• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Xenon
Banned
(05-27-2013, 09:23 AM)
Xenon's Avatar

Originally Posted by StevePharma




Not every country is the same in that regard.

Also, the used cars are the first thing if you walk into a lot of dealers, because they are parked outside.


You can't be serious... there is a huge difference with having cars parked in front and training your employees to push used over new sales.
rohlfinator
Member
(05-27-2013, 09:32 AM)
rohlfinator's Avatar

Originally Posted by NervousXtian

Where is your data coming from? The World or the US? The only way I can see 40% PC still being boxed is pretty much Blizzard titles... you can't even find retail boxed in stores anymore outside of a few titles. They must also not be including quite a few of the DD outlets.. retail for the PC hardly exists at all.. at least in the US.

I'd have to find the articles again, I believe it was based on NPD data though.

I still see plenty of PC boxed copies at Target/Walmart/etc. A lot less than console, but they're still there. Most of the bigger games get boxed copies. Blizzard stuff, Valve stuff, Civilization, Sim City, Skyrim, etc. Hell, I think I've even seen games like Torchlight and Peggle on a shelf somewhere.
unbias
Member
(05-27-2013, 09:34 AM)
unbias's Avatar

Originally Posted by Xenon

Wrong, I have never walked into a dealer and been steered to the used cars unless I asked.



Those are subscription services, they don't sell individual products. That doesn't even make sense.

You may want to look up used vs new car sales numbers.
Caddywompus
Junior Member
(05-27-2013, 09:35 AM)
Caddywompus's Avatar
I don't see the point in buying used games when new games can be had so cheap now if you're patient. The only downside for me is having the trade-in market dry up. I can't buy my new games if no one gives me money for my old ones.
Syrionus
Junior Member
(05-27-2013, 09:40 AM)
Syrionus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Xenon

Those are subscription services, they don't sell individual products. That doesn't even make sense.

The Real Estate Industry.
Open Source
Banned
(05-27-2013, 10:25 AM)

Originally Posted by StevePharma

That wasn't his question.



The whole car analogy doesn't really fit though.

That's my point - the question was flawed in terms of its relevance to this discussion, so the answers are necessarily flawed as well.
Dead Man
I got d 2 tha eepdicked
d-e-e-p-d-i-c-k-e-d
(05-27-2013, 10:28 AM)
Dead Man's Avatar

Originally Posted by Open Source

That's my point - the question was flawed in terms of its relevance to this discussion, so the answers are necessarily flawed as well.

That's not how it works. The answers were valid, just to a question you didn't think was relevant.
Caddywompus
Junior Member
(05-27-2013, 10:32 AM)
Caddywompus's Avatar
Microsoft views video games as apart of the entertainment industry. They want the same life cycle of a movie, theater to rental service to streaming service to cable tv. Each time it's consumed in its new format they make money. Whether you're listening to music on Pandora or watching a syndicated sitcom on Fox there's money to be made by the creators of the entertainment.

It's not the physical used product MS cares about but the consumption of the product. If they could figure out a way to make money off a game every time it's played regardless whether its used or new this wouldn't be an issue. They just haven't ... yet
Open Source
Banned
(05-27-2013, 10:39 AM)

Originally Posted by Dead Man

That's not how it works. The answers were valid, just to a question you didn't think was relevant.

Someone asks a poorly constructed question to make a valid point, someone else gives an answer that answers the question but does not refute the point, and I explain (with a question) why the answer does not refute the point, why the original question was flawed, and why the point is still valid.

That is how it works. Elegant and concise, for those intelligent enough to follow.
Last edited by Open Source; 05-27-2013 at 10:41 AM.
Vinci
Danish
(05-27-2013, 10:57 AM)
Vinci's Avatar
First off... I came up with something quite a long time ago in response to the ridiculous marketing premise of the PS3, but it actually applies well in most business situations:

If the only way what you are doing could be successful is for everything to work in a very precise way, ignoring the turbulence and market realities present, then what you are doing is stupid.

Also, video games - especially modern ones - lose an enormous amount of functionality in a relatively short period of time due to the focus on online multiplayer. To say it doesn't "functionally degrade" is wildly inaccurate.

And Burai? Well done.
faceless007
AAA ETHER
(05-27-2013, 10:59 AM)

Originally Posted by Open Source

If the secondhand market is not having a major detrimental effect on the primary market, then why would it need to be addressed?

If it were the case for movies and games, then yes, I'd favor similar measures by music/movie industries to protect themselves against it.

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.
Last edited by faceless007; 05-27-2013 at 11:02 AM.
PogiJones
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:03 AM)
People are conflating two different types of used goods. Cars, chairs, and homes are not very analogous because they are depreciating goods which continue to provide benefit to the owner as long as they function. While it's possible for discs to quit functioning over time, generally you get the same perfect and complete experience from a used game as you would get from a new game. Along with that, you never finish using a car or a chair, so when you buy a chair and then sell it a year later, you're giving up, say, the 90% of its total usefulness that could be gleaned from its remaining life. This incentivizes the owner to sell at a higher price, which makes a middleman market for used chairs comparable in profit margines to the used market, instead of the ludicrous mark ups that GameStop gets, which drives them to push the used market hard.

Since purchasing a game is mostly purchasing a fun experience that ends, it's more correct to compare it to movies, books, and theme parks. On the one hand, even with used books being available for free at libraries, there are authors that still thrive. It seems the used market has not killed the book industry. On the other hand, the development of ebooks has allowed many more authors to participate in the industry than before. It used to be, not long ago, that aspiring to be an author was a determination to starve. Now, it's a plausible occupation. This probably has more to do with publishing costs than used book sales, but it's worth mentioning. With theme parks, people do not complain that they cannot sell their used ticket to someone else. This has also proven a decently sustainable model, with a few failures. But it is easy to see how that used ticket sale would collapse that market completely.

My econ professor wrote his own textbook, and our homework had to be turned in from torn-out pages, so the book could not be sold back. He claimed the used textbook market drove prices up, and indeed, his textbook was far cheaper than other similar textbooks. His new books were comparable to other used books in price. His point was that the sales lost to used books drove the optimum profits price up. So it's possible that the optimum profits price for games could go down on Xbox One, although I'm inclined to believe it would follow a monopoly curve of pricing high initially then dropping the price over time. Perhaps the prices would drop faster to meet that lowered optimum profits price? I don't know.

In short, no one knows what will happen, and each side has valid arguments. The market is often incredibly unpredictable, so anyone calling the other side idiots just because they don't see how clearly right you are... Well, you're only showing either arrogance or ignorance at the reality of market unpredictability.

Side note: Borai's much-lauded post was an effective emotional rallying cry, and he speaks truth about poor decisions up top, but it was a mere distraction from the issue at hand: whether used games are good for the market. His effective deflection of "but what about management? They're even worse for the market!" is true but irrelevant to the merits of the used market.
Last edited by PogiJones; 05-27-2013 at 11:10 AM.
Brashnir
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:07 AM)
Brashnir's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Risette
A Good Citizen
(05-27-2013, 11:10 AM)
Risette's Avatar

Originally Posted by PogiJones

People are conflating two different types of used goods. Cars, chairs, and homes are not very analogous because they are depreciating goods which continue to provide benefit to the owner as long as they function. While it's possible for discs to quit functioning over time, generally you get the same perfect and complete experience from a used game as you would get from a new game. Along with that, you never finish using a car or a chair, so when you buy a chair and then sell it a year later, you're giving up, say, the 90% of its total usefulness that could be gleaned from its remaining life. This incentivizes the owner to sell at a higher price, which makes a middleman market for used chairs comparable in profit margines to the used market, instead of the ludicrous mark ups that GameStop gets, which drives the to push the used market hard.

Since purchasing a game is mostly purchasing a fun experience that ends, it's more correct to compare it to movies, books, and theme parks. On the one hand, even with used books being available for free at libraries, there are authors that still thrive. It seems the used market has not killed the book industry. On the other hand, the development of ebooks has allowed many more authors to participate in the industry than before. It used to be, not long ago, that aspiring to be an author was a determination to starve. Now, it's a plausible occupation. This probably has more to do with publishing costs than used book sales, but it's worth mentioning. With theme parks, people do not complain that they cannot sell their used ticket to someone else. This has also proven a decently sustainable model, with a few failures. But it is easy to see how that used ticket sale would collapse that market completely.

My econ professor wrote his own textbook, and our homework had to be turned in from torn-out pages, so the book could not be sold back. He claimed the used textbook market drove prices up, and indeed, his textbook was far cheaper than other similar textbooks. His new books were comparable to other used books in price. His point was that the sales lost to used books drove the optimum profits price up. So it's possible that the optimum profits price for games could go down on Xbox One, although I'm inclined to believe it would follow a monopoly curve of pricing high initially then dropping the price over time. Perhaps the prices would drop faster to meet that lowered optimum profits price? I don't know.

In short, no one knows what will happen, and each side has valid arguments. The market is often incredibly unpredictable, so anyone calling the other side idiots just because they don't are how clearly right you are... Well, you're only showing either arrogance or ignorance at the reality of market unpredictability.

Side note: Borai's much-lauded post was an effective emotional rallying cry, and he speaks truth about poor decisions up top, but it was a mere distraction from the issue at hand: whether used games are good for the market. His effective deflection of "but what about management? They're even worse for the market!" is true but irrelevant to the merits of the used market.

This explanation doesn't work when so many yearly franchises obsolete previous entries in the franchise.
Dead Man
I got d 2 tha eepdicked
d-e-e-p-d-i-c-k-e-d
(05-27-2013, 11:11 AM)
Dead Man's Avatar

Originally Posted by Open Source

Someone asks a poorly constructed question to make a valid point, someone else gives an answer that answers the question but does not refute the point, and I explain (with a question) why the answer does not refute the point, why the original question was flawed, and why the point is still valid.

That is how it works. Elegant and concise, for those intelligent enough to follow.

The point is valid, the answer is valid, it is just not relevant. Simple indeed.

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Outstanding. :)
NullPointer
#INTESTINAL
(05-27-2013, 11:12 AM)
NullPointer's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

MasLegio
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:13 AM)

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.


Acorn
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:16 AM)
Acorn's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

This needs to be printed off and nailed to publishers foreheads.
PogiJones
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:16 AM)

Originally Posted by Risette

This explanation doesn't work when so many yearly franchises obsolete previous entries in the franchise.

That does allow for some depreciation, yes, but only in the sense that you want the newest and best. But even Madden 07 is going to give you the same exact game as players experienced in 07. The exception to this would be the online community migrating, but even that is such a small depreciation compared to cars that it's still closer to theme parks.
Risette
A Good Citizen
(05-27-2013, 11:18 AM)
Risette's Avatar

Originally Posted by PogiJones

That does allow for some depreciation, yes, but only in the sense that you want the newest and best. But even Madden 07 is going to give you the same exact game as players experienced in 07. The exception to this would be the online community migrating, but even that is such a small depreciation compared to cars that it's still closer to theme parks.

Yes, but in 09 players experience Madden 09 and whatever it brings for their $60. Value depreciates.
travisbickle
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:18 AM)
travisbickle's Avatar

Originally Posted by Open Source

In this industry, do buyers of new cars get no benefits for the extra money they spend, as with used games?


You're being disingenuous with your comments about degradation. People are returning games after a couple of weeks, there's no degradation involved of any product during that sort of time scale. The reality is if people were keeping games for longer it wouldn't be an issue, something Nintendo seems very successful at.
gketter
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:20 AM)
gketter's Avatar

Originally Posted by PogiJones

That does allow for some depreciation, yes, but only in the sense that you want the newest and best. But even Madden 07 is going to give you the same exact game as players experienced in 07. The exception to this would be the online community migrating, but even that is such a small depreciation compared to cars that it's still closer to theme parks.

Oh and Ea shutting down the servers to force you to the next year game. Gaming is the one form of entertainment that loses its value the fastest. Do people look at a movie and say "that movie is 20 years old, no way I'm paying $20 for the blurry rerease". Same with music, books, etc. only 1% become rare enough to hold or increase their value over time.
Yagharek
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:20 AM)
Yagharek's Avatar

Originally Posted by Acorn

This needs to be printed off and nailed to publishers foreheads.

With a second-hand hammer.
Artorias
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:21 AM)
Artorias's Avatar
If publishers want to continue being paid top dollar for old games, they can release a new version every few years like DVDs and books. I doubt it would work without extra's but it makes more sense than trying to kill the used market, rental market, and collector's market at the same time.

Edit: Excellent post Faceless007. I made it a point to only rent the AAA stuff if the gameplay was garbage and it was more of an "experience" thing. Sucks that they got drawn into that and can't find a way out, but I only pay for games worth playing.
Last edited by Artorias; 05-27-2013 at 11:25 AM.
Dascu
(05-27-2013, 11:21 AM)
Dascu's Avatar
The idea that taking away competition from the market will somehow improve the quality, let alone lower prices to consumers, is rather unorthodox if not completely unrealistic.

By the way, prices on Steam are low, not because of the absence of the used games market, but because of the much cheaper distribution method and especially because of the competition with piracy, a far greater secondary market. And there are ways to combat this competition without a war against pirates that still benefits consumers. Steam, crowd-funding, realistic budgets and alternative payment methods have proven this.

The first-sale doctrine and the principle of copyright exhaustion are consumer rights that should be fought for. Giving them up because of convenient digitization, in any market (books, music, movies, games) without criticism, is an abhorrent position and complete surrender to corporate lobbies.


And thumbs up to faceless007 for dropping that truth-bomb.
Last edited by Dascu; 05-27-2013 at 11:24 AM.
wilflare
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:22 AM)
wilflare's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

one of the best posts on NeoGAF.
we need a NeoGAF best posts on twitter
MasLegio
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:22 AM)

Originally Posted by travisbickle

You're being disingenuous with your comments about degradation. People are returning games after a couple of weeks, there's no degradation involved of any product during that sort of time scale. The reality is if people were keeping games for longer it wouldn't be an issue, something Nintendo seems very successful at.

well, then the product is the problem, not the used games market
Seik
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:31 AM)
Seik's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.



Yes, YES!!

That was a beautiful read, motivating and all truth. Keep on, man, you just told how I exactly feel about this whole mess of a situation and I couldn't put it in words any better than this.

faceless007
Fighting The Good Fight
(Today, 04:59 AM)
Last edited by Seik; 05-27-2013 at 11:44 AM.
MasterBalls
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:31 AM)
MasterBalls's Avatar
"Tiny little acorn cock" is the best thing about this thread.
Dead Man
I got d 2 tha eepdicked
d-e-e-p-d-i-c-k-e-d
(05-27-2013, 11:33 AM)
Dead Man's Avatar

Originally Posted by PogiJones

That does allow for some depreciation, yes, but only in the sense that you want the newest and best. But even Madden 07 is going to give you the same exact game as players experienced in 07. The exception to this would be the online community migrating, but even that is such a small depreciation compared to cars that it's still closer to theme parks.

I would rather have an 07 car than be stuck playing 07 games. The car is much more like current offerings.
Brashnir
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:34 AM)
Brashnir's Avatar
Open Source are you OK? Please post if you are OK.
PogiJones
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:36 AM)

Originally Posted by Risette

Yes, but in 09 players experience Madden 09 and whatever it brings for their $60. Value depreciates.

A valid point in terms of opportunity cost, but once again, functionality remains almost entirely in most cases. By 09, the 07 version drops in price even without a used market to pick up those unwilling to pay full price. Of course 07 wouldn't sell for the same as 09, regardless of the presence of a used market. My point was comparing games to cars is faulty. An 07 car bought in 09 not only has to compete against newer vehicles, but it also is functionally worse and its life shortened compared to when it was new in 07. That's a huge difference, and why intellectual property law has yet to be hammered out very well.


Originally Posted by gketter

Oh and Ea shutting down the servers to force you to the next year game. Gaming is the one form of entertainment that loses its value the fastest. Do people look at a movie and say "that movie is 20 years old, no way I'm paying $20 for the blurry rerease". Same with music, books, etc. only 1% become rare enough to hold or increase their value over time.

Most games provide almost exactly the same experience 20 years later. There are exceptions, such as servers shutting down, but we can't base our entire analysis on exceptions.
Last edited by PogiJones; 05-27-2013 at 11:46 AM.
AJ_Wings
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:36 AM)
AJ_Wings's Avatar
Man... posts like Burai's and faceless' are one of the reasons I love GAF.
NullPointer
#INTESTINAL
(05-27-2013, 11:38 AM)
NullPointer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Brashnir

Open Source are you OK? Please post if you are OK.

Ikael
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:39 AM)
This is the very same retarded fallacious argument regarding piracy, and it pains me to see PA, from all people, to support it:

"if people who pay 0 € for a pirated game would be stopped, all these people would buy our games instead!"

"if people who pay 20€ for a second hand game would be stopped, all these people would buy our game for 60€ instead!"

No: if you stop these people from acessing these unconventional markets, then they will stop buying games altogether, or in this case, they will expend their money into cheaper entertainement alternatives. Videogames are not a vital necessity type of market such as gas or electricity. And its second hand videogame market is the "I cannot afford nor want to pay 60 € per certain games" market, and if you make it disappear, its customers and sales will disappear altogether. They are not "your" consumers, nor they owe you shit, nor they are going to turn in droves towards your obsolete business model pretty much in the same way that closing down Napster didn't shuddenly made the masses fond of paying 40 € per music CD and reverse the slow death of the music industry (and that was a truthly illegitimate competitor). All this will be done for the gain of noone, but that won't stop you from trying it, right, you corporate vermin? Because the other alternative, which would be cutting bloated production costs a la kickstarter would be the death of you CEOs, marketing types and "producers", most useless middlemen of this business, and you all know it too well.

This is corporate entitlement mentality pure and simple, and it is kind of ironic to see how both extreme left wing Chavez-like goverments and corporate suits both share the idiotic and totalitarian dream of controlling customer demand. You don't control the demand, you bunch of fucking megalomaniac twats. You cannot physically control it. You only control supply, consumers control demand, and if we consumers are essentially saying with our wallet that a vast percentage of your games are not worthy of 60 € for many of us, there is little you can do about it. Business 101: You don't adapt the market to fit your needs, you have no other option but adapting to the realities and need of the market. Any other course of action such as this anti consumer crusade against second hand market is not a solution, but rather trowing a hissy fit and blaming gamers in the middle of the biggest economic recession of the last century for the crumbling of your retarded and obsolete triple AAA production system. Stop masquerading as business solution what is, in essence, a fucking corporate manchildren tantrum.
Last edited by Ikael; 05-27-2013 at 11:42 AM.
Shaneus
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:40 AM)
Shaneus's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the last time we saw Open Source in this thread.
MomoPufflet
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:42 AM)
MomoPufflet's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

There are not enough golf-clap gifs
PogiJones
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:43 AM)

Originally Posted by Dead Man

I would rather have an 07 car than be stuck playing 07 games. The car is much more like current offerings.

But the car has literally lost life. Even if no newer models came out, your experience with it is and how much of its life you own are less than whoever bought it in 07. As for your need to have newer games, that's probably closely tied to cost. People are great with 20 year old houses, 10 year old cars, 4 year old computers, 1 year old flowers, and 1 week old bread. There are other factors like perishability and new features, but price is probably the biggest factor for turnover demand.
Anton668
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:45 AM)
Anton668's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

ya know, every time I try and post something with profound meaning it just comes out as "kjzhsgfryfgouyfgouzy"

Bless you kind sir

robertsan21
#1 fly (for a white guy) fisher
(05-27-2013, 11:46 AM)
robertsan21's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

And that is how you do it people! Thanks for the wise words!
Open Source
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:48 AM)

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

It's certainly not protectionism as understood in any economic context. Protectionism involves protecting local industry making a certain type of product against competition with outside industry which is producing a similar product. In this case, only one product is being produced.

You're talking about legal rights, and I'm talking about business models. It's a vastly different concept. You don't see rage at Blizzard when you lose access to World of Warcraft after non-payment of the subscription fee. You don't see people upset that they can't sell their Farmville purchases to other players. That is because they've moved from a "buy the game and you can play it forever or sell it to others who can do the same" model, which is clearly unsustainable in an ecosystem where used game purchases are extremely popular, to other models that work better in such an ecosystem.

In a system where players pay for indefinite access to games, but have no ownership rights, the legal aspects of ownership do not apply. There is no "consumer rights" issue. If you aren't OK with the system, you don't pay money for it, and you go back to your dead and dying game ecosystems that have the model you prefer. And then, being an average person, you blame everything but the actual cause for its death and rage at the greed of publishers who are actually making things work.

XBLA was a success specifically for this reason. If you could consume a game that was designed for just a few hours of play and then sell it to someone else, most people would have done so, and sales would have cratered, and dozens of games that people love would not have been made. But people don't understand this because they can't see and touch and experience those retail games that never got made. They can only understand that now they have to pay an extra $5 for a game, and they can't go to Gamestop for their paltry trade-in credit.

As far as publishers - those dudebro multiplayer AAA games are what's making money. Not for everyone, but have you looked at the NPD Top Ten lists for, oh, then last 5 years or so? Publishers make what people want. Those that don't get weeded out. And guess what's getting weeded out? Consoles, because Steam has the superior model (no ownership, offset with larger discounts), despite fewer big games and an audience that skews far more casual (and thus less apt to spend $ on games, per capita). The "dudebro multiplayer AAA games" are just the last part of the ship to go down.
Last edited by Open Source; 05-27-2013 at 11:51 AM.
travisbickle
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:48 AM)
travisbickle's Avatar

Originally Posted by PogiJones


Most games provide almost exactly the same experience 20 years later. There are exceptions, such as servers shutting down, but we can't base our entire analysis on exceptions.

But so do other entertainment experiences: books, music, movies...exactly the same experience 20, 30, 40 years later.

Gaming is in the unique position to actually provide the gamer with a unique experience every time they play the game..but they don't. Instead they create a linear bang, bang, shoot, bang 6 hour fancy picture show where afterwards the user doesn't feel the experience offers enough replay value so returns it.

And the worst part is, if you take Tomb Raider as an example, they are doing this to appeal to about 2% of the game playing public.
sublimit
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:51 AM)
sublimit's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-QCKv37_bI
Lord Panda
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:53 AM)
Lord Panda's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Wow.
hooijdonk17
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:55 AM)
hooijdonk17's Avatar

Originally Posted by faceless007

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Bravo. Perfect.

There needs to be a webpage for this post alone, and it needs to be passed around as a manifesto.
Brashnir
Member
(05-27-2013, 11:56 AM)
Brashnir's Avatar

Originally Posted by travisbickle

But so do other entertainment experiences: books, music, movies...exactly the same experience 20, 30, 40 years later.

Gaming is in the unique position to actually provide the gamer with a unique experience every time they play the game..but they don't. Instead they create a linear bang, bang, shoot, bang 6 hour fancy picture show where afterwards the user doesn't feel the experience offers enough replay value so returns it.

And the worst part is, if you take Tomb Raider as an example, they are doing this to appeal to about 2% of the game playing public.

Here's the basic truth about (bad) business:

Every industry wishes it was the food industry. They all want a product that people can't live without, is perishable and is consumable. These things mean that there will always be demand.

Yet even with all these things working in its favor, it wasn't that long ago that the agriculture industry in the US completely collapsed due to horrible business decisions and had to be propped up by the government in order for the entire country to not starve to death.

Moral of the story - be very wary of any business who claims they "need" anything that makes them more like the food industry in order to survive, because even that industry can and has fallen apart from being mis-managed.

The games industry says they can't survive unless their products are perishable and consumable. Don't believe them.
PogiJones
Banned
(05-27-2013, 11:57 AM)
Open Source used economic analysis of used games in a used games topic, while faceless007 used a look-how-inept-others-are-so-you-better-respect-my-rights emotional appeal. We can see which approach wins more support on GAF.
Seik
Member
(05-27-2013, 12:00 PM)
Seik's Avatar

Originally Posted by PogiJones

Open Source used economic analysis of used games in a used games topic, while faceless007 used a look-how-inept-others-are-so-you-better-respect-my-rights emotional appeal. We can see which approach wins more support on GAF.

Yeah, because GAF is mostly made of gamers and mostly care about their rights as customers.

It's fun when you buy something and it actually have these thing you call 'value' and 'durability', you can't withdraw those from the customers without expecting a backlash.
hooijdonk17
Member
(05-27-2013, 12:01 PM)
hooijdonk17's Avatar

Originally Posted by PogiJones

My econ professor wrote his own textbook, and our homework had to be turned in from torn-out pages, so the book could not be sold back. He claimed the used textbook market drove prices up, and indeed, his textbook was far cheaper than other similar textbooks. His new books were comparable to other used books in price. His point was that the sales lost to used books drove the optimum profits price up. So it's possible that the optimum profits price for games could go down on Xbox One, although I'm inclined to believe it would follow a monopoly curve of pricing high initially then dropping the price over time. Perhaps the prices would drop faster to meet that lowered optimum profits price? I don't know.

Your econ prof was a douche and his so-called theory/proof has more to do with royalties he gets from selling more books than it does with the price of his book. The lower price point could even be set artificially as a faux-proof of his theory while he illegally forces sold copies of his own book to be destroyed. I'm pretty sure someone could make a very good case for suing him. I'm almost shocked no one did.
DarkFlow
Member
(05-27-2013, 12:01 PM)
DarkFlow's Avatar

Originally Posted by Open Source

It's certainly not protectionism as understood in any economic context. Protectionism involves protecting local industry making a certain type of product against competition with outside industry which is producing a similar product. In this case, only one product is being produced.

You're talking about legal rights, and I'm talking about business models. It's a vastly different concept. You don't see rage at Blizzard when you lose access to World of Warcraft after non-payment of the subscription fee. You don't see people upset that they can't sell their Farmville purchases to other players. That is because they've moved from a "buy the game and you can play it forever or sell it to others who can do the same" model, which is clearly unsustainable in an ecosystem where used game purchases are extremely popular, to other models that work better in such an ecosystem.

In a system where players pay for indefinite access to games, but have no ownership rights, the legal aspects of ownership do not apply. There is no "consumer rights" issue. If you aren't OK with the system, you don't pay money for it, and you go back to your dead and dying game ecosystems that have the model you prefer. And then, being an average person, you blame everything but the actual cause for its death and rage at the greed of publishers who are actually making things work.

XBLA was a success specifically for this reason. If you could consume a game that was designed for just a few hours of play and then sell it to someone else, most people would have done so, and sales would have cratered, and dozens of games that people love would not have been made. But people don't understand this because they can't see and touch and experience those retail games that never got made. They can only understand that now they have to pay an extra $5 for a game, and they can't go to Gamestop for their paltry trade-in credit.

As far as publishers - those dudebro multiplayer AAA games are what's making money. Not for everyone, but have you looked at the NPD Top Ten lists for, oh, then last 5 years or so? Publishers make what people want. Those that don't get weeded out. And guess what's getting weeded out? Consoles, because Steam has the superior model (no ownership, offset with larger discounts), despite fewer big games and an audience that skews far more casual (and thus less apt to spend $ on games, per capita). The "dudebro multiplayer AAA games" are just the last part of the ship to go down.

http://youtu.be/WtNHuqHWefU

Thread Tools