manufactured anymore either.

Originally Posted by Terrell

Video games, by comparison, don't have nearly the same profit margins as those industries, and any conversation on the impact of used product sales on any industry when comparing to games MUST account for differences such as profit margins. . .

So? As a consumer I don't give a fuck Mr Developer thinks he's entitled to a cut out of second-hand sales.
Terrell
Member
(02-20-2012, 08:41 PM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by CadetMahoney

But the value does depreciates over time. Only a fool would pay a full $60 for a 3 year old game outside of collector reasons. The consumer puts value into what they buy, not the manufacturer. The general consensus is that the value is not the same as when it was new, the reasons you listed don't matter to the value put on it by the consumer. In longer timelines the hardware to play it on will eventually not be manufactured anymore either.

So, in 3 years time, you somehow magically enjoy something less? Games are a product intended for enjoyment, and their value is measured by the enjoyment gained. Explain how this purpose diminishes over time.
In the event of hardware to play it no longer being manufactured, in most cases, the GAMES stop being manufactured as well, and at that time, the used market begins to make sense.

Originally Posted by CadetMahoney

So? As a consumer I don't give a fuck Mr Developer thinks he's entitled to a cut out of second-hand sales.

That's... not what I said at all. And attitudes like this are what are going to inflate games into profit margin levels seen in other industries, so... congrats on being part of the problem and ruining it for the rest of us?
NervousXtian
I'm an idiot
(02-20-2012, 08:50 PM)
NervousXtian's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vane_MagicCity

If you're saying I have no inside sources, you are correct but then again...do you?

No, but I have common sense.

Ok but: 1) Why are you arguing that they haven't embraced DD because of HDD space while also saying they have sales all the time 2) The sales aren't on the same scale as Steam

Two different things, they've both had a smaller titles released to DD since the start. What they have not had until lately is full release games for DD, and even then it's older title. It's no a be all end all solution to digital distribution yet since they haven't abandoned retail stores in the slightest. I blame this on aging consoles that have a large % of hardware that doesn't have huge storage space.

Like I said, first you say that they aren't embracing DD because of HDD space and now you are talking about sales that prove they are. I am confused.

They aren't, and it's more than likely one of the reasons. They've grown the market, and they've been having sales on PSN/XBLA games for quite some years now.. you can choose to ignore that, but it's right there on the dashboard (360).


First of all, the new PS3's and new 360's have large HDD's, 320GB and 250GB. Secondly, they can still offer lots of games via DD even if some people might still have smaller HDD's. It's not like Best Buy doesn't carry Blu-Rays because not everyone owns a Blu-Ray player.

I would say that the % of people who have larger than 20GB HDD's is larger than those who do not.

This is the reason we've seen more full release older titles on the services as of late, those that can take advantage of it can. Doesn't erase the fact that older HD's are out there, and the fact that why try to go with a robust DD this gen, when next gen is right around the corner? The DD method could be used as a huge selling point, especially if it's sold with reduced prices for games. You do day 1 DD with price points around $40.. I'm all in. Give me weekly and annual sales? Doubled down, baby.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
(02-20-2012, 08:51 PM)
Bumblebeetuna's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

He said national chain, I gave a national chain that's neither niche nor independent, and which sells used alongside new. Not my fault he didn't define the goalposts well. Of course the industry is different today but he's grossly understating the prevalence of chains like Wherehouse Music and Blockbuster Music during the '90s which did large traffic in used CDs.

Don't forget CD Warehouse. That place was huge in Texas, idk about the rest of the country. Blockbuster Music and Hastings too. You won't find many places specializing in the used sale of music nowadays with DD taking over but back in the 90's they were everywhere, easily comparable to Gamestop nowadays imho.

Books have always had tons of places too but authors don't act as if they should be immune to the second hand market.
Terrell
Member
(02-20-2012, 08:53 PM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bumblebeetuna

Don't forget CD Warehouse. That place was huge in Texas, idk about the rest of the country. Blockbuster Music and Hastings too. You won't find many places specializing in the used sale of music nowadays with DD taking over but back in the 90's they were everywhere, easily comparable to Gamestop nowadays imho.

Books have always had tons of places too but authors don't act as if they should be immune to the second hand market.

Books also sell at higher volume with a higher margin. Why would they be concerned when a book costs nothing but the paper it's printed on and ONE man's time to write it? It's not comparable.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
(02-20-2012, 08:58 PM)

Originally Posted by bigtroyjon

There aren't many people who are willing to keep their computers disconnected from the internet.

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

If I am not mistaken, Steam's offline mode has to check in online every 30 days or something. So I can have my account on all 4 of my PC's and I can use them all whenever I like but I can't be logged into two at the same time. I can be logged into one while the other three are offline though. In fact, Steam makes it easy, if I start The Last Remnant on one PC and then my son starts the same game on another PC, it will log me out of Steam and log him in but it won't stop me from playing. Now we're both playing. I did try this once and it worked fine.

So, why can't it work on consoles. See, here's the thing. I won't get a second 360 because of the headaches it would cause in sharing content. A second PS3 would be just fine though because I would be able to share content between them without the headaches.
NervousXtian
I'm an idiot
(02-20-2012, 09:04 PM)
NervousXtian's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bumblebeetuna

Don't forget CD Warehouse. That place was huge in Texas, idk about the rest of the country. Blockbuster Music and Hastings too. You won't find many places specializing in the used sale of music nowadays with DD taking over but back in the 90's they were everywhere, easily comparable to Gamestop nowadays imho.

Books have always had tons of places too but authors don't act as if they should be immune to the second hand market.

Books going digital have already started the transition.

Also, there was a pretty big difference between the used music and used game segments. You almost never, ever, ever found new releases used for quite some time... just didn't happen often. You could find older releases, but newer ones? Nope.

I can walk into Gamestop a week after release and almost always find a used copy of any big release.

Gamers are a different breed.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
(02-20-2012, 09:07 PM)

Originally Posted by NervousXtian

Books going digital have already started the transition.

Also, there was a pretty big difference between the used music and used game segments. You almost never, ever, ever found new releases used for quite some time... just didn't happen often. You could find older releases, but newer ones? Nope.

I can walk into Gamestop a week after release and almost always find a used copy of any big release.

Gamers are a different breed.

People talk about there being more used games available than there used to be but that also means that more games were sold new in a shorter period of time too. It all evens out.
Last edited by Vane_MagicCity; 02-20-2012 at 09:11 PM.
jimi_dini
Member
(02-20-2012, 09:08 PM)
jimi_dini's Avatar

Originally Posted by Terrell

So, in 3 years time, you somehow magically enjoy something less? Games are a product intended for enjoyment, and their value is measured by the enjoyment gained. Explain how this purpose diminishes over time.

The publishers even do this by themselves. Sometimes within a few months of time. So even the publishers tell the customer "this title is worth 20$ 3 months after release".

And that's the difference. Ask yourself, why NSMB/SMG1/SMG2 can stay up at almost full price for years, where other games will get thrown out on super-sale within months.

It's quality of the title and replay value.

This even goes over to the used market. Try to get NSMB used for 10$. You won't. That game was released in 2009.

Now try the same with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I'm seeing it for 15$ used on ebay. And Deus Ex was released end of last year.

On-Line passes screw with the original buyer of the game. Because the used sale price will get reduced. So in fact the original buyer will pay the price, noone else. And because of that I'm not buying such games at release. If I buy them, I will buy such titles, when they are on sale. Although I almost never sell my games. But it's good to know, that I could (if the game really sucked for example) and that I won't loose much money in that case.

Publishers should REWARD day-one buyers. See Dark Souls for example. Day-One got the LE for the same price as the normal game with additional real-life content. No On-Line pass bullshit. I bought it, was really satisfied and didn't sell it, because the game is awesome-sauce. Also I played it for around 200 hours and could keep playing and playing. Now compare this to some 10 hour campaign for 60$.
Last edited by jimi_dini; 02-20-2012 at 09:14 PM.
Ninja Scooter
bow down to the
Kings in Raider hats
(02-20-2012, 09:08 PM)
Ninja Scooter's Avatar
places like Wherehouse and Sam Goody were never as active and put as much emphasis on used sales like Gamestop is, and I'd be wiling to bet, in their prime never had as high of a revenue stream off used sales as gamestop does. And you know what? I don't begrudge Gamestop for the way they run their business, more power to them, but I don't get why you guys think game publishers are going to see all that money getting made off their products and not try and get a piece of the action.
faceless007
AAA ETHER
(02-20-2012, 09:10 PM)

Originally Posted by NervousXtian

Books going digital have already started the transition.

Also, there was a pretty big difference between the used music and used game segments. You almost never, ever, ever found new releases used for quite some time... just didn't happen often. You could find older releases, but newer ones? Nope.

I can walk into Gamestop a week after release and almost always find a used copy of any big release.

Gamers are a different breed.

See my post above.

Thread Tools