• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PA Report - The Xbox One will kill used games, that's good

Which, for the umpteenth time, is no different from every other line of reusable packaged goods on the planet.

If used were universally more desirable than new, why do any games sell new copies at all? To hear you tell it, it's a miracle that any games--actually, not just games, but anything--manages to sell any factory-sealed units at all.

Anyway, you never really addressed my primary question, which was: Why do you hold saving an industry from (perceived) external threats to be a normative good that warrants rewriting property and consumer rights? You said you would favor the same measures for music and movies if they were as encumbered as gaming (supposedly) is. Why do they need to be "protected" at all? Is it just entertainment media you think needs to be protected from the scourge of rational consumers? Should measures have been taken to save Polaroid when digital photography rose up and stole its thunder? Even now, film photography is on the decline thanks to digital. History is full of industries that had to adapt to changing technology and consumer habits and failed to do so. So how do you determine which industries "deserve" to be saved, and why is doing so the operative concern for you?

For the umpteenth time, it is different.

Games sell new copies because:
1) A large percentage of players want to play the game on launch day, when used games are unavailable
2) Incentives attached to new games, such as pre-order bonuses and codes for free DLC
3) Disincentives for used games, such as online codes
4) Convenience and immediacy: used games are not guaranteed to be available at a local shop or a favored store

I don't favor changing property/consumer rights. I favor moving to a model where the games do not become the player's property in the first place; they only get a non-transferable (or pay to transfer) license to use it. Just as happened with Steam. XBLA. PSN. And so on.

This change will result in quicker, steeper discounts for those buying new, and a wider range of possible game types and budgets. We've seen this happen already on platforms where it's been tried.
 
Movies have multiple streams of revenue, and music is cheap as hell to produce. While games have to usually become more eye catching and groundbreaking in features in order to attract a new generation of buyers. And they've only mostly got one shot at success, basically the short post launch time window when it goes on sale. Afterwards, it makes the used game rounds at Gamestop and the bargain bin.

It is a unique form of entertainment, no doubt about it.

I believe the original question previously explained in very understandable manner that (and also why) this model is the publisher's own doing.
 
This change will result in quicker, steeper discounts for those buying new, and a wider range of possible game types and budgets. We've seen this happen already on platforms where it's been tried.

Says the man with no proof or reason for his assumption. You have still not made a compelling argument for why this would happen and have yet to point out why the opposite will not happen.

So basically, no, we have not seen such a thing happen, and no, we will not ever. There is no example of a closed market where despite both the market owner and the seller benefit from higher prices due to a monopoly, the prices are benevolently reduced. On the contrary, there are several examples where monopolies have resulted in price gouging. You need only look at XBOX's very own Games on Demand and DLC pricing for this. (Hell, even XBOX Live Gold fits the bill).

This is your fantasy, and a fantasy you can't even begin to base on any credible reason to exist.
 
And they've only mostly got one shot at success, basically the short post launch time window when it goes on sale. Afterwards, it makes the used game rounds at Gamestop and the bargain bin.
They have ONE shot at success because they're designed to be disposable and multiplayer only goes up in price post-release (the map pack tax). Put out free DLC and you'll encourage current owners to keep their copies just as you encourage new buyers. This is how things used to be done until the concept of free post-launch content and user-created content became verboten.

There are a variety of methods to solve the dilemma games are in, but you can't keep the status quo and have change. If this industry is to survive it has to forge new opportunities instead of removing choices and locking in customers to squeeze down the line. It short-sighted and unsustainable.
 
They have ONE shot at success because they're designed to be disposable and multiplayer only goes up in price post-release (the map pack tax). Put out free DLC and you'll encourage current owners to keep their copies just as you encourage new buyers. This is how things used to be done until the concept of free post-launch content became verboten.

There are a variety of methods to solve the dilemma games are in, but you can't keep the status quo and have change. If this industry is to survive it has to forge new opportunities, instead of removing choices and locking in customers to squeeze down the line. It short-sighted and unsustainable.

This is true of many games in general. Not every game should need to have significant length or replay value to be viable, if the experience within the time you play is cool enough to justify the price. Used games, among other factors, are pushing games into a few set molds.

Free DLC does nothing to encourage purchases of new vs. used. At least paid DLC will monetize some of those used game buyers.

The way things "used to be done" was you ship the game and forget it. No patches, no content, no anything.
 
Says the man with no proof or reason for his assumption. You have still not made a compelling argument for why this would happen and have yet to point out why the opposite will not happen.

So basically, no, we have not seen such a thing happen, and no, we will not ever. There is no example of a closed market where despite both the market owner and the seller benefit from higher prices due to a monopoly, the prices are benevolently reduced. On the contrary, there are several examples where monopolies have resulted in price gouging. You need only look at XBOX's very own Games on Demand and DLC pricing for this. (Hell, even XBOX Live Gold fits the bill).

This is your fantasy, and a fantasy you can't even begin to base on any credible reason to exist.

No proof or reason other than multiple fucking platforms where the no-used-games system already fucking works like I fucking described.

GoD is in an ecosystem with used games, so it is actually a really bad example.
 

vpance

Member
They have ONE shot at success because they're designed to be disposable and multiplayer only goes up in price post-release (the map pack tax). Put out free DLC and you'll encourage current owners to keep their copies just as you encourage new buyers. This is how things used to be done until the concept of free post-launch content and user-created content became verboten.

There are a variety of methods to solve the dilemma games are in, but you can't keep the status quo and have change. If this industry is to survive it has to forge new opportunities instead of removing choices and locking in customers to squeeze down the line. It short-sighted and unsustainable.

Not everyone can make a game that people are guaranteed to keep for longer periods. Even some great games get traded in quickly after a binge fest in the first week. It's too volatile is what I'm getting at.

Average game profit needs to go up. Tax Gamestop is the easiest solution IMO.
 
This is true of many games in general. Not every game should need to have significant length or replay value to be viable, if the experience within the time you play is cool enough to justify the price.
Thats not how it works though.

People will keep games like chess and twister and cranium (for example) because they have replay value. If people want to make short, one go games that are quickly completed then they'll have to deal with people who make the choice to trade those games in.

Free DLC does nothing to encourage purchases of new vs. used. At least paid DLC will monetize some of those used game buyers.

The way things "used to be done" was you ship the game and forget it. No patches, no content, no anything.
What? Where are you getting these pronouncements?

The way things used to be in PC gaming, before the XBox hit, was lots of map packs and extra content, support for user created content, and meaty expansions.

Tax Gamestop is the easiest solution IMO.
Stop taking the easy way out and think long term. Talk to engineers rather than marketers if there's a creativity or systemic thinking deficit.
 

Steroyd

Member
This change will result in quicker, steeper discounts for those buying new, and a wider range of possible game types and budgets. We've seen this happen already on platforms where it's been tried.

What platforms did this work with?

Sony proved with Heavy Rain that you can profit without breaking the bank, and you don't have to sell 10 million copies to make a size-able amount either, it's the publishers fault in trying to make the next COD, or the next GTA forcibly and then weep when it doesn't meet their expectations.

Also Sony didn't seem to be having any problem with budgets and game types just by looking at their portfolio (and what they're looking to do with the PS4), so I'm not seeing how used games is any factor in this at all.

Sony and Nintendo are making waves in bringing in indie devs for their new console's, Microsoft's rumors are unfavorable in that regard.
 
Steam. XBLA. PSN. mobile app stores. No used games, games are cheap and frequently discounted, lots more game types are viable.

Steam is a not closed system or market.

For all the rest:

Yeah, and I would like us not to continue down that path, which is where used games is taking us. Towards shitty social/mobile/F2P. I'd prefer an alternative where deep, enjoyable single player games can actually have a fighting chance to make money. Because otherwise they don't get made. And they are already not getting made because of this.

Two pages ago social/mobile/f2p was used games' fault and now they are the genius brainchild of no used game systems that have successfully thrived where gaming is dying.

Bravo.

Why don't you just stop? EDIT: Anyway, I don't care. Ignored.
 
Thats not how it works though.

People will keep games like chess and twister and cranium because they have replay value.

If people want to make short, one go games that are quickly completed then they'll have to deal with people who make the choice to trade those games in.

Or they can make them unable to trade them in, thus freeing developers to make games with smaller scopes or higher densities viable instead of being forced to tack on stuff like multiplayer or senseless, boring grinds.
 

Kingbrave

Member
They have ONE shot at success because they're designed to be disposable and multiplayer only goes up in price post-release (the map pack tax). Put out free DLC and you'll encourage current owners to keep their copies just as you encourage new buyers. This is how things used to be done until the concept of free post-launch content and user-created content became verboten.

There are a variety of methods to solve the dilemma games are in, but you can't keep the status quo and have change. If this industry is to survive it has to forge new opportunities instead of removing choices and locking in customers to squeeze down the line. It short-sighted and unsustainable.

Why would I want to keep a game that is short and has no replay value? The way the industry has been headed for awhile has been short and no replay value.
 
Or they can make them unable to trade them in, thus freeing developers to make games with smaller scopes or higher densities viable instead of being forced to tack on stuff like multiplayer or senseless, boring grinds.
Yes, why add value when you can just remove choice. Lets pit publishers and developers directly against customers. Lets take the "easy" fix and rely upon fuzzy laws to guide us.

Real recipe for long term success right there.

Why would I want to keep a game that is short and has no replay value? The way the industry has been headed for awhile has been short and no replay value.
Exactly. Why would you?
 

Shaneus

Member
You're a bad man and you're killing the industry. Here, buy an Xbone.
Can I buy a second-hand one?

Hah, imagine that. Second-hand consoles in the future getting the same treatment as XB1 games will when they launch. Buy one off your mate, but to use it you have to pay $399 directly to Microsoft because they're missing out on a new sale.
 

hodgy100

Member
For the umpteenth time, it is different.

Games sell new copies because:
1) A large percentage of players want to play the game on launch day, when used games are unavailable
2) Incentives attached to new games, such as pre-order bonuses and codes for free DLC
3) Disincentives for used games, such as online codes
4) Convenience and immediacy: used games are not guaranteed to be available at a local shop or a favored store

I don't favor changing property/consumer rights. I favor moving to a model where the games do not become the player's property in the first place; they only get a non-transferable (or pay to transfer) license to use it. Just as happened with Steam. XBLA. PSN. And so on.

This change will result in quicker, steeper discounts for those buying new, and a wider range of possible game types and budgets. We've seen this happen already on platforms where it's been tried.

This wont happen as an inflated price of second hand games (with publishers and platform holders taking a cut) will also keep the price of new games high, we arent talking about open digital distribution market that the PC has where you can get games from multiple stores, everything will be managed through xbl and or psn, and this will prevent competition at retail.
 
Yes, why add value when you can just remove choice. Lets pit publishers and developers directly against customers. Lets take the "easy" fix and rely upon fuzzy laws to guide us.

Real recipe for long term success right there.


Exactly. Why would you?

Weren't bloated budgets this big problem? Guess what? Adding frivolous shit to extend game length and replay value results in bloated budgets! Shocking.

Where you see a choice being removed, I see dozens of choices being added - games that would not exist now becoming viable. And of course the choice between playing on a platform that allows resales and one that doesn't.
 

LAUGHTREY

Modesty becomes a woman
It's just the old "It's good for them, so it's good for us too!" rhetoric I've seen when the always online stuff first started.

There's literally 0 bonus for the customer to have an always online console, especially one that can't trade in games. Sad to see any part of PA take this stance.
 

Mael

Member
On the contrary. Heavy Rain cost €16.7 million to make and made Sony "more than €100 million"

Granted nearly €17 million spent on making the game and €40 million in total including advertising isn't a minimal fee by any means for the lower end of the spectrum, the point is that if publishers play it smart and don't keep spending $100 million trying to chase 10 million sellers only to break even, then the industry wouldn't be in the state it's in.
And worst of all it's hard to find new or used right now.

And I swear the industry will try everything before trying to satisfy the customers.
Next if you don't buy the games because you don't want to play them you'll be branded a criminal.
And kudos to the poster here trying to explain that all markets without secondary market are magically better.
I've never seen that and I've seen creative accounting!
 
This wont happen as an inflated price of second hand games (with publishers and platform holders taking a cut) will also keep the price of new games high, we arent talking about open digital distribution market that the PC has where you can get games from multiple stores, everything will be managed through xbl and or psn, and this will prevent competition at retail.

Publishers don't drop prices on Steam to compete against other distribution channels. They set the prices for their games in those other channels, too.

They drop prices to compete against other games and to attract price-sensitive users.

They will do this on XB1 as well, assuming that the discounts aren't undercut by used game prices. If used game resellers can simply undercut them again, then the discounts would be ineffective and thus pointless to enact.
 
Weren't bloated budgets this big problem? Guess what? Adding frivolous shit to extend game length and replay value results in bloated budgets! Shocking.
Don't just take your 4 hour cinematic experience and add frivolous shit and random grinds and collectibles and multiplayer modes (Why hello there Tomb Raider). Design it to be replayable. To have lasting value. Otherwise, and this is important: price accordingly.

Where you see a choice being removed, I see dozens of choices being added - games that would not exist now becoming viable. And of course the choice between playing on a platform that allows resales and one that doesn't.
I see the light. I do. Which is why we should eliminate resale from all products.

We need to make the pie higher.
 

Mael

Member
Publishers don't drop prices on Steam to compete against other distribution channels. They set the prices for their games in those other channels, too.

They drop prices to compete against other games and to attract price-sensitive users.

They will do this on XB1 as well, assuming that the discounts aren't undercut by used game prices. If used game resellers can simply undercut them again, then the discounts would be ineffective and thus pointless to enact.

I should try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge but it's probably 2nd hand now...
 
Don't just take your 4 hour cinematic experience and add frivolous shit. Design it to be replayable. To have lasting value. Otherwise, and this is important: price accordingly.

I agree that pricing appropriately is important. And having control over the price of every sold unit is part of that.

But I disagree that games should all be designed to be either replayable or long. Sometimes short and sweet is better and is still worth a premium price. But those kinds of games will disproportionately end up in the used game rack. Which is why nowadays they only get made for platforms where that's impossible.
 

Kingbrave

Member
Weren't bloated budgets this big problem? Guess what? Adding frivolous shit to extend game length and replay value results in bloated budgets! Shocking.

Where you see a choice being removed, I see dozens of choices being added - games that would not exist now becoming viable. And of course the choice between playing on a platform that allows resales and one that doesn't.

You think things will change and I just see everyone going after that COD money. It's kind of hard to be in the middle then.
 
It's just the old "It's good for them, so it's good for us too!" rhetoric I've seen when the always online stuff first started.

There's literally 0 bonus for the customer to have an always online console, especially one that can't trade in games. Sad to see any part of PA take this stance.

I think having all your games linked to a account and easily accessible is great.

Works great for Steam and I dont see why that kind of functionality on a conosle is somehow the worst thing in the world. How when Valve does something its good but Sony and MS its bad.

:/
 
But I disagree that games should all be designed to be either replayable or long. Sometimes short and sweet is better and is still worth a premium price. But those kinds of games will disproportionately end up in the used game rack. Which is why nowadays they only get made for platforms where that's impossible.
Think about it this way - design them to have "lasting value". That can mean a great many things.

Why do people buy movies instead of just renting them? Why do people still have games from 10 years ago? Hell, 5 years ago?

There's more than a few ways to skin this cat, but going along with human nature and established laws makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to make a flash in the pan into a keepsake.

I think having all your games linked to a account and easily accessible is great.
Having a console with online capabilities is a good thing, and everybody here would agree with that. Having a console that *requires* you to be online to play even single player games is not.

There's a huge difference between the two. Your smart phone goes online but you can still use features of the phone when offline. Same with your PC, laptop, tablet and just about any other internet enabled device out there.
 

LAUGHTREY

Modesty becomes a woman
I think having all your games linked to a account and easily accessible is great.

Works great for Steam and I dont see why that kind of functionality on a conosle is somehow the worst thing in the world. How when Valve does something its good but Sony and MS its bad.

:/

What does that even mean? All the games I've played are already linked to my account, you can see my achievements.

Steam is all digital download and a logical fallacy. You can't have a physical game disc from that store and trade it in or take it places. Steams offline mode is also working, and afaik it only didn't work because of a bug and not an intentional gate to play your games offline.
 

MMaRsu

Banned
For the umpteenth time, it is different.

Games sell new copies because:
1) A large percentage of players want to play the game on launch day, when used games are unavailable
2) Incentives attached to new games, such as pre-order bonuses and codes for free DLC
3) Disincentives for used games, such as online codes
4) Convenience and immediacy: used games are not guaranteed to be available at a local shop or a favored store

I don't favor changing property/consumer rights. I favor moving to a model where the games do not become the player's property in the first place; they only get a non-transferable (or pay to transfer) license to use it. Just as happened with Steam. XBLA. PSN. And so on.

This change will result in quicker, steeper discounts for those buying new, and a wider range of possible game types and budgets. We've seen this happen already on platforms where it's been tried.

NOPE! They will still create 60$ games that are "AAA". Digital sales of GOD on Xbox are horribly overpriced.
 

Yagharek

Member
I think having all your games linked to a account and easily accessible is great.

Works great for Steam and I dont see why that kind of functionality on a conosle is somehow the worst thing in the world. How when Valve does something its good but Sony and MS its bad.

:/

Because when MS and Sony do it, your old games don't carry over to the new hardware. With Steam/PC, you can maintain compatibility.
 

MasLegio

Banned
On the contrary. Heavy Rain cost €16.7 million to make and made Sony "more than €100 million"

Granted nearly €17 million spent on making the game and €40 million in total including advertising isn't a minimal fee by any means for the lower end of the spectrum, the point is that if publishers play it smart and don't keep spending $100 million trying to chase 10 million sellers only to break even, then the industry wouldn't be in the state it's in.



Normally when I sell my games it's to buy new ones...


and yet they cried like babies that used games cost them sales

http://www.gamespot.com/news/heavy-rain-dev-says-used-sales-cost-studio-millions-6333786

this is the fucking industry in a nutshell

it is all about the potential sales they might have had....
because to them any lost potential sale is theft
 
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.

citizen-kane-clapping-gif.gif
 

Xenon

Member
Because when MS and Sony do it, your old games don't carry over to the new hardware. With Steam/PC, you can maintain compatibility.

Their new hardware philosophy implies that the same may be true for them. But I know that is no guarantee and it's a valid point.


Im going to ask the same question in this thread I've ask in others and have yet to get a suitable answer. Name one other industry or product where a company like Gamestop exist and has as strong of presence. It has even got other big box retailers like Bestbuy selling used game?
 

MasLegio

Banned
Their new hardware philosophy implies that the same may be true for them. But I know that is no guarantee and it's a valid point.


Im going to ask the same question in this thread I've ask in others and have yet to get a suitable answer. Name one other industry or product where a company like Gamestop exist and has as strong of presence. It has even got other big box retailers like Bestbuy selling used game?

apparantly Gamestop and etc fill a void in the market.


Though I would never buy from them. It is cheaper for me to import new games from UK to Sweden than buy used games in a used games shop.
 

Majukun

Member
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.

well_done_sir.gif
 

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
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.
Well, we can shut down the internet now. There's not a truer truth that could ever be said.

I'd give you a handshake, but my hands are hurting from all the clapping you made me do.
 

Dascu

Member
I agree that pricing appropriately is important. And having control over the price of every sold unit is part of that.

But I disagree that games should all be designed to be either replayable or long. Sometimes short and sweet is better and is still worth a premium price. But those kinds of games will disproportionately end up in the used game rack. Which is why nowadays they only get made for platforms where that's impossible.

1. On PC, they also combat piracy. You can't ignore this and treat it differently from the resale market. It is another source of price-competition, just like used games. Yet developers still survive and games with high DRM/exclusion of piracy do not magically perform better in and of itself.

2. They are already priced lower from the get-go and there is the anticipation of sales on Steam, Indie Bundles, etc.

--

Your argument: Short singleplayer games (AKA short lifespan, quick resale with low value degradation) will benefit from prohibition of the used game market, correct?

My argument:
1. There is no market that has benefit from excluding competition. More monopolistic conditions have not lead to more variety, consumer choice and better pricing.
2. The later availability of these games, if they are moved to digital-only and transferability-blocking legal or technical measures will be threatened substantially.
3. Many of these games become popular due to people buying them used and spreading the word, buying follow-ups day one, and being able to save money to use on other small-scale titles.
4. The low prices and success of these games on platforms such as PC or XBLA/PSN/eShop is due to the low price from the get-go. And this low price is not because there is no price competition from used games. (On contrary, price competition is the heaviest on that first platform due to piracy.) It is because there is a different ecosystem there where low prices are not seen as lower value. It is because there is no competition with huge AAA megablockbusters.

Your aim is admirable, but I am very, very skeptical that blocking used games will benefit the middle-tier.

--

I do see an interest in working towards a full subscription-based system, where you say pay a fixed fee every month and you get access to games made available on that marketplace (similar to TV). Then it would be a true license/rental system with only temporary ownership and recurrent fees. It's not good for availability, but it could put all the different games and value propositions on an equal fighting ground. They would compete only for time and how you wish to spend it, not money.
 
Oh great, now the same bullshit about lower prices is popping up if there are no used games, just like it did when digital downloads started coming. Everyone was swearing up and down digital downloads of games would get us cheaper prices on games due to not having to make discs, but here we are and there is no fucking discount for going digital over physical. Corporations will always fuck over people, especially in the entertainment industry if given the chance. They are ran by greed.
 

Slair

Member
This change will result in quicker, steeper discounts for those buying new, and a wider range of possible game types and budgets. We've seen this happen already on platforms where it's been tried.

I dunno, I'm already buying new games less than a month after release, sometimes even a couple weeks after release for under £20. If I wait a couple months, I can get it for 10 ish quid. I don't think it'll drop nearly as fast or as low in the DRM controlled next gen.

The biggest problem I have is getting access to games that I didn't buy day one or close to day one. If there is a limited print run of a niche title, I can't buy a physical copy at all. I end up having to go digital, assuming that they actually bother to put up a digital copy, where if I want the title it's held ransom by ludicrously high digital pricing.
 
One thing that continues to amaze me about gamers is the willingness of some to not just let themselves be fucked over, but to actively solicit it. It's beyond apathy, it's "Yes, I agree with you taking my rights away from me".

In any other market you have to adapt and make your product better, or die. In gaming, users will turn around and defend your shitty practices, and your pathetic attempts to absolve yourselves of taking responsibility for your failures. They'll support you making your product worse in a witch hunt. They'll support you when you say "Even though you selling goods you own is your right and none of my business, I want more money and I want a cut of that". Shareholders and execs from the outside can only dream of their customers being so docile and compliant.

I still play old games of mine all the time. I was playing the original Halo's SP recently, a game I've owned for over 10 years and still fucking works. You know why I still play it? Because it has good replayability, unlike this scripted shit you see today.

Make your games worth keeping. Make them unique. Make them replayable. If used games hurt your business that badly, then it's because you've created poor products that aren't worth keeping. Deal with 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.

This man gets it. Give him a fucking medal internet.
 
Sorry I'm not dropping to my knees and praising benevolent Microsoft for taking away my consumer rights.

Every other industry in the planet deals with with resale just fine. Why is it the poor little video game industry that needs protecting?

This right here. I can buy and resell anything I own. Why can't they just deal with it? I really hope Sony doesn't go this route.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
I have the right to sell my blu-ray movie once I buy it.

You can thank the people who stood up to the divx nightmare for that. Gamers are in the same spot right now. We can either tell them to fuck off or take it up the ass and pay 59.99 for the permission to rent a game.
 
Top Bottom