Support NeoGAF

[Kelegacy]

Yeah, fuck this guy. I'm such an evil bastard, I just traded in $90 worth of games to amazon last week. I'm helping to ruin the game industry...nevermind the fact that I used that money to buy new games.

I bought Kingdoms of Amalur brand new ($45 on sale at Amazon the week of launch). I bought with some credit from a previous game trade-in. EA, Big Huge and 38 Studios rejoiced at the new game sale.

It now trades for $31. $14 loss on a game I will have put 80+ hours into is awesome. I will be putting the credit money towards Witcher 2 for 360. CD Projekt will rejoice at their new game sale.

So...who loses here? I just bought two new games this year with used game credit. Without my used game credit, the Witcher 2 might not have been a day 1 purchase.

I think used games work, and they work for the industry I think. They don't see it that way, but they are also backwards and blind for the most part.

 

[MrDenny]

I think they should go back to the 49.99$ price tag for most game. Maybe 59.99$ exception for bigger titles.
Whenever I see 59.99$ price tag, I either buy the game used or when it bombs in price.
I think a 49.99$ price tag would honestly help smaller developers.

 

[Kelegacy]

As if 5-10 hr games are something new from this millenium. :|

Times have changed greatly. Gamers expect more for their dollar (and rightfully so), just as publishers and developers expect customers to pay more (DLC, online passes, etc). $60 is still a lot of money for most people, and a game that is over in brief afternoon is a slap in the face (like Kane and Lynch 2 for example). Unless it has a lot of replayability, that is.

However, developers shouldn't bloat their games to rival RPG lengths either. That's equally as bad. But leaving the consumers satisfied and full and possibly with some meat still left on the remaining bones, that's the sign of a good game.

 

[Clear]

Guys, seriously, do yourselves a favour and read the whole interview here, its not that controversial and its certainly not "anti-gamer" (a ludicrous concept, but still).

Its just Eurogamer up to their usual muck-raking ways grabbing for hits.

 

[szaromir]

Guys, seriously, do yourselves a favour and read the whole interview here, its not that controversial and its certainly not "anti-gamer" (a ludicrous concept, but still).

Its just Eurogamer up to their usual muck-raking ways grabbing for hits.

Is it just me or he kinda looks like Timothy Dalton?

 

[RpgN]

You know, it feels like single player games are the next target of having their value taken away by online passes and such. Even though I've heard reports of some EA games having them (something to do with Mass Effect?), it was easier to ignore them with games I'm not interested in. Even when online passes and all that crap makes me so angry with mutliplayer games, it has been easy to ignore something you don't give a shit about. Having them on all singleplayer games, could end my gaming carrier and just fall back to my massive backlog of old and pure games. I'm already in the brink of making a decision like that at the moment, it has been on my mind for a while now. It makes you think a lot when you have products you buy and seeing publishers taking any opportunity to reduce value. It makes your money look more precious to hold on to, and not just hand it to any game.

The industry is what's driving gamers away. They're destroying all that relation they build with their fans in one generation. It's incredible what happened in a short amount of time. Things changed quickly!

 

[stuminus3]

"But Skyrim!" isn't anything close to resembling an answer to this, guys.

Also, it's David Braben. You may be too dumb or too ignorant to know who he is, but you should at least be good enough to do what Clear says and actually read the article.

 

[disco]

Pre-owned games come with germs. I like my games sealed in a packet from Amazon.

 

[captmcblack]

No.

These companies will never, ever change the price of anything in a way to benefit the consumer. They'd sell you the option menu or the ability to configure your controls if they could get away with it (and they probably already are).

Everything from the content to even the literal packaging of the game - boxes, manuals, inserts, trinkets, etc - has either been cheapened or made part of some sort of microtransaction to increase what the user pays. They'll never lower the cost.

Fuck them.

 

[Risk Breaker]

Not gonna read the whole thing, but it's the publishers obsessed with multiplayer on every game and as a massive selling point that made it this way. If it's biting them in the ass it's their fault.

This new focus on everything being ~social~ and *online* and that you can only play games if you play with your friends... ugh.

 

[Dambrosi]

Except this time, it's someone who should know better saying it. For shame, Dave.

EDIT: Okay, I went back and read the part where that quote came from, and I STILL disagree with him about it, even in the correct context. I see what he means about core gamers being a conservative lot and kneejerking against Kinect, that much I understand - but to then conflate that to the tired old "we devs want a share of all pre-owned games sales" self-entitlement is pure stupidity. Sorry, this dude is a legend, I know, but that alone doesn't make him infallible.

 

[Pre]

"But Skyrim!" isn't anything close to resembling an answer to this, guys.

Also, it's David Braben. You may be too dumb or too ignorant to know who he is, but you should at least be good enough to do what Clear says and actually read the article.

I think the idea behind the Skyrim response is that it is still possible to move a significant number of units if you build a strong brand, develop a good game that provides a lot of bang for your buck, and market it effectively.

Spending three weeks developing a four-hour campaign and charging $60 for it is what is killing single-player games, not the used-games market.

 

[muu]

His reasoning I feel is pretty valid for the non-AAA games. Casual gamers won't touch em since there's too many AAA games to keep them busy, 'core' gamers wait till they can buy em for 10 bucks used. The rift will only widen as the cheap indie games rise in quality making 'B' games basically a non-seller that isnt wanted by anyone.

 

[Verelios]

"But Skyrim!" isn't anything close to resembling an answer to this, guys.

Also, it's David Braben. You may be too dumb or too ignorant to know who he is, but you should at least be good enough to do what Clear says and actually read the article.

I'm sure a majority of us have already read the article, and don't just post mindlessly, but the point still stands: I would rather buy a game I would never have played used, then buy the successive entries in the series, than not buy it at all for lack of interest and skip over this particular series.

 

[Pre]

His reasoning I feel is pretty valid for the non-AAA games. Casual gamers won't touch em since there's too many AAA games to keep them busy, 'core' gamers wait till they can buy em for 10 bucks used. The rift will only widen as the cheap indie games rise in quality making 'B' games basically a non-seller that isnt wanted by anyone.

Yeah, but would those games be selling if it wasn't for the used-games market?

Probably not.

 

[jinutsu]

You know, it feels like single player games are the next target of having their value taken away by online passes and such. Even though I've heard reports of some EA games having them (something to do with Mass Effect?), it was easier to ignore them with games I'm not interested in. Even when online passes and all that crap makes me so angry with mutliplayer games, it has been easy to ignore something you don't give a shit about. Having them on all singleplayer games, could end my gaming carrier and just fall back to my massive backlog of old and pure games. I'm already in the brink of making a decision like that at the moment, it has been on my mind for a while now. It makes you think a lot when you have products you buy and seeing publishers taking any opportunity to reduce value. It makes your money look more precious to hold on to, and not just hand it to any game.

The industry is what's driving gamers away. They're destroying all that relation they build with their fans in one generation. It's incredible what happened in a short amount of time. Things changed quickly!

When I read stories about gaming industry people "complaining" about something killing revenue, such as used game sales, I look at my stack of games and see how many I have that are brand new and haven't been opened or played.

I know I'm not alone here. Nearly every gamer I know owns a game that they have not played or have barely put any time into. This industry is full customers that are EXTREMELY loyal to the industry. I don't pay for anything else entertainment wise and let it sit around unwatched or unplayed. The industry execs should be thankful to have this kind of climate. Especially during crazy months like the end of last year when games that are million sellers are dropping every week. In any other industry this would be horrible but in the video game industry it still works.

They should consider themselves lucky to get what they have and stop milking the loyal customers for every penny. Otherwise they need to find a new way to do business.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

I read the interview and while that point is surrounded by reasonable analysis of the industry, the point remains terrible and I see why Eurogamer published it as a story.

 

[stuminus3]

I think the idea behind the Skyrim response is that it is still possible to move a significant number of units if you build a strong brand, develop a good game that provides a lot of bang for your buck, and market it effectively.

Spending three weeks developing a four-hour campaign and charging $60 for it is what is killing single-player games, not the used-games market.

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, and in fact I couldn't agree more with your strong brand etc comment. However I don't think that's what some people are getting at when they slap up a Skyrim box art picture and think that's all there is to it. It's damn hard to get to where Bethesda are with Skyrim regardless.

I'm sure a majority of us have already read the article, and don't just post mindlessly, but the point still stands: I would rather buy a game I would never have played used, then buy the successive entries in the series, than not buy it at all for lack of interest and skip over this particular series.

Dude, I can guarantee you there's people who don't even read past the subject line of a topic.

 

[Dennis]

The man can't get Elite 4 made so why would I listen to him?

 

[Woo-Fu]

Using Skyrim as an example is a really bad idea, at least if you're going to turn around and complain about publishers being unwilling to fund new IPs over proven franchises. Skyrim doesn't prove him wrong, it only proves that the franchise has an established fanbase who can't wait for a used copy.

NOTE:I'm not saying he is wrong or right, just saying holding up Skyrim doesn't really say anything about his argument. For every multi-platinum Skyrim there are a bunch of Syndicates. Which leads into what some devs have been saying for awhile: You either make AAA blockbusters or you make small stuff, there isn't a viable market in between.

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

You know what's killing single player games? 4hr campaigns that aren't worth $60.

Said it before and will say it again, the uniform pricing of games is beyond retarded.

There's no way in hell Asura's Wrath should be the same price as Skyrim.
A Vanilla DVD doesn't cost the same as a boxset and a 200page paperback doesn't cost the same as a hardback 600 page book.

The whole games industry needs to wake the hell up, but it won't coz it's in a bubble that thinks it's superior. Personally I can't wait for the inevitable crash that's coming to the industry.

cough, cough* The Darkness 2 *cough, cough


The lenght of that game was a piece of impudence. They got what they deserved for their robbery (and yes, i was one of the few idiots who paid full price for it, and i felt betrayed after finishing it).

 

[sixghost]

"But Skyrim!" isn't anything close to resembling an answer to this, guys.

Also, it's David Braben. You may be too dumb or too ignorant to know who he is, but you should at least be good enough to do what Clear says and actually read the article.

No one is suggesting that everyone make Skyrim. People are just pointing to it as an example of how successful a single player only game can be if it's a quality game that isn't something you never want to play again after you finish the 6 hour campaign.

The best defense against used games is making games that people want to keep.

 

[Dambrosi]

You know what's killing single player games? 4hr campaigns that aren't worth $60.

Said it before and will say it again, the uniform pricing of games is beyond retarded.

There's no way in hell Asura's Wrath should be the same price as Skyrim.
A Vanilla DVD doesn't cost the same as a boxset and a 200page paperback doesn't cost the same as a hardback 600 page book.

The whole games industry needs to wake the hell up, but it won't coz it's in a bubble that thinks it's superior. Personally I can't wait for the inevitable crash that's coming to the industry.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES[/danielbryan]

This silver bullet of TRUTH cannot be quoted enough!

 

[PrinceOfApathy]

The situation might get even worse if everything goes digital. I don't think everyone will be willing to pay $60 for digital games.

Ha. We'll be lucky if EA doesn't charge us $80.00 for the regular digital non-enhanced version.

Also would I be wrong for calling the person responsible for this drivel ( David Braben ) a mindless backwater cunt? Was he serious with this? Exactly who does his payroll?

 

[Kai Dracon]

No one is suggesting that everyone make Skyrim. People are just pointing to it as an example of how successful a single player only game can be if it's a quality game that isn't something you never want to play again after you finish the 6 hour campaign.

The best defense against used games is making games that people want to keep.

The best defense against a LOT of problems in the game industry is making games people want to keep.

If the mentality was to make every game "evergreen" wouldn't these be some of the results?

* Customers would feel games had great value for the price because they'd be playing a game they bought years on.

* Franchises would not have yearly iterative entries (where iteration isn't a good thing), thus avoiding franchise fatigue and running out of ideas quickly.

* Increased perception that games were not disposable and offered a rich experience would encourage customers to be more generous towards trying new games, with less fear of being ripped off yet again.

* Developers would not have their original ideas and suggestions squashed again and again, as they were ordered to turn around and just start working on Gundeath Terror Fighter V, the only IP they'd worked on uninterrupted for the last eight years straight.

Oh yeah, and people wouldn't as often sell games a week after beating them.

Of course the problem always seems to come back to the suits at the top of so many publishers, who are still Toaster Men that believe they're in the packaged goods industry. Just invent a bar of soap or a toaster, mass produce it as cheaply and quickly as possible, and next year put a new scent on it or a new LED light, and stamp "new and improved" on the box.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

People will say 'Oh well, I paid all this money and it's mine to do with as I will', but the problem is that's what's keeping the retail price up - prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells.

This guy does not know how economics and businesses work in a free market. A game publisher will never say, "Yeah, this is enough profit, time to give our consumers a break."

 

[Fallout-NL]

Hahaha yeah right

Yeah, that's total bullshit.

 

[dead souls]

* Franchises would not have yearly iterative entries (where iteration isn't a good thing), thus avoiding franchise fatigue and running out of ideas quickly.

This is the big one to me. I can't justify paying $60 for something like an Assassin's Creed game because I know if I just stay a year behind I can easily find the previous title for $20 once the inevitable sequel is released. Hell, sometimes I can find it for $20 even before the new one drops. The fact that so many franchises just churn out titles really diminishes each individual game's value. Does anyone really need five Assassin's Creed games on their shelves?

I really wish big franchises would start going a few years between titles on average.

 

[EXGN]

When's the last time he even made a game?

 

[RpgN]

When I read stories about gaming industry people "complaining" about something killing revenue, such as used game sales, I look at my stack of games and see how many I have that are brand new and haven't been opened or played.

I know I'm not alone here. Nearly every gamer I know owns a game that they have not played or have barely put any time into. This industry is full customers that are EXTREMELY loyal to the industry. I don't pay for anything else entertainment wise and let it sit around unwatched or unplayed. The industry execs should be thankful to have this kind of climate. Especially during crazy months like the end of last year when games that are million sellers are dropping every week. In any other industry this would be horrible but in the video game industry it still works.

They should consider themselves lucky to get what they have and stop milking the loyal customers for every penny. Otherwise they need to find a new way to do business.

What you're saying here is absolutely true. I'm also one of those gamers who have many games that are still sealed and unplayed. It's crazy how loyal we can get. I don't see myself doing that for other forms of entertainment, but I'm not doing it so willingly with games anymore.

I think gaming fans are too naive and loyal. With the emergence of online distribution and constant online connection, this has openend a whole new opportunity to experiment different business models and see how far they can get away with it. With that, you have seen many decisions that don't make sense in the eyes of consumers. Some figure heads are comparing gamers with criminals if they buy used games. I hope a lot of gamers wake up and stop being so loyal all the time, don't throw your money just to 'support' a developer. Think more before you do that.

The used market doesn't kill singleplayer games and shouldn't, same can be said about multiplayer games. And saying how prices can be cheaper? They really know gamers are naive, but they're not stupid. What a load of bullshit.

 

[Krilekk]

I actually agree that used games are a problem but Braben's salt on the matter is really fucking boring now. He's been talking about it forever and he never comes off as particularly knowledgeable as to how to fix that market, he just seems angry.

Used games aren't a problem, used games sold at near retail price by Gamestop are a problem.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Used games aren't a problem, used games sold at near retail price by Gamestop are a problem.

There are problems in the used games market, that's what I meant. I didn't mean to flat-out say "used games are inherently problematic", given that, well, I buy them and shit and wouldn't want to say that

 

[OldJadedGamer]

This pure unadulterated bullshit that belongs in the dictionary as a definition for bullshit.

Exactly. This fact is proven when publishers charge obnoxious prices for digital only games. Where there is no resale at all.

Used games aren't a problem, used games sold at near retail price by Gamestop are a problem.

And publishers are ok witht them doing it. If they weren't they wouldn't support them with special offers to get people to buy there.

 

[Wildesy]

Am I doing it right guys?

 

[Clear]

I think gaming fans are too naive and loyal. With the emergence of online distribution and constant online connection, this has openend a whole new opportunity to experiment different business models and see how far they can get away with it. With that, you have seen many decisions that don't make sense in the eyes of consumers. Some figure heads are comparing gamers with criminals if they buy used games. I hope a lot of gamers wake up and stop being so loyal all the time, don't throw your money just to 'support' a developer. Think more before you do that.

The used market doesn't kill singleplayer games and shouldn't, same can be said about multiplayer games. And saying how prices can be cheaper? They really know gamers are naive, but they're not stupid. What a load of bullshit.

Trouble is, your argument is stupid. Its stupid because you are personalizing a matter of business as some kind of assault on your rights.

I hate to break it to you, but for the most part gamers don't directly fund developers.

You need to have a product to sell before the actual sales can be factored in. Meaning that the question becomes how can developers support themselves, their families and employees over the time required to make something.

You need somebody to believe sufficiently in your idea to invest a large lump of capital into it. And because this isn't a humanitarian endeavour its not unreasonably that these backers expect a positive return on their investment.

If market figures show that single-player only games return less on average than those with a multiplayer component, given an investor having a choice between one or the other, which one do you think they will decide to back?

Remember we're talking about large sums of money here, so there's no room for sentiment especially if the backer specializes in the field (i.e. is a large publisher) and relies on hitting the numbers for its own survival. Its that simple.

This need to justify production budget affects every aspect of the development process, edgy ideas get cut, "safe" and/or materialistic stuff gets shoe-horned in, and there's nothing the makers can do as they are beholden to their backers far more dependently than their audience.

Because if they can't afford to make the product, there's no audience to disappoint.

What this means to the end user is that the range of products given the opportunity to succeed/fail is already shaped by market trends, and the effect compounds itself over time.

When you have a phenomenon like used-game sales that affects certain types of game more than another, the effect migrates back up the chain and only manifests itself in what gets greenlit in the next commissioning cycle. You only feel the result after the die is cast.

An example of this is the "B-tier" game, which without fanfare or explanation, practically died out over the course of this generation.

This is very bad thing because there is a world of difference between a micro-budget title and a full-on AAA blockbuster. The B-tier was important because it existed between these two extremes and allow teams to elevate themselves through ingeneuity and innovation even if the production values weren't all there.

Creators need space to succeed or fail.

Without the mid-point you have two almost completely separate industries, and never the twain shall meet because there's no way to fund the transition. You can't expand from 2 guys in a bedroom to a team of 60 in an office without growing pains.

And here's the thing: Its all very well saying "games are too expensive, I'll wait for BOMBA or second hand", and "4 hours for $60 dollars, fuck you!", but the very real consequence is that you are only fucking yourself over in the long run.

If these things stop making money, they will stop being made. Period.

This is because the money men only care about money, but the sad fact is that as developers and gamers we need these guys support or its all over.

Its easy to point your finger but honestly how many Gaffers would get a second mortgage on their house to support a game based purely on its artistic worth?

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Am I doing it right guys?

1) had no marketing
2) was critically panned
3) had no marketing (I still bought it at launch )
4) i'll give you this one. I hated it from the demo but its indicative of $60 titles which just aren't worth their asking price.
5) very niche, yet was the stepping stone that built a popular franchise.

Speaking for myself, I rent about half of my games nowadays (Lovefilm UK subscription) and it just seems crazy not to. Most games just plain aren't worth the full price they ask and will only try and justify their good but play once and never pick up again 6 hour campaigns with crappy tacked on multiplayer that will be dead within the month. Is it any wonder why the used market has gotten as big and become a "problem" for publishers?

As someone who per year probably buys half their games new at full price and rents the rest: I don't buy used. Yet, GameStop really are the lesser of 2 evils here. The magnitude of the used market is a direct market response from consumers acting out against products like this.

To the gaming industry at large:
-grow up and stop acting like the spoiled ass music industry circa 2003
-control your damn budgets, its not my fault I didn't buy a game like darkness 2 or syndicate day one. If things really are that bad you have to blame me then you should look closer at your own business model (for example, 4 million units for Max Payne 3 to break even?!)
-experiment with lower budgets, lower price points, iOS, facebook, F2P. If a game needs a AAA budget make sure it deserves it, not games like asura's wrath, syndicate or the darkness 2 (as much as I will get flak for saying that probably).

At the same time to people saying just drop the price of these said games, more likely than not even the publishers knew these games weren't generating much hype and so didn't get a huge marketing budget to keep costs down. In such a hit driven industry its unclear if reducing the price on a game with no big buzz backing it will make enough of an effect on it's success.

 

[Pre]

Trouble is, your argument is stupid. Its stupid because you are personalizing a matter of business as some kind of assault on your rights.

I hate to break it to you, but for the most part gamers don't directly fund developers.

You need to have a product to sell before the actual sales can be factored in. Meaning that the question becomes how can developers support themselves, their families and employees over the time required to make something.

You need somebody to believe sufficiently in your idea to invest a large lump of capital into it. And because this isn't a humanitarian endeavour its not unreasonably that these backers expect a positive return on their investment.

If market figures show that single-player only games return less on average than those with a multiplayer component, given an investor having a choice between one or the other, which one do you think they will decide to back?

Remember we're talking about large sums of money here, so there's no room for sentiment especially if the backer specializes in the field (i.e. is a large publisher) and relies on hitting the numbers for its own survival. Its that simple.

This need to justify production budget affects every aspect of the development process, edgy ideas get cut, "safe" and/or materialistic stuff gets shoe-horned in, and there's nothing the makers can do as they are beholden to their backers far more dependently than their audience.

Because if they can't afford to make the product, there's no audience to disappoint.

What this means to the end user is that the range of products given the opportunity to succeed/fail is already shaped by market trends, and the effect compounds itself over time.

When you have a phenomenon like used-game sales that affects certain types of game more than another, the effect migrates back up the chain and only manifests itself in what gets greenlit in the next commissioning cycle. You only feel the result after the die is cast.

An example of this is the "B-tier" game, which without fanfare or explanation, practically died out over the course of this generation.

This is very bad thing because there is a world of difference between a micro-budget title and a full-on AAA blockbuster. The B-tier was important because it existed between these two extremes and allow teams to elevate themselves through ingeneuity and innovation even if the production values weren't all there.

Creators need space to succeed or fail.

Without the mid-point you have two almost completely separate industries, and never the twain shall meet because there's no way to fund the transition. You can't expand from 2 guys in a bedroom to a team of 60 in an office without growing pains.

And here's the thing: Its all very well saying "games are too expensive, I'll wait for BOMBA or second hand", and "4 hours for $60 dollars, fuck you!", but the very real consequence is that you are only fucking yourself over in the long run.

If these things stop making money, they will stop being made. Period.

This is because the money men only care about money, but the sad fact is that as developers and gamers we need these guys support or its all over.

Its easy to point your finger but honestly how many Gaffers would get a second mortgage on their house to support a game based purely on its artistic worth?

"Buy shitty games at full price - it's good for the industry!"

 

[MoonLightWave]

I belive he is somewhat right, I'm not talking about of quality/length here.

If preowned games didn't exist, the developers would get more of the income from the sales and gamestop would cry tears.
Games will reduce the price themself even without preowned games, just wait a month(If not popular games such as cod, skyrim), at the same time developers get all the cash.

bbbuuutt skyrim? It sells alot because it's a known game and so is call of duty.
Skyrim could suck how much it wanted and it would still sell millions because of the fanbase it have gotten from the older games.

See pc as an example.

 

[Clear]

"Buy shitty games at full price - it's good for the industry!"

Thanks for that. It made writing my long, carefully worded post worthwhile.

 

[MoonLightWave]

"Buy shitty games at full price - it's good for the industry!"

Why? just wait a month it and it will be cheap as preowned and developers gets more of the cake.

 

[Wildesy]

"Buy shitty games at full price - it's good for the industry!"

That's really what you gleaned from that post?

...well done.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

An example of this is the "B-tier" game, which without fanfare or explanation, practically died out over the course of this generation.

This is very bad thing because there is a world of difference between a micro-budget title and a full-on AAA blockbuster. The B-tier was important because it existed between these two extremes and allow teams to elevate themselves through ingeneuity and innovation even if the production values weren't all there.

I would argue the new B-tier basically are the AAA games with no marketing budgets that are sent to die. The pubs already know pre release they won't make a splash why waste the money on marketing that won't have any tangible effect, time to just cut the losses. And that is just sad

bbbuuutt skyrim? It sells alot because it's a known game and so is call of duty.
Skyrim could suck how much it wanted and it would still sell millions because of the fanbase it have gotten from the older games.

See pc as an example.

Skyrim if anything is the example that bucks the trend more than anything else. It would always sell well but I don't think many people would have guessed it selling 10 million units, the Elder Scrolls franchise saw massive growth with skyrim.

 

[Burai]

Thanks for that. It made writing my long, carefully worded post worthwhile.

The thing is, that is essentially exactly what you wrote. An empassioned plea for gamers to spend full price on B tier software that they aren't that interested in on day one so they can continue to make B tier software that people aren't that interested in. What am I, some sort of charity? A bailout fund for game developers who make products that no-one wants?

That, in a nutshell, is the sort of ridiculous, entitled thinking that's destroying this industry. There are so many studios out there making games that people don't really want to play, yet somehow the burden gets thrown at me or GameStop or pirates or some other straw man for not buying these games at full price.

I'm fucking sick of reading sycophants like you trying to justify this bullshit with the "but they have employees with families!" argument. Guess what? I've got a family too. A fiancée, a three year old daughter and another baby on the way. And when push comes to shove I'm not wasting money that can be putting food on my table on games I don't want to put that same food on someone else's.

 

[troushers]

The gaming industry is like a coffee shop complaining that the customers are knocking back their expresso too fast.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

The best defense against used games is making games that people want to keep.

Quotable.

 

[HueyFreeman]

How does that even make sense? Used games date back to the birth of the home console industry.

Eh... it was nowhere near as prominent a component of the sales industry as it is now. The problem that these guys always fail to elocute is the way the sales industry pushes used products over new ones. How many times has the kid at Gamestop (who, to be fair, is just doing his mandated job) asked if you'd rather buy the used for 5 bucks cheaper?

At the end of the day, devs are able to make their next game based on sales. I support new games because of that... maybe just a bit down the road when they're cheaper, but still buy new if you want a dev to know you enjoy their work.

It's a complex equation: retail's biting back at publishers for an increasingly digital market, but publishers are being affected by retail increasingly pushing second hand goods. It's not gonna get better either, but I don't begrudge a dev for complaining about it once in a while.

Always remember this is your hobby, but it's their job. And life.

 

[Aaron]

I belive he is somewhat right, I'm not talking about of quality/length here.

If preowned games didn't exist, the developers would get more of the income from the sales and gamestop would cry tears.
Games will reduce the price themself even without preowned games, just wait a month(If not popular games such as cod, skyrim), at the same time developers get all the cash.

bbbuuutt skyrim? It sells alot because it's a known game and so is call of duty.
Skyrim could suck how much it wanted and it would still sell millions because of the fanbase it have gotten from the older games.

See pc as an example.

If most people couldn't sell back their games, they would spend less money over all on games. New games get discounted so soon after release anyway that I'm not sure if it really matters at all.

Skyrim didn't sell 10 million all at once. Word of mouth could have poisoned the game, but instead you have Todd Howard saying the average player put in insane hours, getting more than enough value for their money. How many modern games is this true of? How many games coming out right now can you put 60-100 hours in and not feel like you're just grinding?

People sell back their games when they feel they've gotten all they can from them. Most modern games get resold real quick because honestly there's not much value in them.

 

[Mik2121]

I can't believe how many people here are waiting (and hoping) for a crash of the industry. For one, it's not going to happen. Also, it's not a very nice thing to wish for, you know? A bunch of us work in that same industry (and no, not as journalists...). If the industry crashed, some of us could end up without a job.

And that for a industry that makes what a lot of you have as your main form of entertainment. Not cool... tsk tsk

 

[Burai]

At the end of the day, devs are able to make their next game based on sales. I support new games because of that... maybe just a bit down the road when they're cheaper, but still buy new if you want a dev to know you enjoy their work.

Actually most developers live or die on initial sales and metacritic and sometimes their fate is sealed months before the game even ships. Your "down the road" purchase often has little bearing on anything because publishers want front-loaded sales.

Always remember this is your hobby, but it's their job. And life.

Ugh. Just ugh.

 

[Margalis]

He's not completely wrong but at the same time it's really hard to take any of these complaints seriously when publishers talk endlessly about used game sales while doing nothing about Gamestop. (And beyond doing nothing give them pre-order bonus items and such)

And publishers are ok witht them doing it. If they weren't they wouldn't support them with special offers to get people to buy there.

I suspect that most publishers secretly or even not secretly loathe Gamestop, are not ok with it at all, but feel that since Gamestop is basically the only real video-game retail outlet (as opposed to general purpose department stores and stuff) feel they have no alternative. The reason they offer pre-order bonuses is that in return Gamestop will do stuff like place the game more prominently in displays and such - it's not because they want Gamestop to do business.