-
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.
DICE: Anti Used System 'can be a win and a loss'.
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
Would you also purchase those games for an always online console where you know that someday you won`t be able to play your games because the certification servers will be shut down?
The point is, to use the book example, the child may not technically be their customer because they were not the one to buy the book, but the parent may not have bought the book in the first place if they knew they would not be able to let their child read the book after they had. That fact was part of the purchasing decision.
The same happens with games. The ability to resell the game for $15/20 or lend the game to a friend, or use on another console is all factored into the purchase decision. Publishers use the same argument they use against piracy, that each used sale is a new sale that's been taken from them, when in reality, charging the same amount for a game people can't sell, trade, or lend may end up resulting in people simply buying less games.
The 2nd hand customers may not be DICE's actual customers, but those people being there may be part of the reason why DICE's actual customers buy their games.
Str0ngStyle
Member
Honestly, if the company that just went out of business and revoked my shit has enough cash to sue me, then they had better have enough cash to unlock my game
Until the customer stops buying the game, DICE does not care. Give them money or they don't care what you think about their product is basically what they're saying.
Version 3.0
Member
Enough with the "license" crap. Seriously, stop eating up the brainwashing BS. According to US copyright law, you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE to play a game. Games are purchased, not licensed, and first sale doctrine applies.
This is from an old post I made in another thread. If you don't believe Wikipedia when it tells you that you do own what you buy, feel free to look into it further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
This is from an old post I made in another thread. If you don't believe Wikipedia when it tells you that you do own what you buy, feel free to look into it further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
Version 3.0
Member
And my position is much the same: I'm not buying something you think I don't then own.
Interficium
Banned
People like this, and those who believe that all the anti-consumer stuff like DLC, preorder bonuses, online passes, etc. are going to magically disappear once used games are eliminated are living in a dream world. Used games slightly impede the bottom line of publishers, who's chief goal is to make MORE MONEY then they did the previous year, thus they need to be eliminated, so they can make more money.
DLC, preorder bonuses, online passes, they all make money for the publisher, why would those things go away with the death of used games? People seem to think there is going to be some kind of give and take with the publishers, where if used games go away we're going to get more originality and less DLC, when really the relationship is more like "take and take."
NullPointer
Member
Look no further for a recent example of this than EA shutting down servers for games with online passes. You remember, those passes that were justified on the basis of covering server costs?
There is indeed no give and take. They reduce costs and pocket the difference.
If there has ever been an example of true give and take by publishers not named Valve I'd love to know about it.
The problem is their due diligence, budgeting, analysis and modelling is (more then likely) based on a maximum potential revenue scenario, ala like a small town pizza shop...
Pizza store in a small town of 50 people... everyone likes pizza right?
They should be planning on selling 20 pizzas a week at $10, because it's an occasional thing, once a fortnight, as a treat / too lazy to cook / whatever, revenue of $200, cool.
But hang on, everyone likes pizza right? And there's 50 people in this town. And we're open seven days a week... so we should be selling like 350 pizzas a week, thats $3,500 revenue, awesome!
And then there's the cats, everyone in the town loves cats, and everyone knows cats love pizza....
That's not how you do proper data modelling or forecasting, and if you do, and expect that, and run your business like that, well, more fool you.
Explain online passes and platforms like Steam/Origin/etc
Version 3.0
Member
Online play: though you own the game you purchased, the company is under no obligation to provide you with continuous service for it.
Steam/Origin/etc: again, you own the game, but nothing in the law states that a company which sells you a game without physical media is under any obligation to provide you with the means to re-sell it. The law states that you own it and have the right to re-sell it, but if the only way you have to do so is to sell your entire PC, then it's fairly unlikely that you will.
That's why this stuff needs to go to court, and soon. The technology has outpaced the laws in place, and publishers are side-stepping the intent and trying to back into a service model. It throws the whole situation into a grey area.
We need clarification: are we going to own what we buy from now on, or not? I hope this will come to a head and go to court, so we'll know. If next-gen consoles are as anti-consumer as they're rumored to be, then I'd love to see Gamestop sue Sony/Microsoft and get this settled.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Sure it would. But I'm not a gaming company. I'm not under any obligation to let them "win" just because I'd want to win if I was in their position. I don't tip the car dealer, either or let the finance guy squeeze me for a few points just to be a nice guy. I squeeze them just like they squeeze me, and I get the best deal I can. You're not friends with these people.
They're big boys and girls and they're in a big business. It's up to them to figure out a profitable method of running their businesses, and they need to do it in a way that doesn't force me to give up my property rights without merit or compensation.
If some of them fold because they don't figure out how to survive, they can try putting up aluminum siding. I know it seems like I'm being snarky, but I'm really not. I didn't go buy a Corvette just to help GM feel better about themselves, either, and I sure as hell wouldn't have signed a contract that granted them any right of first refusal for resale.
Because it's my right to sell my personal property if I want to sell it. I haven't resold more than one game in the last five years. I usually give them away to friends or relatives if I don't want them. My perogative, either way. In my jurisdiction, I don't have to justify my rights to resale based on volume of any goods except for firearms, volatile chemicals, or livestock. I may never resale another game in my life. It's still my decision to do so.
Yes, but on the bright side, it will probably kill the industry, we will see landfill after landfill with PS4s and Nextboxes, and everyone in the industry will ponder on what the fuck they did wrong.
the only logical outcome of that train of thought will be that it was the pirates and used-game-economy
Don't forget IOS
Version 3.0
Member
No, they won't. As I posted earlier, they'll just blame Apple. This industry of crybabies will always have someone else to blame.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
STOP comparing games with cars. Don't you see that is insane?
We are not talking about being friends with someone, we are talking about appreciation of an art form. The way I see it I tell the developers and publishers something when I buy their game, and that is: I want more games like that. It's the same with music and movies.
A lot of people complain about how Resident Evil changed completely. Well, no shit. If people ain't buying horror games, Capcom ain't gonna make them. It's no use if people love the games, they have to buy them. Why is everyone trying to be like Call of Duty? Well because people buy Call of Duty games. And yes, I do strong believe that people like to play other shooters as well, they just don't wanna pay for them.
So if you like a series and actually want it to continue, how about not selling "your property" but encouraging other people to buy these games? That is the only way how you can actually influence the industry. I bought several games solely to support them, not knowing when I'll find time to acutally play them.
You're not really looking at the full picture, do you? The development costs grew extremly this generation, I think we all agree to that. Now, why do we even have this generation? It's because we gamers wanted it. The pubishers have to adapt to that but are obviously struggling with this since many gamers actually do always want better looking games but they don't want to pay for them.
So what should publishers do if people buy 360s and PS3s? Continue making only games for Xbox and PS2 to save costs? You're delusional.
Well, I'm sure you're writing harsh emails to Valve and Apple every day. Good luck man. Let's see how long it takes before Apple allows you to resell Angry Brids.
Really? really? cmon now son. I think what actually scares me is people who expect devs to work for free and who at the first inkling of dlc lay down the "i'll buy it when it's complete and 5 bucks" card. I mean really? I guess you can do that but it just seems petty to me. The same sort of pettiness and sense of entitlement that creeps through a lot of opinions on dlc and used games. It seems like a lot of people want to do the ostrich with their head in the sand acting like the profit of companies like gamestop via used games (which, let's be honest here, where does THAT money go? it's sure as hell not in your pocket and it's also sure as hell not funding future development) is not significant to the economic state of the industry. Is it the sole defining feature keeping all games from being financial successes? hell fuckin' no. There are games with bloated budgets and terrible tools, there are games that just suck, and there are a lot of games thinking they can all afford to chase the same exact dollar from the same exact demographic.
These are ALL issues, however I think that budgetary concerns for powerful next-gen hardware is well overblown and there's a lot that can be done on the back-end to improve quality of life and speed of content delivery for artists and designers, things that if focused on, can be used to increase visual fidelity while keeping budgets in check.
I also have never believed that I owned the software I was using and maybe that's because you don't own the software. It's that simple, you don't have the right to reproduce the software, or the right to modify the software. You have a license to use the software. It seems funny to me that right now the most 'generous' of developers (valve, CDPR, etc) are so on the PC platform, the platform most locked down for legitimate users via cd keys and steam registration. That says something to me about how worthwhile it is for them to add content to an older game in terms of sales, money in their pockets, without having to directly monetize the content itself. So, I don't think anyone has any right to DLC content on the basis of it's storage location or temporal proximity to launch. In the end that argument really boils down to "but I want it!" which just isn't good enough. That said I felt burned by ME3, only slightly by Javiik(lack of integration into the majority of the game was depressing considering his status as the last living prothean), and far moreso by the ending, and I will be adopting a wait and see approach with Bioware's next.
As for used games I think it is naively disingenous to argue that gamestop does not know which side it's bread is buttered on. It's pretty clear that gamestop works to put used game titles on it's shelves via it's trade in offers and then sell those titles, sometimes at an extremely minor discount to the consumer. It works, too, I know lots of people who have bought relatively new titles used at 5 dollars off and if that's not cannibalizing new game sales then I don't know what the fuck is. Now you might argue that because of gamestop you have money to buy new titles but how much are you getting for the titles you turn in and how does that compare to the money gamestop sucks out when they sell those titles used? If gamestop is making a profit as a seller of used games then it's pretty clear that the money you get from trading in used towards new is not equal to the money that they get selling used titles when a new title might be available and as such results as a net negative effect on new games sales. Even if we assume that all of the money gamers get back from trading in their used goes toward new purchases we wind up with some simplified math like this
where all values >0
using Gr to represent the revenue of gamestop from used sales, and Gp to represent the profit and Gc to represent it's costs
using Tm to represent the money to gamers of trade-ins and Tu to represent the money spent on used titles at gamestop then
Gr = Tu
Gp = Gr - (Gc + Tm)
since all values are greater than 0 we know that Gp and Gr are both positive and therefore
Gr > Gc + Tm
Tu > Gc + Tm
which means
Tu = Gc + Tm + n
n here is the value of the extra money that is needed to bring gamestop into being profitable. It is clearly in addition to all of the money that gamers get from trading in their games. There is no point at which gamestop's used business is a benefit to the industry, so there goes that argument. Is it good for gamers though? Good for gamers seems to depend on a lot of different variables, gamers are definitely going to be able to buy more games but looking at trends in the PC space compared to the console space it doesn't seem that much better what with all the various sales and whatnot. This is, of course, anecdotal but "good for gamers" is far too broad as gamers benefit from such a wide variety of things.
Now lets separate that out, I'm a big fan of trading and sharing games among friends but it's pretty clear to me at least that what gamestop is doing is predatory and cannibalistic. I don't want to keep people from being able trade and share games among their friends. Perhaps a system of direct license transfers would be more appropriate than an all out ban on re-using games. Allowing users to transfer licenses to other specific machines would allow them to move games between people they know while stalling or perhaps even preventing the anonymous sales at places like gamestop.
Anyways, anyone who's talking about the death of the industry is being melodramatic and ought to stop.
RoninChaos
Member
SquidyJ and theExorzist, I have a question; if gamestop is so bad for the industry, why does the industry keep doing business with gamestop? Why do they keep doing pre-order bonuses and the like, if Gamestop solely exists to take money off developers' tables?
Why not just give the finger to Gamestop?
Why not just give the finger to Gamestop?
Version 3.0
Member
You are looking at this from such a ridiculous view, really. First, costs are under the publisher's control, not mine. So you and they can both stop blaming us for that. They should grow up and take responsibility for their own business, and stay out of mine.
And if people "want it but don't want to pay for it", then that would be a business that's not viable. Make something else, get more efficient at what you do, or move on to something that sells. Trying to force the customer to pay more is not going to work. It may also be illegal, depending on how they do it. Attempting to sell your product but retain ownership of it also won't work - at the very least, not with me. And that is illegal.
Version 3.0
Member
Your view is very common, but incredibly naive. Because Gamestop's model contributes money back into the industry - many millions of dollars each year in new game sales is generated by used game trade-ins.
Sharing among friends is by far the worst possible scenario from the publisher's financial standpoint.
And your proposed "license transfer" system wouldn't prevent people from selling to strangers, anyway. You're not really naive enough to think people can't communicate with strangers in order to sell things, are you? Ever heard of eBay? Amazon? Gamestop, or any other company, could very easily facilitate such a sale.
But here's what you and everyone else who's critical of used sales needs to realize: good and bad are not determined by finances. Any number of products can be sold second-hand, and that potentially prevents a new sale. But only the videogame industry thinks there's anything wrong with it. They don't deserve special treatment, and certainly not at the expense of my rights.
And do what? go digital? Direct download? particularly for consoles you should be able to see why that won't work. Anyways, I'm not saying gamestop is universally the devil (gamestop is universally the devil) but that their used games practices are cannibalistic. So the next question would be, what exactly does gamestop do that's good for the industry? well they sell new titles and they promote the product that they carry. I think it's important to address this used games issue but storage mediums and internet service and digital download platforms simply do not currently have the strength and penetration required to support a download only present for devs. Now, once you have retail disks out there floating around Gamestop is going to want to buy them, or Best Buy, or whoever else sells games. I use gamestop as the most prominent example due to it's game based business but it's just as true of many other retailers.
Version 3.0
Member
They might not know the answer to that (or may just not like it), but I do: because Gamestop is the #1 new game retailer. They contribute more to the bottom line of publishers than any other company. Publishers want to pretend that has nothing to do with the used game business - they think they can get rid of one without harming the other.
Uhhhh, gamestop used sales takes money out of the industry, not as much per unit as the individual transfer, but it does enough units to make it worse. So what are you saying? under my hastily proposed system gamestop would act as a broker between two individuals and take a cut? I fully expect there to be direct selling, and probably trading/selling websites and communities to pop up, my contention is that the change would shrink the market although I may be wrong. Straight up trading also wouldn't result in more sales, but there wouldn't be profit under the system between individual sellers, ideally there wouldn't be any sort of organized bloc to make 'flipping' titles work the way it does with gamestop. You'd sell the title at whatever price and the odds are that money would either circle around the system or be used to purchase new games in it's entirety, instead of being paid out somewhere else and draining the system.
Anyways, in case you didn't read this the first time, there is no way used sales at gamestop are a benefit to the industry.
where all values >0
using Gr to represent the revenue of gamestop from used sales, and Gp to represent the profit and Gc to represent it's costs
using Tm to represent the money to gamers of trade-ins and Tu to represent the money spent on used titles at gamestop then
Gr = Tu
Gp = Gr - (Gc + Tm)
since all values are greater than 0 we know that Gp and Gr are both positive and therefore
Gr > Gc + Tm
Tu > Gc + Tm
which means
Tu = Gc + Tm + n
n here is the value of the extra money that is needed to bring gamestop into being profitable. It is clearly in addition to all of the money that gamers get from trading in their games. There is no point at which gamestop's used business is a benefit to the industry, so there goes that argument. Is it good for gamers though? Good for gamers seems to depend on a lot of different variables, gamers are definitely going to be able to buy more games but looking at trends in the PC space compared to the console space it doesn't seem that much better what with all the various sales and whatnot. This is, of course, anecdotal but "good for gamers" is far too broad as gamers benefit from such a wide variety of things.
your condescension is so delicious.
Just do what i do...........RENT. It's cheaper than buying the game outright and if you Gamefly it like me, you can hold it as long as you want. I never understood how with the option of things like gamefly today, why people still buy games new, beat them and trade them in for the next game. If you aren't planing on keeping the game, there is no reason not to rent these days IMO.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
Oh, I think every one of us is responsible because every one of us wants better looking games. I know I want. And I'm ready to pay for it and so should everybody else.
They are not forcing you to pay more. They are forcing you to pay them for their work. And they have every right to do that.
NullPointer
Member
Then just charge more.
Screw all these gimmicks and attempts to eliminate consumer rights. Its manipulative and shows a lack of respect for the gaming audience that does indeed keep these businesses going.
You're completely clueless.
I wouldn't dare get into it with you at this point because you've clearly convinced yourself......
That's a great argument and rebuttal. Here, let me try.
You're completely clueless, but I wouldn't dare get into it with you at this point because you've clearly convinced yourself.....
did I get the number of periods right?
Yeah I think that's what I said, they need retailers and gamestop is the biggest retailer. Isn't that what I said?
RoninChaos
Member
That's exactly why. Nothing is stopping them from simply not doing business with Gamestop. They can talk shit about the company all they want, but they NEED Gamestop. That's gotta piss publishers and devs off.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Not when you look at them as transferrable property. Hell, cars are even harder to transfer since you need to worry about making sure the other owner re-registers with the state, but we can use DVDs if you'd like. Works for me. They don't even depreciate like cars.
I can resell CDs and DVDs. Your art form travels along with the disc. Hell, I can resell paintings. Statues. A vase. If it's all about the art, what's the difference between selling a video game and a vase beyond portability and (possibly) entrance price? Does the guy who buys the vase have to go all the way back to the artist who created the vase and pay them off for the priviledge of seeing that beautiful vase?
The generalization of entertainment into genres and sophistication levels that sell the most is hardly limited to video games. TV shows and movies are also pretty much lowest common denominator and/or rehashes of proven franchises when it comes to the higher end. You're looking in the wrong place if you want to blame game resale for 21st century mass market appeal.
I'm glad you have enough excess income that you can float the gaming industry. I don't see how this is relevant to my own purchasing habits or whether or not I can sell the games I've purchased, or why I should go tell my less fortunate brother-in-law that I can't give him my game and he should go buy his own because otherwise they'll make another Call of Duty.
No, I'm pretty sure I am looking at the full picture. I'm pretty sure I'm saying that a business needs to stand on its own merits, regardless of what product that business provides, short of that product being a necessity for life. I'm pretty sure that I'm not obligated to keep them in business after I've purchased a product by way of denying that product to someone else. I'm pretty sure that the costs involved in creating entertainment also have shit-all to do with property rights. But, if you want to call me delusional, that's ok.
Rental systems won't work next gen. Unless you like paying for a game to go into demo mode for single player and completely lock out its online until you for over $10-20 per game.
I get the impression that a lot of publishers would have gone DD only or at least instituted "disc keys" if every market had broadband on par with a place like South Korea. They still have to sell games to people who do not bother to put an ethernet cable into their console or configure wifi.
I would not mind a situation where only being able to get the game new meant it was supported the way PC games were circa Unreal Tournament 2004. You got your money's worth and then some. But they've got people hooked on DLC so that won't be going away no matter what happens.
I would not mind a situation where only being able to get the game new meant it was supported the way PC games were circa Unreal Tournament 2004. You got your money's worth and then some. But they've got people hooked on DLC so that won't be going away no matter what happens.
Quicksilver4648
Member
I almost never buy or sell used games, but I am still being punished as if I did. If I buy a game and I can't let my friend borrow it over the weekend then the system failed.
See the problem is you look at a musician releasing a cd and you fail to mention his concert tour. You look at a film on a dvd and it was in theatres before it was available for rental before it was available for purchase. These industries have different models of renumeration meaning they have other revenue streams available. You're basically comparing the last stop on the line for other media with the one and only source of compensation for game devs which is a little bit misleading to be honest.
When I said gamestop I meant gamestop's used sales, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, I should probably edit that line. I then demonstrated my point.
As I said, I wouldn't dare get into it with you because you've clearly convinced yourself and made your stance. I'll just point out that......
How do you honestly know that? Do you have the actual data to back that up? Because it seems that that line of thinking is the entire backbone of your little thesis there.
If you're taking what the publishers are saying in these interviews at face value, then I'm sorry, but you're a sucker. They're full of shit and want more of our money because they're spending more money turning their ideas into games. That's all this is about. The system on their end is broken. Not ours.......
Jake Tower
Banned
Do they really? What person would stop buying video games because there was no more Gamestop or Gamestop-equivilent. There are plenty of stores that already carry huge amounts of games that would pick up the slack in sales. There would be slightly less competition in price, but Gamestop's prices are never competitive anyway.
Gamestop's sole unique benefit to the video game market is the exact thing that publishers hate so much.
Devs don't actually want Gamestop gone, Gamestop is actually a great business partner for them. Gamestop pays for exclusive preorder content all the damn time, and there was a time where almost half of the video game commericials you would see on TV were co-marketing deals with Gamestop. When all digital can be a reality, they'll tell Gamestop to fuck off, but for the moment they are just using Gamestop and used games as the scapegoat to nickle and dime their customers with DLC, online passes and the like.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Yup, the used game excuse is invalid as long as publishers support the companies that sell them. As I said before. Don't go after the drug user, go after the drug dealer.
I guess I'm just a Corporate apologist then. lol.
because I haven't seen that term in this thread, no, not even once /sarcasm
I didn't say any and every opinion demonstrates a sense of entitlement but there is a line of thought that does and it rears it's head in threads like these.
NullPointer
Member
OK, say they make used sales a thing of the past. And lets say it leads to a nice bump in publisher earnings.
What will they pull next to keep that bump going?
Its always about growth (at all costs) and never about sustainability, and thus the push-back against consumer interests will continue. It will continue until it eventually hits a wall and the system comes crashing down.
So I ask again, why not just raise prices? Well the lack of response leads me to think the obvious: Because they want to eliminate used sales and then raise prices.
What will they pull next to keep that bump going?
Its always about growth (at all costs) and never about sustainability, and thus the push-back against consumer interests will continue. It will continue until it eventually hits a wall and the system comes crashing down.
So I ask again, why not just raise prices? Well the lack of response leads me to think the obvious: Because they want to eliminate used sales and then raise prices.
You can say that about the current (perverted version of) capitalism that permeates the globe as well. The inequality has grown instead of shrunk over the past few decades. Despite the rallies on every side of the political spectrum, nothing has been done other than to make it easier for corporations to pillage and widen the divide. And yet, nothing continues to be done about it.
Theoretically if the general growth in the number of people buying games(which I think is a reasonable assumption) outpaced the rate at which game budgets increased, there would be constant growth in gross profit for the publishers.
Wind's Howling
Member
It will be a lose-lose situation if they want to ban used games. People who buy used games are doing that because they think the price of current games is too high. Removing that option will make people wait months before they buy your title because the price will then be lowered by more than half.
Ding, ding, ding. You get it. Bravo.
Used games is the major talking point right now for publishers because it's the easiest fix to generate money in their pocket fast. However, killing used games is only a short term fix for their long term broken business model.
Mithos
Member
Sadly publishers/developers will start working against these people then (if used games are indeed blocked) making sure that the game is only usable/complete in its first month/months, then degrades.
This in turn will make the people that used to wait for a price-drop before buying, not willing to buy them at all in a lot of cases.
Frank_Wheeler
Member
i bought, like, three used games in my lifetime but reading stuff like "it's in the customer's best interest" is out of this world.
Similar threads
- Locked