CadetMahoney said:

Well we agree. I actually mentioned this many times. If this is the reason then he has no basis to claim "wear and tear" -is the reason- and if that is not what he is saying perhaps he should phrase his sentences better. I can only reply to what is typed.

If someone tries to tell the the difference between something that is beside the point it's going off on a tangent. It's not the reason why Online Passes are being implemented.

Click to expand...

Again, my point is that I think you're the one going on the tangent.

Go back and look at Machines post. Do you agree with him that "wear and tear" is a logical disconnect and the convoluted rationale to justify devs being entitled to a further cut after initial point of sale? Multiplayer is historically part of the initial sale. If you sell it or use it all year round, it is still only one person using it.

Click to expand...

I'm only talking about what Machine has said on the last page. I'm not entirely sure what post you're referring to here since it seems like you've totally rephrased the question. I'm not even entirely clear on what your question is.

Sure it's different from a car. So? That's not why Online Passes exist. So why keep repeating the same thing over and over again when it is beside the point as you have already agreed?

Click to expand...

Because you are trying to argue this:

CadetMahoney said:

Also factor in this, there is "wear and tear" on the time-exclusive hardware to play it on. So it is tied to something that does "wear and tear". Can't buy new xbox 1's nowadays.

Click to expand...

Cd players and DVD players wear and tear as well. That doesn't devalue cds or dvds. Maybe you can't buy a new xbox 1 but then that's why people argue for backwards compatibility (which most games are).

Since you are so keen to speak for him do you agree with him on additional fees for storing data such as leaderboards and stats? He seems to have conveniently left the debate. I guess you're gonna tell me that he meant something different and just phrased it poorly right?

Click to expand...

I don't though companies who decide to run their own servers aren't able to do it at no cost to themselves.

staticneuron said:

Since when? There wasn't much online multiplayer last gen on consoles and basically this is the first gen they have done so on a large scale.

Click to expand...

1 Multiplayer both on console and PC have a long history of being part of the initial sale without an additional fee. Not in every case but this is arguable the status quo on how multiplayer is perceived. Otherwise no one would be complaining.

2 Online Passes have been implemented in the latter part of this gen at any large scale. This is a reaction to the used market. It's fair to say it's a new phenomenon.

staticneuron said:

And to the point of attrition, the effects are normally felt for longer than a single year.

Click to expand...

If a dev can't estimate the costs of multiplayer after a year perhaps they need to hire new ppl to calculate better. Funny how they've been doing fine up until the used market got out of hand (in their opinion).

staticneuron said:

Whatever wear and tear you suffer on your console is not the fault of the pubs.

Click to expand...

Nice try. Never said it was, no more so than the wear and tear on my car is the fault of the manufacturer.

staticneuron said:

I know people to this day that have working atari's. . .

Click to expand...

Yea I know ppl who still drive an old banger and it serves then just fine. What is your point?

staticneuron said:

. . .so that part is in the hands of the owners and is not a factor in the discussion when talking about most games.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. No one is blaming the manufacturer for wear and tear. I don't even know how you reached that conclusion. The exclusive hardware it is tied to suffers wear and tear. I can't buy a new xbox1 but can get new cd and movie players.

used game sales reflect actual market value of games. so what if you dont want a game anymore? is there some type of game recycling program where you send it back to the publisher to repackage and sell at msrp? Yay for used games.

GuitarAtomik said:

I'm not entirely sure what post you're referring to here since it seems like you've totally rephrased the question. I'm not even entirely clear on what your question is.

Click to expand...

Not rephrasing. He was asking why devs feel games are magically exempt from other used products on the market:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35273957&postcount=41

Now if someone tries to explain the difference between the products (cars/games/whatever) the point of explaining that difference would be to what end? Of course it would be justify something right. Otherwise it would be beside the point and not answer his question right?

We both know the real answer is simply the used games market getting too big and devs reacting to it, not because games do not "wear and tear". It's simply a case where they would probably ignore it if the used market was only a fraction of what it is.

GuitarAtomik said:

I don't though companies who decide to run their own servers aren't able to do it at no cost to themselves.

Click to expand...

Which is why they factor those costs into the initial sale. If it's something to ponder they have managed fine in having leaderboards and in some popular games stats so far.

GuitarAtomik said:

Cd players and DVD players wear and tear as well. That doesn't devalue cds or dvds.

Click to expand...

But not being able to buy the exclusive hardware anymore does devalue games.

GuitarAtomik said:

Maybe you can't buy a new xbox 1 but then that's why people argue for backwards compatibility (which most games are).

Click to expand...

xbox 1 bc is basically half (support dropped in 2007) for the amount of titles that are actually emulated (and a large percent of those poorly - such as Panzer Orta). They're not looking on spending anymore money on BC from the looks of it.

CadetMahoney said:

Nice try. Never said it was, no more so than the wear and tear on my car is the fault of the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

Repairs and maintenance for a car can be done by the manufacturer. That is not the case for consoles and publishers.

CadetMahoney said:

Not rephrasing. He was asking why devs feel games are magically exempt from other used products on the market:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35273957&postcount=41

Now if someone tries to explain the difference between the products (cars/games/whatever) the point of explaining that difference would be to what end? Of course it would be justify something right. Otherwise it would be beside the point and not answer his question right?

Click to expand...

And I agree with him that the difference between these markets are two things: 1] Wear and tear is not a factor for games as it is physical items such as cars or houses because a game either works or doesn't. 2] Everything else that's more analogous such as movies or music have multiple points of revenue while games have only one (two if you count the dwindling rental market). If you want to call that justifying then ok.

We both know the real answer is simply the used games market getting too big and devs reacting to it, not because games do not "wear and tear". It's simply a case where they would probably ignore it if the used market was only a fraction of what it is.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against that point at all. The fact is that no other market has an equivalent to Gamestop. ONE store that accounts for around 21% of the US market sales that is actively and aggressively pushing a used product over the new.

Which is why they factor those costs into the initial sale. If it's something to ponder they have managed fine in having leaderboards and in some popular games stats so far.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Just wanted to point that out.

But not being able to buy the exclusive hardware anymore does devalue games.
xbox 1 bc is basically half (support dropped in 2007) for the amount of titles that are actually emulated (and a large percent of those poorly - such as Panzer Orta). They're not looking on spending anymore money on BC from the looks of it.

Click to expand...

Depends. How much does a new copy of Chrono Trigger go on ebay these days? I don't think devs/pubs care about the the used sales of games from last gen.

Let me just state my opinion on all this to be clear. Personally, I don't care about online passes as long as it's free to new game buyers. Does it inconvenience me for 5 minutes inputting the code? Sure, but does it take up any more time than installing a game on PC or typing in a cd key back in the day? No. Did people bitch this much when they had to use a code wheel or search for a random word in the instructions? The fact is it's free and relatively painless to someone who bought it new. The publishers don't give a shit if your used copy is gimped and honestly why should they? They're not seeing a dime of that sale. Sure it sucks if I want to lend the game to a friend but that's just the point we're at now.

Again the reasons why I feel the publishers are "justified" in this and the situation is different from other used markets is because of Gamestop's aggressive strategy of pushing used games over new, the fact that no other market has a comparable situation to the one they have with Gamestop, and the fact that games only have one point of revenue compared to other markets which is that new product.

Personally I like to support the people who make the entertainment I like so that they can continue making entertainment I like whether that's movies, music, or games and I don't think that's delusional company loyalty as some have said here.

EDIT:
I should also add that Gamestop is just trying to make money and I can't fault them for that either.

GuitarAtomik said:

I'm not arguing against that point at all. The fact is that no other market has an equivalent to Gamestop. ONE store that accounts for around 21% of the US market sales that is actively and aggressively pushing a used product over the new.

Click to expand...

Google tells me that the used car market is twice as big as the new car market in the US. But then again, car manufacturers know that they would sell a lot fewer new cars if the owners could not sell them used at will.

jorma said:

Google tells me that the used car market is twice as big as the new car market in the US. But then again, car manufacturers know that they would sell a lot fewer new cars if the owners could not sell them used at will.

Click to expand...

Again are we going back to the used car analogy? The benefits of buying a new car over a used one are obvious. The same benefits don't apply to games since they either work or don't.

Not to mention there is no Gamestop of cars.

GuitarAtomik said:

Again are we going back to the used car analogy? The benefits of buying a new car over a used one are obvious. The same benefits don't apply to games since they either work or don't.

Not to mention there is no Gamestop of cars.

Click to expand...

You used cars and houses in your post and then try to pretend i brought it up?

I have no idea how big the second hand housing market is, but i bet it dwarves the market for houses with no previous owners. What are the obvious benefits with a new house?

jorma said:

You used cars and houses in your post and then try to pretend i brought it up?

I have no idea how big the second hand housing market is, but i bet it dwarves the market for houses with no previous owners. What are the obvious benefits with a new house?

Click to expand...

Cars and houses have been brought up many times in this thread. The obvious benefits with a new house is that it is NEW. No wear and tear. An old house is way more likely to have plenty of problems which could cost thousands of dollars to fix. Same with a car.

GuitarAtomik said:

Again are we going back to the used car analogy? The benefits of buying a new car over a used one are obvious. The same benefits don't apply to games since they either work or don't.

Not to mention there is no Gamestop of cars.

Click to expand...

And what about books?

Htown said:

And what about books?

Click to expand...

Books wear and tear too. That's why older editions tend to be more valuable even though there are re-issues that could give you the exact same "experience".

MrNyarlathotep said:

This is the exact reason why movie rental 'first copies' are extremely expensive to purchase; so that the rental store and the publisher can both see some of that repeat revenue in a fairer manner (a new release rental DVD will cost over $100 for the rental store to purchase, with the expectancy that each rental DVD is rented to at least 10 people).

Click to expand...

In a free market someone (Gamestop) thought it was a good idea to just trade in used products to avoid all that. Not against the law so it's all fair and it definitely a viable business for games. Of course it's now a case of devs having to adapt. Not sure if these Online Passes and day 1 DLC are the right way to go about it. Complaining about retailers and taking it out on the gamer. The only reason this $10 pass is around is because they are trying to be passive aggressive with retailers.

As someone said before the problem is that the game industry feeds their own demons. They complain about stores like Gamestop selling used games and hurting them yet they continue to support Gamestop with things like exclusive DLC and stuff like that. Stores like Gamestop then put pressure on them to overcharge for their digital content (remember Warhawk being pulled from shelves?).

mugwhump said:

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

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

Click to expand...

There was a thread about the next gen xbox possibly going to be digital only or something. As much as I see the point of going that route for the industry as a whole, as a consumer looking for the best deals that doesn't make me feel good. Since the next gen Nintendo isn't going that route I don't think MS or Sony will either.

Tellaerin said:

Because manufacturers in every other industry accept the fact that once a consumer purchases their product, it's theirs. That person can then turn around and lend it out, resell it, give it away, or whatever, and they're not obligated to give the manufacturer a single penny. Which is as it should be.

Only in the videogame industry do you see companies fighting tooth and nail to deny consumers ownership of the things they buy. Worse yet, they honestly seem to believe they're entitled to a cut of any secondhand transactions - that somehow, videogames are more deserving than any other product that gets bought and sold secondhand, be it cars, books, clothes, or whatever. As much as I love games, they're not inherently special in that regard.

Click to expand...

As a consumer this is spot on, legally and morally. I can see where EA, for example would want to see Gamestop go away, but that's just tough really.

Htown said:

And what about books?

Click to expand...

Games, cars, books and houses are different. However the differences don't give companies a moral or logical justification to be entitled to a cut of sales after the initial point of sale. Since a company cannot demand this we have what we have now where parts of games which were already included in the initial point of sale are siphoned off as seperate products (multiplayer and day 1 dlc).

If someone asks you why devs are implementing these things it's not because of the differences. It's because the used market is getting out of hand. Having said that I believe EA and maybe some Sony exclusive games are the only vocal ones in doing this since the latter part of last year.

Another point is that charging for multiplayer directly devalues Xbox Live subscriptions. The status quo was that you buy a game and xbox Live would cover that mulitplayer experience amongst other things whether or not the game is bought used or new. Now all these additional $10 fees are coming up for a segment of the gaming population that pay for Live. Obviously Microsoft should be looking carefully into this.

Could it be this is why the big companies with leverage such as EA are very vocal in doing this anyway. Sony are also keen to devalue xbox Live I would assume so they have an additional motive to support this in their exclusive games. If they get the ball rolling and more companies jump on board with these practices this move hurts Live users more than PSN users, if you're going down, do as much damage as possible I say. ^^

GuitarAtomik said:

I don't think devs/pubs care about the the used sales of games from last gen.

Click to expand...

Oh definitely. Arguably more to the point regarding the concept of "wear and tear". Games are not affected by wear and tear up to the point where the exclusive hardware to play games on is still manufactured. Once the hardware cannot be bought new anymore you have a problem since he game is tied to the hardware. The devalues the software even more.

Since things like Online Passes are relevant when the generation and it's hardware is still very active, you can say it doesn't really matter and I would agree, but I am highlighting "wear and tear" still exists for games and affects their value over time.

About Chrono Trigger, I don't know maybe ppl put value in it as a collectors item or something, but that's normal for rare items to increase in value.

CadetMahoney said:

As someone said before the problem is that the game industry feeds their own demons. They complain about stores like Gamestop selling used games and hurting them yet they continue to support Gamestop with things like exclusive DLC and stuff like that. Stores like Gamestop then put pressure on them to overcharge for their digital content (remember Warhawk being pulled from shelves?).

Click to expand...

Totally agree. This is also a result of Gamestop having so much market share as well. They're forced to play ball with them because of it.